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 until navigation issues can be resolved. The general consensus seems to be that the page should not exist, but also that deleting it without resolving the discussed navigation issues would be a negative to the project. Would suggest relisting this once those navigation issues are properly addressed. TigerShark (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not seem to serve much purpose, consisting only of two wikilinks to the events mentioned in the title of the article. Perhaps the article was more useful before the two massacres were split into two different articles, but I think it should be deleted now. Medarduss (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— I'm neutral on deletion of this page, but urge editors to think carefully about how to handle inter-wiki links since there are five Senkata and Sacaba massacre pages on other language Wikipedias.--Carwil (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Perhaps this could be reformatted to be more inline with a regular disambiguation page. If not, I'm not opposed to its deletion, though someone will need to replace all links to "Senkata and Sacaba massacres" with "Senkata and Sacaba massacres" whenever it's mentioned in other articles. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I already did that in November 2021, though the disambiguation template was removed by another editor in December 2021.-Carwil (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a navigational page. With multiple foreign language wiki articles being inter-wiki linked it does serve a navigational purpose within the wider project.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's tons of sources on him, including well after he left the show. The majority of winners have gone on to significant public careers, while a minority have not and are not notable; Narayan seems to fall in the former category. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED. The independent sources in the article with significant coverage are all from the time of the completion he won in 2020 (none from 2014 as claimed above). There are also several unreliable sources used such as wikipedia itself and instagram. The other sources (such as those provided above by Akevsharma) are all interviews and therefore lack independence from the subject and can not be used as RS towards notability per WP:SIGCOV. In short we have no SIGCOV outside of the one competition, snd therefore fails BLP!E. 4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage coming from his masterchef win, even coming from international sources. It's too soon to say it is not sustained. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. All of the independent significant coverage is from the time of the competition win and therefore fails BLP1E due to WP:SUSTAINED. All of the other sources are either trivial, unreliable, or lack independence because they are interviews. On a side note, it was better to list these individually rather than in a multi-AFD so I support the nominators decision to nominate them this way.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 4meter4 seems to be judging the subject based on the current state of the page. I've updated it with a news item from 2014 to directly address their concern. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Keep. One a group of Mass nominations largly based on a false premise, the claim of one event. egs Jackson was known for two series, 2014 and 2020. McKay is curently getting attention for the current season as well as the one she won. Cheliah also was in the current season. Chan is also a TV host with two seasons of a show titled with her name. Lazy nominations lacking any real before. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had her own completely separate TV series. This is part of a batch-nomination without any individual assessment and I've actually checked each one and !voted accordingly; this was a particularly silly nomination. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED. All of the independent significant coverage is from the time of the competition win and therefore fails BLP1E due to WP:SUSTAINED. All of the other sources are either trivial, unreliable, or lack independence because they are interviews.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one definitely was a particularly silly nomination. As is the ignorant claims of BLP1E. What one event? Was that hosting her of show over two seasons [1][2][3][4] or was that the winning of Masterchef. Did she keep a low profile or was she the face of a national advertising campaign. We can still see her name and face on products in the average supermarket [5][6]. That's not low profile. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Search finds only trivial coverage. See Examples of trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH for details. Reference 4, which has some information about the test, is an interview and thus fails the "independence" test for notability. — rsjaffe🗣️19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publishing of books does not inherently confer notability - especially as the publisher, and not the author! The Aftenposten article is about Aftenposten using the company's psychometric tests on job candidates and invites people to apply for a job; not really in-depth independent coverage. The Swedish article would not pass WP:ORGCRIT either, indicating that this isn't just a case of all the sources being hard to find because in a foreign language. FalconK (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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 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 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 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. Why no-consensus rather than keep? Because there is no doubt that current events are feeding the news cycle. And there isn't a clear consensus between keeping it as a standalone or covering it within one of the Roe articles or that of her birth mother. That said, there's absolutely no argument put forward for deletion. If this cannot be resolved editorially, suggest a discussion when it's not a heated news topic. StarMississippi15:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A textbook example of inherited notability from someone she's never even met. Outside of sharing DNA with a lawsuit plaintiff, the subject has never done anything of note GNG-wise. If anything, this should simply be a redirect to her birth mother Norma McCorvey's page with the info included there. Kbabej (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirectto Roe_v._Wade. I think she is notable. Notable for one event. That event being the subject of a court case. She was born before the case was argued, so this isn't about inheriting things, the event happened in her life time. So we should merge into the event article. I'm open to being persuaded if there is some privacy concern or if I've missed something, but the way it's been presented above is as if she was born after the course case. CT55555 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable for one event, but now that others have shown she is a high profile individual, going on media about her experiences, then I change my vote to keep. CT55555 (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E includes, 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In the linked explanatory essay, characteristics of high- versus low-profile figures are described, and includes, Typically notable or would-be notable for roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event. Thornton is quoted as stating, "My association with Roe started and ended because I was conceived" (NBC, 2021, churnalism of the book about her family that was excerpted in The Atlantic), so it does not appear she is promoting herself as having a major role in one major event, and there also does not appear to be coverage of her outside of the single event to which she eventually learned she is connected. She therefore appears to otherwise remain low-profile and likely to remain low-profile.
I am also concerned about the use of non-independent interviews to generate content for this article, including because while I edited the three articles where this content appears per the sources to clarify her allegations are "according to Thornton", her apparent allegations are still presented as fact in this discussion and may create an appearance of encyclopedic content contrary to our policies and guidelines. The application of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP may also help trim content, and WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship to WP:BLP1E appears to be a key consideration for determining what to do with this article. Beccaynr (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not had time to go through the sources. As I see it, she was notable for being the subject of the court case and notable if decades later she did interviews about it. Are you saying she did do interviews (i.e. therefore not being low profile) or just a brief one (therefore maybe borderline low profile)? CT55555 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the explanatory essay, it does not appear she has roles of various levels of importance in more than a single major event, or for a major role in one major event.Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination seems to read like it says the subject of the article has never met her own biological mother, which is confusing me. CT55555 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses that terminology and I incorporated it. They’ve never met as adults; her mother gave her away at birth. Not sure being born is counted as “meeting”, but at least Norma didn’t consider it that way (at least how the article is currently written). —Kbabej (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They never met in person (other than at birth). They spoke on the telephone several times. They were planning to meet. Two things happened that "thwarted" the (proposed) in-person meeting. One: the daughter got a "weird feeling" that the mother was just using her to make money and/or to exploit / profit from the situation (the "fame" from Roe). She asked: McCorvey wants to meet me ... and make a big public spectacle about it. How come she is not interested in meeting her other two adopted children? She's just interested in meeting her "Roe baby". So, it didn't sit well with her. Then, their phone calls became contentious. Two: During one of these contentious phone calls, the mother said "you should thank me for not aborting you" ... when, ironically, that is exactly what she was attempting to do (i.e., abort her). This comment incensed the daughter who, at that point, decided she had no interest in meeting the mother. Later on, the daughter was notified that the mother was on her death-bed. The daughter (mentally) went back-and-forth, debating whether or not she wanted to meet the mother (before she died). She ultimately decided not to meet her ... and, later, said that she had no regrets with that decision. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - She's clearly notable. (Now more than ever.) She (inadvertently or not) was the "cause" / "reason" / "impetus" for one of the most -- if not, the most -- controversial and divisive Supreme Court cases in history. There are plenty of RS's. (I will list those later.) She "put herself" out in the public. She gave interviews, TV appearances, etc., on the very issue of "being the Roe baby". She stated that she felt "she was used as a political pawn" by both sides in the abortion debate. A book about her was a Pulitzer Prize finalist. We could cut-and-paste this info into the Norma McCorvey article or into the Roe v. Wade article ... but I fear the "section" would be "too long". Hence, the need for a dedicated article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro, I think you used the phrase I was looking for: "being the Roe baby". That simply isn't enough to establish notability. Is she somehow known outside of this? The article is only in relation to her connection to her bio mother, which could not be a more quintessential example of notability not being inherited. --Kbabej (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree. I think she's notable ... yes, for being the "Roe baby". Apparently, dozens of other RS's also think she's notable. (See below.) Local, national, and international coverage. For a non-notable person? Now, that seems quite odd. Why are Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, etc., reporting on non-notable people? Hmmmmmmm ... seems odd. Yeah, she's related to Norma McCorvey / Jane Roe. But, in and of itself, that's not why she's notable. She was thrust into a unique/odd situation ... and her conception (essentially) catapulted the abortion debate and led to the most controversial / divisive US Supreme Court decision, ever. More so, now, with the Dobbs reversal of Roe. Yes, actually being Baby Roe is notable. If not, why are news outlets broadcasting her views, feelings, reactions to Roe and Dobbs? They're not covering my reactions. Of course, she's related to McCorvey ... but she's not "inheriting" notability from her. But, rather, from her fortunate/unfortunate thrust into this national/international conundrum. Sort of like when a baby is born to Prince William and Kate. They basically are notable just for being born. (And, of course, the ancillary distinctions of being in the line of succession, etc.) Same basic idea. It was her conception/circumstances that make her notable. In my opinion. And dozens of RS's. Why would someone write a book about her, interview her, do an expose on her? Because of the notable circumstances of her conception/birth/pregnancy/intended abortion. If we don't want a bio of her, let's name the article "Conception of Shelley Thornton". Is that notable? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro, yes, we disagree. All the sources you've listed below (three of which I've struck, btw, per WP:RSP) are covering Shelley only in relation to the bio relationship to her mother, a woman she has never known or met as an adult. There's simply nothing beyond that one connection. She hasn't even done any advocacy surrounding Roe, even according to the WP article on her. The article goes so far as to state "Thornton stated that she was neither pro-life nor pro-choice." I don't see how it can get more milquetoast than that. --Kbabej (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norma McCorvey#McCorvey's_third_child, per WP:BLP1E, where there already is a sourced section about her. I disagree with a redirect to Roe v. Wade, where there does not appear to be a logical place to add the content about her. Even though content is currently included in the Roe v. Wade article, in the Later responses by those involved section, I do not think content that is not about the court decision should be included in that section. The content in the Roe v. Wade article focuses on her reaction to her birth mother, her political feelings generally, and biographical information, and appears to be the same or similar content in the Norma McCorvey article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLAR – While WP:NOTEWORTHY for mom's article, there isn't enough their there to make her WP:NOTABLE on her own. If or when a secondary source writes about her as a person, and perhaps how the discovery of her mother has impacted the world she can get her own article. (Indeed, perhaps there is info about her father that can go in McCorvey's article.) But not now. – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You state: If or when a secondary source writes about her as a person, and perhaps how the discovery of her mother has impacted the world she can get her own article. Already done. Plenty of RS's. She did book / TV interviews about this. A Pulitzer Prize book (finalist) was written about "her" and "this". So, as I stated, ... what you requested has already been done. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The author spent 10-11 years on this book. He knew that "abortion" (as a general topic) was very divisive. He wanted to get "below the surface" of the issue. He wanted all of us (the general public) to see and to meet the "real-life" effects of this phenomenon. He wanted to "delve into" who these people really were, as people. Not just as a plaintiff, defendant, etc, ... in cold and clinical legal terms. He studied in-depth all of the "people" ... Norma, her family, her kids, her lovers, the lawyers, the adoptive parents, etc., etc., etc. I have not yet read the book. So I did not add a lot of details into the book's article. I read many, many reviews about the book. And they all basically say what I just stated above. And call the book a "masterpiece". So, I disagree with your assessment. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro, I stand corrected. Yes, the book covers Shelley. I did not initially think so because of the book's WP page. It's behind a paywall (it was only published last year, so no suprise there), but in Google books it'll give a three-line preview of each mention within the book (seen here). I thought perhaps I had misunderstood her involvement. Having reviewed all 67 mentions in the book (it only takes a bit because, again, it's only three lines apiece), I can confidently say I haven't missed the mark in my overall assessment that there is no notability here outside of her birth mother/being born. There's no coverage of contributions, activism, a career - it doesn't even mention if she works. It's simply only in relation to Norma.
This may be getting into the weeds, but out of Shelly's 67 mentions, ~39 (so ~58%) are actually index mentions, and some of those aren't even about her ("Shelly's conception", "Shelly's bio father") and the others are simply a reference for what is already included in the book ("Shelly's interview with author, X date"). So out of the ~28 mentions left of content, it gets even smaller when Prager you break it down by paragraph. In one three-line snippet, Prager uses the name four times (!). I don't think I need to go into the math on that. To summarize, it's a lot of name mentions without any real content. I agree with @Beccaynr's assessment of the sources, in that this is basically WP:BLP1 with a lot of churnalism. --Kbabej (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about uploading photo's, copyrights, etc. But here is a photo of the Index of the book ... under the relevant section of "Shelley Lynn Thornton": . Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Even better than my snippets. That is exactly what I meant. There's nothing there regarding any activism, contributions, work, awards, etc. Nothing that would satisfy WP:NBIO. She fails 1-3 of the "Any bio" section, and none of the others really apply since she hasn't actually done anything. --Kbabej (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking out loud, but yeah, I doubt we can have that considering it'd be under copyright. Striking part of my comment about it being "perfect" above. --Kbabej (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage to meet GNG and stand alone from the article regarding her biological mother. And the fact that she is continuing to speak on relevant issues seems to only further this conclusion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro, it's sad, right? Alas, they used to be reliable and respected pre-2013, but after their ownership changed, apparently their editorial standards tanked. It's too bad! --Kbabej (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad. I never knew that until now. Way back in the 1980's ... my (private) high school "forced" all of the students to buy a subscription to Newsweek. Back then, it was a respected and esteemed news magazine, on par with Time. Indeed, very sad ... for what became of it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should reply to people's comments, if you think the sources are not reliable, you should not strike other people's comments. CT55555 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the good intention. It's just very unusual to edit each others good-faith comments with a strike out. Strike outs usually indicate someone withdrew a comment, or they were banned. Anyway, it's not a big deal, so best wishes to everyone, peace etc. CT55555 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 'The Family Roe:' the human side of the landmark abortion case 'Roe v. Wade' (NPR, May 9, 2022, interview with Prager, intro states, "The baby, often referred to as Baby Roe, is Shelly Lynn Thornton, now a grown woman whose story is at the center of Joshua Prager's book The Family Roe."). Previous interview with Prager: Author Tells The Story Of The Family At The Center Of Landmark Case 'Roe V. Wade' (NPR, Sept. 18, 2021, "PRAGER: Well, the family really refers here to two different families. There's the family that Norma had - Norma - a broken family, Norma and the three children she relinquished to adoption. But then there's also the much larger family, as I see it - the tens of millions of people who are on either side of this issue." [...] "And it's not only that Shelley does believe that abortion ought to be legal. She also wants people to know, as she puts it, that she is not a symbol for one side of this issue.")
Comment Per WP:SIGCOV fn 4 It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Based on my research and the review of sources in this discussion, the most significant coverage is the one book based on interviews with Thornton. In the Atlantic article summary, there is a vague reference to legal issue of mootness in Roe v. Wade before the author of the book notes, "The pro-life community saw the unknown child as the living incarnation of its argument against abortion. It came to refer to the child as “the Roe baby.”" The author describes the broad scope of their book in the Atlantic article, and a close review of the Wikipedia article raises WP:NPOV questions about how certain quotes are added to this and other articles, which can be further discussed on relevant Talk pages.
For this discussion, there does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, because in addition to the book and the summary article, there is one interview with ABC News, tabloid reporting in the National Enquirer ("considered generally unreliable" per WP:RSP), and a recent press release. Everything else appears to be a form of churnalism that does not count as multiple works, either following one of these sources, combining sources, or are the book author continuing to promote their work in nonindependent NPR interviews.
Per WP:BLP1E, it also appears that Thornton became involuntarily promoted by the anti-abortion movement, as detailed in the Atlantic article, and per the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory essay, she appears to have initially been subject to "ambush journalism", and she is Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, both of which are characteristics of a low-profile individual. The Prager book tells her story in the context of her birth mother's story, and without additional significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, a redirect to her birth mother's article seems best supported by the sources, policy, and guidelines at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times published Seeing Norma: The Conflicted Life of the Woman at the Center of Roe v. Wade by Joshua Prager on July 2, 2022, and this article does not mention Thornton at all - it does state, "(During my decade of research for “The Family Roe,” a book on Roe and its plaintiff, I spent hundreds of hours interviewing McCorvey.)" and at the end of the article, the book is described as "a dual biography of Roe v. Wade and its plaintiff." There does not appear to be any reason to consider the Prager book, Prager articles, and Prager interviews as more than one source when assessing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability for Thornton, and it may be helpful for !voters asserting GNG notability to further explain how the available sources support a standalone article according to our policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A record label with little evidence of notability. Appears to be defunct. Sources in article do not support notability: Discogs WP:RSDISCOGS , force9.net (a blog), OfficialCharts.com (mentions Rham! is a record's label), Guardian mentions Lord Rockingham's XI; neither of which does mentions Rham!. Google search produces little except for existing citations. Adakiko (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. What does "No sources" mean? Sources do not need to be listed in the current article; they need only to exist, though of course listing them in the article is preferable (see WP:CONRED). Was a BEFORE done on this, Just Another Cringy Username? There are reviews in Varietyhere (a green-level source at WP:RSP; see WP:VARIETY); Fangoriahere; DVD Talkhere (as listed by Donaldd23 above); Flick Feasthere; and then some other lower-level horror review sites (Grave Reviewshere; Horror Newshere; Love Horrorhere, etc). Easy pass for a film for me. --Kbabej (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They might be, which is why I called them “lower level”. Even without those, and just the Variety, Fangoria, and DVD Talk sources, it passes nfilm. —Kbabej (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to note that the IFTA Awards aren't obscure. They're actually pretty major. They may not be as well known in the States, but think of them of the Irish equivalent of an Oscar or Emmy. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)14:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) for Wikipedia, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed on Wikipedia.
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
This doesn’t conform to any of the above, and the article lacks any notable references hence justifies my decision.
Keep - I found other German sources for him online as well (like 2). Also, he made 38 appearances in a fully pro league (German 3. Liga). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How many times do we have to repeat football clubs are not independent of their players before people stop citing them as evidence of GNG? A press release from VFR Aalen fails GNG. A word-for-word reprint of a press release (even including the PR contact -- see here in the section translated as "Enema Children") put up on a fan site by an anonymous user fails GNG. Govvy and Das osmnezz, this is seriously getting disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay:, Sorry, I did not know that the source I put was an fan website. As a result, will do more research on the source websites for players from now on and will withdraw my keep vote. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A primary source would be the player writing about himself, you could consider a football club writing about one of their players both primary and secondary. @JoelleJay: And speaking ones mind is not disruptive, the guy was a football league player in German, lets say there are local papers for each region of Germany, and that those local papers run articles on the football clubs for those areas on the back pages and mention these players on them. Maybe you can figure it out and do the correct research instead of having a whine at me. VfR Aalen is a league club, and generally speaking league clubs have good coverage in the media from my experience. I just saw an Italian professional league player who played for three top flight clubs in Italy got deleted. Are we going to do the same here because everyone is too afraid to do the actual work. Govvy (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy, you know full well that clubs are not independent sources and cannot ever be used to contribute to GNG. So why did you suggest it in your !vote, instead of one of the "other sources" you allude to? If you're so intent on keeping this article, why don't you do the work of finding sources? I have looked in regional German media (e.g. Schwabische), everything I've seen is transactional or quote-heavy press releases.
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.
Non notable businessman who is a future candidate for political office. Potentially notable in future but currently does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep As the editor who moved it from Draft to article space: I did so after the Tribeca premiere because it met NFILM, if barely, and once a draft qualifies to be an article it isn't really advised to keep it in draftspace. Needs work, but not even the worst just-passes-notability film stub coming out of Tribeca. Kingsif (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Donaldd23. While it only could (at best) be a start article, the 9 RT reviews is more than the minimum 2 required. Not all are reliable, but it definitely meets GNG IMO. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources that show notability, but a word of caution – those nine reviews ought to be individually cited and used to write an article, not merely gestured at in an AfD! jp×g21:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, except for debatably points 3, 4, and 6. Regarding point 3 (elected member of society, etc.), it's unclear whether the NIV Committee is an elected body (a description I found online was "self-perpetuating"), and he is not a fellow in re the second part of point 3. As for point 4, so far as I can research, there have been no new versions of the NIV Bible since 2016, and Shead joined the committee only in 2016 per source. In re 6, his position is not head teacher, is appears in the infobox, but Head of Old Testament. This, coupled with the faculty list, shows that there are higher appointed academic positions in the college; this fails point 6. Then sourcing: independent secondary sources with significant coverage don't seem to exist as per my WP:BEFORE checks. There are seven references given in the article. Numbers 1, 2, and 4 are not independent, being entries or profiles of organizations he is affiliated with. 3, 5, and 7 do not have significant coverage, being book reviews. 2 and 6 are not significant as they are sparse entries. Iseult Δx parlez moi06:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly academic academic, books are not notable, doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; WP:AUTHOR the fact that his wife's name is Jean and they have three children: Katie, David, and Sophie is really not something I needed to know. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR; there are six reviews already cited in the article (not checked; presumably the quotations have been hand-typed). Espresso Addict (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: author of article has since added five more sources to the article, numbered 8 through 13. 9 and 10 are not significant; they are brief bios of a group of people. The remainder, all reviews, can only be considered in the context of attempting to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR, although only point 1 can possibly be satisfied; 2 and 4 are patently not, and 3 is addressed in my nomination rationale (hasn't done visible work). Reference 8/12 (Sweeney) is a two-page review-summary; I say review-summary because most of it is summary, and only the last paragraph a review; I do not consider that significant coverage. Reference 11 is a one-pager, the last three sentences of which are a review of his work. Reference 13 is much more of a review, but is a one-pager in a 280+page journal. In any case, these are not about him but his work; also, point 1 of NAUTHOR describes wide citations; five instances is not wide. Iseult Δx parlez moi15:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep: he appears to meet WP:NACADEMIC, points 1, 4, and 7
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources: Shead has been an author of highly cited in scholary publications with his works about the book of Jeremiah, even in other languages. Google scholar show at this time 305 citations, with 79 of Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions-und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches. In theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, because the density of publication in the field is so much lower--there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable peson to be cited. Any work with as many as 79 citations in these fields is quite a bit beyond the usual, and sufficient for notability. Even the citations occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books, and Shead has made a significant research about Jeremiah, as can be seen in the article (it is not possible to place in the article all existing reviews). Shead also can be found in Scopus.
4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions & 7. the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: Shead has contributed to biblical studies in the book of Jeremiah on an ongoing basis in academia and he is is frequently quoted as an academic expert in the book of Jeremiah as can be see in the citations.
Delete – I'm not quite seeing anything here that adds up to notability.
GNG: Shead has not been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources, as appears uncontested.
NPROF crit. 1: Theology is indeed a low-citation field, but we still need to show a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline", and these numbers don't seem to be too out of the ordinary. I'd also note that the numbers of citations for the Buchgestalten article appears to be incorrect: it's counting articles that are citing Schmid's book, not Schead's review of that book. The actual number of citations is thus significantly lower than the number Google Scholar is producing.
NPROF crit. 4 & 7: Crit. 4 has to do with those who impact the field of education as such, for instance if one's work is frequently studied in university courses. There's no indication that that's the case. For crit. 7, I don't see any evidence that he's quoted at an unusual frequency; note that "[a] small number of quotations...is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark".
NAUTHOR crit. 3: My interpretation of NAUTHOR sometimes diverges from that of others, but I understand crit. 3 to require that one's work be "significant or well-known" in addition to being the subject of reviews, and I don't think that the former standard is met. Neither the reviews nor the citations indicate that his two monographs are particularly prominent or influential: they appear to be unexceptional books that, while part of the scholarly literature, don't meet the threshold set by NAUTHOR.
Keep. Clearly passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR with three independent critical reviews in evidence. This is generally the threshold used at AFD for that criteria (a minimum of 3 independent reviews). Other arguments above against NAUTHOR seem to be applying an unusually high amount of rigor that goes beyond what is typical at AFD when applying that policy.4meter4 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A product that was never finished or released, and does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. There was some brief coverage when the product was first demonstrated, such as the articles currently being used as References, but no coverage appears to have occurred since then, and the product was never finished, meaning that there has been no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that initial reveal. Rorshacma (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
WP:NFF - upcoming film, no release date set, while there's a decent number of sources, it's pre-release publicity puff pieces mostly to source cast names. There's not a lot of extra content in the article. Should be in draft but since creator moved it out, this is the only course. Ravensfire (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to the musical, redirect target can be changed to the part one article when that draft is published. I don't think we will need a "film series" article when only one film is released, so that could be split out and restored to this title after second part is closer to being upcoming. Right now article says filming planned for June 2022, but as of today the 27th, I don't see anything to confirm it has actually started, so I agree with nom that this is too soon. With the musical as a valid target for the basic background information of this series, a standalone even with sourcing isn't needed. WikiVirusC(talk)20:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, things change. It was suppose to start filming in 2021 before that even got to change to June. Delays happen all the time and even more now during COVID. It's why we have WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. At this point filming may have started and we just don't have confirmation on it, but either way article was created premature without confirmation. WikiVirusC(talk)23:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. A consensus to delete is not going to form. A discussion on whether and where to merge can continue editorially. StarMississippi14:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable third-party sources to establish notability for this topic. Almost all entries are simply a name and a profession. They have all been tagged for expansion since 2008 and safe to say that expansion isn't coming.
On the talk page they offered the following rationale, without providing explicit examples of reliable sources: multiple sources are available in the many books abot [sic] PG Wodehouse . –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the two encyclopedic sources listed at the end, there are 19 substantial biographies in English, most of which discuss at least briefly every story. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Ukridge characters which established that such characters do not warrant a stand-alone list on Wikipedia. The mentioned biographies of the author do not cover these characters with WP:SIGCOV. As stated in the WP:PROD, there are no reliable third party sources that cover this topic in direct detail, and as each entry has been tagged for almost 15 years, it's safe to say that the sources are not coming. Jontesta (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MergeRedirect, I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST. But we do have List_of_P._G._Wodehouse_characters#Mr._Mulliner. Merge all referenced parts there. Oh, well. There're no footnotes. Sigh. Low quality fancruft, just redirect there. PS. Initially I wrote "delete" due to OR - who decides who is a minor character? Would support a merge to a List of Mulliner characters but that article doesn't exist... seriously, what were some folks thinking starting a "minor" list before even trying to make a proper list for non-minor characters? In general, lists of minor Foo characters all need to go. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect. Given the comment above about coverage in biographies, I checked three: P.G. Wodehouse, a biography (Donaldson); Wodehouse : a life (McCrum); and P. G. Wodehouse : a portrait of a master (Jasen) and found very little discussion of any Mulliner stories in them, and certainly no discussion of the Mulliner characters listed in the article. DGG, could you provide an example or two? I'd love to be persuaded to change my mind as I'm a huge fan of Wodehouse. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect- There's no indication that this meets, or ever can meet, WP:LISTN. It's almost entirely unsourced, and what little referencing there is, is of very low quality. As pointed out by Jontesta, this has been tagged as unsourced for 15 years which means it's unlikely that the required sources exist. I have been unable to find anything useful except for the works of fiction themselves, and that isn't enough. ReykYO!22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the crterion is sourcable, not currently unsourced. DGG ( talk ) 05
Redirect as this is not an issue of cleanup, but numerous unsourced sections that cannot be expanded with reliable sources. Most of these have been tagged for almost 15 years and still no one has found sources that can meet the WP:GNG. Would support deletion, but other similar article ended with a redirect, to leave open the possibility of expanding the subject at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The artcle is translated from Chinese Wikipedia article zh:远东华人强制流配, but our community has found this Chinese article is a hoax, it contains many fictitious information which is not mentioned by the sources it cites. Since the English article is a translation, it also have this problem.
Comment: I haven't done a lot of looking into this, but I don't see any evidence provided that this is a hoax. I've found one source that would suggest at least parts of this article are true. ––FormalDudetalk06:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gather the claim is that parts of the article are accurate but other parts are made up. I checked several of the sources and found that one of them roughly supported the claim, but the others were dead links or paywalled so impossible for me to verify. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 08:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support to delete the full text. The article may be 80% of the content of fake history. Of course, the sources are real, the text is twisted. It's also edited sneakily while the Chinese article was translated that the translator doesn't know which part is fake.--Beta Lohman※Office box09:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the translator. I am sorry to cause the issue here and I am also deeply appalled by the complex situation caused by 折毛. Although I still think most of the article is true, considering the scope and severity of the hoax made by 折毛 and the fact I did the translation a long time ago, I think it is better to draftify it now for double-check.
Typically, when I translate an article into English, I need to find the corresponding English for each Chinese term, so I had to do some checks on basic terminologies, though I couldn't validate all sources. Especially, I need to find related English and Russian sources to get the Cyrillic and Latin spelling of the people's names used in the Chinese article. For this reason, I add some English and Russian sources. Also, the whole article was very largely based on the Chinese-langauge peer-reviewed paper by 尹广明, which was published on 近代史研究, which is a relatively good Chinese journal. I can pass this paper to you if you need it for double-check, which I will also try to do when I am free. And there are many deadlinks in the reference, but I think most of them can be repaired by checking on the official website of the Taiwanese archive of Chinese diplomatic documents at https://archives.sinica.edu.tw/project/%e5%a4%96%e5%8b%99%e9%83%a8/. Still, there are some Russian sources that I might be unable to validate, and I will consider deleting that part after re-checking the sources.
From my point of view, there is no need to delete it, since it can still be re-written and improved to an acceptable level. But I will accept any community decision on the issue and apologise for any mistake that I might have made.
On the user page you indicate that you are retired, does this mean that there is a deadline for your work? That is, once the time has passed you will leave it alone and the entries will not be further improved.
The second question is more important: Can you read Chinese and Russian materials?
Hi, I am working on the issues you've mentioned right now.
For your first question, although I decide to be much less active, there is no deadline for me and I still regularly check my talk page in case of any issue, which is why I join the discussion here.
For your second question, I can read Chinese as I am a native speaker, but I can only read Russian via machine translation. Thus, as I said, I am not able to verify Russian sources and I tend to delete the relevant parts if a good alternative source is unavailable.
I think you've mentioned a third question about how I validate the sources. I can gain access to most of the references from several universities and the Internet and compare them with the original text. I will check the references this way one by one. Whereas needed (e.g. when I think I find the exactly Russian quote that can validate the content or the original content is hard to access for other people due to subscription or whatnot), I will quote the original text. Additionally, 折毛 also confessed that there were deleted Chinese Wikipedia articles that are not fake, but we will see as I further check the sources.
It's very common to translate articles from other language Wikipedias. This is generally a good way to make use of the work that our colleagues in other languages have already done in gathering and summarizing sources. I've done the same thing in a number of articles. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, your claim that non-Taiwanese cannot gain access to this resource is untruthful. If you follow the instructions regarding the registration, and provide the required personal information, you will be granted access. I have done this successfully a few days ago. Second, these sources are also included in the Chinese-language sources in the article, of which you can gain access to through many methods or ask for a copy from me. ---HNlander (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commentzh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2022/06/16#远东华人强制流配 is apparently the original, zh-wiki AFD, and was to delete zh:维基百科:维基百科恶作剧列表/远东华人强制流配 (archived at what I interpret to be a zh-wiki version of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia) which is what I believe the article in this AFD is translated from. The original zh-wiki AFD has (purely based on votes) a 4/2 (nom and another user wanting a rewrite included) keep/delete ratio, with the side arguing for deletion mostly claiming that the article was created by an editor who was involved in creating numerous hoaxes. The side arguing to keep the article mainly claimed that the article is (at its core) factual but needed to be re-written or re-checked in order to ensure accuracy. The AFD was closed as delete but the article was then recreated by Nrya, an experienced editor on zh-wiki as a stub. I'm unsure of the accuracy of most of the en-wiki article but I'll say it's probably best to draftify or make turn the article into a stub but keep the historical version in case someone wants to go over its sources and clean the article up in general. Pinging nominator (BlackShadowG) for comments about my interpretation of the zh-wiki links and suggestion. Justiyaya11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's right, your interpretation of the zh-wiki is right. I can provide more information about the hoaxes incident on Chinese Wikipedia: The article is created by User:折毛, who was an active user on zhwiki, mainly contribute to Russian history related articles. On June 16, our community found that an article created by this user, called 卡申银矿, is a hoax. After checking many other articles, we found that nearly all 200+ articles created by 折毛 are hoaxes, nearly all the hoaxes are about Russian history. Many hoaxes created by this user cites many sources, but nearly all the cited sources are unrelated to the article, some of the sources are even fictitious. The user also chosed to use paywalled sources, or offline source to avoid the souce check. (see zh:Wikipedia:2022年古羅斯相關條目偽造事件#造假手段 for more counterfeiting methods of this user). Our community finally dicided to delete nearly all hoaxes created by this user. 折毛 lately admited her fault and apologized.
This article (远东华人强制流配) was a FA on Chinese Wikipedia before it was found to be created by this user. Here's 折毛's response to this article:"远东华人条目前半部分基本是直接抄的，后半部分人数方面请重新统计，去掉后半部分的所有论述，那一定是错的。"(The first half of this article is basically a direct copy [from the sources], the second half in terms of the number of people need to be recount, all the exposition in the second half need to be delete , that are completely fake.)
Thanks for looking at it, think there might be some copyvio issues then if the sources are not licensed correctly. Where did 折毛 write the response? can't seem to find it anywhere myself. Justiyaya14:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Based on the apology letter, it seems that the current article is too damaged by plagiarism and fabricated material to serve as the basis for a future article. Draftifying has been suggested above, but I don't think that option works, due to the potential copyvio problems with the plagiarized parts of the article. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethnic Chinese in Russia. This does not look like an outright hoax to me, but possibly WP:SYN. Undoubtedly, some Chinese people have been deported, see here. But I never heard about a deportation campaign directed specifically against Chinese people in the USSR (there was such campaign with regard to Koreans). Unfortunately, sources cited on the page are not accessible (e.g. in Russian), so I could not quickly verify sourcing here. There had to be a specific NKVD or another directive/order for the deportation of Chinese people, as it was for Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union. Without such directive/order this page looks like WP:SYN.My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to keep after recent improvements. Undoubtedly, a significant number of Chinese people were deported in the Soviet Union, similar to Koreans and many other ethnic groups and that was done because on their ethnicity. Even if there was no specific NKVD directive, such subject has every right to exist as a page about persecution of a specific ethnic group. But apparently, the directive with regard to Koreans also covered certain Chinese people, as now clarified on the page. Moreover, there was such specific directive about Chinese people [39]. I had no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete as the text is hopelessly flawed due to fabrication on Chinese Wikipedia. Maybe there should be a redirect, but only after deletion of this mess. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify per WP:ATD-E. This is an event that appears to have happened and thousands of Chinese were swept up while the soviets were busy deporting Koreans. There's coverage of this event that predates the Wikipedia article, and coverage of this that post-dates it, so we're going to have to be careful to avoid citogenesis. Ordinarily, nuking longstanding articles on notable subjects is frowned upon, but this seems like a clear WP:IAR case so that we remediate hoax claims in an article that is not entirely a hoax. This is going to require nuking much of the article, but there is enough information that's good and properly cited in the article that TNT seems out of the question. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: Not to mention the fact that the entry is mainly from non-English sources, and that they have to avoid the Circular reporting after the entries are created. The above proposal is sure to cause another question. What happens if we do it exactly this way and no one rewrites the entries? --Beta Lohman※Office box19:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a three-to-four-paragraph stub is better than no article at all. And, since the sources are preserved in the article's history, it isn't as if we have to start from literal scratch in terms of doing research on this topic. To avoid circular sourcing or creating a Brazilian aardvark situation, it would be pretty simple; we could limit ourselves to using sources published before the user became involved in the Chinese Wikipedia article. Any administrator on the Chinese Wikipedia should be able to share the first date that the user made an edit to that article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are many Russian [1][2] journal articles, plus various Chinese sources (as used and verified in the article), plus English-language sources [1], so there are enough sources to write a standalone article as long as we can verify them. I am checking on the original sources and adding new sources to improve the article. You can just open the edit page, which shows the original text from each source cited as hidden annotations if verified. --HNlander (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose stubify per WP:Hoax. While the overall topic may be notable, the deliberate misinformation in this article is too problematic to allow the article and its history to remain. No prejudice against re-creation if an accurate article supported by reliable sources is made.4meter4 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Would you mind specify any problem you see in the article? I have been trying to replace unverifiable sources but not sure whether I have missed anything. --HNlander (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
———
Hi all! I have tried my best to validate the sources in the articles and add several new sources.
1. For the notability issue, the article deserves a standalone article. I have added the English translation of the related Soviet decrees but I hope someone can help me check whether the translation is fine. Also, in the book Burnt by the Sun: The Koreans of the Russian Far East, the deportation of Chinese was often mentioned. The life of Chinese in the Russian Far East was described to back the description of Koreans in the book. Besides, there are many Chinese and Russian sources mentioning this event.
2. For reliability issues, most of the sources are verifiable, but I have marked several sources as subscription-based. If you want to access the sources, please contact me and I will provide a copy of these sources. However, I modify some of the sources and add new sources to improve the article.
2.1. I have removed the following sources, most of them in Russian, as I have no access to them or I am unable to verify the references from them, which include:
2.2. There are Russian first-hand sources referenced in Chinese sources. To avoid original research from several first-hand sources, I replace the source with the Chinese sources that made the synthesis of the content, which include:
"Списки жертв" (in Russian). Retrieved 30 November 2019.
2.3. There are also several Taiwanese sources in similar situation, but they can still be verified from Taiwanese Academia Sinica archives, which I have recently gained access to. These sources include but are not limited to:
"海参崴总领馆电外交部" (in Chinese). 驻海参崴总领馆. 7 May 1938. Retrieved 5 December 2019.
"与苏外部谈判移侨问题" (in Chinese). 中华民国驻苏联大使馆，外交部. 16 April 1938. Retrieved 30 November 2019.
"电俄境远东逮捕华侨事" (in Chinese). 驻海参崴总领馆；驻伯利总领馆. 29 March 1938. Retrieved 30 November 2019.
2.4. If there are still any mistakes or wrong citations, please kindly inform me, and I will look into that.
———
@Beta Lohman: Thanks for asking these good questions. I think Mx. Granger has made a good response to one of your question. As for another question, I have gained access to the archives of Academia Sinica, which is registration-based but it is not hard to get registered. But most of the sources have been included in the journal articles in the references.
@BlackShadowG: I update the statistics and removed the data if unable to verify them. But I am not sure what other problems you might see in the article. I will be thankful if you can notify me any further issue.
@FormalDude:/@Mx. Granger: You are right with your observations, since the article was not a simple translation of its original Chinese version. Furthermore, in its original Chinese version, most parts of the articles are based on the Chinese-language journal articles in the references. I doubt whether 折毛 who created the original Chinese version have read or gained access to the Russian sources and the Taiwanese sources independently since they have been referred to in these Chinese-language journal articles. I deleted some Russian sources of which I have no access to or I cannot verify but the statements in the article are still well-backed by the Chinese sources.
@Onetimememorial: Most of the sources are reliable and peer-reviewed articles or degree theses from some good universities. While deleting the sources that I cannot verify (see above), I have also added some sources to back the article. Since not all sources are in English, I have added English translation of the titles for your convenience. I will be thankful if you can notify me any specific issue.
@My very best wishes: Hi, I have added the Soviet decrees as you requested, but I am not sure what else need to be improved from your perspective.
@Mhawk10: Thanks for pointing out the issues regarding circular reporting, yet the Wilson Center article was added by me when I translated this article from Chinese. Thus, this source actually pre-dates the article. I will be thankful if you can notify me any further issue.
Comment: I am not very satisfied with the solution. In short, you should do one more thing. For those Russian and Chinese references that are not directly readable, you should upload the references to Scribd and place them on the discussion page for editorial review, especially the diplomatic literature from Academia Sinica (consider that non-Taiwanese cannot register). Or, as I did in the Chinese version of List of spy operations involving the Military Intelligence Bureau, post academic documents under the fair use doctrine.
First, I am not Taiwanese, and I can assure you that the registration for the Academia Sinica archive is not for Taiwanese only. You can gain access by just following the instructions on the website. Second, these Taiwanese sources were actually copied from the Chinese journal articles, especially Yin, Guangming (2016). "苏联处置远东华人问题的历史考察(1937—1938)" [A Historical Investigation of the Soviet Union's Handling of the Chinese Issue in the Far East (1937-1938)]. Modern Chinese History Studies (in Simplified Chinese) (2): 41, by 折毛. Since Yin, Guangming (2016)'s article has no restriction on access, you can read and check out the sources when reading it. I doubt whether 折毛 had read these sources herself. Third, I agree that all materials should be accessible and thank you for your advice on uploading files to Scribd. I will upload other files later, as per your request.--HNlander (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beta Lohman: I am sorry but I cannot upload any file of which I have no copyright as per General Uploader Agreement on Scribd. There is no mention of fair use under the Agreement, while I am not sure whether uploading them is fair use as there is no precedent to follow. If you want to gain access to CNKI, you can try the method mentioned on Zhihu. I deleted the Russian sources to which I have no access and the rest are either registration-based or open access. The registration is just nothing but a simple email registration. The best I can do is to upload the Chinese sources with restricted access for now at https://www.scribd.com/user/586545932/hnllllandera and once discussion here is done, I will remove them from Scribd. HNlander (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't fully understand my meaning. As I saw the other articles also cited a link via Scribd, there's no excuse that to say like you don't do that. --Beta Lohman※Office box08:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't seem to be a good practice unless these articles are uploaded by their copyright owners, according to the General Uploader Agreement. There is either precedent ruling or local convention to ensure that it is legal for me to upload the files, yet I still did this for you during the discussion. Other articles doing this doesn't mean they are right to do so. For example, I also saw some articles cite Baidu Baike but that doesn't mean Baidu Baike is a reliable source on Wikipedia.--HNlander (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HNlander: Thank you for your hard work to resolve the issues with this article. From my perspective, you've fully resolved the hoax concern. My one remaining concern is plagiarism. I gather that 折毛 copied parts of the original zh.wikipedia article directly from the sources – are there still parts of the article that are direct translations of the sources, or have you rewritten enough that that's not a problem? —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 09:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger: The situation is a bit complicated. The parts in Chinese sources she copied from involve many quotes from newspapers and government reports that have no copyright or of which copyright expires. Thus, it might be reasonable to directly translate the quotes. And there are many examples in the articles, e.g. those statements involving Shen Bao. Meanwhile, these quotes were mostly written in Classical Chinese, of which word-by-word translation is difficult. And it is almost impossible to translate directly into English without any modification. Compared with the original Chinese text, the English translation has to be some forms of re-writing, as least from my perspective of view. As I have also supplemented new sources and restructured paragraphs, the issue might be minimal here in the English version, yet plagiarism might still be an issue in the original Chinese version, where there are no re-writing and translation. --HNlander (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Iseult! I will be happy if you can join and check the Classical Chinese sources with me. I will later add a section regarding relevant paragraphs on your talk page.
However, please note that I don't intend to do word-by-word translation, and there is no need to do so, as long as the translation does not violate the original meaning. As Mx. Granger says, one remaining concern is about plagiarism, or to be more specific, whether the article has been re-written thoroughly enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, word-by-word translation without proper paraphrasing and citation could constitute plagiarism, which should be avoided.
My point is actually not the difficulty in word-by-word translation, but rather, I stress that I have to paraphrase uncopyrighted Classical Chinese quotes during translation which reduces the possibility of plagiarism, yet I am not sure whether this sort of paraphrasing still constitute cross-language plagiarism and need to be improved, as it is done not thorough enough.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I note that the article has been almost completely rewritten after the nomination, and now uses different sources. Editors may want to discuss whether this makes the initial concerns moot. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now the current re-written version should have fixed the issue. Please see the previous discussion and the edit history for more details. I will be most thankful for any further comments or opinions. --HNlander (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and much Wikilove to HNlander, for what is essentially rewriting and expanding the whole thing after the AFD started. I've randomly sampled two sources and they seem to be fine at a glance so probably not a hoax (although would like someone else to look over it too), appears to be distinct enough from the AFDed version so it's probably not a copyright violation (maybe revdel needed but have no idea). Did notice some MOS and tone issues at times which can probably be fixed after the AFD. (tag for copy editing after I guess) Again, thank you HNlander for coming out of retirement and expanding this draft. was notified of this via a message on my talk Justiyaya18:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Special thanks to HNLander and others for their work in re-verifying the sourcing for this article, and mitigating the damage done by the hoax. --benlisquareT•C•E04:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there is now evidence that this is supported by reliable sources, and with a trustworthy bilingual editor HNLander on point. Chumpiht18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I just don't see any indication of WP:GNG described in the lead or based on the sources provided. She works in a local branch of the ACLU and is certainly quoted in local media regarding Transgender issues, but there is very little independent coverage about her specifically that I can find. Most of the sources are covering specific issues or are not independent of the subject. I think more eyes are needed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Came upon this in New Page Patrol and applied standards of GNG that I believed to be appropriate, based on my experience, and wanted other editor's input in the form of an AfD. But upon reflection of the points raised by the comments below, I may have erred in my assessment of this one. Hopefully I can learn from it and move forward. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time of creation of this article, which is only a few days old, there were already 15 sources, of which 13 are independent, secondary news media sources. One source is her staff bio and one is an article she authored, but these are not necessary for the assertion of notability, which is that she is notable for her activism work. And you would find plenty more passing mentions in a simple news search that I did not include, because it was unnecessary. What do you mean by "little independent coverage"? It seems like you are applying a different standard than GNG.
If you are nominating an article that is already fully fleshed out, with more than a dozen independent sources supporting the assertion of notability—multiple of which are more than passing mentions, and actual biographical profiles in independent, reliable secondary publications (e.g. [40], [41])—you need to address what issue you take with specific reference to why they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. But you haven't made any actual arguments about what you find lacking in the specific sources, and made other arguments such as "sources are covering specific issues" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or that she works for a local organization, which seem entirely unrelated to the question of notability. Dominic·t00:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dominic: I understand that as the originator of this, you've done hard work on creating this very well-written article. I still disagree with your assessment of the sources. For example, you say actual biographical profiles in independent, reliable secondary publications and then offer two examples, the first of which mentions an anecdote involving Malone, and a couple quotes, but as part of a larger article. More than passing, yes, but certainly not a "biographical profile" as you say. The second example you provided is an interview with local press about an event she's helping organize. According to WP:INTERVIEWSA multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. I don't see the multitude or the breadth. I did plenty of searching for sources to prove myself wrong but it was almost completely small quotes provided in bigger articles to get the perspective of an activist. Being used as a source for quotes is not substantial coverage of the subject itself, and as an activist in local politics with slim coverage outside of Indiana, she does not seem to me to pass WP:NOTABILITY for politicians (as an activist) either. That said, I have great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia, and your points are good. Personally, I'd like to see this subject get an article, but I had to go with my understanding of GNG guidelines. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit hard to follow the argument when you are moving the goalposts each time. First you said the sources were not independent, when the mostly all are. Now you you are taking issue with me calling the one of main biographical sources a "profile", which... was not really my main point or what is relevant to notability—the point is that a major paper gave her significant biographical coverage. The other article, which you are contesting by quoting a non-policy essay that doesn't have wide acceptance, is more than a mere interview, in any case, since it is only about half composed actual quotations, and also contains other prose biographical information. It is also clear from this source the rationale for this interview, with her name in the headline, is specifically related to the the activities that made her notable, and not just being quoted as a spokesperson or for promotion of the event. I understand the sources are mostly regional (though the IndyStar is a major newspaper of record in the United States), but it is certainly possible to establish notability with such sources, and it feels like you are applying a higher bar than GNG actually calls for, for some reason. Dominic·t05:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw the nomination. I was doing new page patrol and applying the same high bar for GNG that I've seen applied in many past cases and past AfDs and wanted additional input. It looks like I made a mistake with this one. I'll try to examine where I may have went wrong in my assessment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyrrho the Skipper: Thanks, I do appreciate you taking my responses on board. I don't think this was a bad discussion to have had. I think it could have been hashed out on a talk page first, and the deletion nomination prevented, as I always hope that discussions can precede deletion nominations, especially in marginal cases and with experienced editors. Dominic·t20:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an expert on USA activism, but if someone is fairly active, does pioneering work and is visible in the media of one state (and that state is as big as average European Union country), I would not consider that very 'local' visibility...maybe if it was just city wide OK, but this looks significant enough. Also article has just been created and I would not rush with AfD if it is borderline case anyway. --Zblace (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has more than 10 independent, secondary sources. While there is her staff bio and a personally authored article, they weren't needed to establish notability and rather help to flesh out the article. As time moves on, this article will continue to expand and more sources will become readily available but I personally feel her notability is established in the article. Per WP:NOTABILITY Kit has received multiple awards, and is a well known activist within Indiana and the Midwest. JamieF (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC) (Should have read more closely, I'm seeing it's been withdrawn - thank you for participating in discourse and taking the discussion into consideration.)[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.
Appears to be too soon. Fails WP:GNG, no significant secondary independent in-depth coverage. Also, notability is not inherited, so provenance of founders doesn’t affect decision. — rsjaffe🗣️16:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. But Isn't it good to have this started rather than wait and dump everything all at once? I mean they've been reposted by NY Post and got their reporting has def made a tangible difference. Ketlag (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it good to have this started rather than wait and dump everything all at once? No, that's what draftspace and user sandboxes are for. I mean they've been reposted by NY Post... First of all, this isn't mentioned or referenced in the article currently; second, the New York Post is not a reliable source (WP:NYPOST). Hatman31 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this falls under WP:TOOSOON and that it does not meet GNG; all of the references in the article are just from the site itself, and the mentions by the Post which Ketlag brought up (here and here, I think; correct me if I missed something) don't come close to being WP:SIGCOV. Hatman31 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete allWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed resulted in the deletion of several thousand worthless mass-produced pages of "villages" with zero population, and I would encourage the nominator to prepare a new list of articles whose names do not represent village names or criteria for deleting more of the tens of thousands of such pages made in bulk in contradiction of WP:MASSCREATE. While the coordinates of the only one of these that has them do point to a small cluster of buildings, it is not the basis for an encyclopedia article when the title is just nonsense words, making this more of a census tract excluded from GEOLAND1 rather than a legally recognized populated place. Reywas92Talk17:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the thousands of places in California, Iran, and Armenia we've had to delete from this author due to notability/verifiability/accuracy issues. Hog FarmTalk20:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Of course, it would be appreciated if sources mentioned in the deletion discussion could be added to the article. LizRead!Talk!19:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As the movie is already premiered (or was it released?) in the US and I was able to find 4 reviews from critics from Variety, AIPT, RogerEbert and IWM Buzz - does it satisfy the WP:NFO #1 for the "widely distributed" part? From one website [42], I see that it was premiered in multiple locations across the US — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer If you consider that it does then you should offer that opinion, ideally also adding relevant references to the article. You should base your judgement on the reliability of the sources and the breadth of independent coverage, assuming it to be independent. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear other opinions before solidifying mine about that widely distributed part (this is imho my first interaction with a film [in AfD] that had/will have a release/premier so far apart) and see how the discussion progresses. I'll add the references in a day or two — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The number of published reviews linked here and on the Rotten Tomatoes page in External Links are enough sources that WP:NEXIST to meet WP:NFILM. Improving the article with said reviews can be done outside AfD. I don't think that NFO#1 necessarily has to be true one way or another to satisfy the guideline; it was meant to say that if widely distributed, you are likely to be able to make a notability case, but the amount of coverage already supersedes that... tip, if you will. -2pou (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I usually support deletion, but this has 12 reviews on RT, with 2 top critics and 10 other ones, most are reliable probably. This meets the general GNG criteria and WP:NFILM easily and shouldn't be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Limiting my searches to the .tz domain for Tanzania, I get 2 hits, one appears to be a government listing and the other is a brief mention in what looks like a charity event. Only other hit is in GNews, looks like a crypto sales pitch. Delete for non-notable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or redirect per above: despite the amount of work that has gone into this article, the star just doesn't satisfy notability requirements. I found no substantial discussions in scientific papers. Praemonitus (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this article falls short of notability due to the lack of coverage. This article was created recently, but I did find it on the constellation navbox [Template:Stars of Microscopium|here]. Speed doesn't always mean quality. (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I'd just PRODded this as an unsourced BLP (after one non-reference to a self-written Amazon author page), but it does indeed seem like the sources aren't there at all. I couldn't find any independent sources on the author nor any reviews of the one book he has written (Man of the Fields: The Next Crusade for Salem), which is self-published. And given that the creator of this article also started Man of the Fields, this looks like an undisclosed COI or autobiography. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the person is 23 or so (that is how old someone born in 1999 is) than phrases like "although he began his career as an educator" are at best misleading. At least normally "educator" means a teacher who is employed full time, and few people start this in a regularly capacity before at 20. At best this is "too soon", we lack the required secondary source coverage created by others of Wilde. His work may get widely reviewed enough at some point to justify an article, but that has not happened yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that the creator made the mandatory minimum number of edits to become autoconfirmed, by making very minor edits to Anthony G. Forlini such as making and removing commas or very slightly modifying some prose to no benefit of the article. When this Afd is closed, please salt all the titles created by this user. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.
Speedy deleteWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed resulted in the deletion of several thousand worthless mass-produced pages of "villages" with zero population, and that should clearly be expanded to more of them. While the coordinates do point to a small cluster of buildings, it is not the basis for an encyclopedia article when the title is just nonsense words making this more of a census tract excluded from GEOLAND1. Reywas92Talk15:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I think the nominator is mistranslating the title, which I think is probably "hot spring" and not water heater, this very small village has very few sources on it, if it exists that is. PikavoomTalk09:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There are very few sources and information on this local party, which never seems to have participated in any elections. Apparently the party does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The page is written in only five lines, which deal almost exclusively with Claudia Zuncheddu's personal political activity. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly encyclopedic as we are talking about a political party which was represented in the Regional Council of Sardinia (Italy) and which has been active for more than 10 years now (virtually 2,000 Google hits for "Sardigna Libera" + Zuncheddu). The history of Sardinian nationalism and Sardinian nationalist parties is very complex, thus it is quite beneficial to have separate articles for each and every party of that kind. Moreover, every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia and, even though also established and traditional encyclopedias also have small entries, the greatness of Wikipedia is precisely having articles for little-known subjects. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Google hits are not proof of encyclopedic relevance: it seems to me that the sources refer mainly to the leader Zuncheddu rather than to the party, while in the Sardinian regional council it was not represented independently but in a joint group with Left Ecology Freedom...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, as per requestor, the article deals almost only about Claudia Zuncheddu, not the party itself. As alternative, consider to move to Claudia Zuncheddu if she might be considered notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I believe that the party, having been represented in Sardinia's regional council, should be kept, but, in order not to lose the article's history, what about a merger through redirect with Red Moors? --Checco (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need further discussion on the merge proposal Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long since they received routine coverage. I expect coverage from better sources now but I am not seeing any of that here. GenuineArt (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Self published book. Only independent sources are a couple of local papers who have written about it based on a local interest angle due to the book's setting. Not seeing the sort of coverage that a truly notable book should have to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: unlike some of our WP:SNGs, WP:NB isn't interested in whether coverage is local or national in scope, so the Hometown Source, Telegraph Herald and Bleeding Heartland sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might add the topic covered in the book is not regional, but global in nature with extensive sections on Europe, New Zealand and South America regarding possible effects of extreme climate change. This seems to me a notable topic at this time. Doctoroe (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This book has been featured in at least two month long book discussion groups on Goodreads. Also, the information is correct I say as a trained Climate Reality Leadership corps volunteer (Al Gore’s organization) ——- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:80:9C70:40B3:BEF0:A1:997F (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local coverage apart, the book fails at WP:BKTS, "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability.". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage that it's received that would count towards notability looks to be the Telegraph Herald. I did find a review with the Midwest Book Review, but it's unusable because it was written after they turned to a pay to play profit model where they only post positive reviews - in other words, the signs point towards it being a positive review mill. Not as bad as say, Reader's Favorite, but still problematic when it comes to it being reliable, independent, and neutral. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)17:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Newspapers in Minnesota is also an edited newspaper, print and web. Bleeding Heartland is an edited blog for Iowa. Doctoroe (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not true Midwest Books pays for reviews and they have no star rating system. I wrote the review for The Hurricane Code. I write for MBR and have for years as a volunteer - see also the Midwest Book Review page on Wikipedia —— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:80:9C70:40B3:BEF0:A1:997F (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the Midwest Books Review page on WP that has a great big "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." tag on it? That one? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While the keeps are soft/not based in policy, there is also no one but the nom arguing for delete. No objection to a re-nomination at a time when more input might be forthcoming StarMississippi14:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this movement there are only primary sources, published by the movement itself, while the tertiary sources seem to be totally absent. In practice, this movement does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only the subject is encyclopedic, but I have to say that this article is also very good. In Italy, like in other countries, there is a number of mostly extra-parliamentary and/or underground communist parties of all stripes: I think that each of them should have a place in Wikipedia. The Network of Communists is especially relevant, has been active for virtually 25 years and is mentioned in virtually 25,000 Google hits. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extra-parliamentary and/or clandestine parties should have a place in Wikipedia if they are verifiable from third-party sources. On the basis of which sources was the page written? Furthermore, as I repeat here, Google hits do not demonstrate the relevance of a topic, it is enough that an article contains the words "Rete" and "Communisti" to be counted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep. Probably with a deeper research we could be able to find the third-party sources that the OP is asking for. The article definitely needs improvement, though. A simple Google Books search gives plenty of hits. It might be that most of them are produced by the RdC itself, but there might be some having an entire paragraph or section about the party. Yakme (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) for Wikipedia or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in Wikipedia and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
This doesn’t conform to any of the above, hence justifies my decision.
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 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 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.
I lived in St. Catharines for 6 years and I know that Burleigh Hill is literally just a street. There's an elementary school and it's kind of close to the highway/the Pen Centre but I don't think it counts as its own seperate community and would be enough to qualify under WP:GEOLAND. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not seeing anything online that suggests that it's considered it's own distinct community that doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia mirror. It's also been like 4 sentences since it was created in 2011 (has been completely unsourced since then) and I'm honestly not sure you could say much more than that. You could bring up the elementary school, I guess, but I don't think that's notable in itself. Clovermoss(talk)11:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the nom is clearly using OR (naughty nom!), it's clearly handy here in spotting that Burleigh Hill is, in fact, not a 'thing'. As happens with these longstanding stubs, the place that is not a place has gained most of its placeness from mirrors using WP. Unsourced, fails WP:GEOLAND, has to go. best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: To be fair, I did bring up WP:GEOLAND and do a proper BEFORE. Just because I haven't heard of it didn't mean there wasn't something I wasn't aware of, y'know? Also I felt like it was relevant to bring up that I've seen what Burleigh Hill looks like in real life. It's a street. I've never even heard people casually refer to it as a community, the most I've heard is "you go past Burleigh Hill" as directions to get to Thorold. Clovermoss(talk)12:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: I was just teasing! The first thing I ever did on WP was get the place where I lived in the Emirates changed because it was spelled incorrectly. And I had to fight a wall of 'You can't change it, that's OR, even if you DO live there'. In the end I posted a picture of the copshop with its sign and moved the page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found some evidence that this might count as a distinct community, based off a file that I found. It's original research and doesn't prove that it's notable in its own right, but still, I may technically be wrong about it just being a street. It's a very small area, even according to this map, though. Clovermoss(talk)14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that ancedotally, I've never seen a sign that says something along the lines of "Welcome to the Burleigh Hill Neighbourhood". I've seen signs like that for Glenridge, Merritton, Western Hill, etc. I will also say that I haven't seen any reliable sources that mention Burleigh Hill as a distinct community and definitely nothing that would furfill WP:GNG as an unofficial community according to WP:GEOLAND. As I stated before, I did do BEFORE. Clovermoss(talk)14:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps thinks it's a thing, but I don't particularly trust Google maps to know much about the names of Ontario neighbourhoods. That does make me wonder, though: if there are signs for "Welcome to Merritton", where are they? Do they exclude Burleigh Hill? What neighbourhood do people in "Burleigh Hill" say they live in? Here's the ward map, which seems to me to contradict that map you found: [49]. The wards bisect some of the neighbourhoods in that other map, which seems unlikely to me? And I'd trust the municipality over a random wikipedian (sorry @Snickerdo!) in the absence of other evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: You can see the welcome to Merritton sign at File:Merriton St. Catharines Neighbourhood Sign.jpg. It doesn't say anything about Burleigh Hill and that street is literally at the next intersection. Since I went there this afternoon I'd figured I might as well take a picture of the sign because the current article used a picture of a local steakhouse and that didn't seem ideal. I counted the amount of steps and it was ~177 from that sign to Burleigh Hill Drive. It was a very short street that I could walk in less than 10 minutes and ended with a sign saying welcome to Thorold (a seperate city), so I really don't see how it could count as a seperate community. Clovermoss(talk)01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I'm also inclined to trust the actual municipality. Thanks for finding that map. I've found it hard to prove a negative, but I haven't been able to find anything suggesting this is its own seperate community apart from Wikipedia mirrors. I will say as someone who did live near there, I literally never heard anyone say "I'm from Burleigh Hill" unless they were referring to the school or lived on the weird small side-street that's behind the hill/school. There aren't any actual houses on Burleigh Hill itself, though, as far as I can tell. There's a Canadian tire, two elementary schools on each side (one's English and the other's French, only the English one is named Burleigh Hill), a hill, and then you have Thorold. I met many people who said they were from Merritton, though. Or Western Hill, etc. a.k.a. the actual neighbourhoods of the city. Clovermoss(talk)01:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears to have been a small village at some point in the last 200 some years that was eventually taken over by the larger expanding St. Catherines. I can't find anything to support notability; the local school is named after Burleigh Hill. It probably did exist, but it's not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask where you found out the small village part? I didn't see anything about that, but that does sound fascinating, at the very least. Albeit confusing. Because it's like right in-between the cities of St. Catharines and Thorold and the only neighbourhood it's near that I'm aware of that used to be its own thing before being taken over by expanding St. Catharines was Merritton. If I had to label it as part of a neighbourhood, I would say it's part of that. That doesn't mean I'm just not aware of the history behind it, though. Clovermoss(talk)17:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also my understanding is that the Burleigh Hill school is named after the street. The school is at the bottom of a hill that's also named Burleigh Hill (this is all on the same street). Maybe the hill/street itself is named after something else, though? Like Burleigh does sound like it could be a name. It's possible I'm operating under a misconception here. Clovermoss(talk)18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: I decided to actually go and revisit the area. The Merritton neighbourhood sign is literally 177 steps/at the first intersection right after Burleigh Hill Drive. Burleigh Hill is a very short street and the end of it ~500 steps later up the hill you get to see the City of Thorold sign. I was able to walk the whole street in less than 10 minutes. I don't understand how it could be considered its own community. Is it possible you were looking at something that was about the history of Merritton and it mentioned Burleigh Hill? Clovermoss(talk)23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a music composer who lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of him. The page history suggests that there have been several attempts to create this article. If it is deleted it should also be protected from being created again.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, when the article title has improper spelling or capitalization, it's been re-created when it shouldn't have been. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG with flying colours and considerable aplomb. Promotional article about a "nightclub operator, restaurateur, actor, director and producer" who manages to avoid notability in every one of these roles. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
No evidence that this song is in any way notable. Most sources in the article are primary sources about the book, not about the song: only the first two sources are actually about the song, but the first one (evangeliums.net) is a database, and the second is the website of the songwriters' band.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete , and I say that with sadness as I used to be a keen stamp collector. The policy-based delete argument is essentially that there are no sources discussing such stamps as a group, which is needed to meet GNG. I am rejecting the argument that the page should be deleted because it is unsourced; per WP:NEXIST, I fully accept the claims that the entries can easily be sourced from catalogues. However, this does not amount to a policy-based argument for keeping. Stamp catalogues do not organise their entries in this way as far as I remember, let alone discuss people as a group. The comments from several participants that research is needed (that is WP:OR) to pick out the relevant entries suggests that this is indeed the case. Stanley Gibbons, for instance, organises first by country, then by year, and then by face value. SpinningSpark20:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are for what feels like the billionth time. This list is sprawling, full of redlinks, almost entirely unsourced, unveriable, and poorly maintained. Turgidson (talk·contribs) de-prodded and added a ton of names to the list but failed to address the utter lack of sourcing. Per WP:SALAT and the massively overwhelming consensus of the other postage stamps lists, this is not a valid or source-able topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently me waiting for other philatelic project members to help develop policy is being taken as "massively overwhelming consensus" to delete. The content is all easily verifiable via multiple sources online and printed, and the sources are easily added as well, so those are not valid reasons to delete. Now that List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands has been deemed Wikipedia-worthy, I'm curious to hear how the stamps of the Faroes are intrinsically more notable than those of Romania. Stan (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a ton of unsourced content to a list doesn't automatically fix the lack of sourcing. Most of the other "List of people on the postage stamps of X" articles have closed as delete; Faroe Islands was one of the only times that someone actually stepped in to unfuck the article. You haven't proven that any sources exist to corroborate the eight billion names you put on the list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, crack open any stamp catalogue? It's just not that complicated to verify. But you also said "not a valid topic", which is quite a different claim. Is the Faroes list a valid topic? If not, then it shouldn't have mattered how many people improved it, or by how much. It's one of the foundations of notability that non-notable subjects cannot be made notable by better writing or editing. Stan (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. Also, many of the relevant Wikipedia pages use those stamps to illustrate the person who appears on this list, sometimes even in the infobox. Turgidson (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I already added the actual source catalogue used, and you're still saying the list is not sourced? Scott, Stanley Gibbons, Michel are reliable far beyond the random newspaper articles and blog postings that seem to pass for Wikipedia sources nowadays. Stan (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source catalogue was released by the Romanian postal director's office, and thus lacks source independence. It is reliable for demonstrating the existence of these stamps but does not contribute towards notability. And there is no such thing as "intrinsically noteworthy" in our notability guidelines. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Catalog entries listing who was on stamps is not reliable independent 3rd party coverage of the subject giving indepth detail. This is not a level of coverage that shows that reliable sources give this subject coverage. Not every catalog needs to be republished in Wikipedia. That is what this article amounts to at present and that is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stamp catalog. This is a list of portraits of personalities. The images of the Romanian stamps are not protected by copyright, as a result many such images are used to illustrate articles. Without a correct list, anyone can make a fake, the source of which is declared a catalog page that exists only as paperback, which cannot be easily verified. Turbojet (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list is for justifying free images on Wikipedia. Even if it is deleted, admins will be able to see it and it is important to them. The only problem is that only the admins will be able to do the checks, not the regular users. I'll complete the list. Turbojet (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point of Wikipedia is not to stop people from making fake stamps. If that is the point of such an article it is not within the scope of Wikipedia. If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What we need to show this is a notable topic is not appearance in catalogs. It is journal articles or books that are reliable sources and discuss this topic as a group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a VRT volunteer, I tell you that the activity of detecting forgeries and misunderstandings is important and not very visible for those who do not work there.
As an example on stamps, this image is not a stamp. It is a vignette published by philatelists from Iași in 1944. As proof, they have no face value. Such an image is not free and the easiest way to identify it is that it does not appear in a complete list based on an official catalog. Turbojet (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Thus, these lists are more reliable and useful to an encyclopedia than List of Romanians and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What article where says that at all? Cite reliable sources for this claim, right now it is a bald claim. What impact does Benjamin Franklin have on Romania that leads to him being portrayed on a postage stamp of Romania? If the evidence actually backs what you claim, tell us where and what the evidence is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable due to the subject matter, appropriately referenced. For whatever reason, someone appears to have set out to delete all of these stamp articles because they are considered trivia. All should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Glut of low-quality keep !votes. There is still disagreement on whether the two Spineanu books (see references) can be used to support notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the many other Stamp articles that have come up in AFD, the fact that the individuals listed are notable or that its verifiable that they appeared on stamps does not actually matter as far as establishing notability. Per WP:LISTN, stand alone lists need to have sources that actually discuss the topic as a group or set. Catalogues that also simply just list the people who were on stamps does not fulfil this. Most of the Keep votes above are arguing entirely on WP:ITSNOTABLE principles, but no topic is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Rorshacma (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails LISTN. The major source here is a catalogue of Romanian postage stamps published by the Romanian postal directorate. That's pretty much a non-independent source merely demonstrating that these stamps exist. I see no evidence that the phenomenon of putting Romanian people on postage stamps is a collectively notable thing discussed in RS. The fact that an individual has appeared on a postage stamp can also be placed on that person's bio article. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about references [1],[2],[3] cited right there in the lede of the article? Do they constitute "no evidence that the phenomenon of putting Romanian people on postage stamps is a collectively notable thing discussed in RS"? Turgidson (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only reference [1] is a reliable and independent source, but is about how stamps have represented Alba County, and while this includes some local people (as well as buildings, etc.), it is not about how Romanian people are put on stamps. The second is a press release from the Romanian postage service (thus not independent) about a single postage issue covering three people, and the third is a blog run by a 42-year old dude showing off his private stamp collection. Did you actually read these? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not demonstrate that the TOPIC of "people on Romanian postage stamps" has been discussed in depth. I want to see something like a journal or news article -- some source independent of the government/post office -- give an overview of how decisions are made on whom to put on stamps, any controversies, critical and public reception, etc. Not individual reports on particular stamp sets. Not publications that briefly mention putting people on stamps. Not discussions focused on one minor aspect or subset of the stamps. JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no evidence has been presented that this meets WP:NLIST, as there don't seem to be any independent sources discussing the topic as such. I agree with the above commenters regarding their analysis of the supposed sources. ReykYO!12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this process is rather chaotic: for example, Denmark was kept while Sweden was deleted, and the piecemeal approach is counterproductive, at least as long as the argument is that no sources treat the topic as such. This particular list is meticulously sourced, it’s a useful reference, it deals with a topic covered (or practically so) in specialist volumes, and it forms an important part of our coverage of Romanian philately. — BiruitorulTalk16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of people on postage stamps demonstrates that people appearing on postage stamps by nation is a notable topic, as per the recent AfD, and it's logical to split it up by nation, considering how many there are. This article contains encyclopedic information and seems very well sourced. I see no reason to delete. Even for those who don't agree with keep, I don't think enough consideration has been given to alternatives to deletion, such as merging, which should be the most dramatic outcome here, there is no advantage to deleting this useful content. CT55555 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find this vote rather incoherent: notable but lacking encyclopedic value? How does that work? Moreover, the proposal for a “good list” is bizarre: this is about as good a list as one could expect, for this topic. Then, “encourages adding more topics without contextual info” is meaningless, unsubstantiated verbiage. Finally, WP:ATD requires us to seek alternatives to deletion, so if (as the user concedes) the list is notable and improbable, let’s focus on that. — BiruitorulTalk20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's some faulty reasoning there. One broader topic being kept at one AfD does not give retroactive license to grant inherited notability to all imaginable subarticles. Not to mention the umbrella list exists solely because of the smaller lists, not the other way around. We have a broad article on Dogs, and there's enough literature out there to make Dogs in the United States notable, this does not mean that "Dogs in San Marino" is somehow article worthy without any basis in sourcing. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always open minded to be persuaded, but when the example you're giving isn't even a list, it's difficult to follow your argument. Do you want to try again and give us an example that is more comparable? Make it something a bit similar? CT55555 (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now This area is, as others have noted, pretty hit-or-miss and we end up with inconsistant results. Someone who cares about this more than I should start an RfC. As it is we're going to end up with articles only for the larger (and probably English-speaking) nations and that doesn't seem like a reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Good grief; I wager the text runs right out of the corporate counsel's office. Very long on press releases, very short on reliable sources providing independent coverage. Article all too dependent on SPAs [54][55] whose neutrality are certainly in question. Ravenswing 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the advertisement tone is a real problem (I read this... I was groaning on the inside) and it also lacks enough citations. Although I may have high standards how many citations an article should have you cannot avoid the fact that it is missing some. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 23:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:LISTN. A seemingly random list, missing many entries (even the very first one, from 1902, Christian IX). Abandoned since its inception in 2010, with hardly anyone interested in it (25 views in 90 days). Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason. Fram (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel the list is useful as an end in itself, as one of the series [[56]] and as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages eg: Jon Thorkelsson, Einar Bendiktsson and Ingibjörg Einarsdóttir. (I made the page long ago - to fit in with the series. But no worries if such pages are not needed/desired). (Msrasnw (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Many similar pages have already been deleted, and many more are up for deletion. The article should really be able to stand on its own merits, and not as part of a list. Fram (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the people on a list are notable people is not a reason to keep a list, we can create thousands of lists of notable people ("list of people who had a photograph on the front page of newspaper X") but this doesn't mean that the list has a place on Wikipedia (at least not as an article, it may make a perfect list for in project space as an indicator for editors which people don't have an article yet). Fram (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: I understand your point. But very differently from a newspaper's daily rush of deadlines and 15 minutes of fame, a stamp programme and policy such as this one, is edited and curated to establish a image of the country. There is an overall idea behind a stamp programme, reflecting national identity over time. Bw Orland (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for many countries it is also a case of "which stamps will sell the best to collectors worldwide", a purely commercial enterprise. If there are actually good, indepth sources discussing the group of stamps in this list (from the position of them being a representation of national pride or from other perspectives), then a discussion can be had about it: but for now, your arguments are not supported by any sources. Fram (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, your underlying assumption that Icelandic stamps might be published with a "selling to collectors" perspective are also not supported by any sources. :-) Bw Orland (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear indications that some postage stamps are created for sale to collectors, and some places have a large part of their economy built on such actions. Philatelycruft is not only bad because it creates poor articles lacking good sourcing, but beause it focuses so much on trivial minutia that it obscures understanding of broader topics. The same happens where we create an article on every high school instead of focusing on braod articles on trends in education over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We lack in-depth reliable source coverage of the topic of this list as a group. At best we maybe should redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, but only if we can really explain why people on postage stamps is so much more notable than places, animals or things pictures on postage stamps, or abstruct designs or blank colors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And look, the article I linked to is undersourced, poorly written, and leaves one wondering, how was mail service done in Iceland for over 100 years if they were not issuing postage stamps? Getting good articles is often obstructed by creating lots of permastub, unsourced and undersouced articles on trivial aspects of the topic. What is important is how the postal service operated in Iceland, what matters very little is what the physical appearane of stamps was, let alone what one sub-set of the pictures chosen for the stamps was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mainly about postage stamps and their appearnce, and does not enough discuss the more important issue which is how accesible postal service was in Iceland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable. I’m not sure why all of these articles are being suggested for deletion. All of them meet general notability and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources that are relaible and secondary provide general coverage of this topic as a group? Not everyone put on a postage stamp is historically significant. There have been people but on postage stamps for winning children's art competitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have some grudges against this theme, John. Yes, it is true that there are some stamps existing somewhere it this world that are based on children’s drawings. Yes, it is true that some countries issue stamps with Mickey Mouse, foreign footballers etc. Yes, it is true that there is another article - about Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, that is not in good shape and is not an example of Wikipedia’s best practice. But neither of these matters could be used as an argument against this article that we discuss now. It seem quite obvious that Iceland, like the other Nordic countries, have a conservative and patriotic stamp policy, where people are depicted on stamps because of their role and importance in the nation’s history and identity. Bw Orland (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orland. In this particular article, the notability of the subject matter is particularly clearly established. However, I also don’t think a list of stamp subjects that did happen to include soccer players or cartoon characters or is based on children’s drawings, etc., automatically fails to meet general notability guidelines, provided the author has cited his or her sources. I think listing a group of these articles simply out of dislike for the subject matter would be inappropriate. This one, at least as far as I can tell, should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A completely empty claim of "is notable" and "meet general notability" without any evidence to back this up. Fram (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing a lot of evidence presented as to why a list that includes kings and historic figures that represent the country and are appropriately cited would NOT meet general notability guidelines. As a general reader, I would find it of interest and would be equally interested in looking up a list of stamps featured in other countries. Wikipedia is certainly read by the general reader. If in doubt, information should be kept, not deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no sources that treat the topic as a group? You may claim to be interested, but it is equally obvious that in the many years that this and similar lists existed, hardly any actual reader visited these pages. Fram (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean it ought to be deleted? I think information is of value, no matter how specialist or niche it might be. If some stamp collector or kid researching a school report comes along and clicks on that link every few months, it still has some value. You’re not presenting any arguments I find persuasive to delete it. It is what it is, a list of historically significant figures on official stamps produced by Iceland and considered significant to the Icelandic people, with acceptable citations that support it as such. It shouldn’t be deleted just because someone thinks it’s trivial and hardly anyone ever reads it, which might be true, but isn’t relevant. The point is that someone might come along and want to read it and there’s no real reason why it shouldn’t be here when they want to. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any stamp collector would use our poor lists instead of an actual catalogue (paper, or one of the good online ones). And there are countless lists someone cound create with your rationale of "someone might find it useful" and "the people on the list are notable". A list of people who appeared on the front page of newspaper X would also be verifiable, and contain mostly notable people. It wouldn't make it a good subject for a list here though. Not all information, even verifiable, even about notable people, is fit for Wikipedia; the presentation, the grouping, the summary of it also needs to be an already discussed topic, and not some grouping one or a few editors believe to be interesting. The possibility to create verifiable lists is nearly endless, that's why we have LISTN to curb this somewhat. Fram (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We’re back to the difference in philosophy again. There’s no reason Wikipedia should NOT contain such a list, provided references are given to support the facts as presented, as they are here. It’s not a matter of space. No one is saying the list is not accurate. If either of those things were true, yes, it should be gone. The current article could probably be improved upon and should be if additional references are found. But it is certainly worthy of being kept as it currently is and some 10-year-old will find it a useful resource for a report on Iceland or someone with a passing interest in the subject will use it as a starting point and might look up more in depth resources on the subject. Again, I am not a deletionist. I see no good reason to delete suitably referenced articles just for the sake of deleting them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear policy against having articles that are not supported by multiple indepdent reliable secondary sources that give in-depth treatment of the subject. In the case of a list it needs to be the subject as a whole. We do not have sourcing that meets that description for this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I’m concerned both of those red-linked articles would be notable too if they had citations and should have been kept. Someone appears to be going on a hunt to delete all these various stamp lists that they consider trivia. I don’t think there’s any good reason to delete them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it would probably make sense, as would giviing the list and then a brief discussion of the most notable stamps on that list in an introductory paragraph. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been keen on the merge idea, as the "psph" articles are overall surveys and thus primarily textual, while lists aspire to completeness and often expect to grow over time. On the other hand, I am seeing more table-ized lists in textual articles, so maybe I'm just being old-fashioned. Stan (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland and encourage Icelandic speakers to merge sourced content into a new section on notable Icelanders who have been featured on postage stamps. Do not keep as a stand alone article as it fails NLIST. A potential justification could be as a WP:SPINOUT, but this requires the parent article to provide the coverage first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People appearing on national postage stamps is a notable topic; that has been recently established by consensus. Also it seems clear to me that it is necessary to break that list into separate parts, as it would be too big to have one list. The nominator has pointed to some gaps, which is a reason to improve, not delete WP:DINC. Importantly, the article includes useful, verified information. I can see this being useful to readers. Some people have raised sensible redirect and merge suggestions, which is a good alternative to deletion WP:ATD. CT55555 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That a general topic is notable does not mean that a list of lists of all examples are wanted. For example, while we have some lists like List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name (C), these lists are non-exhaustive (since nearly 1 million people apparently got that honour already). There has also already been consensus on dozens of lists like the Iceland one (but for other countries), with very few counter-examples, that the lists for separate cuontries should be deleted. Consensus that the list you give should be kept doesn't somehow trump or invalidate consensus on the sublists. Redirection can always happen, if the topic indeed gets attention at the redirect target, with good sourcing. Finally, having the complete list also doesn't mean that sublists per country are the way to go, it may be e.g. much more logical to create lists per profession and gender, if such divisions would have gotten more attention than the one by country. Fram (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware a large volume of similar lists have been nominated and resulted in delete. I think the high volume of simultaneous AfDs have exhausted the ability of editors to contest the proposed deletions, something like what is described at WP:FAIT.
I think if the master list is notable, then it's a reasonable a logical step to say the sub list is notable (irrespective if it's divided by gender, nationality or occupation). CT55555 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first, the lists were nominated slowly, people had all the time to contest and research them, and they were all deleted. Not much to do with WP:FAIT. And no, WP:NOTINHERITED, a list topic being notable doesn't mean that all possible sublists are notable or that every example should be included (and then spun out for size reasons). Fram (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete. Per Theroadislong and DoubleGrazing. She has had a couple of lead roles, but not enough for #1 of WP:NACTOR; there is a "recursive" notability issue here, because even though there are articles about Maayanadhi and Kadhal Kasakuthaiya, the two films where she played one of the main characters, they don't really appear to meet WP:NFILM (sourced mainly to press releases). I can't find any other sources that show she meets WP:GNG. --bonadeacontributionstalk10:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a bit of a non-topic really, spun out into a short reflective essay. Obviously old online games get shut down, but if we’re going to have an encyclopedia article about that topic we need more than a couple of random examples. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Cantonese Wiki has a longer article on this topic... could I add a [[en:Shutdown of online games]] to the Cantonese wiki's version of the article? Dr. Greywolf (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Fleming is an assistant coach/coordinator for one of the most notable college football programs in the world, and with a recent promotion, his notability will continue to climb exponentially over the next football season. C. Bowers (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, draftify seems like the best option here, considering he was recently made special teams coordinator at OSU and will likely get future SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG on this one and I can find no other policy, guideline, or even essay to support inclusion. However, WP:CRYSTAL shows a reason to exlcude the article at this time. An enthusiastic editor may want to userfy for potential inclusion later and I would not object to that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The keep vote by FootballFantatic1993 is the first edit of newly-created account, raising a question as to its bona fides. Further, speculation about "future coverage" is not a valid basis to keep. Finally, the additional sources cited do not contribute to GNG: the first is simply a dump of salary data on the coaching staff; the second is not viewable (so I can't evaluate); the third is simply a video interview by the head coach (not independent); and the fourth is a passing mention (not SIGCOV). Cbl62 (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per BeanieFan and absence of GNG-level SIGCOV. This will allow a few months to see if additional SIGCOV materializes. Also, being the special teams coordinator for a major program is not a basis in and of itself for creating a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Ukraine at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Archery. Despite numerous editors claiming that winning the 2005 World Indoor Archery Championships makes this article notable, it does not. NSPORTS and GNG require significant coverage in reliable sources. There were two editors who thought the article should be deleted because it does not have that. There were three editors who thought redirecting was a viable option (two of whom suggested targeting to Ukraine at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Archery). No policy-based arguments were made against redirecting or in favor of keeping, so the clear consensus at this time is to redirect. No prejudice against an RfD for a potential retarget, as discussion of the target was limited. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDudetalk03:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and the revised version of WP:NOLY, as he did not win any medals, and I could find no sources covering him other than database listings. Corresponding article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is a different person. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any guideline that says winning any archery unique competition is enough to show notability. I do not believe we have enough sourcing here to show notability, and since he is name dropped on at least 2 pages there is no reasonable redirect target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay. Agreed. But as per WP:NATH (not the guideline applicable in this case), significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria listed there. Here we are talking about a gold winner at a world championship. So SIGCOV is likely to exist. Akevsharma (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Akevsharma, the NSPORT guideline explicitly requires at least one source of SIGCOV be present within the article even when notability isn't challenged. When notability is in dispute it is now expected that editors demonstrate GNG (multiple IRS with SIGCOV) or provide extremely strong evidence that particular offline/inaccessible sources contain SIGCOV. The WP:NSPORTS2022 referendum demoted all athlete subguidelines from "presumed notable" to "SIGCOV is likely to exist" specifically to prevent AfD keep arguments based on meeting a subcriterion/having a sports achievement. Also, because archery does not have its own subguideline, it defaults to SPORTCRIT/GNG, which means medaling at any level does not actually suggest SIGCOV exists. Hope this helps! JoelleJay (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keep !votes based on non-existent, or worse, deprecated guidelines should be ignored. There is no policy or guideline that confers automatic or even presumed notability to any athlete; in fact, NSPORT now requires all athlete articles, even those that aren't challenged on notability grounds, have at least one IRS containing SIGCOV to even exist in mainspace. No one has coughed up this SIGCOV, therefore both NSPORT and GNG are failed. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in independent source. The sources I find are from his school, league, or organizations he's connected to.—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion after a PROD Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The library's origins as a schoolhouse are noted in the main Danbury article. Rest of the information is non-noteworthy. --Jprg1966(talk)03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To get it back on the log per request on my Talk following my soft delete close. No need for it to run seven days unless someone finds it helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi02:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A degree awarding institution with significant history (170 years), I'd fail to see how this college is not notable - The Times of India piece is significant (let alone further coveragefrom ToI and India Today and there is a considerable body of work linking back to the College across a number of fields. Breezes past WP:GNG with a cheeky wink. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources provided by Alexandermcnabb, Hzh presented these sources in the first AFD which also constitute significant coverage [61][62][63]. I question whether the nominator actually followed WP:BEFORE or took the time to look at the sources in the first AFD. One of these sources states that Raja Balwant Singh College has the largest college campus in Asia.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There seems to be a disconnect between the guideline on whether this should exist and editors feelings on such. A consensus to delete this is not going to form. Suggest meta discussion on the disconnect elsewhere. StarMississippi14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
Keep, given the RfD (I created this dab page). It's helpful: it clearly disambiguates between two encyclopedic-but-not-notable topics. The reader is helped by this page existing; it's a better bet than to leave them staring at likely unhelpful search results. That's the important part out of the way; helpfulness really is the primary consideration when it comes to navigational pages like this one. DABMENTION, as a specific guideline, is absolutely the policy to refer to here as it covers this situation. This is what DABMENTION says:
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
Nothing about a notability requirement, nothing about this section only applying in some rare, NOPAGE exception. I believe that the likely undiscussed turn of phrase in NOTDIRECTORY should be clarified, and that a wider discussion should take place on the merits of no-blue-link dab pages. But for now, this should be kept – as for DABMENTION itself, I'm fairly confident that the nominator's view is very different to practice. J947 † edits09:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDIRECTORY (policy) and it's intersection with MOS:DABMENTION (guideline). On balance the list has contextual information showing reasonable encyclopaedic merit, so passes NOTDIRECTORY point 1 and I don't consider it a set of loosely associated topics (point 2) - otherwise we'd be deleting every list of people by surname which I imagine is not a good idea. The other points of NOTDIRECTORY don't seem to apply to me. In terms of DABMENTION I tend to think this adds substantial value and am completely unconvinced by the merit of the argument that I've seen recently that the search function is a better way of getting to articles - an argument which seems to have no foundation in policy and which, in my experience, is flat out untrue. The politician is certainly someone who I can imagine showing up more on PapersPast searches, and the athlete is someone who competed at the top-level of international sport and may well have more that can be written about them without necessarily having their own article. So, on balance I think keeping here is reasonable, especially given that there has been a recent RfD discussion that is related. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a reasonable solution to the RfD. (This disambiguation page is clearly not a complete listing of every person named Arthur Harley: it is an index of articles in Wikipedia that mention Arthur Harley). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is very clear that the page should only list the notable Arthur Harley's. As there are no notable Arthur Harley's, the dab page cannot contain any entries and thus should be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DABMENTION, this is a misunderstanding of WP:NOTDIRECTORY due to a bit of casual verbiage that should be clarified. The context is that Wikipedia is not for simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. It follows that if a disambiguation page listed all Arthur Harleys, including those without any encyclopedic merit, it would be a violation of that. However, the two listed here are okay because they have encyclopedic merit—namely that we have encyclopedic article content on each of these Arthur Harleys. Therefore, anyone looking for such information would be able to find it by using the disambiguation page and it is a Good Thing to help our readers find such information. --Tavix(talk)13:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that is the intent - is it really beneficial to list every mentioned John Smith at John Smith, and to have a disambiguation page for every non-notable person mentioned on Wikipedia? This also causes additional issues with choosing the target; while there is always a clear target for notable individuals, as either their standalone article or the article that covers them in the context of a broader topic, that is not always the case for non-notable individuals who might be mentioned in multiple articles.
In any case, policy is currently clear that dab pages should only list notable individuals, and until there is a consensus to change policy we must follow it - while an argument can be made that the MOS disagrees with this, policy is controlling over the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every individual mentioned on Wikipedia should be listed in the disambiguation page. The guidance at WP:DABMENTION states that it should be listed only if it would provide value to the reader. If a non-notable person is mentioned in multiple articles, there will almost always be one that gives more information than others, which would be the page to use. For example, I find it happens a lot with perennial political candidates, and using their most recent campaign is usually best because it will list their previous runs. I don't think the long-standing guidance at WP:DABMENTION should be thrown away due to a poorly worded sentence at WP:NOT. Can you find consensus that established this wording? I find it much more likely that someone slipped that wording in there intending to clarify that disambiguations are not for listing any Tom, Dick, and Harry but perhaps was not aware of when disambiguation pages are allowed to have entries from non-notable subjects. --Tavix(talk)14:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it coming down to whether having tens of thousands of dab pages like this would be beneficial to the encyclopedia, and I don't think they would be - they wouldn't be maintained, which means that readers would struggle to find mentions of the Arthur Harley that were added after the dab page was created. In addition, adding mentions like these to current dab pages like John Smith would make them excessively long, and make it difficult for readers to find the notable John Smith that they are searching for. As for targets, that might be the case with most political candidates but it isn't with athletes - for example, an Olympian who competed in two Olympics will rarely have one that gives more information than the others.
The long-standing guidance is at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which was added eight years ago. The current text at WP:DABMENTION was added two years ago, changing it from a requirement to include mentions after an informal discussion that didn't consider WP:NOT (looking at John Smith from prior to that change, it doesn't appear that requirement was ever followed). BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's definitely an art and not a science. I would presume the bar to adding a non-notable person to John Smith is higher than adding a non-notable person to eg. Arthur Harley. With the former, it can quickly get unwieldy (and that's probably why you don't see too many of them). With the latter, if you're looking for an Arthur Harley non-notable people are your only options, so it's not something to worry about. For the example about an Olympian that competed in two Olympics, I'd recommend using the more recent Olympics and then adding a mention (or footnote if there isn't room) in the article for that Olympic event that they competed in a prior Olympics. That should give the necessary context. Also, since it appears you have done research on the history of the wording, can you supply the diffs please? I'd be interested in reviewing that. --Tavix(talk)15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue isn't with the individual dab pages for smaller ones like Arthur Harley; its that the ten of thousands of dab pages that would be created if we revoke that aspect of WP:NOTDIRECTORY would be unmaintainable, and make it harder for readers to find an Arthur Harley that is mentioned in an article created next year. In any case, at the moment NOTDIRECTORY is very clear on the topic, and we should follow it until there is a consensus to change it; I have no objection to draftifying this article in the meantime, to make restoring it easier if that consensus does occur.
Disambiguation pages don't require much maintenance, nor would keeping this disambiguation page lead to the creation of tens of thousands of others; they are simply created when an editor would find one useful. If you find a disambiguation page that "does not provide value to the reader", to use the language from WP:DABMENTION, that would be a better angle to make an argument for deletion. Back to the diffs, the WP:DABMENTION change (still allowing them, but changing from "should" to "may") is the result of a discussion. The change to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, however, was boldly added to clarify that disambiguation pages are not yellow pages or white pages and shouldn't list all people with the name. I doubt Jsharpminor had meant to conflict with WP:DABMENTION, but perhaps with this ping they can clarify if available. --Tavix(talk)20:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intro to this nomination is confusing. Nominator wants this deleted by WP:NOTDIR and folks here respond justifiably with: "Well, what about WP:DABMENTION?" This article's problem, however, is with WP:NLIST (i.e. not with WP:NOTDIR). A list's notability is impacted by the notability of its members (i.e. notability for lists is inherited, to a degree). When the ONLY members of a disambiguation page point at people who are not notable (right now) for Enwiki entries, that list in its entirety is not sufficiently notable to preserve. DABMENTION regulates that such entries can absolutely be included once the disambiguation is warranted, not that a disambiguation page can be constructed only from dabmentions. A list with only dabmentions fails WP:NLIST. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Tavix's argument related to WP:NOTDIR not applying here. With regards to WP:NLIST, I would argue that does not apply as this is not a list page, but is a disambiguation page, which has different scrutiny. TartarTorte18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I don't understand what was going on with the revert mentioned above, but this is clearly a matter that does not require AFD; the article can simply be redirected through the ordinary wiki process. On the other hand, as it stands, there does not appear to be any salvageable content in this article, so there would be no real difference between a delete-and-redirect and a merge-and-redirect. -- Visviva (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC) I see that this approach has been approved based on a 2018 RFC, although it still seems like an incredibly bad idea. -- Visviva (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the material about the pollution issue can be sourced and merged into the main article, I would choose that; otherwise delete as is usual for non-notable city neighborhoods. Mangoe (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A list of generic meanings of a Tamil word does not a disambiguation page make. It appears to have been created in order to resolve a disagreement about the inclusion of this content on Eelam (the actual article about the word). But disambiguation pages are navigational aids, not containers for rejected article content. – Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the nominator states, disambiguation pages are navigational aids. If a reader enters Eelam and doesn't find what they are looking for, they should have another chance to find what they are looking for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So in your view, an English Wikipedia reader who's looking for content about gold, spurges or alcoholic beverages, will search for that content using the Tamil word eelam? – Uanfala (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the page does not serve as disambiguation, but copy of Eelam, and nothing specific for merging. Maybe it could redirect to Eelam. --AntanO04:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. If a merge is made then there's no need to preserve the history of the dab page as its content was itself copied from the suggested merge target – the dab was created 16 Nov 2021, with a brief addition two weeks later: the entire content of three sentences was already present in earlier versions of Eelam (see for example the lede's first two sentences plus the last sentence in the "Etymology" section in the version from 12 Nov). – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to Eelam, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, Eelam is not an English word. However, it doesn't refer an inconsequential item or something for which there is, and/or can be substituted, by an English term. Eelam may refer to a state/country (Sri Lanka) or the ideological state (Tamil Eelam). Hence, even English speakers will have to use this non English word to describe either of the states. Additionally, Eelam also could mean a lot of other things as already mentioned in the disambiguation page hence a dedicated disambiguation page is justified. @Uanfala questions if an English reader will use the Tamil word Eelam to search for gold, spurges or other things that the word Eelam could mean. Why do we have to assume that an English Wikipedia reader doesn't know Tamil? Or that Tamil speakers don't use English Wikipedia? Additionally, regardless of a reader's ability to speak Tamil, the disambiguation page lets readers know that the word Eelam has other meanings too. So, a dab page doesn't have to serve only those who already know all the possible meanings for the word and search by it; it can also serve those who is interested to find out additional topics a word they know or searching for, can refer to.
If the page we're discussing was really a disambiguation page (rather than a fragment of an article), it wouldn't be acceptable for it to have entries for say, the Tamil word for 'gold', see MOS:DABOTHERLANG. That's because disambiguation pages aren't meant to serve as multilingual dictionaries, you can read about some of the reasoning behind that at WP:RLOTE. So far, it appears that the term "Eelam" in English is ambiguous between the geographic term Eelam (which is currently being treated as the primary topic) and the proposed state Tamil Eelam. There's no need for a disambiguation page so far: the primary article has a hatnote to the other one. A disambiguation page will be needed only if there isn't a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since, shortly after making my original comment, I was thinking about the logic behind existence of dab pages: There shouldn't be a Singam dab page listing the movie Singam and a page for Lion, just because Singam is the Tamil word for Lion. This example is what gave me a better understanding on how to take the Tamil Lexicon reference; it may be suited for Wikitionary, but not in Wikipedia. The only actual ambiguity is between Eelam and Tamil Eelam, which is already taken care within their respective pages. Hence, I change my opinion to Delete and my original opinion to Keep was premature. Would like to add that the opinion for deletion doesn't contend the idea of the word Eelam having other definitions as stated in the Lexicon, but that it wouldn't make sense within en.wikipedia.
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.
Comment A leader in a niche is probably not notable as per WP:NCORP, but that aside the sources are problematic - Forbes sites are not RS and a lot of this other coverage is routine funding/acquisition news and announcements. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address your RS concern, I've removed the Forbes/sites link as a citation from the body of the article. (Both passages it supported are also supported by at least one other RS source.) I've moved the link to "External links" because its author Tony Silber is a journalist of long standing and his take on the company will likely be of interest to readers. PRRfan (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to one of those references which goes "well beyond" routine funding/acquisition news and announcements? Especially with WP:ORGIND and "Independent Content" in mind. I'm not seeing it. HighKing++ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's Axios assessing and asserting the company's significance in its market: "Prior to GovExec, there hasn't been one media company that has tried to bundle all of the content and services that serve public-sector officials in one place." That is Axios' reporting, not company officials talking.[1]
• Here's Business Insider assessing the company's importance as business-to-business media, which "has been a bright spot in an industry that struggled during the pandemic, leading to layoffs and furloughs across the media world." The article explores the company's history, distinguishes it from other media companies, compares it to market competitors, presents assessments by outside business analysts, etc.[2]PRRfan (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The Axios reference does indeed contain a small amount of in-depth "Independent Content" and although is pretty small and light-weight there's an argument to be made that once you exclude stuff that fails ORGIND, there's enough to meet CORPDEPTH and therefore NCORP. But the Business Insider reference does not. The sentence you've extracted is a general comment about "B2B media" - in fact you omitted that from the beginning of the extract. There's nothing in that article that can be said to be in-depth "Independent Content". HighKing++ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't omit "B2B media"; I literally spelled out the abbreviation to make things clearer. The point is that the article reports that GovExec is notable, in part, because it and similar companies have bucked a general trend. This is explicitly asserted in the piece's first two sentences, and backed up by the rest of the article. PRRfan (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for me the way your sentence is written is ambiguous. It isn't clear that the extracted quote is actually referring to the general B2B marketplace. But I disagree that the article reports that GovExec is notable. Nowhere is that stated and interpretations that are not WP:V are potentially WP:OR. For me, based on reading the article and the style of writing, my opinion is there is no in-depth "Independent Content" in the article. The comments that aren't directly attributed to an exec or an announcement or filing are, for me, either comments about a general marketplace and not made relevant to this topic company or simple summaries or positioning so that the next quote or sentence attributed to the company is in better context and easier to understand. HighKing++ 20:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It is certainly true that the article does not say "GovExec is notable", a bar that would consign a lot of other companies' pages to deletion. Yet it's hardly an "interpretation" to note that the perfectly RS Business Insider published this article because it deemed the company notable, and for at least two reasons that the piece explicitly asserts and then explores: first, that it is among the rare private-equity-backed media companies that are growing, not shrinking; and second, that it is among the rare media companies that grew, not shrank, during the pandemic. Does the article quote company officials? Sure. Does it put those quotes in a larger context? Yes. (Does it quote an unnamed employee about lingering fears? Yep.) PRRfan (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic of published this article because it deemed the company notable, every article ever published confers notability. I think this company is unusual, they appear to be an important part of the US Government's channel for communication and therefore are involved with a lot of announcements - but nobody seems to have written a lot *about* them. If we could get another article similar to the Axios piece I'd consider changing my !vote. HighKing++ 11:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that ORGIND says articles must contain "Independent Content". Usually that's easy to spot because the journalist will not pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company. I assume every article is from a respectable third party publisher but that's not enough, the content must also be intellectually independent. HighKing++ 19:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the standard that WP:ORGIND lays out for Independent Content... "pepper every second paragraph with phrases that attributes the imparted information and content to the topic company or to a party affiliated with the topic company" is OK as long as there is also "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." which you're clearly saying there is in every other paragraph. This doesn't appear to meet any of the "Examples of dependent coverage" at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll stop this here. I've said all I have to say on this topic. Your various interpretations of NCORP are bizarre and I'll leave it to the closing admin to make whatever determination they see fit. HighKing++ 21:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you're using Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this passes WP:GNG so its GNG you need to address. If GNG is satisfied the supplemental standard is irrelevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're following WP:N guidelines (which contains the GNG section) then you will also see WP:SNG (the very next section) which explicitly refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. The consensus is that unless there are very good reasons to make an exception, we use WP:SNG guidelines to assess a topic against the appropriate category guidelines - so for companies, that's WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNG can not override a GNG pass, it can only override a GNG fail. Also note that when I read WP:ORGIND I fail to find anything which supports your unique and esoteric interpretation of "Independent Content." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfortunately mistaken. The point of the NCORP guidelines is to clarify that there's a higher bar for inclusion of articles about organizations because of the large incentives to write about non-notable companies both in press and in Wikipedia. It's right there in WP:ORGCRIT! FalconK (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP applies. The references are all based entirely on company announcements - every single references either says that the information was told by an executive (or an executive of one of their acquisitions) or that the company "announced" the news with the remainder being mere mentions-in-passing. Nothing here comes close to meeting ORGIND, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 14:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: I believe that you are mistaken... We only look at WP:NCORP after evaluating WP:GNG and GNG is met. Also thats not even a correct interpretation of WP:NCORP as PRRfan has informed you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment-It is a shame that articles are not "grandfathered in", as the subject was notable by football notability standards at the time it was written.--Gri3720 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another non-notable and advertisement like page for an Urdu tafsir. However, this time they added a bunch of low quality and unrelated sources that don't actually source the statements in the article. Sources include links to the work on archive.org, dead link, a self-written list of someone's favorite tafsirs twice, a totally unrelated spammy website about the name Abbas, and a link to buy the book. Of the two legitimate articles, one is about it being presented as a gift and the Hindi one appears to be about the scholar's life. The topic of his tafsir is covered well on his biography already. Searching brings up book piracy websites and blogs. Zaynab1418 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Significant discussion, with particular focus on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:LISTN. There does not seem to be significant disagreement that the subject of list itself is notable. There also seems to be consensus that not all lists of deaths are non-notable memorials. TigerShark (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia simply isn't a memorial. I can't think of any other case where we've had an article dedicated to listing every individual in a mass casualty event - terrorism or otherwise and i don't see any reason why we should. Notable victims, yes, but other than that, absolutely not. PRAXIDICAE🌈00:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic easily meets WP:LISTN, which says that a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Unlike most mass casualty events, there are an extraordinary number of works dedicated to the victims as a group, both at the time of the event and in the two decades that followed. These include books and book parts ([64], [65], [66], [67], [68]), news articles ([69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], and even a study about their specific location within WTC at the time of their death. Others above point to the lack of other sorts of things lists relating to other mass casualty events, but this is a bad WP:OTHERSTUFF argument that fails to consider the extent to which coverage actually exists for this specific topic. WP:NOTDATABASE prohibits four types of content: (1) Summary-only descriptions of work, (2) Lyrics databases, (3) Excessive listings of unexplained statistics, and (4) Exhaustive logs of software updates. Simply put, this is not any of those—this list is not a summary of a work, a database of lyrics, any sort of mathematical/statistical database, nor a log of software updates. The appeal to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is similarly confused and erroneous, as it notes that subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements and this article clearly meets WP:LISTN. 9/11 was a tremendously impactful event, generated a TON of coverage, and this particular entry is notable in its own right and it is so large that merging it into any article would result in that article being WP:TOOBIG. And, if one believes that the selection criteria for this are too wide and that only notable victims should be included in the table, then this is an issue that can be dealt with through ordinary editing. And, keeping in mind that WP:DEL-CONTENT demands that when editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, this is not an argument that supports deletion outright. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, that doesn't address the WP:DEL-CONTENT reason for keeping, which is that ordinary editing processes are likely capable of improving the page to resolve policy issues with the content for an article with a notable subject. If there's consensus that the current selection criteria (all victims recognized by the WTC Museum) are too broad and could be replaced with a more narrow selection criteria (all notable victims), then the solution to get around it being overly broad would be to do that. But outright deletion is a plain overstep without so much as attempting to establish a better selection criteria the list through ordinary discussion and editing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to WP:NOTDATABASE, you are correct; I got it and WP:NOTDIRECTORY confused. With that said WP:NOTDIRECTORY also doesn't make a clear argument for deletion; the argument would be that their contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is the fact that they were killed in the September 11 attacks, but that merit isn't obvious and could be argued either way. I still lean delete, but am not overly convinced either way. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the line in the policy refers to WP:LISTCRITERIA (i.e. how to set appropriate selection criteria) as the controlling guidance with respect to how we distinguish simple listings from encyclopedic ones. To echo my comment above, nobody appears to have even brought this up on the list's talk page. When there is a notable underlying topic (such as there is in this case by virtue of WP:LISTN), Ordinary discussion and editing related to selecting an appropriate selection criteria should at least be attempted before nuking a page from orbit on the basis that the article creator made the list's scope too wide; the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first (such as by opening requests for comment) before deleting the article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if the inclusion criteria is limited to people who are the subject of a Wikipedia biography. A list of several thousand names of mostly non-notable people is not encyclopedic, and the external links section should direct readers to the best of such comprehensive lists off-Wikipedia. Otherwise delete. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the 3,000-ish incoming redirects. Nothing appears to have changed, re: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, from old deletion discussions of similar pages, this smacks of just tossing things at the wall hoping this time it will stick. That people died on 9/11 is notable, but that does not confer individual notability upon each victim where they should be memorialized in a list. Zaathras (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory or a place to create lists such as this. A page of just notable people would be a different thing but I am reminded of the thinking behind WP:BIO1E and whilst notability is required for all of the items in a list that doesn't mean that everyone needs to be shown. It seems to me that adding a well written note containing a link to the September 11 memorial on other pages could easily replace this page. I would also say that Wikipedia is not a place where it is appropriate to create additional workload by creating (well) over 100 redirects within a day without first raising it with the New Page Patrollers or the page creation talk page. These redirects will also make it just that little bit harder to create pages for other people of the same names and my preference would be for them to be removed as well. Gusfriend (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable
The policy goes further to say that editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, but that is just allowing editor discretion, not mandating it. Further to this, editors in this discussion may be interested to know that Praxidicae didn't just list this AfD, but this is a 3rd strike after first deciding to confront me on my talk page, and report me at WP:ANI. The article should be kept or deleted based on policy and reason, but its AfD listing may have been motivated otherwise. — Guarapiranga☎05:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as others said above, per various sections of WP:NOT, and also as an unnecessary and undesirable fork of Casualties of 9/11. We need an article about the casualties, not a list; this is "listcruft". The identity of every victim isn't a significant part of 9/11: the victims were not specifically chosen or targeted, they were just people tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some are "notable" enough for their own article or "due for inclusion" (in wikispeak) in an existing article but not everyone. There is no encyclopedic value to listing all their 3,000 names, any more than it makes sense to list the names of everyone who died in a battle or war or natural disaster or terrorist attack or any mass casualty event. Also, it defines these non-notable people as victims. I mean the most important thing about these ~3,000 victims is not that they died on 9/11. I am sure each one of them did something more important in their lives. They should be remembered for their individual obituaries, and if they're not notable, there's no reason for Wikipedia to "take over" their internet footprint by listing them in a list article. Because let's face it, this will become a top search result for each one of these 3k names on the list. Levivich[block]05:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be fine with selective merging of victim biographies to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks, or other appropriate 9/11 sub-articles. Some victim biographies will be WP:DUE for inclusion in certain articles, and some notable for their own articles. But a list of all the people killed on 9/11 should not exist on Wikipedia. If we have enough victim biography stand-alone articles to justify it, I'd be fine with a "list of notable victims" or a template, etc., as a navigation aid. Levivich[block]19:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Short of transcribing an actual phone book into an article, I don't think I could come up with a better example of an article that falls under both WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:COMMONSENSE. This list is complex (involving a lot of different but related parts) by virtue of its staggeringly immense size, and WP:LISTN specifically notes that "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex...lists." Therefore the notability criteria of WP:LISTN does not apply, as there is no consensus that simply having sources would create notability for such an atypical list subject. Furthermore, there is no notability for the group outside of the scope of the already existing Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Wikipedia:Article size says that articles of about 100k are too long and should be split into smaller articles. This article is well over 800k in size, and cannot be split into smaller articles. There is no justification for that. There is no rationale under Wikipedia policies or guidelines for this article to exist, and editing cannot improve the page in a way that will rectify these deficiencies. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMEMORIAL explicitly applies to subjects of encyclopedia articles, not to content within articles or lists. It's meant to preclude editors from creating entire pages dedicated to memorialise someone not notable. Evidently, the September 11 attacks, and their victims as a group, are well above wp:notability's bar. — Guarapiranga☎08:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nowhere in my reply that I said WP:NOTMEMORIALdoes not apply to lists of people, but rather that it explicitly applies to subjects of encyclopaedia articles (including lists, of course), not to content within articles or lists.— Guarapiranga☎09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure you know what you are trying to say, because it looks like you've contradicted yourself. WP:NOTMEMORIAL can apply to both subjects of articles and content. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodie, you must have so much time to burn. You've created re-directs for pretty much every single person on the list, with this list as the target: [76]. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: With respect, reliance on WP:UNDUE is misplaced because that is concerned on maintaining balance within the content of articles, not the topics covered by Wikipedia. There is no policy that says Wikipedia must have a balance of articles from different areas around the world and we most certainly do not. I'm not convinced by reliance on WP:INDISCRIMINATE either, it is a clearly defined list. It's generally best to try and explain how the criteria apply to the particular article rather than simply listing them. See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Local Variable (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list article title, but not the content. The current content is not true to label as it is only about the "fatal" "victims inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum". What about the victims who survived, but were seriously injured, suffered life-changing trauma, or now have long term career-limiting health effects; are they not victims, too? This article should be what the basic list article was intended to be, an index to provide links to the [Wikipedia] biography articles about the notable people who were victims of the September 11 attacks. The existing list is only about the fatal victims inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, so that article should explain where the list of fatal victims are inscribed and how an on-line or printable version can be found. Wikipedia is not a September 11 memorial, so we should not have that memorial list here. However, a suitable Wikipedia article should note that these memorial inscriptions do exist and where these inscriptions can be found. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe changing it to "notable victims of 9/11", like Dronebogus alluded to, may be a good way to rescue some of the article. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list article title, but not the content - I agree with Cameron Dewe. On the one hand, this article should probably be trimmed to link only to notable people. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (in the literal sense - the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is literally a memorial and we don't need to copy every name from the 9/11 Memorial), we shouldn't list all the non-notable people who died here. On the other hand, the title also implies that the list includes people who were injured during 9/11, including those who later fell ill after the fact. Right now this list only contains fatal victims, which is a bit misleading. However, had this article been named "List of people who died in the September 11 attacks", I might have voted definitively to delete.A couple of side notes here. I'm not seeing any undue bias toward NYC, as most victims naturally would've lived in the NYC area due to the nature of the attacks. I was also concerned over the fact that @Onetwothreeip had draftified this page, and then redirected it to Casualties of the September 11 attacks, without bringing it to AFD for wider discussion (thereby breaking several thousand redirects). However, as all the redirects have been deleted and this discussion now exists, I don't think that is a problem anymore. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list seems notable enough to remain on the site. It gives enough information and meets WP:LISTN and also 9/11 is a very important topic so I believe that it holds notability although other lists of casualties from similar events probably wouldn't. At worst we scale it down to only include notable victims or we redirect it to Casualties of the September 11 attacks but I think it's plausable to keep the article on the site. N1TH Music (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Casualties of the September 11 attacks is an overview article about victims in general.
List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks is a subset of this topic. Thus, if the "List of 9/11 victims" article is deleted, then the "List of emergency workers killed in 9/11" may have similar issues.
Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks, Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks, Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, - These only talk tangentially about victims insofar as they talk about the aftermath and effects of the attacks.
American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175 - These articles do talk about the victims of the respective flights. However, the victims are not the main focus of the article.
Of the articles mentioned above, only two of these pages actually talk about victims in depth. One of them is a subtopic article and the other is an overview article. Neither page really talks about the victims themselves, which is definitely a valid topic - at least, judging by the sources in @Mhawk10's comment and in the current list article. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I would propose this list be an index, perhaps something like a disambiguation page. A name-sorted bulleted list of wiki-links to pre-existing Wikipedia articles, perhaps with a brief description of their notability and a sentence or two explaining what the list is and it's inclusion criteria. Something really basic and minimal, to avoid the article being any larger than necessary. The problem with Casualties of the September 11 attacks, and many other similar articles, is that they are verbose descriptions, with names scattered throughout the article in no particular name order or inclusion criteria. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they mean contextless in the sense that it's a list of names with no context as to who this person is outside of "employer information". It's context is in who they worked for, not who the person was. There's no context there for any of the people, it's just a list of names. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even being as sparse as they are, those still have more context and information than what's contained in this list, and those entries aren't exacerbated by the virtue of being several thousand entries long. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 200 items on this list that give nothing but a name. It is a tragedy that these people died but readers learn nothing from these 200 names being listed here. It is essentially just a mirror of the 9/11 memorial - something Wikipedia is not. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 9 sources cited in the article giving the list of fatal victims, not just the 9/11 Memorial. The 9/11 Memorial doesn't give the particulars of the fatal victims, btw; that I pulled from WFSA12 News. Some of the sources list the names differently from others; some with full middle name, some abbreviated; some with suffixes, some without. So, yeah, it's not a mirror. — Guarapiranga☎00:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the around 200 items (sic) (out of the 3,000!) on this list that give nothing but a name...
Many of those may have been by my inability to match the names across the sources;
In all cases there is info about where the victim was killed (at WTC, the flights or the Pentagon); if there's any missing, it's an error on my part; and
Even in the cases that no further details are to be found in the current given sources, nothing prevents editors from adding other RS to the article (or even new RS to be published, and represented here).
Similarly, there's nothing that says notability for "the topic" means you have to create a list several thousand entries long for it, when it's already covered in other article proportionate to coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do they? Here is what WP:NOTMEMORIAL says (emphasis mine):
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)
Agree fully. I just glanced at one of the above and saw many blue-linked names and names with individual citations. This list has almost no blue-links and probably no coverage for any of these people individually. Dronebogus (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can that be improved? Can the page somehow be 'minified'? What's taking so much space? I vaguely remember seeing longer lists on WP (not to mention articles with various images, which surely don't come cheap in size. I simplified {{list person}}, but that didn't help. — Guarapiranga☎08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant improvements that can be made in removing the excessive formatting throughout the list, and restricting the list to notable entries. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Onetwothreeip. I think I would prefer this page if it were a list of names not in table form. E.g.
Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC: Andrew Anthony Abate (37), Vincent Paul Abate (40), Laurence Christopher Abel (37), ...
Perhaps the "Job" column could simply be cut. I'm not sure the current form with detail on each individual is the right format for the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the largest page (by size of WikiText) on Wikipedia. The page (after our edits) is now only 3K larger than the second-largest page by wikitext size. So it's quite large, but that also is something of a consequence of the number of entries in the list. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename as suggested above per WP:LISTN. The list by itself is highly notable. Moreover, the list is complete. The individual people or items in such lists are not required to be notable or have their own pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article title, not content - I'm conflicted on the different interpretations of WP:NOTMEMORIAL but I'm leaning towards it not being applicable to list articles like this when the subjects of the list, as a group, have notability (and they almost certainly does). That said, we generally only include notable names on lists as long as this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me!10:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with My very best wishes. It makes sense for a listing of those killed (which passes WP:NLIST) to be made into a WP:SPINOFF of the casualties page with its given size. There is contextual information showing encyclopedic merit in the very first sentence. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't generally name nonnotable people in almost any context unless it's somehow necessary or convenient for the narration of events -- much less make giant lists of them. (I suppose if it just listed notable deaths that might be a different story. But the fact is I think almost all list pages are stupid so I'm probably not a good judge on that score.) EEng01:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mhawk10. In its terms, WP:NOTMEMORIAL says: Wikipedia is not [...] a memorial site ... Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.). The way I read this is that there is no prohibition per se on this type of article. Rather, it is that memorial articles generally fall outside of the notability criteria. That is why it says the subject[] of an article must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. To me, this calls for analysis of whether this list is itself notable: Notability of lists is based on the group. The past consensus decisions based on NOTMEMORIAL therefore ought not be followed. There is some analysis of notability above, but not a lot. Mhawk10 offers detailed analysis in favour of notability. I'm not convinced that an article which could be described as a 'memorial' (because it lists deceased individuals) is prohibited for any other reason other than want of notability. Wikipedia has lists of many things, lists of deceased people is really just another type of list. For the reasons given by Mhawk10, this list is notable. You can't get a more notable list of casualties than that from this event. Local Variable (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article is both a directory and a memorial, both of which are against WP guidelines, as already pointed out. It's also massive, therefore unmergeable into any other article. I wouldn't object to a List of notable victims of the September 11 attacks, strictly limited to people who have their own biography article, but the current list does not belong to an encyclopedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic purpose, memorial and directory. This information exists on other websites and I see no reason to host it here. MB16:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we here to discuss whether the article should be deleted (WP:AFD), whether it is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies, and which are valid arguments that should be given more weight than unsupported statements (WP:DISCUSSAFD)? Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one (WP:AFDEQ). — Guarapiranga☎01:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did. It doesn't apply. I'm not asking anyone to satisfy me; nowhere did I say I was not convinced by anyone's arguments. In this instance, I simply questioned the validity of the argument that information exists on other websites and therfore there is no reason to host it here. That's what we are here to do. — Guarapiranga☎04:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness or encyclopedic purpose tends to be a highly subjective judgment. As said over at WP:WEDONTNEEDIT: A list of all the phone numbers in New York City would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. This project's notability criteria imply that knowledge about a subject that meets them is useful. If this list had significant coverage in reliable sources and is notable, then this seems to be beside the point. Local Variable (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Local Variable:If this list had significant coverage in reliable sources
Keep - Unless the notability standard for lists changes, this one is valid and notable. Plenty of sources and sustained coverage mentioned and listed already. WikiVirusC(talk)02:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The keep votes above are in WP:JUSTNOTABLE territory. There is no independent coverage, no notability in media asserted. Search yields very little and no RS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
PROD contested by @Jacona: based on finding information in newspapers.com; I've searched for this location in the same place twice and have only brought up real estate ads, real estate listings, auction notices, party announcements, 911 call reports, and two short pieces about an escaped lizard.
The minimal coverage present here indicates that this is a subdivision, and WP:GEOLAND does not extend down to the subdivision level. The real estate ads/listings and the passing mentions in the various reports/announcements don't count towards WP:GNG; and two short pieces about a (large) escaped lizard don't meet that bar themselves. Unless someone has better search terms than I do, I'm not seeing a way to justify notability here. Hog FarmTalk14:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears on USGS maps starting around 1961 [77], which makes sense because it lies on the north shore of Lake Lemon, a body of water which was only created in the 1950s. The creation of the lake created the geographic feature and a reason to live there. It is a populated area, but I'm not seeing any substantive coverage about it.--Milowent • hasspoken17:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
hi 1. Is an independent 2022 review of the work published in a major online magazine, 2. Is a lengthy 2017 review of the work by an independent writer in a cultural magazine, and 3. is likewise a lengthy 2018 review of the book in an Iraqi cultural magazine. None of them is PR or black hat SEO and all carry extensive literary and critical content. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see editorial policies or even a masthead for any of the three, considering how they're formatted like blogs. The third one has a sizable Facebook following but I'm struggling to get more on the background of the first two. Do they have Wikidata entries? czar22:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although they have not participated here, the article creator appears to object to deletion, so treating this as ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Livin' Joy if no sources are found, but I have a hard time believing the lead singer of a band that charted worldwide has no independent coverage in reliable sources. However, as the group peaked in the 90s, it wouldn't be the type of search you'd perform on Google... versacespaceleave a message!21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment, it was kept in 2014 largely due to a policy which then existed that worked on the basis of all secondary schools being notable. This ceased to be a policy several years ago and despite the article on NL wikipedia being significantly more developed, I am not actually seeing any sources on it. Due to any sourcing likely being non-English, I couldn't really say if it's notable or not. I'd probably lean delete as things stand. Bungle(talk • contribs)15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: Fair enough, I hadn't noted you are a native dutchman! Alas, you'd be in a fairly good position to identify them better than say myself (although do you have access to historic dutch newspapers too?). My point is that it may be harder for participants of enwiki to do an appropriate WP:BEFORE search, but even with that said, I would still lean in favour of delete. Bungle(talk • contribs)16:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per WP:NOTNEWS. The whole subject seems to be built exclusively around a claim made by Hugo Chávez in an interview, and the interviewer himself, Ted Koppel, recognizes that he never received proof of Chávez's accusations, even after he promised to do so and several requests, as stated in the article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit00:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fleeting notability from the Koppel interview, adequately covered already in the U.S.–Venezuela relations article. Don't see a need for a redirect. --Jprg1966(talk)03:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails to WP:ENT, and the majority of the sources used are mostly paid and promotional, such as "khabar3ajeldubai" and "news-future", I didn't see anything significant to write an article about him. فيصل (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, removed the "hashtag-IQ" website which was a blog. The other sites are all news outlets or TV channels. Granted little is known because they are not Western Sources it does seem like this individual is notable in the Arab world. There's a difference between a stub and not being notable. This is is the former. Some work could done to expand the information. Given the awards, it is plausible that someone would search for this individual. I've cleaned up the references. ≫ Lil-Unique1-{ Talk }-21:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lil-unique1: Hi, Thank you for your opinion, as an Arab, I can assure you that reliable Arabic sources for "Farah Alhaddad" are very scarce, and all the prizes mentioned are not important or famous, there are just a play with words to make the reader think that the character achieves notability. For example, can you provide me the website for the "Miss Middle East award"? I'm sure you won't be able to, because the award is not important and doesn't even have an official website. As I explained to you earlier that the sources are very scarce in Arabic, I searched for her name on Google specifically in the news section, and the sources are almost non-existent.--فيصل (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: There are many Russian [1][2] journal articles, plus various Chinese sources (as used and verified in the article), plus English-language sources [1], so there are enough sources to write a standalone article as long as we can verify them. I am checking on the original sources and adding new sources to improve the article. You can just open the edit page, which shows the original text from each source cited as hidden annotations if verified. --HNlander (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
