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

The result was merge to List of scale model sizes. Missvain (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1:600 scale[edit]

1:600 scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic does not pass WP:GNG. Currently, the article is not reliably sourced. A search only comes up with results showing the the 1:600 scale is used by some models, but no in-depth coverage discussing the significance of the 1:600 scale itself. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on this VFD, we would have to have all the many other articles about scales on VFD as well. And, it's not just some models, many brands use this scale.Antonio El Muchacho de los Ojos Tristes Martin (di?) 22:23, May 5, 2021 (UTC)

That's WP:ALLORNOTHING. Why does this article specifically meet WP:GNG?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the GNG. The fact that this scale is used is of no consequence: since it's never discussed in detail in reliable sources, it has to go. If the same is true for other articles, they should also be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added an article on ESPN, which is a reliable source.Antonio Toy Model Martin (que que??) 05:32, May 9, 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a trivial mention, in my view. It states in passing that a model uses it, but there's nothing beyond that. The GNG requires significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to a merge to List of scale model sizes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could we merge several 1:n00 scale pages?--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent idea! Take some of the info on each page and include it on the new page...Antonio the product of a merge Martin (whats up?) 05;56, May 12, 2021 (UTC)

• Merge to existing page at List of scale model sizes. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per el cid, el campeador and Extraordinary Writ. As another topic, it looks like we'll need to merge 1:200 scale as well, but we might need another discussion to do this.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area[edit]

Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has only one source, a primary one, so clearly fails WP:GEOLAND. Potentially could be merged into Baton Rouge metropolitan area. It also no longer exists as a combined statistical area which isn't a reason for deletion but does mean its unlikely that new sources will appear. Eopsid (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are 172 Combined statistical areas, but of the of the just 94 in Category:Combined statistical areas of the United States, roughly half are redirects. No automatic notability for every combination of statistical areas, especially not those that no longer exist. Reywas92^Talk 00:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as stand-alone per above. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. If CSA was active, then I would support a merge onto the CSA list. Perhaps this would be appropriate if incorporated onto a list of former/defunct CSAs, but does not meet WP:N as its own article.Babegriev (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stand-alone per above. Fails WP:GEOLAND --Whiteguru (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Heart ^(talk) 10:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Armstrong (politician)[edit]

Ken Armstrong (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. The independent sources that are cited are not primarily about the subject. A previous AfD resulted in consensus to delete. Redirect to 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Withdrew during the primaries. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are two cases of significant, independent coverage in the article: from KIMT and from KXNet. Enough to meet GNG. Nweil (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nweil, both of these are pretty routine campaign coverage. If that qualifies, then pretty much anyone can get over WP:NPOL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as I see it. Nweil (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nweil, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFF. I haven't referenced another deletion discussion. I'm saying we have WP:NPOL for a reason (it's a guideline), and it does set requirements for unelected candidates, which preclude routine campaign coverage from satisfying notability. Perhaps more importantly, the subject's notability does not appear to have been significalty better-established since the last AfD was closed with a consensus to delete. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:NPOL does it exclude campaign coverage? Nweil (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nweil, please read Bearcat's remarks in the previous AfD. They put it pretty well: The key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on candidacy grounds is to show that his campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the norm that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than other candidates. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Bearcat, that's not policy. Nweil (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nweil, WP:NPOL is a guideline, which we should follow in most cases. If you read their full remarks, you'll see how they're applying NPOL: Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so such coverage does not automatically get the person over GNG — if all you had to do to give a candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL was to show some evidence that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The contention there is provably false. I just had an article today where the person was the elected mayor of a 60K person city for over ten years but there was never any significant coverage of her campaign or her wins. Thus does not meet GNG. Nweil (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be "policy" — guidelines such as WP:NPOL are every bit as binding as any policy. It's a standard principle of Wikipedia, in fact, that policies tell us what to do while guidelines explain how to do it, so they work in tandem, and guidelines cannot be ignored just because they're branded as "guidelines" instead of "policies". You obey the policies and the guidelines together, period.
At any rate, every candidate in every election everywhere really, truly can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if two pieces of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt an unelected candidate for political office from WP:NPOL on the grounds that he had passed WP:GNG instead, then nobody would ever have to pass NPOL at all anymore, and NPOL would thus be entirely meaningless. So getting into a candidate into Wikipedia is not just "two pieces of campaign coverage = GNG booya screw all y'all haters boiiiiii" — making an unelected candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article most certainly does require either evidence that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy, which would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or evidence that his campaign generated such an unusual depth and range of coverage that he can credibly claim to be a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable not-even-really-a-candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, doesn't meet WP:NPOL either. Mztourist (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet GNG in my view. Intothatdarkness 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and doesn't qualify WP:NPOL. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of criminal organizations in DC Comics. If anyone wishes to merge the content from behind the redirect, they can do so at their own editorial discretion. Daniel (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tartarus (DC Comics)[edit]

Tartarus (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable supervillain team-up that existed for a single storyline. There are no secondary sources being used at all, and my WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing in reliable, secondary sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. This article was PRODed several months ago, but that was removed without explanation or improvement. Note that the actual location from Greek Mythology, Tartarus exists in the DCU, so there are a few search results regarding that, but that is completely unrelated to this team. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very minor team and I don't see a use for a redirect in this case. Rhino131 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial topic that cannot meet the notability threshold as required by WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with it's section at List of criminal organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. If the page is deleted, I ask that the closer has the page go through WP:SOFTDELETE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of criminal organizations in DC Comics where they are mentioned, no evidence they meet GNG for stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of criminal organizations in DC Comics Suonii180 (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bond[edit]

Maya Bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC guidelines. A few very brief mentions in the local press is all she got. She released a single album when she was 4 years old (which she allegedly wrote the lyrics to). Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Pink Drums, Purple Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Delete Maya Bond appears to fall under WP:1E with an event (album) of dubious notability. The article itself has several RS mentions, albeit not the primary topic of most. I would be more confident of the artist's notability based strictly off of WP:BAND if the compilation album inclusions were notable, however, the notability of these works have not been established. If there were stand-alone articles for these compilation albums, a redirect would be more appropriate. With respect to the Pink Drums, Purple Lights article, there are no cited sources on that article. While some of the sources on Maya Bond could apply to the Pink Drums article, the notability per WP:NALBUMS for Pink Drums, Purple Lights is not established. Being said, I'm not taking a firm position on the Maya Bond article, however, would endorse the deletion of Pink Drums, Purple Lights. Babegriev (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both (singer and album) - The album Pink Drums, Purple Lights got a featured review in the Houston Press [1], which is not cited at the album article but it is cited at the Maya Bond article (footnote #5 as I type this). That is the only semi-reliable coverage I can find for the singer or the album. The other sources in the singer's article are minor one-sentence mentions, typically noting the novelty of recording an album at age 4, but I can find nothing else that qualifies as significant and reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment about the previous AfDs: Maya Bond the actress appears to be someone else. The singer survived two previous AfDs, but the first was in 2007 when notability requirements were looser (and note how everybody said there were sources but did not provide a single specific example). The second AfD ended with no consensus, allowing the article to just barely survive. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see that it has too much news nor does it meet WP:MUSICBIO. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M'ViTim[edit]

M'ViTim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline G11 Promotional non notable article created by a PR firm. The subject of the article is a musician but fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before such links me to sponsored posts, self published sources and user generated sources all of which can not be used in establishing notability. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a PR work. Does not fit the notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applehead1000 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' The tone of the article, let alone the content, is promotional in nature. Does not appear to have many hits on Google or YouTube to satisfy notability guidelines. doktorb _words^deeds 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' Yes, the tone of the article, let alone the content, is promotional in nature. Written like a promotional blurb, as per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regional News Group[edit]

Regional News Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I sent this new article to draft yesterday and it has been moved back into mainspace. It is potentially notable but none of the sources in the article are about the subject. Briefly, ABS-CBN lost its broadcast franchise (all of the sources are about this) and various regional services have been set up/continued by former employees (none of the sources are about this). If the subject can be developed it should be draftified, otherwise it should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No need to delete or move to draftspace, article has reliable sources. Yes theres no source about the subject, but there is source for some topics there, (ex: ABS-CBN Corporation will close ABS-CBN Regional on August 28, 2020 due to House of Representatives 70-11 vote denying/killing the new 25-year franchise for ABS-CBN last July 10, 2020). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you said pretty much the same as the nom — there are sources cited, but they aren't actually relevant to the subject of this article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a pity the opportunity to develop this in the draft space wasn't taken and the article was quickly moved back; it could have possibly turned into something worth keeping, but now I've no option but to !vote to delete. And not that it's deletion grounds per se, but noting that there's also some unsavoury behaviour behind this, incl. likely COI / possible UPE by one or more editors. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move into draftspace: I think the article still has insufficient references (citing that it has still yet to determine if there's new additional references about the subject). Ekis2020 (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move into draftspace No references provided have the phrases "RNG" or "Regional News Group". They all mainly talk about the former network ABS-CBN Regional, which many people part of this come from. Nexus000 (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - since this was originally move to draftspace and later moved back into mainspace by Farlinsports (which is "probably a controversial" move action from this aformentioned user) without any submitting for a review or using a script. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Barely found anything about the media group. Sources indicated in the article mention ABS-CBN Regional, but not RNG itself. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't move to draftspace. THe actual subject of the article has one source, that to a Facebook page, failing WP:RS. All other references are for background fluff that can be, and is, already discussed elsewhere. That means we'd be left with a draft with a single reference to Facebook. If anyone wants to host it on their own user space they should be free to do so, though. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete and move to draftspace: Article was moved to draftspace but returned to article space. Lets just revert it back to draftspace. SeamJ 2007 (tallk) 13:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SeanJ 2007, please strike this !vote or your previous !vote on this discussion. Only one !vote per user - even if you have changed your sig to a slightly different name in the meantime. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Haha, Ok! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. Does not comply with WP:NCORP since this is an "umbrella" of programs formerly of ABS-CBN Regional. SBKSPP (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Going with delete. If someone decides the want to merge something from this deleted article I'm happy to drop it in your userspace. Feel free to redirect if you wish, too. Missvain (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garguax[edit]

Garguax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No particular coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject turns up a fair amount of hits but nothing reliable.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 (Formerly Kieran207) 15:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the character is so minor I don't see a use for a redirect in this case. Rhino131 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with List of minor DC Comics characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. If the closer does go with the delete option, I ask that it be put through WP:SOFTDELETE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters if someone adds the mention of him there (maybe User:Rtkat3 would?). Otherwise it fails WP:EASTEREGG and then the default is delete (given the subject fails WP:NFICTION=GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There hasn't been any minor characters on that page that associated themselves with Garguax. He was also listed on the Brotherhood of Evil page and the List of Doom Patrol enemies page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A minor comic villain, with no coverage in reliable, secondary sources providing any hint of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations#Skeleton Crew. Consensus is that this doesn't warrant a stand-alone page. As there is debate as to whether the content is appropriate to merge, I am redirecting to preserve the page history, in case anyone wants to merge some of the content to the new target. Hog Farm _Talk 04:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton Crew (comics)[edit]

Skeleton Crew (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. A Before reveals no reliable sources, so nothing to merge. Term is generic, so a redirect would be ineffective. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. This fails WP:GNG, and it honestly seems so trivial that it doesn't even deserve mention on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per above. Appears to be a minor crew that Marvel tried, without any lasting significance. No evidence of notability or outside coverage. The topic should be mentioned at an appropriate target, though, and List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations seems good per BOZ. My concern is that the target is -literally- just a list, though, without any detail on a majority of the entries. Red Skull could be another viable target for a merge, but I'll leave that to the comics editors. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Extremely minor villain team, without a single reliable, secondary source discussing them. Merging should not be done, as there is no sourced information to merge. As I have said in other AFDs, the various lists of comic related characters & teams still need to be comprised of reliably sourced information - they can't just be a dumping ground for unsourced information on subjects that warranted deletion on their own. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • they can't just be a dumping ground for unsourced information on subjects that warranted deletion on their own Sure they can - "Marvel characters" is a notable subject, and having a centralized list of characters who are notable within the fiction prevents content forks. You're also conflating "unsourced" with "only primary sources". Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very minor team, even within the fiction. Anyone knowledgeable enough to search the term can find information on it without the help of a redirect. If consensus is to redirect, I think Crossbones (character) would be the best target, as it actually has material on the team. Red Skull lists them as a team affiliation in the infobox and nothing else. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge with the S section of List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. If any character redirect to the page, I ask that they have their links transferred to their respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations where it is mentioned. Possibly merge the lead or something, although lack of references make me disinclined to do this fancruft copy-paste myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Bates[edit]

A. Bates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet notability criteria. No sources cited, and Google search turns up only sales links. Pages that link to subject's page appear to mainly be user pages and other unimportant pages.Terukiyo (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. YA authors are often prolific, but serious reviews of their works can be hard to find. Bates seems to be no exception, but I was able to find some sources that rise to significant coverage of her and her work:

• She's discussed several times in Paperback Crush: The Totally Radical History of '80s and '90s Teen Fiction by Gabrielle Moss (2018)
• Party Line is reviewed in Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual (1990; pp 519-520)
• Mother's Helper is the subject of a review in Publisher's Weekly
• Mother's Helper appears to be the subject of an academic paper in the Journal of the Institute of Romance Studies v. 7 pp.316- (University of London), although I'm having trouble finding the full text of the paper

This ought to be sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being prolific alone wouldn't meet any criteria for WP:NAUTHOR, so that's irrelevant. Disagree that two book reviews meet any of criteria 1-4. It's not difficult to pay for PW reviews (self-published books can even receive reviews for free); that the reviews are significant for book sales does not mean that every reviewed book is "significant or well-known".

Disagree that two citations meet the criterion for "widely cited by peers or successors". Also, do you have the title for the academic paper? Your link to the journal doesn't show a table of contents. Terukiyo (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually presented four citations,
  • Here's a fifth: Final Exam is reviewed in English Journal, Vol. 80, No. 3, (Mar 1991): 87.
  • And a sixth: The Dead Game is discussed in McCarron K. (2000) "Dead Rite: Adolescent Horror Fiction and Death." In: Avery G., Reynolds K. (eds) Representations of Childhood Death. Palgrave Macmillan
  • Regarding the JIRS paper, I can't find the title, but the Google snippet is intriguing: For the purposes of this discussion I have selected Mother's Helper (1991), by Auline Bates, as its peritextual features are particularly relevant here. The cover of the book is immediately striking, directly implicating the child in the denial...
  • As far as I know, Publishers Weekly publishes their paid reviews for self-published books in a separate "BookLife" section. Since her books aren't self-published, we should assume PW's review is independent.
  • Additionally, it appears that her books have been widely translated (at least into French and Finnish). While that's not explicitly considered by WP:NAUTHOR, I think it's evidence that her body of work is "significant or well-known".

Again, I assert that she passes WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, several of her books are notable, so we could conceivably have brief entries for two or three of them, but I think it's more sensible to keep everything on the author's page. pburka (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by pburka and pburka's reasoning, and per WP:AUTHOR due the significant critical attention of the works. Beccaynr (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XULRunner[edit]

XULRunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, all sources are from bug trackers, mailing lists, and similar. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG per the available reliable, independent, secondary sources.^[1][2][3]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first source does seem relevant, but I'm not sure about the other two. Mastering XPages covers XULRunner only in passing, among many other things. The third one appears to be connected to XUL development.

I see a lot of papers on Google Scholar, but cound not find one discussing XULRunner in detais and clearly not connected to it.

Anton.bersh (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty more sources ...^[1][2][3][4]

SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NSOFT with reliable sources indicated by SailingInABathTub. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources that BathTub presented, but note that the second source is flagged as unreliable by Cite Unseen. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Missvain, correction. As the 2nd participant who voted "keep" prior to the relisting, SailingInABathTub did not vote twice. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep. Please improve the article per the impressive work of User:Cunard. Missvain (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blue Conservation Science[edit]

Point Blue Conservation Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Salzman, James E. (June 1989). "Scientists as Advocates: The Point Reyes Bird Observatory and Gill Netting in Central California". Conservation Biology. Vol. 3, no. 2. pp. 170–180. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1989.tb00069.x. JSTOR 2386148. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

     The abstract notes: "One scientific organization, the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, was instrumental in re- solving an environmental controversy in the early 1980s over the use of gill nets off central California The gill-net fishery was killing thousands of birds annually. The Point Reyes Bird Observatory's use of its scientific data facilitated negotiation and formed the basis for the threat of litigation. These efforts spurred enforcement of federal wildlife legislation and helped forge a permanent solution acceptable to state and federal environmental agencies, conservation groups, and local fishermen."

  2. Poole, William (1989-10-15). "In Search of the Mongolian Plover". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

     The article notes: "In a way, PRBO was born of this happy circumstance of geography. In the early 1960s, members of the Western Bird Banding Association 'discovered' Point Reyes while exploring likely rare-bird spots. These passionate amateurs knew of British bird observatories where volunteers banded birds and studied avian populations in detail. In 1965, the group moved into its first building, a former bunkhouse on the Heims Ranch in the newly established Point Reyes National Seashore. Today, PRBO is a membership-based organization with a staff of about 20 professional scientists and an operating budget of more than $1 million a year.

  3. Breitrose, Charlie (1996-08-18). "Point Reyes Observatory in Fine Feather With Birds". Contra Costa Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

     The article notes: "This is what the researchers at the Point Reyes Bird Observatory's Palomarin Field Station like to see. They track the health, numbers and movements of birds in this 100-acre field of coastal brush near Bolinas. The observatory's main office, two small wooden buildings tucked off Highway 1 north of Stinson Beach, are as unobtrusive as its nets. But it is the headquarters for scientists doing research throughout the Western United States and parts of Latin America. ... The observatory started research 31 years ago. Original projects at Palomarin and at the Farallones studying seabirds, marine mammals and fish are still running."

  4. Young, Tobias (2005-01-14). "New Room to Roost: Research Group Planning Headquarters Next to Shollenberger Park". The Press Democrat. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12.

     The article notes: "The Point Reyes Bird Observatory is moving to Petaluma. The organization, which now calls itself PRBO Conservation Science, has evolved during its 40-year history into an organization with a staff of 125, an annual budget of $6 million and a paid membership of 4,000. ... The organization does 65 percent of its work for state, federal and municipal governments, as well as nonprofit groups like the Nature Conservancy, helping to create statistics on the number of birds and other wildlife in certain ecological areas."

  5. Conant, Jane Eshleman (1969-09-28). "A Mystifying Migration of 'Foreign Birds' to Pt. Reyes". San Francisco Chronicle. p. A3.

     The article notes: "The story comes from the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, a private non-profit scientific enterprise at the southern tip of the Point of Reyes National Seashore near Bolinas. To those who work there, it's a highly rewarding center for pure research into the ecoloyg of birds — how they live, for how long, where they come from, where they go, their habitats and their physiology. To the lay visitor, it's a fascinating place where tiny, beautiful and deceptively fragile looking birds are caught in loose nylon nets, weighed, measured, blown upon, banded, sometimes de-loused, and finally set free in perfectly good condition."

  6. Doss, Margot Patterson (1971-10-10). "Birds of Point Reyes". San Francisco Chronicle.

     The article notes: "Immediately within the southern border of the Point Reyes National Seashore and totally dependent, even as are the birds it counts, on the continued wild state of the southern cliffs and forests, there is a unique and little known establishment. It is the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, started in 1965 and the first such bird observatory to be established in the United States."

  7. Gilliam, Harold (1967-11-05). "The Bird Banders Of Point Reyes". San Francisco Chronicle.

     The article notes: "It is just such mysteries of bird life that constitute the chief reason for the existence of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, organized three years ago by ornithologists and bird enthusiasts and supported by public memberships and donations. It is the only such observatory in North America, although there are several in Europe and Asia."

  8. Hillinger, Charles (1983-12-22). "El Nino devastates sea bird population on Pacific coast". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-12. Retrieved 2021-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "The independent, non-profit Point Reyes Bird Observatory operates on a $600,000-a-year budget, 40 percent from its members, 35 percent from government contracts (National Science Foundation, Fish and Wildlife, and others) and 25 percent from corporate contributions."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Point Blue Conservation Science, founded as the Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard, with the small quibble that WP:NORG is the applicable guideline. Regardless, the coverage presented is more than adequate; numbers 1, 3, and 4 are in my view particularly substantial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am willing to withdraw it if Cunard will actually add the material. I should have looked more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per a source review, meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. It does read a bit like a press release in parts, so it would benefit from copy editing to address this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to General Idea#Legacy. Supporting an WP:ATD, I am encouraging we merge any worthy information to the appropriate article (can be General Idea#Legacy or whatever) and then redirect to the chosen article. Missvain (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Bayer[edit]

Fern Bayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable art historian. Her notability stems from a long association with General Idea, but any coverage stemming from that association is all about GI and not about her. --- Possibly (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete none of her awards are notable by themselves, all her relevant work is with her association of GI. --hroest 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge into General Idea#Legacy. She appears to have been made the official archivist of the collective in 1995 by AA Bronson (see [2]). pburka (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. Her work as curator seems to have been the kind that stays offstage and gets things done while shunning personal publicity. Which I think is a good thing, but it also means no notability for that. Searching only found her name in association with General Idea, so a mention there and a redirect make a plausible solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont bioregion[edit]

Piedmont bioregion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found a few sources with nothing more than a passing mention, not enough to write an article on. Also, am not sure what direction this was going in with a "Local Currencies" heading. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Some sources are promising, but they do not expand beyond a few sentences on what this is supposed to be, so SIGCOV is lacking. For the record, the "Local Currencies" heading is a reference to "PLENTY", a non-notable monetary system proposed by several NC Piedmont area communities after the Great Recession, not natural/environmentally related at all. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge This seems to be a sub-division of Piedmont (United States) similar to Piedmont region of Virginia. They all need work rather than deletion per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See Field Guide to the Piedmont to get you started. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson:A search of the source you provided shows its does not even use the term "bioregion". If that is the best source you can come up with, you have proved my point about this being insignificant. I also would like to point out that your source specifies the area it covers as between New York City and Montgomery, Alabama whereas this article defines the region as only 4 southern states.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:NOTDIC, we are not looking for exact word matches; we are concerned with the nature of the topic and that source is relevant. For another source, see Piedmont Ecoregion. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • While we need an article on Piedmont region of North Carolina, this is not that. Also, that first book you linked to is about the entire piedmont, not " the piedmont areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and northern Georgia as defined by the principals of bioregionalism" which seems totally contrived based off the scant source material. The existing Piedmont USA article should suffice for that material, there is nothing useful here. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second source I provided says that "The Piedmont Ecoregion, which lies in the area between the flat coastal plains to the southeast and the Appalachian Mountains to the northwest, covers 165,460 km2 (63,884 mi2) across parts of five states (Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia) (fig. 1)." It calls the more northerly equivalent the "Northern Piedmont Ecoregion". So, we see that there's some complex nomenclature here and it seems that different people use it in different ways. Our job is to make sense of this, as it's notable. Drive-by deletion is not helpful in this as it disrupts activity by discouraging contributions and obfuscating the content. This is contrary to our editing policy which states "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." We're still in the "few random facts" early stages but that's not a reason to delete. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The last non-bot edit to this article was in 2016. There's been 30 edits or so to this article throughout its entire existence, most of which were made over ten years ago. What "contributions" are we "discouraging" and, considering the pitiful state of the article, what content are we obfuscating? Piedmont (United States) actually contains more information about the natural condition of this region than this article. We have WP:NOPAGE for when a notable topic can't support its own page. I honestly do think there is potential for an article to be created here about a piedmont ecoregion one day. But that seems pretty far off rn. The "bioregion" doesn't exist in RS, and this article is in such a pathetic state it serves as the perfect example for WP:TNT. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it's important to understand the article bioregionalism which is a philosophy on how to best organize human activity as coined by 1970s era environmentalists who are not scientists, rather a leftist/socialist re-order society around the environment philosophy. "Piedmont bioregion" only makes sense within the context of the bioregion philosophy. --GreenC 21:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GreenC:So what you saying is that "bioregion" and "ecoregion" are not the same thing?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Béla Sipos[edit]

Béla Sipos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to have been almost wholly written by the subject (less some copyedits). Don't believe there to be much notability surrounding the article. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Badly sourced, with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:PROF based notability. In particular, his economic works appear to have single-digit citations in Google Scholar, far below the standard for macroeconomics in general and for work on economic cycles more specifically. The language barrier cannot be blamed as many of these works are in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The research topic of Kondratiev has been controversial and new works by him have been discovered the interpretation of his life's work. Prior works discussing this will not be cited more frequently just because the status of the author had been changed. "Kondratiev's reputation has improved greatly since his formal rehabilitation by the Soviet government in 1987 and the discovery of new works he had written while in prison. These, along with new translations, were published in four monumental volumes in 1998." cited in the article. The dissertation on Kondratiev is present in a number of international libraries. Played a significant role in the rehabilitation of Farkas Heller whose work and the economics school he founded is now known to a wider public. Important text book production in support of university education before 1990. -- Effemm (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication he meets WP:NPROF. While it may be true that what he studied was controversial, but that by itself does not make him notable. The question is whether other researchers (east or west) think his work on the controversial Kondratiev was important or not, citing or discussing the work of Sipos. The argument on whether Sipos is notable cannot be tied to whether Kondratiev is rehabilitated / notable or not. --hroest 04:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing the kind of impact (as measured by citations or similar) that we're looking for in WP:NPROF. There's some very local coverage in Pécs county, but it looks well short of GNG. There's one review [3] of his book Production Functions – Forecasting for Enterprise, but we'd need multiple reviews of multiple works for WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways[edit]

List of steepest gradients on adhesion railways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no source for the entire list, nothing to say that whatever lines listed here are in fact the steepest gradients. Therefore it fails WP:OR as it’s original research and not verifiable. It could be renamed List of adhesion railways with steep sections or something but that would fail WP:LISTN. --Pontificalibus 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list is not, despite the above claims, unsourced, nor does it claim to be a complete list of the steepest rather it is explicitly "some of the steepest gradients on adhesion railways". Although having said that the source for the first entry (Calçada de São Francisco, Lisbon Tramways, Portugal) does claim "The world's steepest adhesion railway grade is a 13.8% grade found on the tram network of LIsbon, [sic] Portugal.". The list does need improvement in presentation and not all entries are sourced but these are issues that do not require deletion. The introduction to the list summarises why the list is notable, and see also Steep grade railway which this could/would be a section of if the list wouldn't overwhelm that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim it was unsourced - sourcing individual entries is not sufficient for lists of biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest etc - the entire list needs to be sourced to verify the items presented are in fact the biggest/smallest/tallest/steepest. You're correct that it does claim in the article to list only "some” of the steepest gradients, but that's contrary to the article's title. As I said in my nomination if it is only to be a partial list of some steep railway sections then it's name should be changed to reflect that, but I doubt such a list topic would satisfy WP:N.----Pontificalibus 14:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Yes, the entries are sourced; but the list isn't. It's all well and good having the #1 entry sourced at being 13.8%, but how do we know that there isn't one steeper? We don't. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus and SmartyPants22: The source explicitly claims it is the steepest, so unless the source is wrong (evidence please), that's that sorted. If your issue with with the title of the list deletion is not required and WP:RM is thataway. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably a bad example on my part. But still the point stands, for example: #2 is stated as 11.6%, what if there is one between #1 and #2? Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a source for the steepest doesn't mean we have a source to say the second on the list is the second steepest, or that the third on the list is the third steepest. To create a list of "steepest" per the title we need all the items listed to have a source stating their position in the list (and/or a source for part or all of the ordered list). I addressed a possible re-titling in my nomination too - if this isn't to be a list of "the steepest..." then it would merely be a "list of some examples of steep..." and fail notability and probably WP:NOT criteria.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but perhaps rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways" or "exceptionally steep" or something like that, to remove the ranking element. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, generally interesting and useful list; suitable sourcing. Details and title name are not particularly relevant to an AfD discussion. I am very unclear how the nom. should consider an article with this age with several independent contributors could have considered this suitable for the PROD prior to this AfD nomination. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Djm-leighpark: to be fair Pontificalibus did prod this (with essentially the same rationale as their nomination here) but I deprodded it (for essentially the same reasons as I give here for it being kept). Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf:: Thankyou for spotting and dePRODing this to avoid the wastage of people's effort that brought this article to its current albeit imperfect state. I'd note in passing RHaworth good faith moved to the current name back some 11 years ago so possible they may have any comment on a title change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"interesting and useful" isn't a sufficient reason to keep, but is it even useful if it just lists some random railways that someone thinks are steep.----Pontificalibus 15:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pray goad all ye like. Bit sad the Lickey isn't on the list, and its a pity the length of the gradient isn't listed also, but there we have it. A steep enough gradient can be a operating limiting factor for a railway; George Stephenson frowned at anything over 1 in 300 from memory; Lock would go to 1 in 75 from memory.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the steepness of adhesion railways is best tackled in Adhesion railway. We're unable to list the steepest adhesion railways because the sources don't exist - most sources give a single example of a steep section on a railway, much better to use these examples in the Adhesion railway article, rather than try and create our own ordered list of railways and/or sections of railway ordered using original research.----Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sources, it just needs more of them. This is clearly something that gets mentioned, it a notable thing. Dream Focus 14:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Can you point to a single reliable source that lists the steepest gradients on adhesion railways? If not, how can you claim this a notable thing? ----Pontificalibus 15:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice the 16 references in the article already? A few brief moments of using the reliable source search at the top of this AFD and I find https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42384814 Dream Focus 15:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources in the article discuss the topic of "steepest gradients on adhesion railways" or list the steepest such railways. The source you give above is about a single funicular railway, which is a different kind of railway not relevant to this article.----Pontificalibus 15:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't a civils but it doesn't have to be in the article, but oclc 67899506 looks good for starters.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google news shows https://jalopnik.com/cruise-through-this-holiday-weekend-on-the-front-of-a-t-1846612571 which reads: “The Bernina railway sets a few records, including being the highest railway alpine crossing in Europe (2253m), the highest adhesion railway of the continent, the open air railway with the greatest height difference (1824m) and furthermore one of the steepest adhesion railways (conventional railway without cogs) worldwide, with gradients of up to 7 percent.” Being one of the steepest adhesion railways is apparently noteworthy and it list the gradients. Sources that cover trains of this type cover this information. Most of the trains on the list have their own Wikipedia article, this is a logical sorting of things by a notable feature they are known for. Dream Focus 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again a source that gives an example of a section on a railway, claiming it's one of the steepest (although it doesn't make our top 10), but giving no exact figures so we don't have enough information on where to insert it in our list - would this go before or after "Red Marble Grade"? Is this really 1 in 14.2 or is it 1 in 14? Sources are too vague and don't cover this aspect in enough detail for us to create a proper ordered list ourselves, which is probably why no reliable sources present their own ordered list, - it's not really achievable with an acceptable degree of accuracy. We'd be much better off therefore to discuss the best examples in a prose article rather than trying and failing to create an accurate list. --Pontificalibus 05:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@Pontificalibus: Well if it was a merge you were after that was pretty vexacious to PROD it. We remain happily within context of LISTN guideline anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are world-famous railway locations, many of which are recognised upon reading the list. These are locations people go to take photographs - of trains, of the steep grades, of the former right-of-way locations. The per-cent notation in the listing is critically important and of significant interest to railfans and tramway buffs. Maybe rename the article to "List of notably steep gradients on adhesion railways", or like this. This is a significant listing. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We don't need the list to be sourced in its entirety to a single source, which is what those arguing for deletion seem to be implying. What we need is sources that establish that the topic is notable (which does not seem to be a serious area of contention in this case), and sources that give the numerical values for each entry. Ordering the list by numerical value is to my eye self-evidently covered by WP:Routine calculations. The possibility that the list is incomplete is not a reason to delete the list—we have ((Incomplete list)) for that exact situation—but it is a reason not to rank the list (are we sure number 33 is really number 33 and not number 34?), which indeed we don't with this one. These arguments apply to all lists of superlatives by numerical values. For instance: if a new film is released that would qualify to be included on the list of longest films, we don't need to wait for some external source to provide an updated version of the list that includes the new film, we can simply add it in the proper spot by noting that e.g. 8 hours is longer than 7 hours but shorter than 9 hours. TompaDompa (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Phillips (journalist)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Graham Phillips (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already deleted in 2015, now restored by an UK IP that looks like Phillips himself and the article basically looks like a copy-paste of his resume with a ton of link "done video here, done video there". Arguments for his non-notability haven't really changed since 2015 when he was a cameraman working for Russia Today, now he's a youtuber and that's pretty much all he's known for. Cloud200 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I just checked Phillips' YouTube channel and he's been reporting from Croatia recently, so, nice one on that 'UK IP that looks like Phillips'.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he's covered by multiple secondary sources (Ukrainian, Russian and other) such as RFE/RL [4] and Ukrainian Independent Information Agency [5]. Can you explain why the WP:BASIC criteria are not met? Alaexis_¿question? 08:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WP:BASIC criteria are intentionally vague to facilitate discussions like we have. Phillips had been indeed mentioned a few times in the news, but these are all mentions critical of his actions like taking part of torture of an Ukrainian soldier or desecrating the grave of Bandera. In my opinion these do not make him any more notable than any other youtuber that does scandalous stuff to get more views. There's not a single WP:RS that would discuss the "phenomenon of Graham Phillips" or an interview suggesting he's a public figure. So while formally you could argue Phillips bio satisfies WP:BASIC, I would argue it satisfies it barely, only by means of having a few international mentions here and there, but at the same time fells into the clear guidance that discourages creating separate bios of people who are only known for such PR stunts, as mentioned in WP:PERP and WP:ENT. Cloud200 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how his covering the Russo-Ukrainian War for several years, as one of the notable western journalists to do that, like his reportage or not, counts as a 'PR stunt'.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that he is on both the Russian, and Ukrainian wikipedia, largely for his work in the Russo-Ukrainian War - Филлипс,_Грэм_(журналист) , Грем_Філліпс - which again does not match your description of 'PR stunts'. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero reason WP:BASIC are not met here, it seems to be an Adhominem by Cloud200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk • contribs)

Hundreds of journalists, cameramen, bloggers and youtubers cover the Russo-Ukrainian War, yet it doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. Presence of an article in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia may indicate he was considered notable in these Wikipedias, but doesn't have any impact on his notability here. Cloud200 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If our policies against autobiographies are to mean anything, we need to delete them whenever we find them.12:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's very hard, actually impossible to believe here that you are being objective, and upholding the standards, and ideals of Wikpedia. You clearly have a highly negative view of Phillips, and his work, which is entirely compromising your actions here. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I wanted to find information on British journalist Graham Phillips, mostly known for his coverage of the war in Ukraine, and found it here. His work has been covered in multiple, international sources, not always positively, but surely there is no question of his notability. Strange that this page is up for deletion. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Plus, if Phillips wrote it himself, which Cloud200 claims, then why so much criticism about him? I'm not even a huge fan of Phillips, but this feels like someone has a personal vendetta against him.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.224.247 (talk • contribs)
• Delete This has too many primary sources, self-promotional links to the subject’s own commercial YouTube feed, and questionable sources listed at WP:RSP. Let’s remove all that and see if there’s an encyclopedic article left in there. I’ll not support it in the current form. —Michael Z. 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, this is the original form. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is on both the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia, he himself is British. What reason could there be that he is not here?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.242 (talk • contribs) — 195.147.206.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Articles on wikipedia should be determined by their notability, and only that, not by bias of certain wikipedia editors against them. Phillips clearly meets notability criteria as per WP:BASIC. user:Lesya PZ 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I’m uncertain of the notability status but per TNT the article needs a fundamental re-write from a neutral stance or POV. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually did a few early edits on the Phillips page as I was looking to build editing experience on Wikipedia, before creating an account. So it's a) a bit surreal, and b) disheartening to see some of what's written here. Accusing Phillips of creating and then editing his own page, as Cloud200 has done seems actually slanderous, unless there is solid proof, which there couldn't be because the page was created by Solavirum and then worked on by over a dozen editors. I was surprised that there wasn't already a page on Phillips on Wikipedia, so when it was created with not much there it was easy to populate because there is plenty of information about him online. Ok, I'm a new editor and still learning the ropes so if some of the edits I made didn't match NPOV then surely that is where a more senior editor steps in, and edits to get it to Wikipedia standards. However, instead of that, the article has been left as it is, and all the effort focused on getting it deleted, for what seems like clearly political reasons. Phillips clearly meets the WP:BASIC standards - I've read and read over them again and there's no way he doesn't meet them. So surely the thing to do is end counter-productive disputes such as this, and all work together to make this page, and all of Wikipedia better? I'm sorry if that sounds a bit cliched, or idealistic but surely you can see where I'm coming from? 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly unlikely that an independent editor would go through the whole effort to create specific sections dedicated to "Journalism by Location", "Journalism by Theme" whose purpose is basically nothing more than listing videos done here and there, including unsourced sentences such as "However, despite Ukrainian efforts, Phillips is not known to have faced any charges, or any measures taken against him, in the United Kingdom" which are typically found in first-hand statements denying various allegations. There are facts in the article that are unsourced but speak in great detail of his personal interests ("He holds a keen interest in the dormant British car manufacturer Rover, he owns several vehicles of this brand and they are often a notable feature in his video reportage. He has reported extensively from the Longbridge plant.") which are not found in any articles. So yes, it is still my impression based on my experience that this article was written by either Phillips himself or someone close, such as a relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant. Cloud200 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could it also be that your own clearly negative view of Phillips means that you can only believe that anything written about him not in the negative must be by 'relative, friend or paid PR/SEO consultant'? All of the points you've mentioned can be easily found in any of his video reportage, or across media, also from the Russian / Ukrainian wikipedia entries on him. I am new to wikipedia, you are clearly a senior, and very respected editor here, but it seems to me that you don't like him, and are therefore making your 'impressions' suit that position, rather than looking at things objectively.... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in details why I have this impression. You don't argue with any of these items, and instead resort to an ad hominem argument. Cloud200 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue because I don't want to argue - I'd rather do something positive on Wikipedia. As I say, I'm a new editor, haven't even decided my username yet. I respect your contribution and length of time on Wikipedia, but clearly here you are acting not as Wikipedian, but somethign with a political / personal vendetta. And it's certainly ironic to accuse of me ad hominem after all the abuse you've written about Phillips. However, to take you up on a point, I looked over and saw that there is almost no pesonal information about Phillips on the page - surely if it were a source 'close to him', as you state, they would have access to this information, as it is, there is nothing. Everything referenced in the article is clearly sourced, searchable, accountable. As I say, you've made a huge contribution to Wikipedia over many years, but here you are letting your own personal agenda get in the way of making Wikipedia a better place..... 82.47.239.230 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my very point. You don't dispute the issues I raised above, you just run and accuse everyone who thinks this autobiography is not notable of "political vendetta". That's textbook definition of ad hominem. Also be sure to read WP:NOTFORUM. Cloud200 (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I accept your point, and apologise if I did anything incorrectly - I'm still a new Wikipedia editor, not even registered here yet. I've made major edits to the Phillips article and stripped out anything that does not meet Wikipedia standards as per WP:NOTFORUM. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not notable. And it's clear that all these IP edits are Philips himself. Sloutsch (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets notability criteria several times over, way too much bias and personal agendas going on here..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.138.201 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The multiple, largely co-located IPs participating here, with few edits to their names, some only on this subject, should be aware that these facts are evident about them.

To those proclaiming the notability of the subject, there is so much in the article which is not supported, not supported by the sources given, the source given is primary or not clearly reliable in Wikipedia terms that the impression is given that there is nothing to support notability. Drastically prune out all this dead wood if you want to highlight any remaining which does actually establish notability. It is perfectly valid to use citations in foreign languages but, as most English speakers can't establish its content or reliability, relying solely on these when the English language ones are not credible would be too much to ask. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the other IPs, and it seems 'largely co-located' means mostly in the UK, which would seem plausible. I'm in the UK and I've given my reasons above for being an IP at this stage. What you state clearly has a point, and I accept that I may be to blame for some of how the article looks - I saw the article on Phillips was sparse, and rushed to fill it in because I thought this was for the best for Wikipedia. If I've made misjudgements in this then, as a new Wikipedia user - this is the first time I've edited anything, and the only article I've edited here, and I'm still an IP address, then ok, I accept that. From what you say, I should have focused more on citations, than primary sources. However, surely it would be possible for other, more experienced Wikipedians to edit, and correct that? Or should I have a go at pruning? For whatever my errors, the move to delete the article on Phillips outright is surely also driven by personal and political motivations - user Cloud200 for example has made several ad hominem remarks against Phillips which would surely indicate a personal bias, even contempt, and that this editor does not have the requisite objectivity to be involved here. My own position on Phillips is pretty simple - I'm a viewer of his YouTube channel, general follower of his work, don't necessarily idealize him, and actually I added in several criticisms on the article. He is clearly notable enough to be on Wikipedia, just as you say, the question is in what format. I'm only making contributions here, for now, rather than the article as it would be great to get it resolved, I'll register with a username on Wikipedia, and we can all go forward positively in the true spirit of Wikipedia. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection to editing as an IP. My point regarded what the co-location may indicate and much of it is very considerably closer than "in the UK".

Whatever anyone participating here thinks of Phillips is neither here nor there in regard to the article in its current form. It is so crammed with chaff that wheat is not readily evident. Should anyone be motivated purely by bias, and I see no indication of this, they can have a field day anyway. You do realise notability has specific definition here and is not a subjective view on the subject's worth?

By all means prune away but it will have to be copious and what is left must establish notability from reliable sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at your suggestion am pruning away. And, as I say, I will be becoming a fully-fledged Wikipedian soon, but I know then that everything I do goes on record, and wanting a perfect record I'm practicing as an IP. I accept your points, and acknowledge that some of my earlier edits were not to Wikipedia standard. I'm pruning now, working towards that, will hopefully resolve this, learn from it, and go onto other articles as a Wikipedian! Thank you 82.47.239.230 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history is as evident as an IP as it is as a registered editor and, it may not be what you are attempting to convey but I'm uneasy about the notion of practising as an IP to avoid imperfections being recorded. Genuine errors as a beginner will receive some slack, registered or not; attempts to obscure your history will be viewed differently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - I am trying to do everything correctly, including choosing the correct username for myself, thank you for the advice. As you suggested, I've pruned the Phillips article, and also removed all primary sources, so it's really over to you now. 82.47.239.230 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be useful in checking the reliability, or otherwise, of sources. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for everything Mutt Lunker!! 82.47.239.230 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Regarding notability, this guy was mentioned in the Russian news sites like RIA and Gazeta many times, especially since 2014. The article does look autobiographic though. Therefore, I'd recommend cleaning it up instead of deleting. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: barely notable, the IP Edits indeed look like self-promo, needs 100% NPOV re-write CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sorry, I'm not a super-dooper wikipedia editor, but what is going on here? This guy is a well known journalist, has been referenced all over the place, and for many years. I'm not even a huge fan of his, but for sure there should be an article on him on wikipedia - and you want to delete it?? This seems pretty much like extreme wikipedia deletionism going on, shame.... 95.214.66.65 (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)— 95.214.66.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The sources on the page look like easily enough to meet general notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, take it to AfC Fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for journalists. Just another journalist. The article has multiple issues. I tried to fix some of them and it turned out that the article was written by someone who was trying to promote the subject of the article: original research, synthesis, omission, adding multiple irrelevant source for a single statement just to create the illusion of significant coverage. The main sources in the article are either sources with borderline reliability or, in general, sources with completely unknown status. It may seem that the article cites many independent English-language sources, but look at each of them separately. Some of them are either small unknown sources or Russian-language small sources with incorrectly filled citation parameters. If one of the editors really believes that this subject can have an article, then I see no problem to go through AfC.--Renat 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm the one who listed it for AfD, so I will just reiterate issues with this article: the person barely satisfies WP:BASIC if stretched, but also goes against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. The article was written in self-promotional style, inflated with links to non-notable WP:PRIMARY sources, mostly YouTube videos of Phillips himself, some personal details (like that on cars) were completely unsourced indicating insider knowledge and personal relationship to the subject. The article is being pushed by a single IP user that didn't even have time/interest to register an account for over a month but is very vocal on this discussion, along with a number of other IP users. All other participants note low quality of the article. Edits so kindly made by User:RenatUK did clean up all the self-promotional content but even now the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs. A few WP:RS sources mention him in the context of specific events such as arrests or provocative PR stunts, which goes clearly against WP:PERP and WP:ENT. When these are sifted, there's nothing much left apart from "a journalist born 1979" so I believe the proposal to delete and take it to AfC as proposed above is the most reasonable one. Cloud200 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and comment - so I had been following this discussion but before now I don't join in because I am seeing how much people here hate edits by IP addresses - sorry guys, that is just how many of us are using Wiki. So the comments by Cloud200 make me want to add something - I get that Cloud200 really doesn't like Phillips, and looks for everything negative, but when he says that 'the article is mostly sourced by self-published sources such as medium.com, YouTube and obscure Russia Today spin-offs' then I am gonna call bs. Just 5 examples -

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-27503743 - BBC 2. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maxseddon/how-a-british-blogger-became-an-unlikely-star-of-the-ukraine#.vs68mYGvd - BuzzFeed 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/british-journalist-graham-phillips-detained-east-ukraine - The_Guardian 4. https://balkaninsight.com/2019/03/11/uk-journalist-banned-from-twitter-angers-some-in-kosovo/ - Balkan_Insight 5. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/547116/exclusive-tayside-journalist-worked-russia-today-rubbishes-claims-alex-salmond-will-become-putins-puppet/ - The_Courier_(Dundee)

I could go on, but let me say this, that this debate does not look professional from Wikipedia point of view, Wikipedia risks to loose credibility - this seems like it is some kind of friends' club and only allowed on Wikipedia is people the Wikipedia admins like, and if they do not like you they write bs about subject to give a reason to delete page. It's like the school playground..... 195.133.224.50 (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my very point — you listed about all WP:RS sources from the article that even mention Phillips, and that's about it. You cay you "could go on" but you really couldn't. Out of the sources you listed 1 and 3 talk about the same event (arrest in Ukraine, WP:PERP applies). Number 4 is once again coverage of a single event Phillips participated in (Twitter ban). Then number 5 is an article about Salmond where Phillips is expressing his opinion and nothing more. Finally number 2 is the only article that offers a broader perspective on Phillip activities and biography, but even it calls him "a marginal character". You can raise your tone and apply ad hominem arguments as much as you like, but this won't change the fact the person in subject is precisely what BuzzFeed called him − "a marginal character". Oh, and I'm not even an Wiki admin, and I don't know any of the editors voicing their comments here (not even from IRC). Whatever will be decided about the fate of this article, is OK with me, I made my comments. Cloud200 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then Graham Phillips is obviously notable enough to be here, he is the well-known journalist, a lot Russia, but not only. I do not think that this negativety here about Phillips is appropriate, imho. He is what he is, the well-known journalist - I see the last comment says from an article that he is a "marginal character", but this article is from 2014, and since then he is quite mainstream. Andrey.
• Comment I read over this more and see that the same user Cloud200 who started this AfD then writes a stream of negative comments about Phillips, and even votes themself for the article to be deleted. I am only the 'IP address user' of Wikipedia it is true, but this seems to me not correct, not like a fair debate, or Wikipedia protocol, but like a campaign against the subject, Phillips. By the way there has been an article on him on the Russian wikipedia for many years, no problems, and here, all these problems and arguments..... Interesting. Andrey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.138.0 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vikruthi. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emcy Joseph[edit]

Emcy Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable Director released just one film. Fails to pass WP:FILMMAKER & WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vikruthi. He has received some media coverage. However, the primary topic of the news sources is his film and for this reason, it be redirected to Vikruthi. Moreover, he has directed two films Vikruthi and Ennittu Avasanam.[6]. I don't think deletion is preferred over "redirect". Also, the film actor has been awarded Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor for Joseph's dictatorial film. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Appeal - I want to know the reason why this article is nominated for deletion. I'm one who follows Malayalam film industry and cinemas. So, I decided to create a Wikipedia article for him. His film won a state award and many more achievements. After all, He is a director, Screenwriter. You can check the reference links in the article published in top Indian portals. Please do the needful. It's not about how many projects he completed, it's about how popular and how much achieved director he is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgnew (talk • contribs)

*Comment - Sorry dear but he is not notable. His film might be notable but not him. All the news sources are mainly talking about his film and there is no indepth coverage about him. Notability doesn't mean popularity. Sonofstar (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm just curious to know onething!! How someone who is not in this field can judge his popularity. If you're from this particular place, Then it's okey. On what basis, you're arguing he is not popular. I'm from his place, which he lives and working in malayalam films. So I decided to create a wiki page for him. Because I love to edit and contribute to articles. I don't know what's wrong with this.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Clear consensus that the article meets the general notability guideline per presented sources. (non-admin closure) versacespaceleave a message! 01:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MooTools[edit]

MooTools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. All references are either directly from project's release notes or website or a single self-published book. Note that the previous AfD received no votes and closed with "no consensus". Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below are a couple of sources found on Google Scholar. Additional sources are available on Google Scholar as well.

• "The Introduction to MooTools Architecture". Applied Mechanics and Materials.
• "Interactive Consultation Based on MooTools Long Polling Techniques". Applied Mechanics and Materials.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this here. (I wanted to reply to your original comment on the first AfD discussion, but it was already closed when I saw it.)

If you look closely, these two articles are from the same authors published on the same day in the same journal in the same volume (just on different pages). Also, the papers seem to be missing some indication of peer-review present in other papers published in this journal. Based on this, I'm not sure think this research was properly peer-reviewed. I'm not familiar with technicalities of what's relable and what's not and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not particularly helpful in this case.

I managed to find some books about on this topic:

- "MooTools Essentials" by Aaron Newton, Apress. (Note that Aaron Newton is member of MooTools organization on GitHub and might not count as a releable independent source.)

- "Pro JavaScript with MooTools" by Mark J. Obcena, Apress. (Also member of MooTools organization on GitHub, etc.)

- "MooTools 1.2" by Jacob Gube and Garrick Cheung, Pack publishing. (Jacob Gube is also member of MooTools organization on GitHub.)

Can any of these sources be considered reliable third-party sources?

Anton.bersh (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources indicated by Northamerica1000 are reliable. And so are the books from Newton, Obcena and Gube & Cheung indicated by the nominator. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSOFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per ASTIG. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Stone[edit]

Chester Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

whoopdeedoooooo a guy with 20k followers and no coverage does not even meet the basic criteria for inclusion here. No coverage, zip, nada. YODADICAE👽 23:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about this man: [7] WoahCoin (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in fact talking about the same person, yes. YODADICAE👽 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't see how individuals like Simply Nailogical, Oli White, and Zach Hadel meet notability requirements but not Chester Stone. WoahCoin (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE isn't a valid argument. YODADICAE👽 14:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE can be used in a valid argument, I'm not saying it's a catch-all. The dude has a legitimate online following. I will admit that media coverage on him is not as abundant as certain others, but it's important to also keep in mind that he's an indigent minority with far less resources than the individuals listed above WoahCoin (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no media coverage, which is why he isn't notable. YODADICAE👽 14:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check the references list? WoahCoin (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the non-existent ones? YODADICAE👽 20:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WoahCoin, there is a existent references list, but the only sources listed are WP:PRIMARY sources, meaning the pages were created or self-published by him. The amount of WP:INDEPENDENT sources is how we determine whether an article stays or goes; profile pages on other social media sites isn't independent coverage. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for actually helping @HumanxAnthro. Does CL Tampa qualify as independent? I can dig deeper and see what else I can find, I agree that this may perhaps be Wikipedia:TOOSOON. When I undertook this project, I hadn't realized his original account was deleted/suspended, which I believe would've helped me trace down more sources. WoahCoin (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must keep in mind that using posts from his account don't establish notability. Remember, we're looking for sources independent of the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete or Dratify at best. The statement that there's "no coverage" on this man isn't entirely true, as I did find one CiTampa article on the guy, but that's still only one article about him and it's local coverage, which is not enough to meet GNG. His Instagram started only two months ago, and if he's gaining so many followers in such a short time, that maybe a sign he'll gain coverage from national reliable sources in the future, but we can't predict that. This is a WP:TOOSOON scenario. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough coverage from independent reliable sources to meet verifiability standards. Follower counts are not reliable metrics of anything. I'd also ask the nominator not to bite the newbies.Citing (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Band[edit]

Secret Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD has a better search link and I found the following: https://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-secret-band-lp2/ https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/63672/Secret-Band-Secret-Band/ https://www.billboard.com/music/secret-band/chart-history/VNL/song/1133002 https://www.allmusic.com/artist/secret-band-mn0001780377/biography but no album reviews . Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-- The first two links are album reviews. If you read WP:MUSICBIO, you can see that there is a simple criteria for notability of releasing two albums (#5), they also meet requirement #2 as shown in the billboard link — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Hero56 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom, failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, no major record label, no chart CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard shows they did chart, are on a notable label, and there is enough coverage for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Full disclosure, I do love this band, but that might have made it easier for me to find sources. If you don't know Dance Gavin Dance and the related acts, that's a little different. Their first lead singer, Jonny Craig, was kind of a mess, and so the other members started "Secret Band" so that they could continue working together in case DGD exploded. More notably, on the 2012 All Stars Tour, Craig was fired halfway through and DGD was replaced on the lineup with Secret Band, which unclean vocalist Jon Mess talks about here. In addition, there are the links already mentioned, plus this Will Swan interview and this from Kill Your Stereo. Oh, and this interview. It looks a little borderline, only because Swancore-type sound is still a little underground, but I'd say it passes. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Most are passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view including an AllMusic staff written bio, album reviews by Deadpress and Sputnik Music together with the Billboard entry which shows charting but is unclear as to which Billboard chart, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - AllMusic staff bio, Billboard chart placement, and some album reviews add up to enough coverage to satisfy WP:NBAND, at least for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cunard's work is once again excellent, and is directly speaking to the heart of the deletion rationale provided. In 10 days, his comments and sources were not analysed or refuted, therefore I have no choice to close this discussion as if they are default accepted as meeting GNG/RS etc. On that basis, there is no alternative way for me to close this discussion than a keep/ncs close, and given the fragmented nature of the discussion, I believe no consensus is best. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur)[edit]

James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Supposed BLP with no BLP references. First eight references are anything but. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. 3 socks in the last Afd and it was corrupt. References have not been improved for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as a strong WP:PROMO exercise. KidAd • SPEAK 23:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited last month at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kinsella (journalist and tech entrepreneur). Notability is not transitory. See Notability is not temporary 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has notability got to do with it, when there is no references to prove it is a BLP. Not one BLP reference is present. scope_creep^Talk 22:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last AfD was gamed by two sockfarms (Brandon Lapin SPI and some related to SpareSeiko SPI). I wouldn't consider it as a precedent. MarioGom (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: As the closer of the last AfD, I would agree that this should be considered anew and independently from the last AfD due to the large number of now-blocked socks that were in that AfD. Of course, that does not preclude an editor from repeating the same arguments if they still find them to be valid. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The previous AfD was closed with a very clear consensus of Keep. Even if you discard Lapin's votes, you still had several other Keep votes, and good solid arguments for notability, wothout a single Delete vote. This is a clear, deliberate, bad-faith violation of WP:BEFORE, you cannot claim that there is no evidence for notability when the prior AfD cited multiple reasons for notability.

  As I pointed out in the previous AfD If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable. Former Vice President at Microsoft, President of MSNBC.com, Chairman and CEO of World Online, Chairman and CEO of Interoute Communications, etc. Look, even if he was a figurehead (and I see no reason to assume this), simply holding those roles should have generated significant reliable sources about the subject. And I see that at least one of those companies, World Online, appears to have been involved in some sort of controversy around the time of the dot-com bust, which ought to have generated even more coverage and thus more RS. In addition to the sources already cited, it may be worth looking through the relevant articles on those other companies to see if they contain further good sources that mention Mr. Kinsella. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: See this: If the article itself is factually correct, then the subject must be notable How does that even make sense. It is absurd and contentious and mostly meaningless. Please do not post up anywhere again. It is meaningless. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to strike and rephrase that remark in a civil manner? I apologize if the meaning was unclear, but what I was trying to say is that if this individual has held those positions, if the basic biographic details are correct, then the subject almost certainly passes GNG. You are welcome to disagree with my assertion, and I would welcome a civil discussion of how to interpret GNG in the context of Mr. Kinsella's accomplishments, and compare sources, etc. What you are not welcome to do is to tell me, or any other editor, please do not post up anywhere again. I will AGF and consider that you may be having a bad day, but this behavior is not acceptable. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: Sorry if it a bit harsh. It is a bit harsh. In any article, there need to be some kind of standout information that makes the person special somehow. A person doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable, even if they are a president of very large company. There is subtle distinction there. In this category, of being president, then there is probably at least 3 million people in the US who are presidents of some company, and a minority of the say 5-10% are presidentd of large to very large companies, so that 10% as an example, is 30,000. That alone is huge figure, when but combined with population of the earth, we are global encyclopedia, and everybody is equal, it probably close to 3 million mark, as an example, who are presidents of sizable organisation. It could NGO's, a goverment organisation, a quango, a gangster organisation, so it a very very large category. So doing their day job, doesn't automatically make them notable. There is more too it. scope_creep^Talk 21:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why it matters what the companies are. MSNBC.com I don't think needs much explanation. World Online was a major European ISP covering 16 countries and millions of customers, but more important for the purposes of our article, it appears to have been involved in some scandals related to the turn of the century dot-com bubble and bust. The Wikipedia article on that company mentions alleged insider trading, but doesn't seem to have much sourcing either. Kinsella then went on to head Interoute, Europe's largest cloud service provider, before it was eventually sold for several billion dollars or euros. So my point is simply given being in charge of such large and highly notable companies, and especially given a possible scandal at one of them, I find it difficult to believe that there are not sufficient sources out there. Bear in mind that some of this occurred 20 years ago at a time when many online news sources were born and died, so it may require searching for offline sources as well. To be clear, I am saying more than just a vague "there must be sources", but a more specific claim that there are good reasons to assume that these sources must exist. This was discussed in the previous AfD, I was not the only one to make this point. Nobody appeared to have objected to this assertion at that time. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperion35: Where is the reference to support the article. Does WP:V and WP:BIO not matter? scope_creep^Talk 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Saying that somebody is notable because they were VP or CEO of a company is not a policy-based argument. Plenty of high up corporate executives are not notable. This article appears to be built upon a WP:CITEBOMB to make the subject appear at a glance to be notable, but these sources do not cover the subject of this Wiki article in the level of depth that is required for GNG. I wonder if the people who said keep in the first nom looked closely at the sources or were fooled by the sheer number of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Dudley, Brier (1999-04-23). "CEO going for the green locally - MSNBC chief backs environmentalists". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

     The article notes: "Kinsella is identified only as a "programmer" on public-disclosure reports, but nationally he's known for developing Time Warner's Pathfinder Internet site, leading Microsoft's news venture with NBC and founding the Internet Content Coalition to self-regulate online publishers. A former newspaper reporter and editor at the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and San Jose Mercury News, Kinsella has authored several books, including an analysis of the media's handling of the AIDS crisis."

  2. Scott, Mark (2015-06-09). "European Cloud Companies Play Up Privacy Credentials". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

     The article notes: "James Kinsella is an unlikely champion for European technology. The 55-year-old American is a former Microsoft executive who previously ran MSNBC.com, the news website. Yet Mr. Kinsella, who has spent the last 15 years in Europe, is now backing Europe’s efforts to enforce its tough data privacy rules across the region — and potentially further afield."

  3. "Kinsella, James 1959-". Encyclopedia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

     The entry notes: "James Kinsella is a celebrated media mogul, having earned a name for himself as the chairman of major media corporations such as Time Warner and MSNBC.com. He has held senior positions at other technology and media organizations such as World Online and Interoute." Sources from the entry:

     Sources

     Journalism Quarterly, autumn, 1990, James K. Hertog, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 623-624. Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law, spring, 1991, David C. Colby, review of Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, pp. 176-181. Library Journal, February 1, 1990, James E. Van Buskirk, review of Covering the Plague, p. 91. Los Angeles Times Book Review, April 8, 1990, p. 5. Nature, August 9, 1990, Don C. Des, review of Covering the Plague, p. 521. New York Times Book Review, May 6, 1990, H. Jack Geiger, review of Covering the Plague, p. 23. Publishers Weekly, January 19, 1990, Genevieve Stuttaford, review of Covering the Plague, pp. 92-93. Washington Post Journalism Review, July-August 1990, Timothy Cook, review of Covering the Plague, p. 39.

  4. Book reviews:
     1. Lichter, S. Robert (1990-03-26). "Did quiet press help spread AIDS?". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "It is the argument of James Kinsella's flawed but fascinating book Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media that ignorance and prejudice prevented the mainstream media from covering the AIDS epidemic more 'promptly, vigorously, and forthrightly.'"

     2. Clifford, Jane (1990-04-13). "AIDS -- the news that wasn't fit to print?". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media, by James Kinsella. Rutgers University Press: 299 pages; $22.95. THE AIDS crisis may be the best-ever situation to apply the old adage: Hindsight is 20/20. ... The book is a sobering account of how this country and its people approached AIDS. It's part in-depth report, part editorial -- in every chapter."

     3. Shaw, David (1990-05-27). "A critical look at the media's record on AIDS coverage". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "Kinsella, former editorial-page editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, provides a detailed, damning account of media insensitivity, indifference and ignorance, of media squeamishness and sensationalism throughout the early months and years of the AIDS epidemic."

     4. Geiger, H. Jack (1990-05-06). "In Short; Nonfiction". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        The book review notes: "The early years of the epidemic are much more clearly understood now than they were then. But the book is replete with egregious overstatements, like the claim that no one is writing, even today, about preventable tragedies afflicting the poor, minorities and the homeless."

     5. Michal-Johnson, P. (Winter 1991). "A tale of intrigue". Journal of Communication. 41 (1): 155. ISSN 0021-9916.

        The abstract notes, "Reviews the book `Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media,' by James Kinsella."

     6. Van Buskirk, James E. (1990-02-01). "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media (Book)". Library Journal. Vol. 115, no. 2. p. 91.

        The abstract notes, "Reviews the book "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media," by James Kinsella."

     7. "Covering the Plague: AIDS and the American Media". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10.

        This is a book review.

     8. Weinberg, Steve (1990-04-29). "AIDS and the news media: the personal connection". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2021-05-10 – via Newspapers.com.

        The book review notes: "Unlike many media critics, James Kinsella understands that what gets reported and what gets ignored or twisted are almost always functions of individual journalists — not of a conspiracy by the newslords."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow James Kinsella to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to California High-Speed Rail. czar 02:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chowchilla Wye[edit]

Chowchilla Wye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This structure does not exist yet, in fact it is not even under construction or fully funded yet. Unclear if it will be. In terms of the sourcing, the closest thing to significant coverage is reference 6 (Fresno Bee) but this is an item that could be incorporated into the main high speed rail article Nweil (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSignificant coverage is also given in reference 1: "Bullet train has 4 route options around one California town as foes plan court appeal". being (currently) unfunded and (currently) not under construction has no bearing on the validity of discussing the subject: see Mid-Pacific Railroad, North–South Rail Link, etc. Article describes an unusual structure on the line, such as the Oakland Wye, Keddie Wye, Pacheco Pass Tunnels, etc. -MJ (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I want to second-motion for this article to be merged and redirected with the California High-Speed Rail under the 'Route and stations' heading. Citations are perfectly reliable, but it just doesn't seem worthy to have it's own dedicated page. Thanks. JayzBox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Agreed that there is significant coverage already. The article that this is proposed to be merged into is already rather long (100,000 bytes) so I think it is better to keep this information as a seperate page. NemesisAT (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article about an unbuilt piece of infrastructure on the unbuilt track of an non-existent railway, sourced by passing mentions in local newspapers and news sources. No redirect, because what would it redirect FROM? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Not only has it not been built, but they haven't even finished deciding if they want to build it. Obviously, this will have an article the second the shovel hits the ground (or, indeed, the second the pen hits the paper) but for now it's kind of a meme. jp×g 06:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into California High-Speed Rail. WP:TOO SOON, it can get recreated later if it ends up being built but currently it doesn't have enough notability to warrant it's own article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into California High-Speed Rail. Hasn't been constructed, yet. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into California High-Speed Rail per Suonii180 and JayzBox. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srini Kumar[edit]

Srini Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are either broken or non-existent. Page reads like a resume. Of the sources that are available, they are placed on oddly construed websites and not verifiable. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Dismiss. Not knowing about a topic is not the same as a topic not being notable. Also, notability does not expire. Furthermore, WP:INTROTODELETE says:

When to not use deletion process?

• Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.

As notability is not at issue, nor is WP:POV, WP:OR, or WP:NOT at issue, there isn't a valid deletion reason. These are WP:SOFIXIT reasons.

Moreover, link rot is also not a deletion reason. Link rot should be addressed via WP:DEADREF.

These are issues for cleanup, not for deletion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 08:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I totally disagree with you. None of the sources are verifiable, and there have been no additional sources found online to establish notability. Page reads like a resume. I'm going to let the AFD stand. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These aren't independent, reliable sources - WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm asking over at WT:N if link rot and loss of prominence over time are legitimate deletion reasons. I don't think they are. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources should still be able to be located, archived or otherwise. If link rot was in fact a question, then the reliability of said source would also come into question. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Link rot doesn't really matter here, since there's other pathways to notability (the short answer is no, link rot shouldn't make someone non-notable: the question is whether he was ever notable in the first place.) The article, in its current state, is terrible, and likely fails WP:GNG on its face. However, I am finding book reviews for his book online - I'm not entirely sure if they're reliable sources or not - but there is a good argument he passes WP:NAUTHOR, but I will leave this for someone else to make (I honestly don't care, I was interested in the link rot discussion and got sucked in.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly sourced and I can't find other sources with a simple Google search. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have so far not been able to determine if Srini Kumar satsifies my sense of notability, but as it stands, it would be no great loss to the encyclopedia if the current edition of the article were to be deleted, since it is not clear from it what his claims to notability are supposed to be or what the relationship is between the text of the article and the references provided. There is a bunch of stuff on SK, he seems to have been a visible figure in 1990s internet counterculture. Some links:
  1. Amazon listing for first of his two sticker books
  2. Interview with Will Hines of Spite magazine
  3. SK answers 15 questions posed by Jeffrey Zeldman
  4. Overview at Rediff magazine from which I learned his Unamerican won one of the early was nominated in the 'Weird' category for the 1999 Webby Awards

Pure nostalgia might lead me to dig further. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• More non-WP:BASIC-level evidence of general visibility:
  1. An odd story found on Jason Kottke's blog: apparently SK killed a kitten belonging to his business partner, which set the business back a bit in 2000: Kottke's first post and Kottke's second post, which has a broken link to SK's version of the account.
  2. The incident seems to have pretty finished off the business: while he published a book the following year, Fuck Work: Do you believe in liberation?, unlike the sticker books, this seems to have disappeared without creating a ripple.
  3. Somebody didn't like some unamerican.com content going down, so created a Perl module to simulate it, Unamerican::Truth
  4. A thread on the Boingboing BBS from 2017 has some reminiscing on SK, including someone who says SK was a comparable influence on him to influential gay counterculture filmmaker Gregg Araki
  5. Both Sticker Nation and Sticker Nation 2 were mentioned in Publishers' Weekly, although I could find only the earlier mention through the site's search.

My general feeling is that web content predating the waxing of SEO technnology is just less epistemically dangerous and more historically interesting than today's content, and so can be held to a more lenient verififability/sourcing standard. I doubt my opinion is all that widely held, but I welcome other perspectives. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "he seems to have been a visible figure in 1990s internet counterculture." How does that not indicate notability? Again, there is no standard I'm aware of that suggests notability is ever lost. Inarguably, he was notable at some point. Thus, he as a topic is notable. I don't know where this is ever up for debate. And frankly, WP has had a real problem with perspective bias in AFDs for a long time -- "if I haven't heard of it, it's not notable" is a DOA argument. - (sig added by Chalst: Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's a clear claim of WP:SIGNIFICANCE. That doesn't tend to satisfy many AfD regulars alone, who want to see evidence of independent reliable coverage that can be used to build a substantial and verifiable article, and especially for WP:BLPs. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• More sources:
  1. https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2007/book-review-sticker-nation-by-srini-kumar/
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqW8BT0yJk8 Srini SXSW 2011 talk about TinyVox. There are plenty of sources out there on TinyVox.
  3. https://boingboing.net/2007/03/21/big-book-of-unameric.html Another BoingBoing post about Kumar and Unamerican.com and his book Sticker Nation.
  4. https://vvstaging.villagevoice.com/1998/03/17/the-end-of-the-beginning/
  5. https://newspapers.bc.edu/?a=d&d=bcheights20001114.2.77&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- "Anarchy's Ad Agency", The Heights (Boston College).

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, no verifiable, independent sources at all, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is overstrong: the sources we have found don't fit WP:BASIC, but there is clearly at least some loss of material on the subject visible to Google-depth research. It seems quite possible that there are sources out there that do fit BASIC, but which are in web archives or print fanzines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't merely overstrong, it's patently false. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Village Voice article KeithTyler found (above, 11 May), meets WP:BASIC. Additionally, SK organised the first WEBZINE conference in 1998, which also attracted BASIC-level coverage of both SK and the event:
  1. Return of the Killer Zines, R U Sirius, Wired, Oct 1998
  2. Famous to 15 People, Michael van Leet, SF Weekly, 1998
  3. 'Zine but not Heard? / The Faithful at Webzine '98 Say 'No Way', Josh Wilson, SF Gate, Nov 1998
  4. There was further coverage of the event around the time reachable from the press section of WEBZINE 98, although the other coverage less clearly meets BASIC
  5. Chapter One, Independent Publishing on the Internet: Webzine and Fifteen Megs of Fame by Ryan Junell, of Alternatives on media content, journalism, and regulation (ed. Gangadharan, De Cleen and Carpentier, 2007, Tartu University Press, Tartu, Estonia, ISBN 9789985405215) has a lot on the WEBZINE conference series and a little on SK.

While there is sometimes a question mark over the reliability of articles in student newspapers, the article in The Heights mentioned in the article and which we finally have the full text of, above, thanks again to Keith, seems to be decent, qualifying as a mixed primary and secondary source, and useful for sourcing the article. I think this also reaches BASIC standard. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on the ample WP:BASIC-quality sourcing that has been found in the course of this AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, consensus is that this article is not suitable. However, several commenters seem to believe that improvement might be a possibility. If anyone is interested in trying, let me know and I will put the article into draft space for you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater diving in popular culture[edit]

Underwater diving in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive pop culture trivia, lots of original research. While the article goes into detail in how creative liberties about diving in fiction creates misconceptions about it in real life, it's all uncited, and the article primary consists of a massive list of anything and everything diving has appeared in. This seems non-encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure original research. There are no sources about the general topic, with all references being from or about specific works. Dubious notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a list, so to be expected that it is a collection of information about specific works. Could you be more specific about your claim of pure original research · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because it is the unwanted "popular culture" stuff from three articles (Special:Diff/873525191, Special:Diff/872965051, Special:Diff/873530301) plus some categories (Special:Diff/873107920) merged into one. Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not so much unwanted per se, but not relevant to the reasonable scope of those articles. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Has Anthony Appleyard been notified? Much of the content is material he originally provided. Perhaps he would be prepared to put in the effort to find proper references, as he was always in favour of keeping the material in Wikipedia. Most of it is probably citeable but outside of my field of interest, and not relevant to the main articles on diving. I can see encyclopedic value in the topic in spite of the current content and lack of citation, so I guess I am voting a qualified Keep, but against a merge into any technical article on diving. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello @Pbsouthwood: Would you perhaps like to explain why you are against a merge to underwater diving or the like? It would be somewhat relevant for the discussion currently going on below. Thanks either way! Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daranios: Underwater diving is a large article, densely packed with summary level content on the rather large and broad topic of underwater diving. It is a featured article, so should not have content added which is not appropriate for inclusion in a featured article, particularly not a large set of lists of details and links. Once an article on diving in popular culture is sufficiently developed, and a well structured and referenced summary can be written, that summary should be added to Underwater diving, as a section on popular culture, to expand the scope of the top level article.
    The current article on underwater diving in popular culture has potential to become something better in spite of its more obvious shortcomings. Deleting it would seem contrary to the aims of the encyclopedia.
    The scope of Underwater diving in popular culture is too broad for inclusion in any of the other major articles on aspects of underwater diving, and splitting out little bits of the content and merging them into the articles where each item has some relevance is also problematic, as many of the little bits would fit equally well or badly in more than one article, which would scatter them around and make them less accessible, less useful, and more work to maintain. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete those parts which can be identified as original research., no problem, but WP:OR is not an excuse to delete a whole article because some of it is OR. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If an article on Wikipedia is bad, the solution is to improve, not delete. The problem is often finding someone who is willing to put in the work needed to improve, when deletion is the easy option.
  Specific claims can be challenged and if no support is forthcoming, deleted. My estimate is that a large amount is probably citeable with some effort, as quite a lot is linked to articles which may have suitable sources. Identify those statements which are considered original research, so that they can be investigated.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pbsouthwood: The massive deletion to page Frogman at diff [8] should be restored and discussed. Popular culture is important; "popular" stuff affects many people, and thereby is noteworthy, ref. the meaning of the word "popular". Often one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. In matter about a book or film, the book or film is accessible to the public and is the reference. The list of links in this article could be useful or interesting to many people. Wikipedia is a public information service. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  First the material should be provided with proper in-line sourcing, correctly formatted, then we can discuss whether it should be restored, and why. Popular culture may be important, but if so it is important as popular culture. Evidence that that content is encyclopedic would also support retention of this article. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A citation on Wikipedia implies that the person making the citation has actually viewed the source, and is personally taking responsibility for the validity of the citation. A book or film may be technically accessible to the public, while remaining, in practice, inaccessible to some members of the public. This does not make the source inadmissible in general, but it does put the onus for proper citation on the person who wants the content to remain on Wikipedia, and has presumably seen the content in the source, as the buck cannot be passed to people who do not personally have the required access to correctly cite the source, whether or not they may have the interest or time. Proper citation means providing sufficient information that another person can unambiguously positively identify the publication cited, and where relevant, the part of the publication that is contains the cited information. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  More to the point, Anthony Appleyard: this discussion is about the proposed deletion of the article Underwater diving in popular culture, which is also partly due to lack of proper referencing of those same statements. I pinged you as a courtesy in case you want to make a case in defence of the article, or possibly even to provide proper references for the content you originally posted, which might help persuade other editors that it should be kept. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pbsouthwood: Since Underwater diving in popular culture is a list of links to books and movies, the reference to each line is the text of the book or or the action of the movie which that line links to and describes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Anthony Appleyard, It is not a list of links to books and movies, it is a list of links to Wikipedia articles about books and movies, and other statements about the content of books and movies.
  In the case of links to Wikipedia articles, the blue internal link proves that the article exists on Wikipedia, which is sufficient. The annotation transcludes the short description of the linked article, which is content of the linked article, and therefore must be directly or indirectly cited in the linked article, following the rules for the lead paragraphs.
  In the case of the statements about frogmen, they are statements about the content of books and movies, they are not internal links to Wikipedia articles, so those statements must be cited in each article in which the statements are made. They are not transcluded from other articles, the statements are made directly where they are displayed, and therefore must be explicitly and unambiguously cited to the external source there too, in one of the accepted formats for citation on Wikipedia, which does not include bare inline external links. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cite Wikipedia. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yet another IPC drive-by which hasn't observed WP:BEFORE. Sources are easy to find such as Rapture of the Deep and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Andrew. There is also a short treatment in Diving Pioneers p. 42, there's more about underwater diving in popular culture in the context of maritime archaelogy here and here, and there's many more secondary sources dealing with specific appearances of underwater diving in popular culture. Daranios (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria. This is not something that can be solved through editing because it is inherently flawed. At best, this deserves to be a section in the main article with prose describing the usage of the topic in popular culture, if the sources exist. TTN (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Sources do exist, as shown just above. That such a topic is neither unmanagable nor inherently flawed is shown by e.g. Tunnels in popular culture (I would say "tunnels" is a topic quite comparable in its broadness to "underwater diving"). How it can be managed is decribed in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. (That does not say anything about the question if a separate article or a section is better, I think we agree on that the current version could use improvement.) Daranios (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot seem to access some of the sources above, but I see nothing that justifies an article at this time. Contrary to popular belief, satisfying the bare minimum in what one would consider reliable sources and calling it a day doesn't mean an article is actually justified. It has to actually make sense as an article. I don't see anything that is going to shift this to a discussion on the topic's evolution in pop culture utilizing only pertinent examples. "Tunnels in popular culture" is an absolute hodgepodge mess that looks like it should be merged into a couple different articles, so I'm not sure what your goal was in showing that as an example of a successful popular culture article. TTN (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: "Tunnels in popular culture", because it is the example called out by Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Can you access the main source above, Rapture of the Deep? It has pages 97-105 dedicated first to the appearance of diving in film, television and advertisement in the 1950s and 1960s, and then analyzes the roots and expression of diving in culture and society. (Impact in culture and society is part of "in popular culture", right? That is, as far as I can see, not covered in Underwater diving.) Volumewise, that alone could make for a nice short article. Of course more than one source is needed, but they have been shown to exist, and the scope of the topic is much broader than what is in Rapture of the Deep, so plenty more to add. And I am sure that secondary sources can be found for many of the entries that are currently listed. Just have a look at Scuba Diving Tourism p. 15, a hit for the first entry I have tried to look, Sea Hunt. Actually, look at that, that book has a one-page-chapter on scuba diving in popular culture. Tada, WP:GNG's minimum requirement is fulfilled with those two alone. And we have already found more, so we can satisfy more than the bare minimum, as you have requested. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is severely outdated and just assumes the TV Tropes style of content is fine, so I don't really think it is a good resource at all in how to handle these articles. The manual of style linked in the essay advocates for actual meaningfully crafted prose based on discussion of the topic in popular culture. With the exception of the first section of the tunnels article, the article is clearly just trivia in prose form, so it fails to actually meet any criteria of what could be considered a meaningful pop culture article. For this article in particular, what has been advanced in terms of sources does not at this time justify a separate article. This topic is a content fork, so simply saying "the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case. You've at best brought forth the building blocks for a section in the main article. There is currently nothing that justifies the current content, there is nothing to salvage from the current content, and there is no need to stub this down when it can simply be added to the main article. TTN (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: If you think the essay is outdated, why not work on updating it? As it is, it is current piece of Wikipedia lore that directly contradicts the opinion that the topic is unmanageable and inherently flawed. Anyway, it is an essay, so let's look back to Wikipedia policy. If you say ""the most basic needs of GNG have been satisfied" is not good enough for an article in this case", I assume that's your opinion, but that it is not grounded in policy. Or where would be the policy to the contrary? I think WP:GNG is the relevant policy here, so if its needs are met, the article can stay. And again, Rapture of the Deep alone can fulfill the volume requirement of WP:WHYN, while Scuba Diving Tourism fulfills the "not one single viewpoint" requirement. Now you say meeting these basic requirements is not good enough. But in this argumentation you have ignored that more secondary sources, which therefore go beyond "the most basic needs of GNG", have already been presented.

Again, I agree that what we currently have is lacking and needs sources. But when you say there is "nothing that justifies the current content", did you do a search on individual entries of the list, to see if there are secondary sources for them? If there were (as has just been shown for Sea Hunt), then that content would be justified, even though the sources are not yet there in the article. Daranios (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The essay reflects when there were so many hundreds (possibly even thousands) of these articles and ten times as many bloated sections. It appears we're now down to somewhere around 100 or less, and the prevalence of major pop culture sections has thankfully mostly died down. It no longer has relevance in most of its suggestions. This article is a content fork. It is something that should only be split out when properly sourced content overwhelms the parent article. You can use the same justification of just barely meeting GNG to go split out literally any section of any well sourced article if you really want, but that would be silly in practice if the content fits in the article already. Zero content in the article as of the time of the nomination should stick around, so that leaves a minor stub to build from the sources presented in this AfD (or at least any that talk about the actual topic). As the sourcing presented does not show massive potential for improvement, it's not something that can sustain an article at this time. Easiest thing is just to delete this and start fresh in the main article. TTN (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Hmm, I disagree on so many levels that I don't have time to discuss them all now. I'd like to start with: Would you be willing to create such a section in the main article in case this one were deleted? If not, let's assume for a moment, noone else would be either. Then someone interested in the topic would have lost whatever the current article offers, despite its flaws, and gained nothing. I don't feel that would improve Wikipedia. Starting from the other side, you say its easiest to first delete, then create a new section. As the existence of this article is no hindrance whatsoever in creating such a section, I cannot follow you there. On the contrary I would say its existence is a slight help (if I'd do it, to get inspiration for what to do there, from your point of view, at least as a bad example). If a great section in a parent article were created, putting this article to shame, then this could be redirected after clarification in a merge discussion. That way round, there would be no loss for Wikipedia at any time, in case a section would look better than a whole article, as you suggest. That's also what the policy says: WP:ATD "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.", and WP:NEXIST. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this discussion exists and can be linked on the talk page of the main article, I don't really think it matters when it is created. As long as the sources here are recorded somewhere for future perusal and possible usage, the job is done. I'm looking at this from the perspective of it being an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place. WP:NODEADLINE is a two way road in terms of people rushing to create articles before they're ready and people looking to remove viable articles just because they're not up to snuff. If we were talking about a topic that had content worth salvaging, the argument that we should give it time to incubate would be valid, but this article as of the time of the nomination offers zero utility. It is just the same TV Tropes trvia bunk we've seen on these lists for the last 15-ish years. I'm honestly surprised it was actually created only a few years ago. Without confidence that this page has the potential for massive improvement, I think its existence is a negative blight on Wikipedia that encourages more pages like it to be created, so its deletion is a benefit. TTN (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TTN Can you support your personal opinions as expressed above with actual Wikipedia policy or guidance, as opposed to essays which are other peoples personal opinions on what Wikipedia should be? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be particularly interested to know of anything deprecating articles on the topic of specific categories of popular culture. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is Underwater diving in popular culture an improperly created page that never should have been allowed to exist in the first place? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the article content, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, despite linking to the essay in the above discussion, pretty much entirely contradicts the essay. The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is a random smattering of loosely connected trivia points, and not a "section with well-written paragraphs that give a logically presented overview (often chronological and/or by medium) of how the subject has been documented, featured, and portrayed in different media and genres" as called for by the guideline. There is nothing in the article worth salvaging. The argument of the how and when to split an article is mostly subjective, but Wikipedia:Content forking suggests it is acceptable when there is an issue of undue weight. This topic does not have that issue. We have a small selection of possible sources from which to build a section, and I am not a fan of stubbing articles down to just see them back here in two years when they're either still a stub or have bloated back out again. This is a topic that, if it is going to be explored on Wikipedia, belongs in the parent article until such a time where it has undue weight. I don't know if you made the article as a junk containment zone for your FA push or simply believe it to have potential, but the article was definitely never suitable. TTN (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater diving in popular culture is primarily a list. It is also an article where a more general treatment of the topic can be developed. The relevance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material is tenuous at best.
You specify The content in the article as of the time of the nomination fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we should be considering the content of the article as it currently stands - improvements during a deletion discussion are not only permitted, but recommended.
The transfer of content from Underwater diving was because it had potential elsewhere that it did not have there. The same point stands for all the other articles in which parts of it were found.
Your claim that the article was definitely never suitable remains unsupported by evidence or logical demonstration, and therefore expresses your personal opinion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] I would also parenthetically mention that the content of the current article does not have a unique parent article, as implied above, as it was collected from several different articles on the general topic, but Underwater diving#In popular culture would be the appropriate place for a summary section once one has been developed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. Given what is very respectable work from you on other areas of the general topic, I'm not sure why you're so adamant on defending this mess. Out of current remaining popular culture articles, Titanic in popular culture (still a little messy in some area but much closer to proper form) seems the closest example to what would be a properly formed version of one of these articles. There is a very good reason 90% of these things have been culled from Wikipedia over the years. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read this – You made it without any claim of notability, completely contrary to how guidelines on how the topic says the content should be managed. That is absolutely the criteria for a poorly formed article that never should have existed. – and am unable to parse what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clarify.
I, as you put it, defend this mess because I find the arguments for its deletion poorly expressed and uncompelling, and although it is a topic I am not particularly interested in, have not been convinced that deletion is an appropriate solution. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The deletion opinions of LaundryPizza03 and Abhishek0831996 as well as the nomination by Waxworker are based partially or exclusively on WP:OR. I hope I could show by adding secondary sources to the example of Sea Hunt, that this article cannot be purely original research. So far there has been no comment on the question by Peter Southwood what the original research claim actually refers to, making it unclear if these are opinions solely based on the current lack of citations (which is not really relevant according to WP:ARTN), or if there was any WP:BEFORE search done to substantiate this. (There were also 16 deletion nominations done by the nominator within 11 minutes, making a proper WP:BEFORE search highly doubtful.) I hope this is taken into account for the decision about this article. Daranios (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the deletion rationale for each article and looked into sources well before publishing all of the discussions in one go, as it was more efficient. WP:BEFORE has been met, and a few sources talking about the subject are not a justification for a massive list of anything and everything underwater diving has ever appeared in. Per TTN, it's unmanagable and the concept of the article as a whole is flawed, not only its contents. Waxworker (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Waxworker: Thanks for replying. Yet that sounds a lot like an opinion based on the current state of the article. In more search secondary sources have been found, which could be used to write a reasonably-sized section about the topic. For the example of Sea Hunt, a section supported by secondary sources exists now. The same principle could be applied to all entries: If there are secondary sources, these topics can stay, if not, they can be thrown out. In this way it would, as also Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content describes, be both manageable and limited. Daranios (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The lead paragraph of Underwater diving in popular culture is a scope description. This directly refutes the claim Unmanageable, indiscriminate list without any particular inclusion criteria, by providing an explicit set of inclusion criteria appropriate to the topic, and though fairly broad in scope, is not indiscriminate. No evidence has been provided that it would be unmanageable, nor reasons why this may be the case. The statement appears more rhetorical than substantive.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists (or lists of lists) with ill-defined inclusion criteria that are absolutely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply saying "this is a listing of [X] that feature [Y]" means you can include anything under the sun that has featured [Y] even tangentially. There is no end point. Whether notability for the overarching topic of "Underwater diving in popular culture" as a whole can be established from the sources provided in the AfD, the content of the article is still unsuitable. TTN (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel that the inclusion criteria should be tightened up, you are free to do so. This is a cooperative project. If something appears broken the appropriate response is to fix it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:IINFO. Lists of overly broad scope such as those of the form "[Subject] in [any media]" are indiscriminate, unmaintainable and not useful. Sandstein 07:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sandstein, What about lists of "Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]"? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pbsouthwood, they are indiscriminate. There are so many topics and so many works of popular culture, this would just generate a zillion-page worse version of TV Tropes. Sandstein 20:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandstein, Indiscriminate overstates the objection. There are three independent discriminators in Wikipedia articles about [subject] in [specified media]. The quoted format represents an outline list, or a closed set of index lists, or even a category , all of which are accepted as useful in principle, and complementary to each other. None of these conditions are unbounded in the real world, and there is no limitation preventing further discrimination to split such an article if it becomes actually unmanageable at some time. Wikipedia itself continues to grow, with no hard limit on size and number of articles, either on a topic or in general. Navigation within the encyclopedia as a whole, and within topics, is facilitated by such lists, which makes them useful to both readers and editors. Maintaining the encyclopedia is a lot of work, but it is one of the things Wikipedians do, and as time passes, tools are developed to reduce the workload. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Sandstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft. The assertion by those !voting keep is that sources identified can yield a salvageable article. Let's put it in draft to test that theory. BD2412 T 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or draftify - while the article as currently written is in danger of becoming an indiscriminate list with unclear criteria, I think that the discussion has shown there are sufficient sources to justify a prose-based, non-list article on this topic. The article should be kept and improved, or sent to draft space for improvement. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - personally, I don't think this will ever be in state which is not indiscriminate enough to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Not relisting a third time given low participation rate. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desta Global[edit]

Desta Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks independent coverage. Loaded with Press Releases. Fails WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2018-05 Desta Talk redirect

• Keep. There are thirty-five sources; surely a lot of them look like crap, but I haven't seen anyone put forth the effort to go through them and assess whether they constitute significant coverage. I'm not seeing why they should be dismissed out of hand as "press releases". jp×g 07:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion has received quite ample input, but there is no consensus for a particular outcome here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Downer[edit]

Georgina Downer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)