Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Uncle Slam. Which may also end up being deleted, but we normally redirect non-notable albums to their bands. Sandstein 13:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Work for Food (album)

[edit]
Will Work for Food (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently a contested PROD. Cannot find any RSes. Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. AllMusic's entry is only a track listing. No review or rating. Everything within the first five pages of a Google search are either sales (amazon, etc.) or metal zines, none of which are notable. Could be something in print, but I don't hold out hope as the article existed for years with no sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Gettysburg

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ghosts of Gettysburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay... wow. The contents of the article are basically fringe theories and effectively false information from a nonnotable book. The article was nominated for deletion in 2009 and was then apparently "enclopaedified" by an admin that was later blocked for being a sockpuppet. The entire article is basically just junk. We probably do need an article about this, as a search reveals promising links. Noah 💬 22:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific ghost hunting POV assumes that spirits of the dead haunt Gettysburg, sourced entirely to a WP:SELFPUB book, which the article heavily promotes. Perhaps there are reliable sources that correctly treat the topic as folklore and legend, but I have not seen any. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actual Battle of Gettysburg is a notable topic with an extensive article on Wikipedia and an abundance of excellent sources. The topic of this article would be unlikely to merit even a single sentence in the main Battle of Gettysburg article, and even then only if they could provide a large number of reliable sources showing that there is a widespread belief in ghosts on the battlefield, and preferably scholarly or other secondary sources related to those ghost stories, emphasis on stories. If ghost stories had a notable and significant effect on soldiers' behavior during the battle, or on the behavior of townsfolk who cleaned up the thousands of bodies, or if it has some documented effect on the town itself (ie local traditions of offerings to ward off/appease ghosts). Wikipedia is not going to document actual ghosts. Ghost stories, as an anthropological concept, as mythology, as historiography, etc may be documented if they are notable, significant, and documented. Consider that we do not take a formal position on, say, the Resurrection of Jesus, but we do note that it is a component of a major world religion, and we cite the ways that this belief has been documented to have influenced various historical figures and events. So, with this in mind, can we document some manner in which the belief in ghosts has influenced anything related to the Battle of Gettysburg, the current battlefield/memorial/park/monuments, or the local town, either historical or modern-day? If so, a sentence about "belief in ghosts from the battle..." might be an appropriate addition to the relevant page. Even then, remember WP:UNDUE, and consider that even a single sentence on the main battle article carries considerable weight. Hyperion35 (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. / Merge. Topic already has coverage at Reportedly haunted locations in Pennsylvania and a mention at List of reportedly haunted locations in the United_States#Pennsylvania. Might be suitable for a stand alone article someday if there are ever multiple extraordinarily evidenced sightings with supporting mainstream media references. 5Q5|✉ 12:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my original Delete to Merge. Set up a redirect of Ghosts of Gettysburg to Ghosts of the American Civil War where there is already a full paragraph going on the topic. If the section there becomes too large, then bring back a stand-alone article, either same title or with a new one. That makes three existing articles that already discuss the topic. The Ghosts of the American Civil Wat article can be found linked on List of ghosts. 5Q5|✉ 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could support this, yes. If there is already an article on Ghosts of the Civil War, then it would make sense to have a section about the Battle of Gettysburg. And realistically, anything relating to Gettysburg in the context of an article on the Civil War deserves plenty of due weight, so no real worry if that section of that article is longer, this is kinda the most important and pivotal battle of the war after all. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not every topic that is written about merits an encyclopedia article. This sort of thing belongs in magazines. None of those sources discuss ghosts, merely people reporting ghosts, which is no basis for an article. ----Pontificalibus 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, so for me that meets WP:GNG. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is a notability standard, not an inclusion standard. For example WP:NOT sets out some of the things that aren’t to be included regardless of notability. Even if you did take GNG as the only guideline that guaranteed inclusion, the three sources you give aren’t sufficient. CNN features a single quote from someone who said they got shot there, National Geographic features a first-person account from someone who went on a walking ghost tour there and didn’t see any ghosts, and the Baltimore Sun article is a promotional piece for walking ghost tours, even giving the price and booking number.—--Pontificalibus 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those were just the three that I posted. There are piles more. I don't expect I'll be convincing you though, so like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The battlefield itself is highly notable and one of the most famous places in the USA. But this would also place a much higher bar for notability about ghost stories on the battlefield. I don't see how these ghost stories would be notable absent the connection to the battlefield, but I also don't see how they become notable as compared to so much else about this battlefield. Like I said, I don't see how this deserves its own article, so my question is how would this fit into the Battle of Gettysburg topic? Barring that, is there sufficient RS for a broader article on Civil War ghost stories? I seem to rememeber reading something about rather-well developed and documented mythology about ghosts that haunted No Man's Land during WWI, stories that were passed between soldiers during the war. That sort of thing could conceivably merit its own article, especially if there were, say, academic articles discussing and dissecting various cultural aspects, origins, and impacts of those stories. Do you see the difference between that and this single article about ghost stories on a single battlefield? Hyperion35 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and expand on this more tomorrow but I think that the folklore and tourism aspect of it are notable enough for an article on their own. Perhaps Ghost tourism in Gettysburg would be a better name for the article. This provides an example of the type of coverage we should have on the topic. Just because the article is currently trash does not mean there's not a good article waiting in the wings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in general this topic is different from the Battle of Gettysburg. That is why the location was originally notable but is not currently the only reason it is. Books like Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine support me in that. I have in mind an article the history of ghost folklore building up around Gettysburg moving to the modern folklore with ghost tourism and commercialization [1] [2]. The current article is definitely not good, and is basically just a list of spoooooooky things all cited to a book that shares a name with the article, but the topic of ghostlore surrounding Gettysburg is itself notable. We also do have a broader article on civil war ghost stories located at Ghosts of the American Civil War. We can all agree that ghosts aren't real, but those ghost stories are a notable part of American folklore and the commercialization around them adds another notable element. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:5P1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or magazine.----Pontificalibus 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article could be converted into an article about the book "Ghosts of Gettysburg", if indeed the book itself is notable. However, as the article stands now, it gives an unacceptable sheen of legitimacy to the actual existence of ghosts as a means of promoting the book. In my mind, it fails WP:NHOAX and should be converted or deleted Rogermx (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article on a WP:FRINGE subject, sourced entirely to a single book which, itself, does not seem like it is a reliable source. While the creation of an article on the topic could potentially be created that is actually encyclopedic (though I have my doubts), this current iteration of the article should not be kept. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2021 (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. Per SIGCOV. No sources, no article... Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen (Irish cricketer)

[edit]
John Allen (Irish cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in books, news, no obituary on their death. Also, searched on The Irish Times, nothing their too. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At worst it can be redirected to List of Irish first-class cricketers as a valid WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a fair few mentions on British Newspaper Archive, especially in the local press, but mostly passing mentions in team announcements, match reports and scorecards. However, it does seem very clear that he was known as Wallace Allen so if kept, the article should be moved to usurp Wallace Allen (currently a orphan redirect), or to Wallace Allen (cricketer). wjematherplease leave a message... 11:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, while a good biography, Cricket Europe appears to be a self-published website. The only other sources are our favourite statistical directories. Even arguing that Cricket Europe is an acceptable source, that still leaves us with only one reliable secondary source which significantly covers him. He also barely scrapes past the SNG, which in other sports (football) leads to a delete outcome if GNG is definitively failed. I do not mind the ATD proposal at all - there is a place for this information on Wikipedia, but it's in a list somewhere, not as a stand-alone article. Furthermore if we uncover more coverage of Wallace Allen I'd love to have a squiz. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet GNG, we lack multiple cases of significant coverage for reliable independent 3rd party sources. This junk idea that one play makes someone notable also needs to be trashed. With actors we require multiple significant roles in notable productions, why with sportsmen do we think just a single game play suffices, that is truly a ludicrous idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to change the subject, but this isn't the right place to ask the question as to whether that parallel is necessary... Bobo. 09:40, 18 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higgins Corner, California

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

"Corners" don't have a good record in AfD, and this is not an exception, IMO. While there is a great deal of commercial development at this spot now, it's a quite recent thing: for decades the only significant building there was a forestry guard station. Searching produces lots of geological and transport name drops but nothing identifying this as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While definitely not a booming metropolis, it is clearly a settlement. I found enough newspaper articles to substantiate this, here's a selection: Newspaper article from 2014 [3], 1987 newspaper article on HC history [4], a 1952 newspaper article about a temporary San Quentin prisoner camp there [5], column on local politics [6], a 1967 article on the history of HC [7], a 1967 article mentioning development plans for HC,[8], 1980 article on local politics re: fire station and forestry station in HC [9] and [10], Area planning document [11], 1929 news re transportation matters: [12], [13] which by 1930 was unprofitable:[14], 1997 mention that Higgins Corner was an unsophisticated name likening it to "Dogpatch", ha!: [15], 1953 Mention of the HC service station, beer bar and snack bar there: [16]. - Netherzone (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per GEOLAND, populated places without legal recognition require SIGCOV, simple mentions showing its existence is not enough to establish notability and none of the above is SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fails GEOLAND and GNG.  // Timothy :: talk  10:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unincorporated places have to meet a higher bar than those with legal standing, as mentioned above. I do not see this place meeting that standard - it certainly exists, but is there enough coverage to justify an article? I'm not seeing it, personally. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because somewhere is unincorporated doesn't mean it has no legal standing - "legally recognized" is a much lower bar than incorporation, as is made clear by the examples set out in WP:GEOLAND.----Pontificalibus 14:09, 22 March 2021 (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. Links to the purported "numerous articles" have not been provided. Sandstein 13:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pargesa Holding

[edit]
Pargesa Holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources fail to establish notability, topic fails WP:NCORP requirements HighKing++ 19:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 19:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Post links to those references please. HighKing++ 16:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
During the 80’s Pargesa was a very high flying financial conglomerate under the control of two very high profile businessmen Albert Frère + Paul Desmarais, it owned Groupe Bruxelles Lambert + effectively controlled Drexel Burnham Lambert. It had a very high profile, there were numerous articles in the financial press on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. Since these two businessmen have retired the company now has a low profile + is rarely mentioned in the financial press. --Devokewater 10:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the company did have a bigger profile in the 1980's, but even if references to this coverage could be found it seems that it would still not pass WP:NCORP, as the reporting of normal business transactions is almost always considered trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Başak Yerli

[edit]
Başak Yerli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of Yerli's appearances would give a presumption of notability through WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm not seeing anything close to WP:GNG either. A Turkish search yielded only database profile pages and there is no significant coverage cited in the article itself. I can't see any evidence that Yerli meets any guideline. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Makkal Needhi Maiam candidates in the 2019 Indian general election

[edit]
List of Makkal Needhi Maiam candidates in the 2019 Indian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. List is of candidates for a minor party with currently no electoral representation. None of these candidates were successful. RaviC (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 15 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raimondas Tumėnas

[edit]
Raimondas Tumėnas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a businessman in which most of the sourced content is about the companies he’s involved with, not about him. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2021 (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) 19:16, 15 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wing It

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Wing It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable short animated film. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2021 (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) 19:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage I found was pretty minimal. It's also pretty difficult to search for since "Wing it" is such a common term that it blows out almost all mentions of the movie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 17 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Ashwal

[edit]
Mohammed Al-Ashwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It could be speculated also that Mohammed Al-Ashwal seems to of created the page about himself as this is Msh022000's only contribution to wikipedia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yinglong999 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a two time medalist at the world championships, I believe it's been shown that he has successfully competed at the highest level of his sport. I believe that meets the intent of WP:NSPORT and clearly meets the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE). Although I don't speak or read Arabic, I think it's reasonable to believe that plenty of coverage could be found on him in Yemeni media. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability within the sport of wushu taolu/sanda is very difficult to define. It relies on a complicated combination of prestige within the sport in terms of victories or appearances, local or national media coverage, and a loosely defined oral tradition built by the community. Due to these factors, not all winners at the World Wushu Championships should be automatically assumed as being notable. Even some of the most renowned athletes at the WWC, Lindswell Kwok for example, have achieved much more general recognition outside of the wushu community from victories at the SEA Games and the Asiad, two competitions which some wushu practitioners view as having a higher level of prestige compared to the WWC (due to various complicated reasons). For athletes outside of Asia though (for example, taolu athletes Jade Xu and Daria Tarasova, and sanda athletes Cung Le and Muslim Salikhov), they owe their success exclusively to the WWC. Now after doing some research, I have learned that Mohammed Hussein Al-Ashwal has earned 2 out of the 3 medals Yemen has earned at the WWC, thus he is Yemen's most renowned wushu athlete. I could see a case for keeping because of this. Yinglong999 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus appears to be headed towards keep per nominators reply to Papaursa. Re-listing as further discussion seems likely to lead to a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumitra Kumar Mallick

[edit]
Soumitra Kumar Mallick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. The subject has few Google Scholar citations, no hits on Scopus or Web of Knowledge, and basically no coverage in independent reliable sources. The subject's own autobiography makes various dubious claims (including a purported proof of the P versus NP problem using e-commerce published in a predatory Science Publishing Group journal and membership in "The Econometric Society" which calls him the Earl of York) that are unverified in independent sources and can't be taken at face value. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can only find that article on Dr. Mallick's own researchgate page. He appears to claim here [17] to have published it in the European Journal of Physics, but that seems both false and unlikely to me. At a glance, the paper looks like meaningless word salad. Knuthove (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have access to Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to check whether https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0143-0807 is listed? It claims an "impact factor" of 0.756. If it is listed then the above paper is a pass else fail. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search for Econophysics Haag’s Theorem and Stock Market Nanotechnology system on https://iopscience.iop.org/nsearch?terms=Econophysics+Haag+Theorem+and+Stock+Market+Nanotechnology+system yielded zero results. A random check of an outlier that failed. Vikram Vincent 06:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The European Journal of Physics is a real journal, but (a) one paper being published is far from passing WP:PROF, and (b) the claim of being published there looks untrue. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Barea

[edit]
Claudia Barea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence of significant coverage for Barea. She very briefly played for Valencia and Sevilla but has been playing at low levels since 2013. The best that I could find in Spanish sources were a transfer announcement and a routine announcement about being called up to an under-16 squad. I can't see anything near the depth required to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 15 March 2021 (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. Given that the reliwt was made because this was a keep / redirect debate I think it is safe to say consensus is reached that this individual is notable. Fenix down (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Herberts

[edit]
Jan Herberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an amateur player and as thus does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2021 (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 Bitcoin#Term "HODL". A segment in the article was recently created by the nominator. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hodl

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

This article is essentially an urban dictionary entry, and while it is cute, it is not encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a subsection within Bitcoin#In_popular_culture called Bitcoin#Term_"HODL" and copied the entire article content over there. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anji Bee

[edit]
Anji Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Unclear if her band, Lovespirals, is notable either. Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2021 (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. I'm not sure that the sources provided by Tenebrae have or would have convinced the "delete" participants, but at least there is no consensus to delete. Sandstein 09:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Portner

[edit]
Emma Portner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

apparent lack of significant coverage other than her relation to Elliot Page. For example, a quick search of her name in Google adding "-Elliot" "-Page" shows mostly self-published in the top result and a series of pages that are not WP:RS. Dentren | Talk 17:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Little

[edit]
Annie Little (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress / singer-songwriter. Seems to have bit parts in several TV series, but no major roles. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1985–86 South Midlands League

[edit]
1985–86 South Midlands League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't think the coverage provided by FCHD or Non-League Matters amounts to GNG, but that's just my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:04, 18 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1984–85 South Midlands League

[edit]
1984–85 South Midlands League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 15 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Leboff

[edit]
Brett Leboff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable talent manager/musician/author. Article is unsourced and promotional. I can find no significant coverage of him, of his management company, or of the book he wrote. Lennart97 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are also several "merge" opinions, which can be taken up in a talk page merger discussion if desired. Sandstein 09:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eutropia (sister of Constantine I)

[edit]
Eutropia (sister of Constantine I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INVALIDBIO, no indication of non-WP:INHERITED notability, no WP:INDEPTH coverage in sources, too small per WP:SIZERULE (c. 1 kb), too few life facts known to deserve a standalone article. The single known event of her life, her death, is already covered in her son's article and elsewhere. Prod removed as usual without any explanation by some careless and inconsiderate editor. Avilich (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nepotianus. Her having been recorded in history is only alongside Nepotianus and notability is not inherited. All content fits well in the main article, and other-language entries likewise fail to show independent notability, just describe a family tree, nor do we outsource our decisions to them. Reywas92Talk 18:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
  • Keep The subject appears as a significant player in numerous histories of the Roman Empire's game of thrones and so is clearly notable. As with many figures from antiquity, the information we have is limited but it has endured for millenia and so is very WP:LASTING. The worst case would be merger to another page but, as we are spoilt for choice, it is simplest and easiest to leave well alone per our policies WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is definitely not significant and does not receive satisfactory WP:INDEPTH coverage in "numerous histories of the Roman Empire's game of thrones" (other than footnotes or sentences always briefly stating the same thing), otherwise the Realencyclopädie entry I linked for your convenience would have made it clear. NOTPAPER is about space limitations, which has nothing to do w/ this (though WP ideally shouldn't have 2-liner articles). LASTING also has no relevance to the discussion as an event needs to be notable regardless of age. PRESERVE is about encouraging improvement rather than dismissive deletion, but the very argument of this nomination is that improvement in this subject is impossible with the extant source material; in any case the information is already PRESERVEd in other articles (as stated in nom) and the article hasn't been improved in >10 years. None of the 3 WP guidelines you indiscriminately spammed support your case. Avilich (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RE is not only an encyclopedia but also a catalog of individuals, some of whose entries are mere one-liners and wouldn't be appropriate or notable enough as WP articles. I needn't tell you that notability standards for the RE and WP are distinct and that (German) WP is not a RS. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brief entries of this sort are naturally appropriate for a reference work so that people can look them up easily and get the essential facts without having to wade through lengthy and rambling narratives. Wikipedia is such reference work because it is an encyclopedia. Long discursive articles for those wanting a long read or deep dive are welcome too and the point of WP:NOTPAPER is that we have room for both. The Realencyclopädie required lots of paper (right) but was created regardless. Now that we have no such constraints, we need no arbitrary and narrower limits. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this isn't about constraints of space. I see nothing wrong with the current target being a redlink – especially since the only views the page gets are due to the recent deliberations about its deletion – but a redirect to thematically-similar Nepotianus is also acceptable. Avilich (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks are problematic because they break things. For example, the page had a different title for most of its history since it was created in 2007. But it was moved just a few days ago without leaving a redirect. So now the original title is a redlink and this means that we are unable to access the readership history for most of this time. That's the reason that the readership is apparently low -- because creation of a redlink has broken it. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both targets are orphaned, it makes no difference. Traffic on the old target collapsed immediately after it was redlinked, so it is not something people would search for anyway, had it not already existed. Avilich (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I only said 'redlink' in the sense that it's inconsequential if this page is deleted, not that redlinks provide any sort of benefit. Avilich (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's inconsequential, then why did did Avilich create this page to make all this fuss about it? It's not clear what their point is but, be that as it may, be it noted that my !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
can you demonstrate this? Avilich (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nepotianus. My examination of the literature finds no significant coverage apart from her involvement in Nepotianus' attempted usurpation. It thus fulfills several of the criteria listed at WP:MERGEREASON: there's considerable overlap with the Nepotianus article, Eutropia's article is and likely will remain short, and merging the two would provide useful context in understanding the events. It's less of a notability question and more a question of the best structure for the reader. A merge would improve the structure without resulting in the loss of content. (Thus, WP:PRESERVE doesn't apply.) I'm glad to reconsider if someone can point out something – anything! – that Eutropia did independent of her son. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Athanasius merely mentions Eutropia favorably in comparison to her killer, Magnentius, because he is defending himself (in a speech to her nephew, Constantius) from charges of treasonable correspondence with the latter. The source only speculates that they might've known each other, just like Athanasius may have known any other obscure member of the imperial family. Any conclusions taken here must be regarded as conjecture and original research. Avilich (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even that appears to have involved Nepotianus: see this. While I'm sympathetic to your arguments, I'm finding it impossible to divorce Eutropia's actions from her son's. In such a situation, I think a merge would better serve the reader's interests. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above: "brief entries of this sort are naturally appropriate for a reference work so that people can look them up easily and get the essential facts without having to wade through lengthy and rambling narratives." Although the article will remain short, it is still useful for the reader to reach this basic information after a quick Google search which is one of the basic roles of Wikipedia and a reason for its popularity. Another reason for keeping is a potential for improvement which is lost if the article is deleted or merged. Our knowledge about a lot of ancient rulers, politicians and artist are similarly limited but it still reasonable to write articles about them because they were obviously important players in their time.Zello (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another claim of importance and notability without citing evidence. Her notability rests on (1) relationship to other people, which is to be cited on those people's respective articles; and (2) her death, which is to be cited wherever it's relevant, i.e. her son's article and that of her killer. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members of ruling dynasties are generally considered notable persons, that's why we have articles about practically every Plantagenet princess or obscure members of the Japanese Imperial Dynasty. The fact that she was killed for political reasons adds to this notability, and people can be curious about the basic facts of her life. An independent article makes the scant information about her life more easily accessible.Zello (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, many of those have far superior coverage than Eutropia, and there's no reason to assume that ruling dynasties in themselves constitute a threshold for notability in WP. If people are curious about the facts of her life, they'll know that she is related to important people, in which case they'll first be looking at the articles of those important people. They will most likely know of her existence only after that of her relatives anyway. The information regarding her manner of death also overlaps with Nepotianus (WP:CONTENTFORK). WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INDEPTH still stand. There's also WP:SIZERULE, which states that articles in the region of 1 kb in size are too small to exist standalone. Avilich (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A late-antique empress of the Constantine dynasty is generally considered notable. Moreover she is a historical figure who was killed for political reasons and mentioned in several historic books [24]. VocalIndia (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is not an empress, just an obscure member of the imperial family like many others we know of and don't have articles for. And your lazy internet search only shows passing mentions in outdated sources; it in fact supports my original point that she doesn't receive significant in-depth coverage. Can someone at all address the original concern, as mentioned in the nomination? Avilich (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nepotianus (leaving the usual redirect). Our knowledge of this period depends on a relatively small number of chronicles. The chances are that they say nothing much of her, except that she existed and had a son. This is not enough to merit a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a daughter of the Caesar, mother of a usurper emperor, executed for political reasons by another usurper. And what did you achieve, who put AfD? Jokes aside, I think her notability is obvious and Eutropia deserves an article. We can put a "stub", but I am against deleting and merging. Nobody is improving this particular article right now because there are thousands more articles in WikiProject Women that need attention. This is not a reason to delete or merge the article. Globydust (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is improving this article right now because this is the sum of information available about the subject, not because there is a dearth of editors. You'd have know this had you read the Realencyclopädie link I provided for your convenience. Your comment, as every single keep vote until now, relies exclusively on inherited notability or non-active participation in events (i.e. being killed), neither of which passes WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:INHERITED. There is, in fact, no shortage of non-notable imperial family members or other upper-class Romans who are obscure nobodies and don't deserve articles of their own. For example (it looks as I'm the only who has done any research at all into this), Eutropia's nephew, the emperor Constantius, executed most of his close extended family, uncles and cousins; some we know the name of, some we don't, and many of these don't and will never have articles. Your comment is basically a condescending repeat of the others I already addressed above. Avilich (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Avilich: Prod removed as usual without any explanation by some careless and inconsiderate editor. Please do not criticise another editor for doing what they are perfectly entitled to do. It was you who restored a deleted prod, which you are not supposed to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if this were about someone from the 1940s or 1950s, then I would say that they do not meet WP:GNG. Even if they were from the 1700s, would probably agree with the merge votes above, but this type of referencing from millennia ago, passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:14, 23 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jameel Sayhood

[edit]
Jameel Sayhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Jameel Sayhood does not have sufficient notability to merit a page. Other than an interview posted on The Aviation Geek Club, there don't appear to be any sources about him. He appears to be notable only for a single event, which isn't supported by British records, according to the reference in the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2021 (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 University of Notre Dame residence halls. Per Timothy’s vote, which is the best substantive policy based vote. So many keep votes are just assertions and opinion with no policy based arguments. Just voting carries little weight Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll Hall (University of Notre Dame)

[edit]
Carroll Hall (University of Notre Dame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles about Notre Dame residence halls. I'll be sending them to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually. Should be a redirect to the list page, University of Notre Dame residence halls. Onel5969 TT me 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and you're wasting AFD editors' time if you don't link to all similar AFDs. And you should run only one or two, to test waters, so you can receive and listen to feedback instead of wasting others' time even more. And 2nd or 3rd nominations usually fail, as they should. How many are you running right now?
To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):
--Doncram (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are based on policy. It's a well sourced article for a historic building built in 1906. As even if it is not directly part of the NHRP, it still is in the historic district. Eccekevin (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Onel5969's claim is remarkably false as I cited several policies above and here's another one: WP:PRESERVE. It's the nomination that doesn't cite any policies – just GNG which is a mere guideline and so weaker than policies. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target.  // Timothy :: talk  09:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources on the page showing significant coverage. Eccekevin (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources to improve the page in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer, I was not canvassed., according to WP:APPNOTE, I'm a concerned editor who is a member of the article's WikiProject, and has expertise in the subject. --Also, I have taken note that in the one AfD where my opinion matched the person saying that I was canvassed (Keenan Hall), that he did not point out after my commentary that I was canvassed. But, in each article that I didn't agree with him, he did point that out that he thinks that I was canvassed, (Badin, Carroll and Alumni). I believe he was trying to discredit my opinion, when it differed from his opinion. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Andrew Davidson. Very good and interesting article, same as 20 similar ones dealing with University of Notre Dame residence halls. Is the fact that it is not on the NRHP the only reason for deletion? Note: I was NOT canvassed. --Silverije 23:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are plenty of sources that are not primary, and many that are related to the university but independent of it. Eccekevin (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Hall

[edit]
Keenan Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles all dealing with residence halls at Notre Dame. I'll be sending them to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually. Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not appropriate. Test maybe one, see if everyone agrees or everyone disagrees with you, before wasting lots of editors' time.
To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):
--Doncram (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls. There is no reason for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The residential college is in itself notable. In particular, the Keenan Revue is one of the largest student events at the University of Notre Dame and has been featured on national publications. The building was built by noted firm Ellerbe Becket. Eccekevin (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target.  // Timothy :: talk  09:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, the article is full of sources that describe the topics and provide SIGCOV. The Keenan Revue alone has attracted media attention.[1][2][3][4] The sports team has been reviewed by the Chicago Tribune[5]. The art present in the hall, work of Ivan Mestrovic, also has been covered.[6][7] In addition there are plenty sources on that talk about its history.[8][9][10][11] More coverage has also been provided by the Observer, Alumnus, and Notre Dame Magazine, and Scholastic (all sourced on page). None of there is affiliated with Hall, hence they are independent per WP:SIGCOV since "For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent". Finally, I do not know what you are saying with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Eccekevin (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Press, The Associated. "It's curtains for risque revue at women's college". Herald Bulletin. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  2. ^ ""He nailed Jesus on a crossing pattern!": Pray for the Keenan Revue". Newsweek. 12 February 2016. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  3. ^ Press, The Associated. "It's curtains for risque revue at women's college". Herald Bulletin. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  4. ^ "The Keenan Revue". Her Campus. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  5. ^ Skrbina, Paul. "Only one college still offers intramural tackle football: Notre Dame". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  6. ^ Meštrović, Ivan. Ivan Meštrović at Notre Dame: Selected Campus Sculptures. Snite Museum of Art.
  7. ^ Cunningham, Lawrence (2012). The Chapels of Notre Dame. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 9780268037352.
  8. ^ Blantz, Thomas E. (2020). The University of Notre Dame : a history. [Notre Dame, Indiana]. ISBN 0268108218.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  9. ^ Griffin, Robert (2003). In the kingdom of the lonely God. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742514843.
  10. ^ "Arkos Design — University of Notre Dame — Stanford Hall & Keenan Hall Renovations". Archived from the original on 2017-02-06. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
  11. ^ "Mrs. Stanford Gives Building for 300 at Notre Dame" (PDF). The New York Times. April 7, 1957. p. 122.
I am not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, since this dorm is 'newer' and not part of the NRHP district, I can see that it may be redirected. However, the statue/sculptures in the dorm are made by a famous artist. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Keenan Revue alone has attracted independent media attention, including from Newsweek, the South Bend Tribune, Washington Monthly, Arizona Daily Star, The Courier-Journal, Her Campus, and others.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The sports team has been reviewed by the Chicago Tribune [12].Eccekevin (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""He nailed Jesus on a crossing pattern!": Pray for the Keenan Revue". Newsweek. 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  2. ^ Fosmoe, Margaret (3 February 1989). "Dorm show satirized life at ND". South Bend Tribune. p. 21.
  3. ^ Fosmoe, Margaret (February 19, 2010). "No venue for Revue at Saint Mary's". South Bend Tribune.
  4. ^ Staff (22 February 2010). "Bawdy Notre Dame revue won't play college again". The Courier-Journal. p. 1.
  5. ^ Press, The Associated. "It's curtains for risque revue at women's college". Herald Bulletin. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  6. ^ Luzer, Daniel (2010-02-23). "Notre Dame's Permissive Values". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2021-03-16.
  7. ^ "Racy revue banned from campus". Arizona Daily Star. 10 February 2010. p. 10.
  8. ^ "The Keenan Revue". Her Campus. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  9. ^ Feldmann, Doug (2020). A view from two benches : Bob Thomas in football and the law. Mike Ditka. Ithaca. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-5017-4999-5. OCLC 1119122429.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  10. ^ "It's curtains for risque revue at women's college". Herald Bulletin. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  11. ^ "Top 10 Can't Miss Events at the University of Notre Dame". College Magazine. 2015-11-09. Retrieved 2021-03-16.
  12. ^ Skrbina, Paul. "Only one college still offers intramural tackle football: Notre Dame". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  • Comment: None of the above sources is about the subject of the article Keenan Hall, so they definitely do not contain SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. At this point the creator is just spaming refs to disrupt the AfD.  // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the sources? They are all about Keenan Hall and its signature event the Keenan Revue, which is a huge part of Keenan Hall's history. So of course its direct and SIGCOV. Eccekevin (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have. Others will as well and if they agree any of the articles you list have SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly (ie: Kenan Hall, not things related to it) and indepth (not a brief mention or just stating the name) they can list them for others to consider.  // Timothy :: talk  21:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You must have missed the first two then, which are both entire pieces dedicated to Keenan Hall and its Revue.[1][2] And the many other sources are also discussing its long history.Eccekevin (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""He nailed Jesus on a crossing pattern!": Pray for the Keenan Revue". Newsweek. 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  2. ^ Fosmoe, Margaret (3 February 1989). "Dorm show satirized life at ND". South Bend Tribune. p. 21.
Editors and the closer will examine the references you added and can state which they feel directly address the subject (Kenan Hall) and also have indepth coverage of the subject {Kenan Hall). You indicate the first two references are your strongest, so that will even make it easier for editors to examine. I think they will see none of them have direct and indepth coverage of the subject and are just ref spam.  // Timothy :: talk  21:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very good and interesting article, same as twenty or so similar ones dealing with University of Notre Dame residence halls. Why should some of the residence halls be merged or redirect and make the cover article "University of Notre Dame residents halls" kilometers long and vast (with 1 million bytes maybe)? Note: I was NOT canvassed. --Silverije 01:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is this relevant? Your reaction is much more interesting. I'd say: rather sad and disappointing. --Silverije 21:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG as notable building w/ satisfactory refs.19:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2021 (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 University of Notre Dame residence halls. Canvassing and incredibly poor keep arguments are not a winning combination and the argument that individual articles need decent specific sourcing about the subject is a basic requirement everywhere. The argument to aggregate the articles is compelling. Spartaz Humbug! 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alumni Hall (University of Notre Dame) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles which have all be recreated after AfD. I'll be sending them all to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually. Onel5969 TT me 14:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start multiple similar AFDs without linking, else you're needlessly making it hard for others. Also just run one or two at most, to see if you get agreement before imposing so much on others. And in general, 2nd or 3rd or 4th AFDs on the same topic usually fail (and should fail). How many of these have you started in fact?
To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):
--Doncram (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Glanzer, Perry L. (2017). Restoring the soul of the university : unifying Christian higher education in a fragmented age. Nathan F. Alleman, Todd C. Ream. Downers Grove, Illinois. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-8308-9163-4. OCLC 969439621.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  2. ^ "Facts & Figures". Office of Housing, University of Notre Dame. Retrieved February 23, 2017.
  • Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target.  // Timothy :: talk  08:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources on the page, giving it significant coverage. The neo-gothic architecture alone is itself, as a work by the Maginnis and Walsh on the National Register of Historic Places, has been described in the sources.[1][2][3][4] Eccekevin (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Studies in Medievalism Volume 3. International Society for the Study of Medievalism. 1988. p. 169.
  2. ^ Lindquist, Sherry C. M. (2012). "Collegiate Gothic Architecture and Institutional Identity: Collegiate Gothic Architecture and Institutional Identity". Winterthur Portfolio. pp. 1–24. doi:10.1086/665045. Retrieved 16 March 2021.
  3. ^ Charleton, James H. Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
  4. ^ ""National Register of Historic Places Inventory" (PDF). Retrieved 16 March 2021.
I am not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is an exceptionally difficult AfD to figure out. First, we normally keep buildings that are on the national historical register even if they're poorly covered otherwise, because we consider the NRHS a source. In this instance, the entire area is on the register, and the building only gets a couple of sentences of lip service within the NRHS source - not the significant coverage we usually see. Also, it appears much of the actual coverage of the hall is in university sources, making it lack independence - there's an architectural journal in which it gets a mention and also a Knute Rockne journal article in which it gets a mention. A newspaper search was difficult since lots of Alumni Halls exist around the US, but I didn't see any secondary sigcov in a targeted search either. So on one hand, you can make a good argument that there's plenty of coverage about the building, and on the other you can make a good argument that the building has only really been covered by sources closely associated with it. Since it's a building it's not a huge deal whether or not it gets kept, in my opinion, but it's honestly questionable as to whether it deserves its own article per WP:SPLIT and WP:GNG's secondary sourcing requirement as opposed to being mentioned in a list of Notre Dame residence halls, or in an article about the historical district as a whole. (I just realised the poorly attended original AfD went to DRV in 2019 and there was general agreement there that this should remain a redirect, so I'm upgrading from my "probably redirect" to a "redirect.") SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SportingFlyer yes indeed given the generic name it is difficult to find sources since there are so many others with similar names. But there are indeed many sources about it out there. I am slowly adding them as I do the research, in particular several articles from the South Bend Tribune on its construction, history, and architectural features, as well as its treatment in Hope's book about the university's history. Given it is part of the NRHP district, the fact that there are many secondary sources (and I will keep adding them), the huge abundance of sources connected to the university that describe its history in details, and finally the peculiar residential college system at Notre Dame (that gives residential halls a lot of independence and unique traditions and peculiarities), I invite you to take a second look. Eccekevin (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've counted 11 other sources in the article that are not owned or operated by the University. Also, because it's part of a historical district, I feel that it's a worthy subject to keep. I do admit I'm biased, since I'm an alumna of the university. But there are many other articles out there that are deserved of an AfD, than this one. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer, I was not canvassed., according to WP:APPNOTE, I'm a concerned editor who is a member of the article's WikiProject, and has expertise in the subject. --Also, I have taken note that in the one AfD where my opinion matched the person saying that I was canvassed (Keenan Hall), that he did not point out after my commentary that I was canvassed. But, in each article that I didn't agree with him, he did point that out, (Badin, Carroll and Alumni). Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and TimothyBlue this is your umpteenth time at afd, relevance? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, the closer will understand the relevance.  // Timothy :: talk  02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, what (should be:)) relevant is whether an editor bases their !vote on relevant wikipolicies (which WP:ITSINTERESTING used above is not), not that they are new to afd or that they usually !vote "delete" (hint, hint:)) or "keep" (who? moi?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, Here is the nomination form from the NRHP [36], It says the time period is 1825-1849, the subject was built in 1931. From the information you see here do you think this document describes the subject? I don't and I don't see how the nom could.
The vote stacking is an issue the nom will have to answer for; we both know how destructive canvassing is at AfD, if I happened to post on a couple of editors pages who were familar with NRHP asking for help researching this that I had reason to believe would vote delete (I can name several), you'd rightfully have my head on a platter. It's probably enough to close this as no consensus to be nominated later.  // Timothy :: talk  04:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you open the NRHP listing you see that Alumni Hall is listed as building #25, and it provides an architectural description of its features. Eccekevin (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can look for themselves and see if this is a listing for a building or a district and if the document has any details of the building. Editors can also search for the building in the NRHP database here and see if they find it.  // Timothy :: talk  07:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted in my discussion, we assume NRHP sources are good because they typically talk about one building in detail. This building only gets a couple sentences, it's not SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 17:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not the centerpiece of the historic district, it is still a contributing property and gets SIGCOV elsewhere, so I think it still falls under WP:NBUILD. Eccekevin (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one source where there's significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This history book covers well its construction and history,[1] this piece is an in-depth look at the architecture and statuary on the hall[2], these articles also detail its architecture[3][4]. The South Bend Tribune has several pieces on its funding[5][6], construction[7][8][9][10], and history[11][12][13][14].Eccekevin (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hope, Arthur J. (1978). Notre Dame, one hundred years. South Bend, Ind.: Icarus Press. ISBN 0-89651-500-1. OCLC 4494082.
  2. ^ "N.D. Building Richly Carved". South Bend Tribune. 30 August 1935. p. 16.
  3. ^ Studies in Medievalism. International Society for the Study of Medievalism. 1988. p. 169.
  4. ^ "Two Halls added to Notre Dame". The Evening Journal. September 4, 1931. p. 3.
  5. ^ "Money for Alumni building". South Bend Tribune. 27 March 1916. p. 2.
  6. ^ "Dormitories at N.D. are named". South Bend Tribune. March 29, 1931. p. 7.
  7. ^ "University breaks ground for $850,00 dormitories" (PDF). The Notre Dame Alumnus. 9 (7): 240.
  8. ^ "Rush Notre Dame Building Program to Completion as School Opening Nears". South Bend Tribune. September 13, 1931. p. 8.
  9. ^ "Building at N.D. to make plaza". South Bend Tribune. July 26, 1931.
  10. ^ "New Altars put in N.D. Chapels". South Bend Tribune. March 10, 1932.
  11. ^ "Alumni Hall Takes Crown". South Bend Tribune. December 5, 1932. p. 2.
  12. ^ "Alumni and Dillon Halls Opened to Students" (PDF). The Alumnus. 10 (2): 35. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
  13. ^ "Notre Dame News". South Bend Tribune. October 4, 1931. p. 3.
  14. ^ "N.D. Classifies Dormitories". South Bend Tribune. 15 April 1931. p. 11.
The first book is not independent - it's published by Notre Dame Press. The Medievalism book is just a passing mention - it's one sentence! The Notre Dame alumnus is also clearly not independent. The South Bend article from 1916 clearly is about some sort of different building. The only good non-local source I see is the one from the Evening Journal, but most of these aren't significant and all but one of them are hyper-local. Still clearly fails our notability guidelines, should be merged into a list. SportingFlyer T·C 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you decided the ignore all the in depth coverage by the South Bend Tribune. Also, I don’t know where you’re getting it, but the medievalism article dedicated several paragraphs to it. But it doesn’t really seem like any evidence would change your mind at this point. Eccekevin (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Taylor

[edit]
Damian Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP since 2011 with no ref's. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In doing a reference search, I did find several hits on google books where his name is dropped on notable projects, including the Grammy Award projects named in the article (see this encyclopedia entry for example). However, ultimately he has never been the main subject of any sources. I could not confirm any Grammy Award nominations, but that is not surprising as typically nominated sound and midi engineers are often left out of press reviews unless they win. All of this to say, fails WP:SIGCOV. However, if sources do emerge which support his nominations for a Grammy Award, then it would meet criteria #8 of WP:NMUSIC. This one is challenging because verifying his contribution to Grammy nominated albums is easy, but there is no way of knowing if he contributed enough to the album to be a nominated engineer without sources proving it.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I feel deep down this guy should be notable, and I keep finding hints of it while searching. It's like when your cat coughs up a hairball somewhere and you can smell it, but can't seem to find the prize. I did find a CBC source that verifies he is Grammy nominated, but then we're hit with the same mention that some band should be super stoked to be working with him, because obviously everyone knows he's great but they don't talk about it except to tell everyone that people are lucky to work with him because he's great. Another source like that, saying “Down 2 Hang” was recorded in Montreal with six-time Grammy nominated producer Damian Taylor. Kirin had this to say about recording the song and working with Taylor... because obviously we want to know what this person thinks about working with the great and powerful Damian Taylor, but we'll never write about Taylor himself. The CBC source even makes him a producer on a Juno nominated album, so that pushes him further into WP:NMUSIC 8. “Working with LA based Ariel Beesley and Grammy-nominated producer Damian Taylor..." is another reliable source for the nominations, so I think there's enough there to cover NMUSIC 8 pretty safely, and there are plenty more to be found. If CBC and other reliable sources are calling him "Grammy nominated" then I think we can safely assume he was nominated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No he doesn't. Not a single one of those two sources provides in-depth coverage and they are passing mentions of the worst kind, as they are no real sources to back them up. The whole article is like that. For example, if there were three real sources that are independent, in-depth, and reliable, fair enough, but not a single word here and there can be spun up to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. This is the sentence, recorded in Montreal with six-time Grammy nominated producer Damian Taylor. They're classed as the most tenuous mention that is possible to get. Also, nominations are not awards. There are fundamental differences. scope_creepTalk 16:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Call me convinced, although NMUSIC does say nominations are acceptable. I was pretty tenuous with my keep as it was, so I'm comfortable changing. I also think an edit conflict ate Bearcat's !vote, so I'm restoring that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it was back, so removing the double post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if better sources cannot be found. The actual problem with the "Grammy-nominated" claim, in reality, is that PR often whitewashes the distinction between "happened to work on a Grammy-nominated album" and "was actually personally the recipient of a Grammy nomination in his own name for his own work": it is true that Taylor has worked on albums that got Grammy nominations, but that does not necessarily mean that Taylor has ever personally been the named nominee in any Grammy category. But notability per NMUSIC #8 requires the latter, not the former — so we would actually need to find proper verification that he was actually the nominee in a Grammy category, not just rely on the presence of the words "Grammy nominated" in front of his name in glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, before we can deem him notable on that basis. Having had credits on Grammy-nominated work doesn't make you personally "Grammy nominated", if you were not personally the direct recipient of said nomination in your own name, but this article says absolutely nothing which even suggests that he's achieved the latter. If he actually has, then the article needs to say and source that better than it's doing right now, but if he hasn't, then happening to have Grammy-nominated albums in his list of credits is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April Palmieri

[edit]
April Palmieri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC; I can not find any significant coverage about her individually, and very little about the band she was in. The one cited source documents that she donated to Fales Library a collection of materials relevant to the 80s NYC downtown scene and John Sex in particular, but as such it does not establish her notability as an individual, as far as I can tell. Lennart97 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to see if I can improve this before I !vote. She was part of the NYC punk scene in the 80s, and is also a photographer who documented that period. Her work was included in the Club 57: Film, Performance, and Art in the East Village, 1978-1983 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, NYC.[37] Netherzone (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak keep - I have found a few other exhibitions her work was included in, 25 of her documentary photos were shown at the Tate Liverpool, these later traveled to another venue. However, it was a show about Keith Haring, not about her. It seems that she is now being noticed as a photographer in her own right and it may be a case of TOOSOON. I've improved the article with 8 new sources altho I must admit the sourcing is weak, since it includes press releases and show listings which are not SIGCOV. I've found reviews of Pulsallama (her band) in the NYTimes and Washington Post, but they don't mention her by name. The band was recognized enough to open for The Clash and also for The Go-Gos in the 80s. Her notability is very borderline but I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt unless I'm convinced otherwise. Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Changing from weak keep to keep, enough material has been found (and added to the article) to satisfy WP:NARTIST and probably GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work on the article, it's certainly in much better shape now than when I nominated it! I'm still leaning delete based on the lack of SIGCOV, but let's see what others have to say. Lennart97 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:HEY, NARTIST 4(b), and because her papers are collected in the downtown collection at Fales. Netherzone has made a Heymann Standard worth of improvements, which include three major museum group exhibitions. Saying that her photographs were of Haring, or John Sex, or Club 57 and thus should not be considered, is like saying Hans Namuth's photographs were of Pollock, de Kooning, and Rothko, and because notability is not inherited, none of those photographs can be considered here for N. Lastly, I want us to consider carefully what it means when a major major archive collects someone's papers: it is a significant marker of the esteem that the field holds the person and their work. The Downtown Collection at Fales Library is the collection for primary materials related to NYC art making after 1970. Similarly, I think we need to consider being asked for an oral history as part of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art [38] as clearly establishing N. In both cases, these are highly curated collections. Theredproject (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and per WP:CREATIVE, because she "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" with her band, which has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," (e.g. BandCamp 2020, NYT 1982, etc.) and her photography appears to have "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition," including at MoMA and the Tate. I'd like to revise the article somewhat per the essay WP:WAW, i.e. "A woman's relationships are inevitably discussed prominently when essential to her notability, but try to focus on her own notable roles or accomplishments first," including because emphasizing her relationship to John Sex in the lead, instead of accomplishments like her photography exhibited in major museums may make the article seem more deletion-worthy than it actually is. Beccaynr (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Lake (microprocessor)

[edit]
Meteor Lake (microprocessor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL WP:TOOSOON - internal company development/testing emails are not reliable sources, product plans can change. Wikipedia is not the place to share speculation or insider info. Vossanova o< 13:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page, and I agree that it should be deleted. However, I think a version should be archived so that I, or other users, does not have to start all over with the page again. Alex1611 o< 10:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Draft because of WP:TOOSOON, absence of reliable sources. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heiho Niten Ichi Ryu Memorial

[edit]
Heiho Niten Ichi Ryu Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this, as it clearly doesn't meet the intentionally strict criterion ("the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism"). I don't have either the French or the Japanese language skills to determine whether this is genuinely a hoax. A brief WP:BEFORE skim on Google shows numerous mentions, which could potentially be Wikipedia mirrors and citogenesis but will take quite a bit of effort to unravel. If this is a hoax, then it's a serious piece of cross-wiki abuse over a period of years, taking in multiple languages as well as a number of Commons photographs, and needs to be investigated well above my pay grade. Procedural AfD nomination so I abstain.  ‑ Iridescent 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, while I continue not to have an opinion on whether this is a hoax or not, there is definitely something matching the description in the article visible at the claimed location on Google Street View (zoom in near the base of the taller flagpole and you can see the Japanese-inscribed stelae). This isn't proof that this article is genuine—it may totally misrepresent what this artefact is and it could just be the home of someone who really likes flagpoles and Japanese inscriptions—but there's unquestionably a Japanese monument of some sort in Gleizé. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is something. There are flags ; there is a "stelae". But this is not enough to make a Wikipedia article. There is no independent source about this place. Padex (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I volunteer for helping understanding French. This is a serious case of source hijacking. French edition administrators banned multiple accounts, all related (sockpuppetry). It does need a lot of investigation, as well as banning and content blacklisting. Padex (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend reading the talk page. Padex (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a hoax, it is pretty elaborate. The Japanese is real, and usually (J) hoaxes are extremely easy to spot. Even the "heiho/hyoho" alternation is genuine; 兵法 has readings heihō and hyōhō, and means "military skill/training" or somesuch (this is wildly outside my area of knowledge or interest). But much of the article text is fairly obviously inchoate rambling. Possibly it could be reduced to a stub, if it is possible to find actual evidence of the site. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : (please excuse me for my broken english) Yes, it's a pretty elaborate long term abuse. This article is about something that exists, but the main part is a hoax, that is built from what's we call a "diversion of sources". The first time I realized the problems on french page, I did exactly what you suggest : reduce it to a stub. However, the "inchoate rambling" came back again and again, untill I discovered it has been subject to deletion, and recreated without agreement. We blocked 8 socketpuppers and ban the author this morning on french Wikipedia for sockpupettry and cross-wiki vandalism. (see ANI and ban decision). You will find there on global contribs which pages on en-WP are potentially affected. To give 2 exemples, consider the sentence : "This budokan in its outer form represents a samurai helmet, specifically the symbol of the prefecture of Okayama". On the french version, it was supposed to be Napoleon's tricorne. On japanese Wikipédia, it is, according to the sources, a stylized sea cucumber shape, that was used for the tsuba of a sword. About the Miyamoto Musashi Budokan, it is stated that " On March 4, 1999, the village of Ōhara was twinned with Gleizé in the presence of Sensei Tadashi Chihara guarantor and tenth of the line of Miyamoto Musashi who notably carried the mandate of the mayor of Ōhara at the time Yuki Hiroshi, and in the presence of the mayor by Gleizé" but the Gleizé official website juste said that they are unformal friendly relationships beetween the both schools. And so on. The point with this contributor is that he spammed a lot of articles with the 3 url of his site, (that exists) and some fringe theories, such the Drapeau Reiwa (A japanese flag with Fleur-de-lis and Sacred Heart). That's the reason why one's can find on this page a picture of "the memorial" - that is, the aligment of flags in front of the municipal hall that housed the french school of Aikido. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that there is a problem. But a first step is to agree that this is not a "hoax", that simply is not the appropriate term. It's some kind of soap-box, spamming effort (with quite a bit of international cooperation - the flag is in de:Platonischer Körper for example. Then it is simply a question of deciding whether there is anything notable or not. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, I don't mind the technical term, « hoax » or not « hoax ». I am not familiar with wikipedia problems classification. Padex (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content may constitute a hoax.". I am not interested in climbing steps, my aim was just to help and explain that a great part of page is a fake, such as the importance of the international relationships, the historical riginators", the kind of "memorial" it is (just two stones outside the building, not the building itself). There are quite no reliable sources about the memorial, the local sources are hijacked and the reliable sources of the article just do not say anything about the "Memorial". Outside Wikipedia, the notability of this "Memorial" is about zero, but I can understand you prefer to keep it. What you call "international cooperation" is what we call in France "transwiki abuse" - it's one of the sockpuppetts who inserted it [39]. I guess you have now all the tools needed to decide what to do. Cheers. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, as explained they killed it & blocked a load of sockpuppets over it. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (1994 board game)

[edit]
Entropy (1994 board game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was declined without any substantial comment, the article was not improved, so here we go. PS. The only reference for this is a single webpage and the game is so niche it doesn't even have its own BGG entry ([40]) and most likely was never even commercially published... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: dont confuse with Entropy (1977 board game) which is not related to the above nom.  // Timothy :: talk  09:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are currently no valid sources being used in this article, and searching for anything turns up pretty much nothing. As stated by the nom, it does not appear like this game was ever actually commercially published, and was instead something that someone created and released online. It does not seem to have garnered any kind of coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, and thus looks to be a pretty uncontroversial deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It looks like a fun game, but I cannot find SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Like the nom I can't find evidence that this was commercially produced. Article is unsourced so there is nothing in the article to support notability. If anyone finds SIGCOV, ping me and I will happily switch to keep.  // Timothy :: talk  09:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Board games are usually not notable, except for legendary ones, and this one falls into what most board games fall into - not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. SunDawn (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell if any of these are reliable, but [41] has a number of links to reviews. That's actually quite a few reviews for a game from the 90s. Note that this game and Hyle are basically the same game (one on a 5x5 grid and one on a 7x7 grid). Hobit (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may be confusing the 1977 game of the same name (Entropy (1977 board game)) with the one that is described in this article, as that is the one that is also known as "Hyle". The game that is described in this article does not follow the same rules or gameplay as either the 1977 "Entropy" nor Hyle, and appears to have nothing to do with them. Rorshacma (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yarra Bank Highway

[edit]
Yarra Bank Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability doesn't seem to be established for this road after several years. It appears to be a very short road, and the article has no references. – numbermaniac 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roselin Sonia Gomes

[edit]
Roselin Sonia Gomes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her roles in Kasam Tere Pyaar Ki and Kundali Bhagya are not significant enough to constitute a passing of WP:NACTOR and the rest of the roles look like cameos at best. I can't find anything to suggest that her modelling career is notable. Sources cited as well as those found in a search are only routine announcements and press releases which do not add up to passing WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 15 March 2021 (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 "keep" !votes fail to convince that the subject passes PROF or GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Rekab

[edit]
Kamel Rekab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The citation counts are insufficient to show significant scholarly impact, he doesn't hold a named chair and I don't see anything else that would make him meet any other criteria. WP:BASIC is also not met – the article doesn't demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and I couldn't find any better ones during a BEFORE search. For what it's worth, there's a pretty strong smell of UPE in the air here; the creator gamed AC, created an essentially complete mainspace article in a single edit and then disappeared. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that an editor should stick to one area of editing. Editors are free to improve any page they want, which interests them or they like to edit in that particular area. Condoz (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All true but an irrelevant distraction from my point. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure I truly respect your points. I also saw that you are a highly recognizable professor too. That's impressive and something great to see :) Condoz (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect to many editors' thoughts I am sure he somehow meets WP:NPROF as for his work in sequential designs, for being the Department Chair from in Department of Mathematics and Statistics, for writing dozens of books (the citation counts and reviews of one book are quite impressive) and for his work with defence authorities1. ALso, I guess he has boarderline achievements to meets #6 in NPROF for major academic institution. Atlast, I think getting on Medi1 is not easy especially for being an academic guy. This is for sure also gives him a plus point of notability. Condoz (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't found a single publication from Kamel with more than a few dozen citations. Which book is that? — MarkH21talk 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume this refers to Statistical design of experiments with engineering applications, which has 76 cites in Google Scholar (not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, even if we had more publications at that level, but respectable). It also has multiple published reviews [45] [46] [47] but again (because it's only one book) not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with the analyses by David Eppstein and MarkH21. Merely having published is not grounds for notability, however numerous the publications; we need evidence that those publications have been influential. (Also, "department chair" is an administrative position, not the kind of recognition for achievement that a named chair is. WP:PROF doesn't consider department chair as an indication of notability, for good reason.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing particularly outstanding citations in comparison to this niche field (and especially not the broader biostats field). I looked at 115 of his coauthors, coauthors-of-coauthors, and authors of failure prediction and software reliability articles citing his work (who have ≥15 papers, and excluding those who publish strictly biomedical papers -- e.g. the MANY articles on sleep apnea and forensic analysis of menstrual blood), and he's pretty much below the median across all citation metrics. Total citations: average: 1181, median: 567, Rekab: 254. Total papers: avg: 66, med: 47, R: 43. h-index: avg: 15, med: 12, R: 10. Highest citations - 1st: avg: 148, med: 78, R: 42. 2nd: avg: 91, med: 56, R: 24. 3rd: avg: 71, med: 46, R: 21. 4th: avg: 60, med: 43, R: 19. 5th: avg: 48, med: 26, R: 17. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. I also agree David Eppstein and MarkH21.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1970–71 UE Lleida season

[edit]
1970–71 UE Lleida season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another of those pages where WP:GNG might be an issue to try and find articles in the fifth tier of Spanish football during the 1970s. I will be also listing these articles because despite having bdfutbol having the links to the squads for these seasons, they would still fail GNG.

1971–72 UE Lleida season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972–73 UE Lleida season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973–74 UE Lleida season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:43, 15 March 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Shmedin

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, he seems to fail WP:GNG as I could barely find any sources about this player during his time at Sofia. HawkAussie (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:42, 15 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesflix

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

Current sources fails in WP:BASIC, Not reliable sources Citterz (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable now. May host notable content in future and gain more independent press to become notable. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triumph united

[edit]
Triumph united (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCorp, cannot find better sources in my further searches. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for WP:NOQUORUM, previously PRODed and dePRODed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 10:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that WP:CREATIVE C4 is met exists, so the subject is probably notable. Subsequently, meeting WP:GNG is not required.

WP:BASIC has not been mentioned here, but meeting an additional criteria usually implies meeting WP:BASIC. Roughly checking the sources, the combined coverage (WP:SIGCOV is not strictly required in WP:BASIC) does not look too far off of WP:BASIC to warrant further discussion.

For WP:NINHERITED, WP:CREATIVE is explicitly mentioned as one of the exceptions.

Permalinks: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Burk

[edit]
John Burk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources fails in passing WP:GNG Citterz (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, let's analyse these sources. New York Times - name appears once in a list of names, Billboard magazine - someone else's obituary, JazzTimes - behind a paywall, but other articles on the same just have one quote from Burk on the festival, nothing about him, The Washington Times - wrong John Burk. All of the grammy awards are for albums that his company worked on, not for him personally. That and productions that he worked on fall under WP:INHERITED. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, SailingInABathTub, You should analyse again because the assumptions you said are clearly wrong here.
  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/movies/arts-briefing.html (His name appears 2-3 times here in RAY CHARLES FINALE)
  2. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/1555089/phil-ramone-remembered-by-john-burk-co-producer-of-ray (Same John Burks Obituary not someone else's)
  3. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/12/grammy-winning-jazz-singer-al-jarreau-dies-at-76/ (Same John Burk mentioned)
  4. https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/john-r-burk/8135 (4 Grammy Wins)
  5. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/grammys-album-year-winner-1959-863495 (Also featured on The Hollywood Reporter)
He also produced Here We Go Again which won Grammy Award for Record of the Year. These achivements should be enough to give him a pass for both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Grailcombs (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Khurana

[edit]
Rupa Khurana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources fails in WP:GNG Citterz (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Citterz (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rupa is widely covered in prominent publications like The Tribune, NDTV India etc. Rupa is finalist for Miss World Peace India 2015 and went on to become first runner up in Miss World Peace 2016.She also participated and became the first runner up in the reality show MTV Splitsvilla in 2012. She was also participant in 89th Miss Globe International.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/lifestyle/story-168315
https://ndtv.in/punjabi-movies/suit-gulabi-ban-song-of-amit-dhull-and-rupa-khurana-video-trending-on-youtube-2263420
She is famous for her Punjabi and Haryanvi songs,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h0uhWPEGb0
--Madhusmitabishoi (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2021 (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. Fundamentally the source analysis shows this does not meet our inclusion standard and none of the keep votes deliver a compelling refutation to this. Policy trumps opinion everytime. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa D'Silva

[edit]
Elsa D'Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NBIO. I could not find any in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Interviews and self-authored articles do not count towards notability. M4DU7 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian - Zero coverage on D'Silva. It only quotes her talking about Safecity.
  • NY Mag - Again just quotes her talking about Safecity.
  • Times of India - Only slightly better. Apart from the quotes, the journalist gives a tiny bit of additional info: "D’Silva, who is incidentally a revenue management specialist in aviation, says..."
  • Deccan Herald - Similar to the previous one, the journalist only gives half a line of additional info: "...says co-founder and managing director D’Silva, a former aviation professional who made a career switch to the developmental sector only few years ago."
  • BBC - A namedrop.
  • SheThePeople - This article is entirely about Safecity and quotes D'Silva promoting it. Zero in-depth coverage on her.
  • Mint - Probably the best source of the lot. This article covers how Safecity initiative works and has brief coverage of the plans of D'Silva and her team. All the coverage here is in context of the organization.
  • Al Jazeera - carries a two-sentence statement made by her within quotation marks.
  • Aspen Ideas - brief routine coverage (speaker profile).
None of these sources come close to providing in-depth coverage on D'Silva. The keep votes should be given given due weight, considering people are apparently being offered money on another site to vote keep on this AFD. A couple of the votes above are suspicious to say the least. M4DU7 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATTP discussion
@M4DU7: Do you have any evidence to suggest that any keep !voters are single-purpose accounts or canvassed into this discussion in violation of the guideline? Beccaynr (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about single purpose accounts? There was literally a job posting offering money to vote keep on this AFD. M4DU7 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the 'not a ballot' template I placed in this discussion, suspected SPA and canvassed accounts are two issues listed, and you raised 'suspicions' about keep !voters, so I am asking if you have any specific evidence to not WP:AGF about anyone participating in this discussion. Also, please do not move my comment again - I placed it here because you raise a serious concern, and this is a direct reply intended to assist the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rich Smith brought our attention to a job posting on a freelancing site titled "Need more freelacers keep votes". That is a solid piece of evidence for canvassing and paid editing in my books (I'm not accusing you BTW). But, please follow WP:THREAD. Makes it easier for editors to keep track of all your replies. M4DU7 (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, accusations of paid editing, sockpuppets, etc without actual evidence is often a way for someone to try to explain how their AfD, which seemed so obvious to them, is quite clearly non-obvious to several other people. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your experience? You have made one mainspace edit since April 2013. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who has suspicions on your editing patterns. M4DU7 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a state government employee. If I were to accept money to edit Wikipedia, or any other form of outside employment for that matter, I would have to fill out multiple disclosure forms with my employer (and they would probably refuse to allow it). Paid editing by me would violate real-world laws, enforced by far more than just WikiCourt. Also, while I have no clue what the going rate is for paid Wikipedia editing, it is almost certainly well below my pay grade. As for the editor you reference, he filed for a review of his AfD, where he accused almost every single Keep vote as being either a sock or UPE, while supplying only laughable evidence. His "evidence" that my vote was paid for was that it was my first edit in several years, and he made no effort whatsoever to dispute my actual vote. Oh, and as for my experience? I have been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2008? Might be 2007? I'd have to double-check my edit history. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think there is a major difference between using interviews as primary sources to support content (which would not support notability per WP:BASIC) and using the rest of an article that provides commentary and additional reporting to support the notability of the subject the news outlet has found noteworthy. As discussed in the essay WP:INTERVIEW, "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. The material provided to the interview by the interviewer and the publication is secondary." Trying to ignore the significant amount of coverage that D'Silva and her work have received seems contrary to the spirit and intent of the notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, and essays do not supercede policies and guidelines. Since we're discussing essays, please list WP:THREE best reliable sources that have covered this individual significantly and independently. M4DU7 (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:ONLYESSAY, "Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument." With my reference to WP:INTERVIEW, one of the issues I was trying to highlight is what I think is an inappropriate disregard of the secondary commentary and reporting on D'Silva, which includes her work and accomplishments, in multiple independent and reliable sources, which supports her notability per WP:BASIC, as quoted above in my first comment in this discussion. Per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (emphasis in the original). Therefore, for example, there is significant and in-depth commentary and reporting on D'Silva, her work, and her accomplishments in:

When Safecity started mapping sexual violence in public spaces in India six years ago, it found public toilets in the Sanjay camp slum of Delhi were hotspots for attacks. “We wondered why,” says Elsa D’Silva, Safecity’s founder. “Then we realised the toilet doors were missing.”

When women went to the toilets – the only option for many people in the area – local boys would hang around nearby, take video clips of them on their phones and shout comments. So the women were drinking less water and only using the toilets late at night, risking an attack in the darkness.

Armed with data from the Safecity app, which was set up after 23-year-old student Jyoti Singh Pandey was beaten, gang raped and tortured on a bus in Delhi in 2012, local residents and students pressured the police into fixing the toilets. But they didn’t stop there; they also sat with local boys and showed them the harm they were causing.

What happened next? The community, including many of the boys, came together to pressure the authorities to take women’s safety seriously. And it worked; the toilets were given doors, and fewer assaults have been recorded.

Safecity now operates in five cities in India – Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, Patna and Ahmedabad – and continues to digitally map incidents of sexual assault based on anonymous reports to the app by victims.

D’Silva is not alone in her mission to transform public spaces into welcoming places for women. Around the world, women are creating databases, blogs and heatmaps to document street harassment.

[...] As demonstrated by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, where women share experiences of sexual harassment on social media, reporting personal stories can raise awareness. It can also change the way you think about the incident.

[...] Recording and mapping data also gives activists something tangible to work with. “You can monitor it, draw trends, and use it in a structured way at a local level,” says D’Silva. “And when people take ownership of their own neighbourhood they feel empowered to take on bigger problems.” [...] “I want reporting of sexual violence to be mainstream,” says D’Silva. “There’s still a taboo around it.”

No one should plan their schedule around avoiding sexual harassment, but that doesn’t mean many people don’t do exactly that. Whether it’s taking an indirect route to avoid a poorly lit park or opting for a private car instead of risking inappropriate comments or touching on public transportation, vulnerable populations around the world — for the sake of the following examples, women — are constantly maneuvering themselves around their abusers, taking time out of their own pursuits to accommodate the behavior of would-be harassers. But to do so, women must first know where they can and can’t go, information that until recently could only be learned through personal experience or by word of mouth.

“It’s very easy for us to subconsciously adjust our movements, our behavior, and our mobility to not deal with sexual violence,” said Elsa D’Silva, founder of SafeCity, a crowdsourced mapping platform for individuals in India, Kenya, Cameroon, and Nepal to report abuse anonymously. SafeCity, along with platforms like HarassMap in Egypt, #WalkFreely in Kosovo, HarassTracker in Lebanon, and the Rapid Response Unit from Society Without Violence in Armenia all provide women with the opportunity to share their story, pinpoint the exact location where abuse took place, and raise awareness about the pervasiveness of gender-based violence in their countries, on both a broad and hyperlocal scale. To users, these apps and websites act as guides, enabling women to have a greater sense of agency in determining their own safety, as well as providing them with confirmation that they’re not alone.

[...] SafeCity, which is an initiative of the Red Dot Foundation, launched a custom-made iOS and Android app last year — although the majority of their stories are still gathered through face-to-face interactions, either at workshops or on the ground in low-income communities. After collecting the stories in person, representatives from the organization upload the information to the platform. Reports are then assigned categories such as stalking, taking pictures, commenting, indecent exposure, touching/groping, and rape/sexual assault, which can then be filtered by users.

“Even if it’s anonymous reporting, it helps you identify the extent of the problem,” explains D’Silva. While the outpouring of stories that resulted from the #MeToo movement’s initial call to action demonstrated the pervasiveness of gender-based violence, the responses were impossible to analyze and present in any cohesive manner.

SafeCity uses a single depository for all of its entries, making it possible to easily consolidate the findings and locate patterns, such as sexual harassment hot spots like public transportation, street markets, and schools. That was the case in Kibera, a slum in Kenya’s capital of Nairobi, where Kenyan activist Jane Anyango used the cluster of SafeCity entries around schools to confirm stories of widespread abuse of girls by their male teachers. She included the platform’s data in formal reports, leading her to work with local education authorities in creating safe spaces for the students and with the children directly to train them how to recognize sexual violence and respond to it. Anyango now has a project with the United Nations Population Fund to conduct similar work within 45 of Kibera’s schools.

Since SafeCity’s data is open, community members, media, and government officials can access and analyze the citizen-generated reports. In the past, that has taken the form of alerting the police, holding community interventions, or providing the information to authorities who can implement infrastructure improvements to cut down on assaults in public places. “Data provides the evidence necessary to convince these stakeholders that they need to do something about it,” says D’Silva.

Since SafeCity was started 2012, it has accrued over 10,000 reports from more than 50 cities worldwide. [...]

Clearly, gender-based violence and the attitudes surrounding women in general need to change. However, until that happens, crowdsourced maps like #WalkFreely and SafeCity can help arm women with the knowledge they need to stay safe.

Towards Creating Safer Cities, Deccan Herald, 2015

December 16, 2012 was a turning point for many women and their understanding of sexual violence in the country, owing to the wide reportage in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya rape case. One of them was Elsa D’ Silva who was aghast with stories of women who go through such ordeals on an everyday basis. “Disturbed with the conversations” and understanding the need to do more than voicing her concerns on a blog, she decided to launch safecity.in. Crowdsourcing stories of sexual violence faced by women, and compiling them as a valid documentation, the three-year-old campaign focuses on making public places safer for women. “Safecity began as a way to engage with each other on a long-term basis. It began because we saw that many of us had the same experiences but were choosing not to talk about it. It encourages women and girls to talk about these instances because it is critical to break the silence around sexual harassment — and document it. Official statistics do not reflect the true nature and size of the problem partly because of under-reporting,” says co-founder and managing director D’Silva, a former aviation professional who made a career switch to the developmental sector only few years ago.

Working with the open source software Ushahidi for information collection, visualisation and interactive crowdmapping, the campaign has a large database of incidents, which are geo-tagged and show up as location-based trends.

Though initially conceived as an online-only platform, they partner with other NGOs, citizen and student groups to mobilise the community around the issue using the data. “We use the data to identify factors that lead to behaviour causing sexual violence and help us think through approaches for solutions like changing patrol timings, installing streetlights at hotspots,” points out D’Silva.

Now with a benchmark of over 6,000 stories from over 50 cities in India, Kenya and Nepal, it has recently collaborated with Twitter India to aid women in Delhi, Mumbai and Goa with support from the police forces in these regions initially and “gradually pan across India”. “Twitter is the new-age tool for activism that reaches scores of people in real-time. Our movement will gain further momentum with a live public platform. We are confident that we will be able to encourage more women to come forward and break their silence, share their stories and inspire others to take action,” D’Silva tells Metrolife.

What makes a city, a locality safe or unsafe? As stakeholders, members of the community how do we ensure that the area we live in does not account for crimes against women? Safecity, a non-governmental organization founded by former aviation professional ElsaMarie D’Silva, works as a platform for people to share their personal stories of sexual harassment and abuse in public spaces. This data, which can be reported anonymously, helps in creating hot spots on a map indicating trends at a local level.

Elsa says, “The idea is to make this data available for individuals, communities and the local administration to be able to probe and bring about social and systemic change in our cities.”

Since, some people are reticent to open up and recount their experiences (anonymously as well) on their own on the website, a lot of the data made available was gathered by the SafeCity team by organizing workshops and campaigns on sexual harassments within communities for people to join, interact and open up about their own experiences as well.

And documentation is the first step towards bringing about tangible change.

“For e.g. in Bandra, we were able to alter the patrol timings, in the absence of which harassments cases were on the rise. In Delhi, in an area called Lal Kuan, a lot of women were molested when they were in the bushes to release themselves. There were, in fact, toilets for women in the area but the authorities didn’t want to maintain them and kept them under lock and key. But at our insistence, with concrete data in our hands, this was changed,” she informs.

The website, currently made available in Mumbai, Delhi and Pune, aspires to bring about an attitudinal and behavioral shift among stakeholders, when it comes to discussing issues pertaining to sexual violence which are relevant for their neighborhood.

Elsa says, “There is an inherent fear of being judged and in order to change that we make our Twitter handle available a single person to be in charge for a week. This way, we have had urban planners, environmentalists, students; homemakers share their stories through the social media.”

Instead of providing justice to a single person, SafeCity is working towards challenging larger trends. If there are repeated instances of sexual abuse in colleges, they take it up. Recently, they got in touch with the multiplex chain, PVR Cinemas, as someone had informed them of being molested at one of their premises.

“Instead of treating it as negative publicity, the concerned authorities at PVR took it up seriously and made the necessary enquiries. When a popular brand is willing to go that distance, it speaks volumes about the change that is underway when it comes to dealing with such crimes,” adds Elsa.

Within the next month SafeCity is planning to launch its mobile application and also create an real-time account with Twitter India, through which any act of sexual violence can be reported directly to the police, via the handle.

Red Dot Foundation aka Safecity and the UN invite undergraduate students to design an innovative and implementable plan to build safer cities for women and other minorities

While cities are considered spaces of liberation and collaboration, they are not as inclusive of all parties that live within them. With the fear of sexual harassment, violence and misogyny holding women (and other minorities) back from participating in building the blocks of a booming metropolis, tech non-profit Red Dot Foundation aka Safecity and UN Habitat (the United Nations Human Settlements Programme) have created a program for young people to counter it.

The Youth Design Innovation Challenge seeks to involve young people in the fight to solving gender equality issues. The challenge aims to spread awareness about inequality and its intersection with sustainable and safe transportation, environmental conditions, urban planning and governance and then create solutions that are innovative and practical.

“We need a city not just to live and work in but also play in,” explains Elsa D’Silva, founder and CEO of Safecity. “That determines the quality of life. Unfortunately for half that population (non-male) there is no access to safe public spaces or transport, many times mobility is restricted resulting in fewer opportunities to explore one’s potential. It is neither fair nor a conducive environment to exercise one’s civic rights.” The Youth Design Innovation Challenge was created as part of the United Nation’s Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces program.Â

Undergraduate students aged 18-25 from colleges in Mumbai will work in teams to design women-friendly city plans. Participating colleges will be invited to form teams of minimum two people and maximum four people–at least one member from each team must be female. The teams from each college will then attend the kick-off of the Youth Design Innovation Challenge on July 22nd. The compulsory inclusion of women in each team ensures that the person who the plan is meant for will have a direct hand in its creation–an opportunity rarely given to women even when it comes to governing laws. “We are exploring these challenges as a diverse group so that we create awareness and facilitate a greater understanding about the issues that face us,” D’Silva says. “Hopefully together we can co-create and collaborate for the city we need.” [...]

Beccaynr (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the actual link at Aspen, as it includes a brief CV. Being invited to speak at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival is a pretty big deal in and of itself, an indication that both the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, itself a highly reliable source, believe that the subject is notable. But let's go further and look at what the brief CV says
"ElsaMarie D’Silva is founder and CEO of the Red Dot Foundation (Safecity), a platform that crowdsources personal experiences of sexual violence and abuse in public spaces. She’s a Yale World Fellow and alumna of the Stanford Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program, US State Department’s Fortune Program, Oxford Chevening Gurukul, and Commonwealth Leadership Program. D’Silva is a fellow with Rotary Peace, Aspen New Voices, Vital Voices, and a BMW Foundation Responsible Leader. Previously, she worked for Jet Airways and Kingfisher Airlines, most recently as vice president of network planning and charters. A writer, public speaker, and panelist, D’Silva is one of BBC Hindi’s 100 Women and received the Vital Voices Global Leadership Award."
Is it still your contention that this individual is non-notable? That none of these organizations recognition of her, on their own or as a whole, taken together, indicates any level of notability? Really? What would you consider acceptable demonstration of notability? Hyperion35 (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BASIC and WP:GNG to understand how notability is assessed on Wikipedia. This is critical for someone participating in AFDs. As you seem to be hung up on the term "CV", do also read WP:NOTCV. If you have any additional questions on Wikipedia's guidelines, post them at WP:HELPDESK. M4DU7 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am aware of those guidelines. Perhaps I was unclear in my previous comment. Notability is dependent upon reliable independent sources that provide coverage of the subject. My point regarding the CV was merely to show that the subject has worked with multiple different high profile groups, she has participated in multiple high profile events, and received multiple awards. These are all things that are likely to generate coverage. It would be exceedingly unlikely that such a person would not have received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was certainly poorly sourced and cited, on this I agree with you. I am pointing out that just from what has been reported from one reliable source about the subject points us towards more likely points of coverage. That is one of the issues up for consideration in any AfD: given what we can verfy about the subject so far, are we likely to be able to obtain sufficient RS to demonstrate notability and build out the article. For example, there is almost always news coverage of speakers at the Aspen Ideas Festival, the BBC would hardly name 100 Hindi Women without providing some coverage of each one, and I'd be willing to bet that there must be coverage for that Vital Voices Global Leadership award as well. People are pointing you towards places where we can likely find RS and coverage to determine notability, and it is likely that we will find it there. The reasons for pointing it out first is because it may take more than a few days to track down, which is why notability guidelines discuss all sorts of "tests" for determining how likely it is that we will find such guidelines. Now, before I go looking for those sources, I am curious as to what you would consider sufficient. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say that it is likely that there exist sources that provide independent and significant coverage of this individual, without actually providing one. That is not a persuasive argument. Interviews and sources quoting her are all we have at the moment. Our GNG bar is far higher than this. M4DU7 (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Sources I am puzzled by the statement at the beginning of this article that the editor was unable to find verifiable information from reliable sources. A quick Google search turns up quite a bit, even before digging into the various awards and events and such.
Here award from Vital Voices is summarized here: https://www.vitalvoices.org/people/elsamarie-dsilva/ and we can see the photos of the award being given out by a highly notable former US Secretary of State here: https://vitalvoices.exposure.co/2017-global-leadership-awards and more information about the award itself is here: https://www.vitalvoices.org/what-we-do/individualized-investments/honoree-program-2/
The International Womens Forum gives a summary about d'Silva here https://www.iwforum.org/elsamarie_dsilva although it is similar to the info from Aspen, still it is good to get confirmation. It appears that she may have given a lecture or class at the IWF.
The National Endowment for Democracy also lists some info for her here, and indicates that she is a fellow there as well: https://www.ned.org/fellows/elsa-marie-dsilva/
A website called TheFemWord has an interview with d'Silva here: https://www.thefemword.world/her-story/elsa-dsilva-founder-safecity I do not know much about the website, but the interview appears to be rather in-depth, discussing not only her Safe City project, but her earlier career and future plans. An interview is obviously primary rather than secondary, so may not establish notability but is very useful for information about the subject (we have so many other secondary sources for notability, but they often don't contain this depth of information, if you see my point).
I find that she has also published several essays in multiple publications such as Yale Daily News, Bitch Media, Huffington Post, Global Diplomacy Lab, NPR, and other places.
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/11/27/dsilva-ending-sexual-violence/
https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/all-too-often-films-stalking-seen-romantic
https://global-diplomacy-lab.org/blog/domestic-violence-how-women-struggle-during-covid-19-lockdowns/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/enabling-safe-urban-space-for-women-in-india_b_7797034
I can continue this search if M4DU7 still has objections. But what I see are multiple think tanks that have her profile listed as a member/fellow, interviews that have useful info for the article, major international awards (Hillary Clinton does not give out participation trophies), and I count maybe 20 articles/essays/OpEds published in major independent national and international publications. This has to meet GNG by any sane standard. If it still does not, I feel like this is still enough to point towards more RS, since there is still plenty out there. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More interviews, blogs, primary sources, self-authored columns... And the good old WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument coupled with "Oh, she received X award at an event which was attended by famous personality Y. She's gotta be notable as she has a photo with Z.". M4DU7 (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I included the interview as an example of a source for more information about the subject for the article, which may help improve the article. Next, self-authored is NOT the same as self-published. The latter is what we want to avoid. Self-authored articles published in reliable sources are actually fairly useful and help establish that these reliable sources believe that the subject is a notable individual. As for your last part, I cannot tell whether you are simply trying to be snarky, or whether you are not comprehending what I wrote. D'Silva received a prestigious award. The award was presented by a highly notable, famous, widely-known individual, which goes to the argment about the award's prestige. Receiving a prestigious award is itself a primary criterion for notability! See WP:ANYBIO She was not just "photographed with" Hillary Clinton, but rather the organization that gave the award asked and got Hillary Clinton to present the award. The issue here isn't just one award, or just one (out of 20) self-authored articles published in reliable sources, or interviews, or multiple fellowships and speaking engagements at prestigious institutions, but rather that when we take all of these things together, it becomes extremely difficult to argue that the subject is non-notable, to the point that it almost sounds ridiculous. But what exactly would change your mind, aside from all those publications, an award handed to her by one of the most famous women in the world, and the opinions of all of those think tanks and institutions? Hyperion35 (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. What's interesting here, is there is enough coverage to establish notability for Safecity, the organization/ app created by Ms D'Silva. We currently lack an article on the company/ app, and those interested in editing in this area should consider writing an article on that topic with the sources presented here. However, notability is not inherited, and Ms. D'Silva is not the main subject of these references.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the sources listed in this discussion where D'Silva is the main topic, as well as the sources that document the possibility that other sources WP:NEXIST, WP:GNG states, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so there appears to be sufficient support for D'Silva's WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree that there is significant coverage in the references beyond mere trivial mention of D’Silva. You are overstating what is there.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is independent and reliable coverage above that focuses on D'Silva, even just by a review of the headlines, and coverage that includes D'Silva's biographical information, as well as why she started SafeCity, all of which is more than trivial, and given the significant amount of coverage about D'Silva creating Safecity and its impact, she also appears to have WP:CREATIVE notability, because she "is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the coverage is trivial on her but not her app. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No matter how much you argue back and forth there is a basic sourcing issue here when it comes to establishing notability.4meter4 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree about the sourcing, and per WP:IAR, I think it would improve Wikipedia to have this article, and I think the spirit and intent of the guidelines support this - D'Silva has accomplished more than SafeCity, and this has also been found worthy of notice by independent and reliable sources. Per WP:NPROF (an alternative to the general notability guideline), criteria 7, she also "is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," including the improvement of safety in cities, and not just in relation to SafeCity. Beccaynr (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Also per WP:NPROF criteria 6, D'Silva is the "director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)" (SafeCity). Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) See e.g. Implementing the NUA - Can we use Big Data to Create Safer Public Places for Girls and Women? (Global Policy Journal, 2018), SafeCity: Understanding Diverse Forms of Sexual Harassment Personal Stories (EMNLP 2018), Women’s victimisation and safety in transit environments (Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol 19, pages 163–167 (2017)), Women’s strategies addressing sexual harassment and assault on public buses: an analysis of crowdsourced data (Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol 19(3)). Beccaynr (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add to Beccaynr's point, D'Silva is also a fellow at several think tanks and as such has given speeches and written articles on the general subjects of sexual harassment, sexual assault and violence, etc. So it's not just this one program that she founded, but also these other independent groups that she has been working with, in her own right, including the Aspen Institute and National Endowment for Democracy, where her expertise is welcomed in the context of tackling broad policy topics. This is a good reason to have an article about D'Silva, in addition to whether or not we have an article about SafeCity. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had included the secondary source coverage from that source but another editor removed it from my comment - the article does include an interview, but it also begins with a two-paragraph introduction from the publication, which concludes with "Here’s what she has to say about Safecity and her journey so far." The article is not written by D'Silva, the disclaimer does not state that, and I included the relevant excerpt from the article in my original comment to try to make the secondary source portion clear. Beccaynr (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean basically the entire article, except possibly the first two paragraphs (of which has three sentences about her), were written by D'Silva. The article itself is from TomorrowMakers from "Transamerica Direct Marketing Consultants Private Limited" (in partnership with The Economic Times) and was not written by The Economic Times. It's more of a press release than an independent reliable source. — MarkH21talk 02:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a more than fair critique, and thank you for pointing it out. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be rather difficult to refbomb a non-notable subject, I would think. The "Three" essay is not a binding policy, and appears to directly contradict multiple existing guidelines, but I'll humor you. WP:ANYBIO says that receiving a prestigious award alone is sufficient to establish notability:
    1. [48], 2017 Vital Voices Light of Freedom Award
    Elsa D'Silva was also invited to speak at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which a joint production of The Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. In addition to speaking at the festival itself, The Aspen Institute provides a list of her fellowships, awards, and accomplishments that could easily serve as the article lede,
    1. [49]
    Elsa D'Silva was also a fellow with the National Endowment for Democracy. According to NED, during her fellowship she wrote a handbook (presumably published by NED) on the power of digital technology to address gender based violence. It would be good to track down this handbook, even if it is a primary source, but here is NED acting as a secondary source attesting to her importance,
    1. [50]
    I have chosen these three sources because all three involve other people attesting to her notability, and the second two specifically because they point towards inevitably more coverage in reliable sources that ought to be out there. This is not a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument, but rather a situation where these sources establish notability and point towards further places to look. I believe that any editor who checks these three sources will come away convinced that this person is notable and that SIGCOV exists. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough independent reliable coverage, both focusing on her and mentioning her non-trivially. I feel that she makes it over the bar for WP:GNG. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major sourcing issues in article. The following sources are too closely related to the subject (see urls in article):
1. ThemeXpose. "Making cities safer". www.redelephantfoundation.org. Retrieved 26 November 2016. (written by subject of article)
2. "Spotlight: Elsa Marie D'Silva, Founder and CEO of The Red Dot Foundation, India". National Endowment For Democracy. 13 December 2019. Retrieved 15 March 2021. (D'Silva is a Fellow of the National Endowment For Democracy; and therefore this source is too closely connected to her)
3. Fellows of the Week: VVLead Fellowship Weekly Roundup". TinyLetter. Retrieved 26 November 2016. (D'Silva is a Vital Voices Fellow and therefore this source is too closely related to the subject)
4. "Safecity by ElsaMarie D'Silva maps sexual violence". SheThePeople TV. Retrieved 26 November 2016. (Essentially written by D'Silva, all content not written by her is easily found in better independent sources already in the article)
5. D'Silva, Elsa. "Elsa D'Silva: Crowdsourcing the End of Sexual Violence". Aspen Ideas Festival. WETA. Retrieved 16 March 2021 (written by the subject of the article)
6. D'Silva, Elsa. "Aspen Ideas Festival". (written by the subject)
7. Dasra (2015). "Safecity" (PDF). Dasra. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 November 2016. Retrieved 26 November 2016. (written by the subject)
8. D'Silva, Elsa (27 November 2018). "D'SILVA: Ending sexual violence". Yale News. Retrieved 15 March 2021. (written by the subject)
9. "Q&A with ElsaMarie D'Silva". Maurice R. Greenberg World Fellows Program. Yale University. May 2020. Retrieved 15 March 2021. (direct interview with subject)

The rest of the sources are more about her company, Red Dot, or her company's app Safecity. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is currently being reworked, even though Deletion is not cleanup. A discussion is also happening about the sources and the policies and guidelines related to article content on the article's Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am rather astounded at the suggestion that because someone is a fellow at a think tank, we cannot use that think tank as a source, because it is too close(?). Are you, perhaps, unaware of how these organizations function, or unfamiliar with them? I do understand that they are more common in American public policy, but most of these organizations have counterparts (and often offices) in other countries. However, as noted, this is probably better left as a discussion for the article talk page. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2021 (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 IDW Publishing. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Adams (publisher)

[edit]
Ted Adams (publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of being notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 15:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are passing mentions and make for very very unsuitable references. There is no coverage on the guy. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the company is publicly traded or not, the sources must be there to satisfy WP:V. I'm not seeing it yet. They are tenuous at best. scope_creepTalk 11:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John_McGuirk

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

page was previously deleted for being non-notable, contributor to religious newspaper BotulaClark (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. BotulaClark (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore the redirect to the cartoon character - he did receive a little bit of coverage, but it was as a spokesperson for a political movement, which I don't think counts. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just updating my comments based on the way the discussion is going, the only good article I see is the "nuance of a grenade" article, the rest just cover him as basically a spokesperson and are about other things. The tweet removal article may be an exception, but that's a very marginal/routine article. I still don't see a clear WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully clarifying - two of the articles in The Phoenix are actual profiles, specifically about this person. And The Phoenix is a serious source, Ireland’s answer to Private Eye, but more serious, read by most decision-makers and often with surprising input channels. A profile there speaks to notability in Ireland. I think this plus the number of mentions in the Irish and London Times = material cover. SeoR (talk)
While those profiles are paywalled, if we assume the best and they're both okay, notability's still marginal; if we assume the worst and they're not, notability hasn't been satisfied. We can disagree respectfully, but I don't think mentions count towards notability. SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if someone can share highlights, or summarise - perhaps this would partly answer the "relisting question". Additionally the fact that The Phoenix profiled one person twice, many years apart, also says something - one profile can still be followed by a "fading from view" but a second means some lasting presence has been achieved. When it comes to the newspapers, McGuirk is not just mentioned in passing, he is a player in some of the major national debates of recent years, and spokesperson for, for example, a campaign on a constitutional matter, is serious. Likewise, the site and other media he edits, even if some (myself included) are not sure about their long-term significance, are taking on a real role. Now, aside from The Phoenix profile point, I've probably said enough for this debate (in which I did not expect to be involved at all). SeoR (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to note, the previously deleted article was deleted 15 years ago. McGuirk has been involved in a lot of campaigns since. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 02:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - re-reading the article, it amounts to unsuccessful election candidate and spokesperson for several political campaigns. Notability is borderline. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whatever the views, and the failure to achieve office to date, the subject has achieved some position in the national debate, and so some modest notability. I will try to do something to improve and better reference the article. On further reading, I'd say the subject has become one of the more prominent voices for material parts of the right-wing, religious-conservative aspect of Ireland, which while minority is not insubstantial - and this is covered by serious Irish media, so I believe GNG is met. SeoR (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have some source analysis please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosella Cappella Zielinski

[edit]
Rosella Cappella Zielinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Current h-index is 4. Not able to find independent sources where she received significant coverage. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Crystal ball. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The sources added are too slender to make me change my mind. Try again in ten years. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Maharajh

[edit]
Frank Maharajh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Seems to have done only bit roles in some movies. No references found on searching and none found in the article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jupitus Smart 05:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 05:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 15 March 2021 (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 Speedily deleted - G4 by User:Iridescent. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiyas Kareem

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shiyas Kareem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (The reasons for deleting previous article were Shiyas Kareem does not have notable roles in any movies But Shiyas Kareem Had notable roles in The Movie Guardian as a villain character and Also in the Movie Black Coffee. And those who suggested to delete the previous article not native to the language of the Movies.I believe all the movies he is acted is notable and he had notable role in some of them. ) -- Riyas Tp (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:56, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Venerable A Vineetha Thero

[edit]
Venerable A Vineetha Thero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I recently sent this article to draft as the subject was potentially notable but there were no reliable sources. It has been recreated in mainspace without improvement. A search for sources produces hits for an academic of the same name who isn’t the same person, but I’ve found nothing else. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Harrold

[edit]
Glenn Harrold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly promotional references and does not follow WP:BIO requirements. No effort made to provide reliable sources for notability with significant coverage. Association between article creator and subject revealed by administrator on talk page. — ClappingCommon (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be noted that this editor is a SPA who has only edited this wikipage, is the creator of the page, COI?. --Devokewater 11:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Firos

[edit]
P. K. Firos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable poltician who was the member of the state committe of the students wing of a party. No evidence of notability and Fails GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Discuss 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Firos accuses Pinarayi of misleading Assembly". The Hindu. 4 December 2018.
  2. ^ "CM just repeating Minister Jaleel's arguments: PK Firos". The New Indian Express. 5 December 2018.
  3. ^ Rajeev, K. R. (5 February 2019). "Irregular appointment row: Firos releases CPM MLA's letter to substantiate charges | Kozhikode News - Times of India". The Times of India.
  4. ^ "Muslim Youth League uses CPM MLA's letter to corner ruling party". The New Indian Express. 6 February 2019.
  5. ^ Daily, Keralakaumudi (5 July 2019). "Nepotism charges against K T Jaleel politically-motivated: HC raps P K Firos". Keralakaumudi Daily.
  6. ^ "Youth Leage, BJP demand probe into links of Kerala CPI(M) secretary's son with B'luru drug case accused". Outlook India. 2 September 2020.
  7. ^ "CPM attempts for backdoor appointments in Calicut University, alleges Youth League". Mathrubhumi. 22 September 2020.
  8. ^ "Gold smuggling case: Jaleel trying to destroy evidence, says Firoz". The Hindu. 15 September 2020.
  9. ^ "CPM flouting norms in appointing CU staff: P K Firos | Kochi News - Times of India". The Times of India. 23 September 2020.
  10. ^ "Misappropriation of Kathua-Unnao fund; Youth League's PK Firoz faces allegation". Mathrubhumi. 2 February 2021.
  11. ^ "Kathua fund scam: Police book Muslim Youth League leaders PK Firos, CK Subair". OnManorama. 17 February 2021.
There appears to be a lack of BEFORE here and a conflation of content with notability; AfD is not cleanup. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever the outcomes of those previous discussions, and if memory serves me correctly I've previously !voted delete in *some* cases of state-level party office holders, they are irrelevant when there is clear RS which establishes notability satisfying the GNG. Your statement misconstrues WP:POLOUTCOMES by implying that failing NPOL would trump passing the GNG, which has no community consensus whatsoever: Leaders of major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) parties are usually deleted unless notability can be demonstrated for other reasons (emphasis added). Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 05:23, 15 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehvish Mushtaq

[edit]
Mehvish Mushtaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few sources; The Hindu Source is regurgitated. Rest sources aren't reliable . And Is notable for one event i-e Dial Kashmir app so it is a WP:BLP1E. Has recieved NariShakti award but still doesn't provide enough reasons for notability. Last news dates back to 2013, no other notable activity since then. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 04:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 04:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 04:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the revisions and sources I added, per WP:BASIC for her historic achievement in 2013, for which news coverage has been WP:SUSTAINED through 2018, including because of her 2017 Nari Shakti Puraskar award. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and this does not appear to be WP:BLP1E, because sources cover Mushtaq over time, including in the context of her awards, so she did not remain low-profile after her 2013 achievement, and it was significant, her role substantial and well-documented, and the coverage in reliable sources has been persistent. Beccaynr (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Beccaynr:.I guess it even fails WP:GNG there's no in depth or significant coverage in a reliable source, see WP:RS. The Hindu article is an regurgitated copy of PTI release. As far as Awards are concerned WP:NAWARD states that This is a failed proposal so her Awards can't be considered as her notability factor. I would not push my POV here, but Dial Kashmir was viral back in 2013-2014 but it's defunct now. Also as far as WP:BLP1E is concerned, Could you state a source which significantly cover's her other work apart from Dial Kashmir?. Also i see no source covering her or her work properly after 2013 apart from the 2018 award. Since you've tried to improve this, if you could give sources for that it isn't a WP:BLP1E and has significant indepth coverage in multiple reliable article's, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 22:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," so "23-yr-old girl becomes first in Kashmir to launch an Android app" (FirstPost/Press Trust India, reprinted in various publications with varying amounts of information, 2013), "Touch to Reach Kashmir" (Bangalore Mirror, 2014), Awesome new ideas for a better tomorrow (Hindustan Times, 2014), "Women in Male-Dominated Professions" (Times of India, 2015), "Kashmiri girl awarded for innovative thinking" (Kashmiri Observer, 2016), "Behind Every Successful Woman, There is a Story" (The New Indian Express, 2016), "Technology is the key: Up-skill at will!" (Asian Age, 2017), "International Women's Day: India's 6 most powerful women who defeated all odds" (Tech Observer 2018), "Nari Shakti Puraskars: President Kovind Honours the Achievers" (PTI, 2018), "Women's Day: President honours 39 with 'Nari Shakti Puraskar'" (IANS, 2018) show that the persistent coverage and notability is not just due to creating the app. Beccaynr (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Beccaynr:, "show that the persistent coverage and notability is not just due to creating the app." have you checked/ read these sources? they all just talk about her developing the Dial Kashmir App, And the other sources are more of Trivial Mentions as they discuss multiple more people in those article's, and as Per WP:BASIC : trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Again i'd repeat As far as Awards are concerned WP:NAWARD states that This is a failed proposal so her Awards can't be considered as her notability factor, even if we ignore the fact that she was again awarded just for the App because i am unable to find any other work which she has done and was awarded for it. If there's any other source which discusses her apart from the App, kindly share it. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so when Mushtaq is featured in the context of other notable people, it can still help establish notability. Per note 7 in WP:BASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing," and I think particularly when Mushtaq is featured in reports on notable women, this is distinct commentary and coverage, even though it is related to the app, and it is not a trivial mention made in passing - according to multiple independent and reliable sources, she overcame noteworthy challenges when she developed the app. The coverage endured and focused on her as an inspiration to others; her awards also seem to contribute to her notability when news outlets find it worthy of notice. Beccaynr (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:GNG, with 15+ citations for a small article this is more than "a few sources", also the Nari Shakti Puraskar award and the "first app developer from Kashmir". If there is an issue with the quality of sources, there should be an attempt to clean up (via edit, tag and/or use the talk page) prior to AFD. At this point it's not obvious what the issue is for AfD because I am seeing it as GNG right now. Jooojay (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Jooojay: "If there is an issue with the quality of sources, there should be an attempt to clean up prior to AfD", I'm the nominator and i'd have cleaned up the article rather then nominating it for AfD but after looking at the source's, this doesn't look to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, i'm discussing the same above with an editor who has tried improving the article. I'd definitely be happy if the article is saved by improving and adding more sources to it which demonstrate Mehvish Mushtaq's Notability properly. As far as the current sources are mentioned, They clearly don't meet WP:RS and is a case of WP:BLP1E and the other sources are more of trivial mentions. Also Awards don't demonstrate notability. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for pointing that out - I have clarified the lead to better match the news reporting, i.e. "Mehvish Mushtaq, who has become the first Kashmiri to develop an Android application" (PTI 2013) Beccaynr (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GoingBatty: i don't want to sound as a bad faith editor but, this was a PR work done by the government, i'm sure kashmir would have had more female developers before her but they were never promoted. Anyways, As per sources she is the first kashmiri women to develop an android app, Not the first kashmiri. (https://antarees.com/) this is an kashmir based development company which has been doing it since 2009. I've updated the lead in article to more accurate information. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 06:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it does not meet the criteria yet, as per the arguments exposed above.Eccekevin (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional article for someone not yet notable. Almost all the awards are trivial, and so is the accomplishment. The one significant awards is a anward essentially for PR, and that the President of a country engages in PR is not the least unusual or unexpected--it's part of politics. News sources have a certain tendency to make human interest articles about attractive subjects, but this has no relationship to their actual importance. We should consider such to be promotional coverage--promotional usually for both the news source and the subject. They don't belong in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr when one criteria is explicitly met, we do not need other criterias to be met. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with the opinion that the article looks promotional and needs rewriting. In that case it needs clean up or placing suitable template rather than delete. Jammumylove, I agreeWP:NAWARD is not valid here. But she passes WP:ANYBIO. The subject is a winner of one of a notable and major award given by Government of India, making her easily passing one of the criterias listed as per WP:ANYBIO. So when one criteria is met why are we looking for several ones. Kichu🐘 Discuss 04:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Kashmorwiki, If we follow ANYBIO for awards then we might have to start enrolling everyone who recieves an national award on wiki. As stated above by DCG , Almost all the awards are trivial, and so is the accomplishment. The one significant awards is a anward essentially for PR, and that the President of a country engages in PR is not the least unusual or unexpected--it's part of politics. . This is nothing new, this is an encyclopaedia, We're not here to promote awardees. Moreover, This is a BLP1E. Also ANYBIO states that Person should've recieved a significant award, As per my knowledge We can't consider an award for Building an app as significant. Also as far as the rewriting part is considered, my BEFORE didn't give me enough WP:RS otherwise i'd have done that.Also if you find sources then kindly improve the article and i'd be happy to withdraw the nomination, otherwise this certainly warrants WP:TNT and maybe someone later can create a non promotional sounding writeup, because at this moment we can't allow promotional content to stay there if we don't have anyone willing to remove it and improve. Regards -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Jammumylove, If a person meets the notability criteria as per any one of the conditions in WP:ANYBIO, then he /she deserve the article. It was one of the prestigious award fhat she had won. Just because it look promotional or lacking any content means we should delete it. Instead you can tag it with suitable templates. I am not interested in improving this article, because Im not familiar with this topic. Regards Kichu🐘 Discuss 14:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have improved by removing potentially promotional material on the Dial Kashmir app and added some additional biographical details. The Nari Shakti Puraskar is a national award, given by the Indian Prime Minister. Other recipients of the award are also on Wikipedia, why would we not have this recipient? Sarahlappin (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The addition of the 2013 profile from The Hindu appears to help support notability; encyclopedic content sourced to multiple independent and reliable sources has been restored, and whether any changes are needed in how this information is presented can be further discussed on the Talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 05:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2021 (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. Fundamentally there are two arguments here. Whether the subject passed BLP - and consensus is it doesn’t but the source analysis debunking the gng argument. Much of the delete argument about the gng just asserts which is a weak argument against a compelling analysis based on policy. Secondly, does the subject pass ACADEMIC, and there is no consensus that she does. That only leaves one outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchi Anand

[edit]
Shuchi Anand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG notability guidelines; nothing in this bio that stands apart from a typical clinical researcher/professor. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vikram Vincent 11:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Keep per Ritchie333 and Beccaynr. The article in its current form shows notability. Vikram Vincent 22:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prer nom and can't find anything to justify the article. Taung Tan (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per all above, fails in satsifying WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pasting my Talk comment on her notability here: The only criterion that seems applicable is NPROF, but her citation record is basically just a bit over standard fair for investigators publishing in nephrology. This is especially true when it's purely clinical trajectories, cohort studies, international consortia, etc. where basically twice a year someone belonging to some massive clinical working group gets the whole department (the attendings, the chair, rotating med students, random passers-by...) alphabetical coauthorship on a 300-author annual report. Seriously, there are people with 50 papers who have over 10,000 unique coauthors. Her citation metrics (in an extremely high-citation field) are around the median among 150 of her coauthors (who have 20+ papers) and well below the average: Total citations: average: 6927, median: 1378, Anand: 1593. Total papers: avg: 129, med: 65, A: 66. h-index: avg: 27, med: 17, A: 20. Highest citation: avg: 957, med: 257, A: 512. I'll also throw in the uninformative but highly amusing parameters of number of unique coauthors: avg: 1896, med: 884, A: 884; and coauthors per paper: avg: 15, med: 8, A: 17, top score: 218. Plus some links to articles on authorship issues in clinical research. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: Going back through her coauthors, I found that many of them were accidentally separated into different entries by Scopus, so when I navigated to a person's profile by clicking the author name from a particular paper I wasn't necessarily getting their full stats. This doesn't affect Dr. Anand's metrics since I got to her profile by directly searching her (so separate profiles would show up in search results). I have therefore reassessed the middle ~100 of her 150 coauthors as ordered by highest citation, finding 24 who actually had 1 or more other significant Scopus profiles, and have added those values and manually recalculated their h-indices. The new stats, which are definitely still below the actual numbers since I didn't reevaluate everyone and in particular did not reevaluate the top 30 (who would be most likely to have secondary profiles), are as follows: Total citations: avg: 8944, med: 2105, A: 1593. Total papers: avg: 155, med: 72, A: 66. h-index: avg: 31, med: 21, A: 20. Highest citation: avg: 1151, med: 325, A: 512. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a quick Google News search and found multiple hits explaining her contributions to health and particularly the COVID-19 pandemic, including this, this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've revised the article and added sources, including from Stanford News, CNN, Bloomberg, and Newsweek. Per WP:NPROF criteria 1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources," (my emphasis) e.g. "pioneering a scalable sampling strategy that offers a blueprint for standardised national serosurveillance in the USA and other countries with a large haemodialysing population," per Imperial College London professors Barnaby Flower and Christina Atchison, but this also looks like WP:BASIC notability due to the amount of news coverage, including the sources noted by Ritchie333. Beccaynr (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Other sources added include USA Today with commentary from other scientists discussing the importance of the study, and brief commentary about the study in a December 2020 Brookings report. Beccaynr (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, while the news coverage is certainly more persuasive, it's also limited to the one study--is being lead author on a paper that made a brief splash enough to establish notability? The level of commentary is pretty standard for papers published in high-profile journals, and especially in COVID-19 there will be heightened broadcasting of all clinical results. And the response from other scientists has been much more tempered -- see this Nature Reviews Nephrology review of the paper Although this study demonstrates the potential of monitoring infectious disease prevalence in dialysis populations, the findings should be interpreted with caution.. JoelleJay (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That review also states, "However, at the very least, surveillance provides invaluable information on asymptomatic cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients on haemodialysis to better understand local outbreaks and guide improvements for infection prevention in this extremely vulnerable patient group," and the 'caution' described sounds similar to what the study authors disclosed, per the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at U. Minn. The reason why I also suggest WP:BASIC notability is the reported impact of the study, not just its scientific method, e.g. by Brookings in December 2020, which described the study as "Perhaps the best currently available estimate" in a report about the impact of misinformation. The study also appears to align with a theme in Anand's work to examine systemic bias in the prevalence and outcomes of disease, and in this instance, to advocate publicly for targeted public health interventions (e.g. CIDRAP, The Print). In addition, both the Brookings report and the USA Today article discuss the pandemic information landscape, with the USAToday article offering public health detail and many other articles picking up on how the study helped undermine the idea of a natural 'herd immunity' quickly being possible. From my view, there has been an unusual level of news coverage, apparently due to the significance of the study for several reasons, and per Newsweek and Bloomberg, it sounds like the study is still underway, so erring on the side of keeping this article and perhaps revisiting it after the next phase of this high-profile study is published makes more sense given the amount of attention it has already received, because it is "notable and almost certain to take place," per WP:CRYSTAL. Beccaynr (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the study itself received a modest amount of coverage; my concern is that it's just the one study, and she herself isn't being profiled in-depth in these sources in a way that would meet BASIC. NPROF C1 demands either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates, with the clarification that citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. I don't think the lay media coverage is sufficient, and so far the academic citations fall far short of notability. I'll also add that the "pioneering concept" is also too soon to evaluate as truly impactful -- it certainly does not meet C1 requirements of In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. That other professors have been quoted praising the study does not count toward this metric. JoelleJay (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary from Flower and Atchison was published in The Lancet, and the Nature Reviews Nephrology review seems to suggest the work is still innovative, even if only on a more limited basis - it may take more time for additional peer review, but Anand's work has already received some in-depth academic attention. Also, per WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," which is why the initial burst of coverage in late Sept. 2020, as well as the mention in the Dec. 2020 Brookings report, seem to further support notability pursuant to that guideline (and perhaps criteria 7 of WP:NPROF), and may become additionally supported after the next phase of the study is published. Based on the news coverage and the peer review so far, this appears to be a notable accomplishment beyond the 'average professor,' due to the nature of the research, both its methods and its findings, and if it is a borderline case, it may be more clear in the near future, because of additional peer review, and/or news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The write-ups in The Lancet and Nature Reviews Nephrology are routine paper summaries -- the praise uses the standard "this study was promising" language and does not reflect the actual impact the research has had or will have (because it is too soon to tell whether the sero-surveillance method is actually feasible in or transferable to other research). They are also not by any stretch "in-depth". The approach would need substantial usage and/or discussion within either experimental articles or broad reviews for Anand to qualify C1 with the "innovation" criterion. And C7 is certainly not satisfied by her being quoted by a handful of news reports on the study; that is not frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it marginally increases her notability? Although obviously very far from sufficient for C6. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Critera 6 states it "may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of [...] director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute," so I'm not sure how it is obvious that this criteria is not met. Beccaynr (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious because the very next words in that quote disqualify it: director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university). The Stanford Center for Tubulointerstitial Kidney Disease is not independent from Stanford, and furthermore is apparently not even notable. JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is my misreading of the criteria, and I apologize. But I am glad you pointed at WP:ORG, because it is a guideline that specifically addresses systemic bias in the WP:MULTSOURCES section. Anand's work, including with the Stanford Center, has a particular focus on marginalized people and communities, so her citation metrics could be seen as more substantial considering the subject matter her research has typically focused on. Similarly, when she led research developed from her particular expertise that immediately provided a significant benefit during the pandemic when there was otherwise no reliable national data in the US, and may yet provide additional benefit due to its methods and/or the next phase of the study, this seems like the fewer number of sources that could be considered for determining notability per the reasoning of WP:MULTSOURCES. Per WP:IAR, it would seem to improve Wikipedia to include articles for scientists who focus on underserved populations and then have a notable accomplishment recognized by WP:MULTSOURCES; it would further seem to be a detriment to Wikipedia to delete this article while recognizing that additional peer review could happen, and that the next phase of the study is pending, and we don't have all of the evidence of notability available at this time, but can reasonably anticipate that it will exist soon. The general notes from WP:NPROF also states that "The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus," and WP:ORG's acknowledgement of how systemic bias can be considered seems like a reasonable precedent to rely on in this instance. Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are suggesting is we should apply the section of the guidelines for notability of organizations that reads systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world as a precedent for including Anand because some of her research, despite being conducted through, funded, and/or reported by a major elite American university, might suffer from systemic bias due to covering underserved populations? Or are you saying that the reasoning used to justify a one-source article -- that is, that we can be more flexible in assuming something in a developing country may actually be notable to people in that country without being reported on by standard RS -- can be used to argue that a person whose research topics include underserved demographics is more deserving of an article so we should relax our standards? Or maybe that because the functional outcome of having <relaxed criteria for how many sources are needed for an organization to be notable in a developing country> is an increase in Wikipedia's coverage of minority subjects, we can say any other method of arriving at that outcome (or even outcomes only indirectly related to minority representation) is also valid, regardless of whether it is backed by policy? Is there any evidence demonstrating people whose research in some way touches on or benefits underserved groups are systemically ignored by RS to a degree that we can weight what does exist more heavily? And would that even apply to Dr. Anand or biographies in general?
And regarding the CRYSTAL claims, we could assume a lot of things about a lot of academics that might make them notable in the future, but it is far from certain that her seroprevalence approach will see sufficiently widespread use, or that this possible "second phase"(where are you finding this?) of her study will even be published let alone receive the same level of attention in a much less urgent pandemic landscape. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a general matter, I recognize that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and due to the policies and guidelines, will tend to replicate systemic bias that tends to exclude topics and people from significant coverage. On the other hand, there is WP:IAR and some flexibility built into the guidelines, which allows us to discuss and form consensus about notability, including what is notable for a citation count in a given field. In Anand's field, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that her citation count could be considered notable given her particular focus. It's not simply nephrology, it's often examining people who live in polluted areas, including in India, Sri Lanka, and California. So this is not about relaxing standards, it is calibrating them to consider the given field, and how researching marginalized groups may generally be a marginalized research area, so her citation count could be considered more notable than if she was simply compared to nephrology researchers generally. I mention WP:ORG because it is an example of a guideline that suggests it is possible to make this calibration when assessing sources, and I use the term 'precedent' because that is the language of NPROF, and it is a 'precedent', at least in the persuasive sense of the term, for calibrating a guideline according to the subject - in this instance, researching marginalized communities experiencing specific health impacts seems to be something that could be considered when determining notability in an academic field.
With regard to CRYSTAL, we've been talking about how recent the first phase of the study is and how additional peer review could occur, and I cited Newsweek and Bloomberg above as reports about the next phase of the study, which will apparently be monitoring participants for "months." One of the reasons Anand's September 2020 study received widespread coverage was because it helped debunk ideas about herd immunity, and in the US, if there is unjustified complacency about the pandemic, then her next study may receive widespread coverage again. Given the amount of coverage so far, and the amount that appears reasonable to expect, it at least seems premature to delete her article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis of Dr. Anand's citation metrics was already calibrated to her specific nephrology focus, as it looked at 150 of her coauthors who actually do research (as opposed to techs and students). However, NPROF requires The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, clarifying that For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. The language used shows this restriction is to exclude claims of notability based on impact in a tiny topic Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Additionally, you have not offered a compelling precedent that researchers working with marginalized groups are evaluated by a different notability standard, and there is no evidence to suggest Anand's research impact is actually affected at all by the systemic bias defined by Wikipedia. In fact, because I suspected this was a completely spurious allegation, I revisited Anand's top 50 papers and analyzed only those coauthors who worked with her on the 21 papers with terms like "poverty" or "developing country" or "low-resource", etc. This resulted in my adding 120 new coauthors (≥20 papers). Looking at just those new authors, not even including the ones who were also already in my prior analysis, these are the metrics: Total citations: avg: 13695, med: 6224, A: 1593. Total papers: avg: 200, med: 141, A: 66. h-index: avg: 41, med: 35, A: 20. Highest citation: avg: 1742, med: 709, A: 512. So, no, nephrologists studying underserved populations don't have worse citation metrics than standard nephrologists. They are in fact decidedly more published and cited. Also, the new grand total for all 270 coauthors is: TC: avg: 11224, med: 3999, A: 1593. TP: avg: 177, med: 105, A: 66. HI: avg: 36, med: 28, A: 20. HC: avg: 1431, med: 514, A: 512.
The Bloomburg and Newsweek support for "a phase 2 study" is essentially repeating the generic "current and future research" agenda every scientist mentions when discussing their results. There is no timeline for when this next study will be released or even announced, just the vague assertions researchers plan to monitor the July study's participants for months to come and data collected before and after social distancing policies, or mask mandates, are implemented can be useful to determine which approaches are working, and which are not. Those statements do not address the scope of this future study, they have not been covered significantly by independent sources (a quote from Anand about how useful the data may be is not independent), its notability is far from assured, and speculation about how notable the results may be is decidedly OR. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line here is whether Dr. Anand is exceptional among medical scientists: The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?. Of the 270 coauthors I analyzed, 176 have a higher total citation count; 172 have the same or higher h-index; 139 have a higher highest-cited paper. Of the middle ~150 coauthors, these are the averages (and median) for 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-highest-cited papers: 1776 (780), 938 (475), 709 (352), 567 (262), 470 (237). Anand: 512, 143, 75, 67, 63. Citations are extremely high in this field, and Dr. Anand is just not at a level where her notability and impact are even at the median, let alone clearly above her colleagues. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thorough response - I'm not trying to be spurious, but instead trying to communicate in a language you are fluent in, but in which I only have a basic working knowledge. My bottom line is that I have substantially revised the article and added many independent and reliable sources; I believe that WP:BASIC is met, and that this is not WP:BLP1E, because the first phase of the study was significant (based on the wide national and international coverage, the various reasons why it was reported (e.g. debunking rapid herd immunity, exposing racial and economic disparities, providing the first reliable national data on infection rates), and the response from the scientific community in the news, as well as The Lancet and Nature Reviews Nephrology), and Anand's role was substantial and well-documented in the various reports. The coverage also persisted because it was referenced in a later Brookings report with additional commentary about its significance. It also seems possible that Anand will not remain low-profile due to her additional COVID-19 research, which can be high-profile. Even without that possibility, sufficient notability appears to be established. Beccaynr (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate the effort you have put into your responses, and hope I haven't been too aggressive or dismissive in my arguments. My interpretation of BASIC is that the subject needs to be the topic of discussion -- while the study would meet the biography notability guidelines (significant in-depth coverage in 2+ independent RS), Dr. Anand herself does not, and the study itself does not meet the relevant criteria for a medical study article. That she was first author or has been quoted in relation to the study several times does not change the fact that none of the coverage is directed towards her, therefore failing BASIC. Thousands of new journal articles get equivalent attention every week; Nature has been highlighting new COVID-19 studies almost daily since March 27. Most of those articles received as much or more science and lay media attention as Anand's article, with none to my knowledge leading to a Wikipedia page on the first author. We should also be careful about conflating first authorship with senior authorship -- in Anand's paper the senior authors are Julie Parsonnet and Glenn Chertow (who are also the only authors listed as "Prof" in the article). Generally while the media and scientific press use the first author as shorthand for a particular study, the senior author is the person acknowledged as the driving force -- see, e.g., Shinya Yamanaka winning the Nobel for papers first-authored by Kazutoshi Takahashi (no wiki page), Randy Schekman winning when Peter Novick (scientist) was first author on multiple papers, James Rothman winning when Thomas Söllner (no page) was first author on 2 big papers... JoelleJay (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been one of the most interesting discussions I've participated in at AfD, and I think it helps that we are arguing with the evidence, not the person making the case. I also think WP:BLP1E anticipates that events can make the people involved notable enough for a Wikipedia article under certain conditions, and as noted above, Anand appears to meet those conditions. In addition, WP:BASIC states, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability," and CNN has a focus on Anand, both by naming her as the leader of the study, and when quoting Flower and Atchison from The Lancet ("Anand and colleagues deserve credit for pioneering..."); on Sept. 25, Bloomberg quotes Anand discussing the study, and on Sept. 28, Bloomberg refers to Anand for comment related to "novel insights" about the disparate impact on "oldest, the poor and minority populations." The Print offers a longer and more in-depth quote from Anand on this issue, while US News & World Report only has a name-check for Anand as lead author, but USAToday quotes Anand commenting on the limitations and future of the study, and Newsweek offers a more in-depth report on the limitations, applicability, and future of the study based on its more extensive interview with Anand, including how it relates to "Some U.S. officials have floated the concept of herd immunity as a possible strategy to manage the national outbreak." WP:GNG also states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," so I believe that this level and depth of coverage sufficiently supports Anand's notability. I also think the work that has been done to develop the encyclopedic content of this article helps situate Anand's notable work in the context of her career, and supports keeping the article per WP:IAR because it improves Wikipedia. Beccaynr (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has definitely been a lot more respectful and academic than most AfD disagreements! I still believe the criteria for BASIC are not met in this case due partly to BLP1E, re: Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and it is all that the person is associated with in the source coverage. Here, the study itself isn't even notable. The media mentions you give above are also trivial coverage, as she is treated just like any other author of a scientific article: her quotes are exclusively for the purpose of communicating the study, and only the barest supporting biographical information is used for context. The paper made a brief splash (the 5 sentences on the results in the appendix of the Brookings article is assuredly NOT evidence of sustained media coverage, both because the mention is so minimal, and because it is just a citation in a research article, not a news piece), it might have even informed policy (unverified speculation), but a) there is a reason coauthorship on academic papers is treated differently from that of sole authorship of a creative work (NAUTHOR) -- published summaries of/commentary on the work by other researchers are not equivalent to book reviews, as the intellectual contributions cannot be attributed just to the first/senior authors (plus such summaries are much, much more routine for research articles than creative works); b) none of the news coverage is about her whatsoever: we have C7 specifically because academic experts regularly consulted on subjects in their field do not normally meet GNG since they are not being profiled themselves (Dr. Anand doesn't meet C7 as she is not frequently being sought out for her expert opinion, she's just being quoted as an author of a paper); and c) a coauthor must be separable from their work, otherwise we would have tens of thousands of articles on people who first-authored and were abundantly quoted regarding one or two popular research publications, but whose impact overall is not notable.JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 05:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully last comment. Here are some AfD precedents demonstrating a) broad coverage of someone's intellectual output does not satisfy C1 or GNG; b) being quoted extensively regarding one's own research does not suffice for C1, C7, or GNG; c) SIGCOV of the person that is related to one study or event does not meet GNG criteria (per WP:SUSTAINED); and d) even being interviewed or nontrivially profiled in articles giving in-depth coverage of one's solo-authored/founded company/research isn't enough for GNG.
  1. Christopher Kaelin: Consensus was that, despite his research being covered in RS, there was no SIGCOV of Kaelin himself -- in particular, it's noted that i) while one major science journalism piece on his results actually details his specific role in the study, it's still not evidence he personally should have an article; and ii) quotes by Kaelin about his research are NOT considered SIGCOV for his biography.
  2. Loubna Bouarfa: Extensive interviews and quotes by her in many in-depth articles profiling her AI platform -- even when those articles dedicate several paragraphs to her biographical background -- are considered NOT sufficient for GNG or C7.
  3. Laure Zanna: At the time of the AfD she was quoted in more and better RS regarding her research results than Anand.
  4. Ramesh Rao: The distinction between SIGCOV and trivial coverage is highlighted -- even a highly-reported published diatribe on him personally by a very famous academic, in addition to multiple news media discussing what he has said at various points in his career, were not enough here for GNG.
  5. Caroline Ford: Result was keep, but only after sources were found demonstrating she was profiled in detail in multiple RS for a particular award AND for one of her papers, AND her more recent research had also been covered.
  6. Mandana Seyfeddinipur: An example of someone who just barely eked out C7 notability; the coverage used for this claim spanned many years and included an article on her research as a whole as well as her expert opinion on a topic, several interviews, and multiple articles extensively quoting her as an expert.
  7. Tameka Hobbs: She had a notable academic book with multiple reviews, and has been consulted as an expert in multiple RS, but still didn't meet C7, NAUTHOR, or GNG and is now a redirect to her book. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:OUTCOMES, "previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change," and the above-cited discussions seem to contain various supports for keeping this article, (e.g. there is robust biographical content, Anand is a first author in a variety of studies) and seem distinguishable from this one, because none appear to have had a notable impact on the political and public health crisis (CDC/IDSA, October 17, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic similar to Anand after developing a career that prepared them for such an accomplishment and notable ongoing work. Beccaynr (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no biographical content from sources that can contribute to notability. None of the independent sources provide more than trivial coverage of Anand, much less the extended coverage required by BLP1E. Of the 23 references in the article, 11 are from Stanford (not independent), 2 are from the Fogarty award (biographical info not independent), 1 is from a research article (where the study is mentioned in the appendix), and 9 are news reports (spanning all of 5 days) on the study she coauthored.
Analysis of news sources

Of those 9, the 2 from Bloomberg (authored by the same person, 3 days apart) mention Anand once each, with the first containing a single direct quote from her as well as a direct quote from senior author Julie Parsonnet; the other statements attributed to her come from the paper's press release (not independent). CNN mentions Anand only as lead author (and quotes Professor Parsonnet's statement from The Lancet's news release on the study). US News mentions Anand as lead author (and quotes the same statement from Professor Parsonnet) as part of a larger article discussing the global death toll. The Print quotes a statement from Anand from the paper's press release. UMN/CIDRAP uses the same press release quotes from Anand and Parsonnet. USA Today mentions Anand, senior author Glenn Chertow, and Maria Montez-Rath, with brief quotes from the first two. Newsweek directly quotes Anand's description of the study's impact and repeats Parsonnet's quote from the release. CNBC uses a mix of brief direct and press release quotes from both Anand and Montez-Rath, and has more extensive (and rather critical) commentary on the study by Eli Rosenberg, who remarks it's at least consistent with all the other studies that have shown the US isn't close to herd immunity.

Being first author on biomed studies in general is way, way less important than senior authorship. Anyway, her highest first-author paper is cited 78 times, which is decent but nowhere near indicative of significant impact in this extremely high-citation field. Taking 50 people from the bottom quarter and 20 from the top quarter of her coauthors (as ordered by highest-cited paper overall), the average best FA citation is 477, median is 137, Anand is 78. And this is with heavy weighting for the median towards her least-cited coauthors. It's true that none of the other AfD examples are literally exactly comparable to Anand, but surely a senior author being quoted by major newspapers/magazines (e.g. NYT, The Guardian, Popular Mechanics, Nat Geo etc.) regarding three separate papers on climate change is having a bigger impact on policy and scientific discourse than a first author quoted in a few newspapers for one study? JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (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. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Murgado

[edit]
Mario Murgado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a non-notable auto-dealer. Fails WP:GNG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:20, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perci Piétro

[edit]
Perci Piétro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One interview? That's the only reference focused on him in the current article, and I can't find anything better, so WP:GNG fail. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11 (promotional) and G12 (large parts of the article were copied directly from various copyrighted sources). Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Muoto

[edit]
Martin Muoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It’s a noble work they have done but unfortunately I think the imperative thing here is half of the sources aren’t independent of him & the other half are press releases and mere mentions. In all I do not see the entrepreneur possessing in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to user generated sources and self published sources. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia fellows and Celestina 007, please note that the page has no representation as a "page about an entrepreneur", the page is about an activist from Los Angeles and is categorized as Categories: Activists for African-American civil rights, Civil disobedience, Living people, 21st-century African-American activists, Activists from Los Angeles, Charity in North America, Nigerian American. Please note, and consider it Notability correct in relation to the category. In infobox - Occupation Activism, not business. About link quality - the page links to regional news and central news (WSJ). Thanks. --Justmanfrom (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts Corner, Virginia

[edit]
Scotts Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD ineligible, as this article was part of the procedurally-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Shop Corner, Virginia, no individual discussion of this article occurred there. This appears to be a named road junction; topos show minimal development here. WP:BEFORE brings up boxing references, city street corners elsewhere in the state, an antiques store, bare mentions in lists of place names; etc. The Civil War skirmish at Scotts Corner in 1865 is unrelated to this place; it took place in the Amelia Court House vicinity, which is nowhere near this site. No evidence that a community was here to find; seems to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG; I don't think a redirect would be useful for what is really just a named road junction. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Mata

[edit]
J.D. Mata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician / actor. Could not find any reliable sources about him. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. The IMDb page on him listing works in almost every entertainment category, i.e., acting, directing, cinematography, writing, composing and producing from 2004 through 2017 show his work to be prolific in the 2000s and 2010s, and the listed works are independently verifiable, see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1907292/ 2. His appearance in a nationally televised UPS Store commercial means he has been seen by millions of people on TV - that in and of itself makes him notable. See: https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/kVO/jd-mata. Note: The foregoing link is independent of the subject matter of the article. 3. If you think that being nominated for an Indie Soap Award does not make the nominee notable the article on Indie Soap Awards for deletion! If you do not think the Indie Soap Awards article should be nominated for deletion, I cannot see how you could believe that individual nominees are not made notable by their nomination, since it is a national award with only six nominees in each category yearly. Yet, his notability does not rest merely on that one award nomination by any means. Larry Grossman (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough - however, that taken along with 1. his appearance in a nationally televised commercial, as referenced and linked in the article; 2. appearance in a well-known Lil Wayne video "How to Love," that is referenced and linked in the article, 3. appearance in the repeating role Luca in True Blood as referenced in the article, and 4. all of his other artistic works over the 14-year period referenced in the article firmly establish his notability. How many times does someone have to appear in artistic works viewed by millions of people before they are considered notable? The nomination for a notable award is just an indicator of his notabilty. When all of his artistic works - many viewed by millions - plus his nomination for a notable award are taken together, there can be only one conclusion, he is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. Larry Grossman (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case the applicable criteria for notability that Mata must pass is either WP:NACTOR as an actor, or WP:NMUSICBIO as a musician. 1., 2. & 4. - If any of the works that he appears in were notable they would have their own articles, and if he had a significant role in those works he would be notable 3. - I can't see any reference to Mata or his character in the main cast of Tru Blood, or anywhere in the article. As it stands, I can't see how he meets the notability requirements. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SailingInABathTub on these points. Additionally, simply appearing in videos or artistic works does not make someone notable. I would consider him notable if he had starring roles in these notable works, but WP:NOTINHERITED. As for his "artistic works over 14 years", I looked at his IMDB page, and I see a total of 6 acting credits. He additionally has 5 director credits, some of which overlap with his acting credits, which leads me to believe that he produced/directed/acted in some independent films. Nothing on his IMDB page leads me to believe that he is a notable or prolific actor. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you SailingInABathTub for pointing out that the True Blood article needs to be edited to include J.D. Mata's TWELVE appearances! I intend to edit it this weekend to include him. In the meantime, here is a link to the True Blood Fandom page dedicated to his role and listing his 12 appearances. [1]. Also, here is a link to another subject-independent website showing him love and celebrating him as a Texas actor from McAllen. [2]. Twelve appearances in a notable series with independent coverage by his fans makes him notable under WP:NACTOR. Larry Grossman (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I just found in reviewing Wikipedia'a article on Season 4 of True Blood TWO references to "Tio Luca," which is the character J.D. Mata plays. Please see True Blood (season 4) and read the descriptions of both Episode 42 and Episode 43. To nail this in terms of WP:NACTOR, 1. True Blood is a notable series, 2. J.D. Mata has had multiple notable appearances, notable enough that the True Blood Season 4 article mentions his character twice [and I have not edited that article - those references were put in by someone else who finds those appearances so notable that they added it to the Wikipedia article on that season]. 3. Each episode is a separate work, therefore based JUST on his notable appearances in this notable show, he qualifies under WP:NACTOR as notable for having a notable role in multiple notable works. (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree with you, Natg 19. He appeared 12 times in the same role as Tio Luca. A character appearing in TWELVE separate episodes is a notable character that most fans of True Blood, a notable series, would recognize. Larry Grossman (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and the article has almost no content except for a list of credits with no other information about this individual, his education or professional background. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I disagree with Liz's immediately above assertion made with no support that the subject is not notable despite all the points of notability I mentioned in the prior discussion; for example, his being nominated for best director for a notable award, the Indie Soap Awards; however, I would like to raise a new argument supporting his notability which is his triumph over institutionalized racism as a Chicano artist in reaching the level of notability that he has and ask you to re-consider your support of deletion by asking yourself if you might unwittingly be supporting institutionalized racism by applying standards of notability that if applied across the board might cause Wikipedia to be even less diverse and less representative. Give this guy a break! By deleting lesser known, though notable, artists from Wikipedia you are holding them down and making it harder for them to become even more notable, and if they are non-white and/or Hispanic artists you are causing Wikipedia to become an instrument of institutional racism! I invite you to view the works I have referenced and see his charm and artistic magic - maybe not for you, but are you sure that there aren't tens of thousands of viewers in, say, East L.A. or South Texas who are underrepresented in Wikipedia that might really love and remember his works? ...and as to the article itself, yes, the article can be much improved, but I can't do it by myself and if you delete it the Wikipedia community cannot improve it! Please reconsider. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Grossman: please don't add another keep to every comment if you wish to comment on another editors vote just use a : to indent your message. I have struck your second keep vote. 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmatter (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - I had thought that the relisting meant it was a new discussion and I could vote again but it sounds like it is just a continuation of the previous discussion. I would thank you but do not know who to thank since you did not sign your post.Larry Grossman (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing to put them over WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSIC or even WP:ANYBIO. The only keep argument hasn't offered any solid evidence that any of the criteria have been met. Being nominated for an award is not a criteria for inclusion. Race bias in coverage is not an argument for inclusion, even if it is proven that it is happening for this subject, Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox this. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://trueblood.fandom.com/wiki/Luca
  2. ^ http://lovingtruebloodindallas.blogspot.com/2011/07/watch-mcallen-actor-jd-mata-on-hbos.html
  3. ^ https://www.vulture.com/2012/06/lafayette-theory-of-true-blood.html
  • Weak delete. I did find one newspaper article where he was the main subject through my university library: Crystal Olvera (July 29, 2011). "Watch McAllen actor J.d. Mata on HBO's 'True Blood' [8 p.m. Sunday, July 31]". The Monitor. The article is a substantial interview of the actor's role as the Medicine Man on 'True Blood' and his experience on set, as well as covering details of other work he has done in film, music videos, television, etc. However, this is the only substantial source I could find, therefore the actor fails WP:SIGCOV. A hometown boy makes it in Hollywood story isn't notable enough on its own.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 I did find a second secondary source reviewing his work on True Blood in glowing terms and note that both of these secondary sources are Texas-focused. It seems to me that he is certainly notable in Texas. If this article is deleted then you are taking away the ability of an reader of Wikipedia to look him up and get some more information about him. In fact that is why I started this article, because I looked him up and could not believe there was not a Wikipedia page about him. Here is the second secondary source focusing on him: http://lovingtruebloodindallas.blogspot.com/2011/07/watch-mcallen-actor-jd-mata-on-hbos.html. Larry Grossman (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you had hesitatingly recommended delete, does this new secondary source focusing on him give you further hesitancy or even convert your recommendation into a keep? Larry Grossman (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added FOUR secondary sources covering Mata's role as Tio Luca, a recurring character in the notable series True Blood. This has to be sufficient to prove notability. Please re-evaluate delete recommendations in view of this. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't before, the article now meets WP:SIGCOV.Larry Grossman (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kemalcan, does not fail WP:GNG which links to Wikipedia:Multiple sources which contains a banner at the top saying "This page in a nutshell: It would be hard to challenge a subject's notability when the subject is covered by THREE [emphasis mine] references in reliable sources that are independent of each other." THE ARTICLE NOW REFERENCES FIVE RELIABLE SOURCES COVERING HIM AND THAT ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. In the foregoing statement I have only counted secondary sources. Larry Grossman (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Larry you may need to review what makes a good reliable source here on Wikipedia, we do not accept user generated content as reliable sources this includes such things as blogs, wikis (including Wikipedia and fandom) and IMDB. We also don't accept self published sources like vimeo, youtube and press releases. This means the only source adding any value to the notability threshold or considered reliable is The Monitor reference, everything else is either passing mentions of the character, not the actor, user generated content or self published. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance, McMatter. I will re-evaluate the sources I've included. I just need some time to digest this and find sources meeting the established criteria. Hopefully this discussion can remain open for at least a week from the time of relisting to give me time to do so. Larry Grossman (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now edited the article to contain a link to a 2005 KABC-TV profile covering him and his directing and acting work in "Pan Dulce." This is a valid subject independent secondary source establishing notability; however, I do not presently have direct access to KABC-TV's archives, so I have for now linked to the clip via YouTube and yes, it was posted by the subject. Nonetheless the clip itself is a valid subject-independent secondary source.
Correction, ScottishFinnishRaddish, the trueblood.fandom.com and blogspot.com references are user generated but importantly they are not self-published. Larry Grossman (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Self-published sources: That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs... are largely not acceptable as sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I completely understand and generally agree with your point about self-published sources; however, a distinction needs to be drawn between SELF-published and merely user-published, and in fact, there is only ONE SELF-published reference I am seeing referenced in the article and even that is merely a republication of an independent and reliable secondary source - and almost 3-minute 2005 KABC-TV spot focused on the subject of the article and here is link to it for ease of reference [1]. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now referenced a direct citation to the 2005 KABC-TV 3 minute segment featuring the subject and his movie Pan Dulce, so now you have TWO subject-independent, non-self or other user-published SECONDARY sources focused on him namely: 1. George Pennachio of KABC-TV news's 2005 3-minute feature of him and his first feature-length film "Pan Dulce," and 2. Crystal Olvera's 2011 article published in the The Monitor (Texas) featuring him and his acting work in HBO's True Blood. Note that the these two sources are separated by six years in time, demonstrating endurance of notability of the subject, focus on completely different artistic works, and were published in different states (California and Texas). Finally, his 2012 nomination for an Indie Soap Award for Directing (Comedy) further supports notability. While being nominated for a notable award in and of itself may not ESTABLISH notability, it certainly SUPPORTS it and when taken along with other completely subject independent reliable secondary sources separated by years of time and by place and completely focused on the subject, does establish notability. A fourth point for those on the fence is the 2012 New York Vulture article (another reliable subject independent secondary source) mentioning his recurring True Blood character Tio Luca. Even though it only mentions him by the name of his character, he is the only one who has ever played that character in True Blood, so it must be about him! Larry Grossman (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. As per their comment below, the nominator has withdrawn and there are no outstanding votes for any other outcome. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo (footballer, born 1986)

[edit]
Danilo (footballer, born 1986) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article scrapes by WP:NFOOTY with two little appearances in the second division of Japan. Player fails WP:GNG in my opinion, therefore this overrides NFOOTY and we delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:02, 15 March 2021 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manon (artist)

[edit]
Manon (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any indication that this artist has made a notable impact on the art world, and there seems to be very few quality sources. An old talk page post also suggests the possibility of a copyright violation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. There's tons of press on her in reliable sources (even tho these are not in the WP article, but AfD is not clean up). Also has work in numerous collections, awards, decades of exhibitions. Searching in German instead of English helps to find these. Not sure why this was nominated, other than the fact that the article needs clean up and the addition of citations. Netherzone (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: When I looked at that link, there are something like four or five hundred sources on that page; I stopped counting at 132 articles. Saying that it's routine coverage is ridiculous. There are literally too many instances of in-depth coverage to mention or count. There is a gigantic, tsunami-size preponderance of in-depth coverage. The artist is not engaging in any self-promotion, they are just listing all the people who have written about them. You would be best to withdraw this nomination, as her notability is not in question in the least. Take chances of this being deleted are so low that they are probably not measurable using modern technologies. --- Possibly (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Possibly:I wasn't saying that good in-depth sources don't exist, just that a lot of the ones listed are routine, and it will be a whole lot of work to sort thru what is and isn't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources are not easy to find in a Google search, given the one-word name, but I have added four high-quality sources. It is pretty obvious from this and the above discussion that she is notable. The article was in atrocious condition. I trimmed it and formatted it a bit, but it still needs a lot of work. --- Possibly (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2021 (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.
  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwuUsbii1Us
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_March_15&oldid=1019683697"