< August 22	August 24 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy (Monty Python)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A minor character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A search yielded very few additional results, and the current article is so small that I don't see a need for it to exist separately from other Monty Python articles. All notable reception can be covered by Spamlot's article, if it isn't already. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Theatre. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fictional character is not notable. All encyclopedic information about him should be given in the film and musical articles to the extent appropriate per WP:DUE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not seeing how the article even tries to estabilish notability, and my BEFORE just gave few mentions in passing. Ping me if SIGCOV coverage that goes beyond plot summary is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, barely more important than Sir Not-appearing-in-this-film. Why should he have an article when there isn't (and shouldn't be) even a King Arthur (Monty Python)? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such a minor character fails GNG; should be deleted without any doubt! Ekdalian (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the standard for WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails GNG. Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

365mag[edit]

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

Non-notable "e-zine" publication. The article cites only the publication's own website, which is a dead link. The publication's LinkedIn page has only 20 followers and no posts. Its YouTube channel has 11 subscribers and 3 low-quality videos with very few views (two of which are the same 16-second video consisting of a person encouraging people to go to a website). Vimeo has a little bit more, but not much. A web search yields nothing else, except a similarly named unrelated publication called 365 Magazine. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: thanks for providing a more in-depth deletion rationale than you did for your prod. ~Kvng (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Came and left without making a lasting impact, just as nominator says. Kudos for nominating, good find! gidonb (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BarrelProof says it all - very little trace of this exists, and it didn't have much attention in its time. Lamona (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2023 (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 Melungeon#Genetic testing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melungeon DNA Project[edit]

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

Notability challenged in 2016 per talk page, officially tagged last year. No RS. Most properly sourced material already covered in Melungeon article, making this a possible REDUNDANTFORK. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, United States of America, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is bad-written, but the subject looks notable enough - per Google Scholar search results. . Suitskvarts (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melungeon#Genetic testing.

WP:TNT may apply. I agree that the article as it stands is simply a note of what the study says and relies on the study itself, appearing to be WP:OR. Given some of the comments in both articles' talk pages and historical edits, an article on the reliability of the study may be more in line with Wikipedia's standards. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK possibly applies to what is there now.

Regarding the Google Scholar results: there are 13 total, with no.s 7, 9, 10 all being the same thing (a dissertation that was eventually published into a book). No. 5 actually only mentions the article topic to state that it was removed from the data set the article covers; no. 2 is a book review, not about the study itself. Mapping Melungia (no. 4) is a self-published book - via Lulu.com - that reads like an essay and isn't peer-reviewed as far as I can tell.

At a glance, Internet Archive has 6 results, but 3 of those are the same - and those three are result no. 8 on the Google Scholar link above - and it is only a brief couple of paragraphs that discuss how the study's results could be skewed. The only one in IA that doesn't appear in the Google results is "Explorations in Consumer Culture Theory".

There doesn't appear to be SIGCOV of the study itself, and the main article only has the one source - again, the study itself - for the genetic testing section. Still, I think a redirect is more in order than deletion if for no other reason than the back and forth in both pages' histories. OIM20 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melungeon#Genetic testing per above. - Indefensible (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2023 (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 Palau-sator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rural Museum - A Collection of Traditional Farming Tools[edit]

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

I am afraid this does not pass WP:NORG. No citations, no secondary web presence. Maint tags since 2017. Qcne (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palau-sator. There appears to be sourcing in the Catalan article with which to add a sentence or two about the museum. Star Mississippi 02:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is additional support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll !vote for merge. The Palau-sator article is a stub and this could be a first entry in a sub-heading "Cultural organizations" or such. The target article is both in need of content and references. Hopefully this afd has prompted some interested editors. Lamona (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honeycut[edit]

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

Minus one of their songs being featured in the commercials and opening song for old Apple products, I don't see much notable content related to this band. I'm not sure if they're even active anymore (their website is currently parked and being publicly listed for sale) and I haven't been able to find any sources about the band. The only sources I've been finding relate to "Honeycut Records" which appears to be unrelated to the band. Dawnbails (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and California. Dawnbails (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found for this band, appears to be a cocktail bar in LA with the same name. Sourcing used in the article now is meh. Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Got plenty of press coverage for their 2006 debut album; see, e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm iffy about the sources you've provided, I'd say that it'd at least make sense to draftify this article if others believe that they're reliable enough to use. The article currently stands on one singular source right now. Dawnbails (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The advice at WP:AFDTODRAFT discourages draftifying as a solution to problems identified at AfD, and I have to agree; if a subject is notable, the correct course of action is not to remove the article, temporary or permanently (and most draftified articles don't come back). Chubbles (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources and to consider Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to sources Chubbles identified, specifically the SPIN article Elttaruuu (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What SPIN article? I am not seeing what you're talking about. Please name the specific link. Graywalls (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5th link Elttaruuu (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given the new sources, this may be closed as No consensus. And, by the way, I've seen plenty of articles that were Draftified appear again in the main space, the problem is actually that they are brought back to main space immediately after being moved to Draft space without a lot of work being done to address their problems. But sometimes a little extra time in Draft space can result in an improved article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as Spin, Popcrush, AllMusic as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and others such as East Bay Times so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sattai Duraimurugan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV. - SUN EYE 1 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Tamil Nadu. - SUN EYE 1 16:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator SaltlakeAlt was blocked for advertising. - SUN EYE 1 16:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe he meets the GNG based on the sources in the article and the extensive coverage revealed through the Google News search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts Those were WP:ROUTINE coverage about his arrests. I had planned to add it to my rationale before another editor removed the section about his arrests. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this subject. - SUN EYE 1 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe arrests for political speech, criticism, or even threats are WP:ROUTINE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very common in India to prevent civil disorders, see Section 153A of the Indian penal code - SUN EYE 1 05:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criminalising speech to prevent "civil" disorders or stifle political speech is not routine. If multiple RS are reporting on the incident, it's not routine like a traffic accident, loitering, or theft. The article that you reference and the cases it lists shows prosecution under the code is not an every day thing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The maximum is WP:1EVENT case, according to the news. Suitskvarts (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Berthelsen[edit]

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

Unfortunately, Berthelsen looks to fail WP:GNG and I'm not seeing WP:NBAD either. A Danish source search yielded nothing decent. Badminton Europe is only a trivial mention. Please note that there is an unrelated Danish football coach of the same name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NBAD as well as WP:GNG per nomination. zoglophie 14:56, 26 August 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GENIVI Alliance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Undeleted soft-delete-prod but still lacks sources or notability. Attempted COI editing. Written like an advertisement. Andre🚐 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Andre🚐 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- lots of good refs out there from Google News. I'm on the road with little time to list them properly. Here's a sample: [7][8][9][10][11]
- EBSCO via the Wikipedia Library - many are recycled press releases but there WP:RS as well (may or may not be sufficient for notability)
- Google Books also has references to meet notability
- The article may seem promotional but this is a nonprofit standards setting group using Linux for automotive operating systems. Participants are: "GM, PSA/Peugeot-Citroen, Renault-Nissan, Hyundai, BMW and others, and more than a dozen global suppliers, including Robert Bosch, Continental, Denso, Aisin and Valeo."
- We need this article - people are going to be looking for information.
- Article needs new title - organization is now the "Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance". (press release)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above references appear quite trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release type info. Andre🚐 04:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the links I gave are "trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release type", especially after you read each one.

These are in-depth articles:[12][13]
The other articles I cite give several paragraphs. Less than a passing mention but not deep dives. Collectively they add up to an analysis of GENIVI as well as its competitors
Books are not press releases, at least not in my country.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read WP:ROUTINE more thoroughly as it appears to cover all of this comfortably including those "in-depth" articles which are both basically press clippings. Every book mention is trivial as well. Andre🚐 17:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous references in scholarly papers. Please see [14] and connected edit request placed on talk page to improve article with better sourcing. TR??Wiki5 (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This user has a disclosed WP:COI (see their contribution history). Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd iike to see more comments or a source analysis on the recently discovered sources. Also, since Soft Deletion is not available, there will need to be stronger support for a Deletion than the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I just implemented an extensive COI edit request made by the above user, and added their COI on the talk page. The article has been almost completely rewritten, but may not include all the sources that were discussed above. The main difference seems to be that there are several research papers based on the organization's work that were added as references. I don't have full access to them and can't tell how extensive the coverage is, but the summaries shown here [15] reference the organization's work. I also don't have access to the books that were discussed above, but if anyone else does and wants to verify whether they can be used to improve the sourcing, I'd consider revising my vote to a regular keep. STEMinfo (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the edits referenced in STEMinfo's !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a lot of coverage of this subject per A. B., lots of primary stuff to filter but should be more than enough in my opinion. At least some of the studies indicated above look independent and seem to cover technical details in depth. More references on ProQuest, again some primary material but not all, which should further support notability. I think a subject of this kind, being a cooperative between major industry competitors which are themselves all uncontroversially notable, is a good target for inclusion on the encyclopedia. - Indefensible (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Article may need to be moved however per the subject's change in current name, which can be discussed on its talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Zdenjak[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough for WP:NBAD and none of the sources demonstrate WP:GNG. My own searches yield La Rep, Quartier Croix Rouge and Badmania, all of which are only trivial mentions of Zdenjak. I can't find any significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The currently cited sources are entry on sport sites and basic announcements of game results. Did not manage to find any suitable coverage about the individual, seems to fail WP:NATHLETE. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Moldt Baskjær[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBAD here. The best sources that I can find in Danish are Sport Herning, which mentions him twice in the results summary, Badminton Bladet, a single passing mention, and Hojbjerg Badminton, another passing mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:49, 23 August 2023 (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 Poi (performance art). ✗plicit 23:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poi tricks[edit]

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

Blatant WP:NOTGUIDE since 2010! Also no sources. The main article Poi (performance art) is fairly robust so I think this can be deleted easily. Already been archived to Wikibooks. Qcne (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poi (performance art) per above. - Indefensible (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poi (performance art). Uhai (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilie Bjergen[edit]

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

Bjergen doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAD and so is required to meet WP:GNG. I found no evidence of significant coverage in a Danish source search despite playing in the internet era. I found some coverage in a local Nibe-based newspaper but Nibe Avis 1 and Nibe Avis 2 clearly both fail criterion 2 of WP:YOUNGATH, which states The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. Routine game summaries in a local paper are not enough. The only other non-database source that I found was Badminton Bladet, which is also entirely trivial coverage of Bjergen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with this recommendation and the points that have been made. This seems like a clear delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:46, 23 August 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Techno India University[edit]

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

Severely unnotable, with one source basically being Indian Yelp for colleges, and the other being YouTube. It literally only includes one piece of information, which is about some random hazing ritual somebody in 2017 did. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Technology, Asia, India, and West Bengal. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I'm able to find atleast 3 sources mentioning Techno India University:

- Telegraphindia.com This is a article about a recent attempt by pupils of the university (and associated public school) to create a Durga idol out of trash

- Dailystar.net This is a article about a MoU signed between a Bangladeshi university and Techno India University

- telegraphindia.com This is a article about the convocation ceremony.

There are a bunch of others from telegraphindia.com (which makes sense given that The Telegraph (India) is the primary English newspaper of the region) as well mentions in other national newspapers--Sohom (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of sources that mention the university to the article. In addition to this, I also want to point out that the youtube video linked as one of the references is actually a recorded clip of a news broadcast by ABP Ananda, one of the major Bengali TV news shows in Kolkata. This news story made national headlines as mentioned in indiatoday.in, timesofindia.com and telegraphindia.com Sohom (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: Sorry for such a late reply, but you seem to have added citations in inappropriate places in the article.

You added sources to the lead section which don't support the claim at hand ("Techno India university is a private university in Kolkata."). QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 04:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka Fixed, thanks for the heads up :) Sohom (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review of existing and new references would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Sohom about the first comment. Just have to ask. How is it so amazing that the third article was published exactly on the day of your comment? Suitskvarts (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suitskvarts It wasn't amazing, I assume Google recommended the latest news articles that it found wrt to university. I typed in "Techno India University news Kolkata" which imo is a good approach of finding relevant sources for Indian schools, since if there isn't a single newsworthy article, the subject would definitely be non-notable (most colleges/universities have difficulty making it into the news from this area due to the sheer number of such institutions/degree mills that are called colleges etc). Sohom (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. More participation would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has decent coverage. The article has a section on abuse with references which is negative for the subjective. Here is another reference on more abuse https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/12/21/techno-india-university-faculty-sexual-harassment. New women & gender studies center https://www.proquest.com/docview/2788434170/19CC049530954205PQ/1 (this might be a press release). Coverage of a technology conference the subject hosted https://www.proquest.com/docview/2809556906/19CC049530954205PQ/2. A lecture on tigers held at the university https://www.proquest.com/docview/2843074252/19CC049530954205PQ/35. - Indefensible (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Sohom Datta's spectacular work on fixing the article QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Techno India Group. The campus appears to be based physically inside the Techno India Group building. The primary sources claim that the university is a subsidiary of Techno India Group. The company's Wikipedia page appears to be be a list of its subsidiaries. There are many private colleges, schools, universities and such in the world and, although they may exist, it doesn't mean that they are noteworthy. 99% fad-free (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2023 (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. After extensive discussion there is a consensus that an article about this road should exist in some form. Discussions about what form that should be are a matter for the article talk page not AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

European route E404[edit]

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

This article is the only place I could find to suggest this road was ever planned. Seems to be a joke on HTML error 404. Sourceless since creation in 2012. The Wasp ^{[my nest]} 10:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: What seals the deal for me is this sentence: [[The route exists, but]] it is not signposted or on any maps.. This is clearly some kind of joke or hoax.~~ Actualcpscm (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I learned below (with some help), this is not a hoax. But GNG still indicates that this is an unsuitable article subject. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I changed my opinion to keep. See reasoning far below. Delete. Not a hoax. It was supposed to be a road that has been planned and was designated an E number, yet it hasn't been built. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the map linked in the article does show a road in that location, but it doesn't even label it. Even if it's not a hoax, WP:GNG, WP:V, etc. Not a suitable article subject. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's why I propose to delete.~~ Just for the historic record, it was a plan and the number had been designated.[16] It's labeled on said map (you need to zoom in). [17] Some bridges for the road had even been built and were lately removed. gidonb (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I‘m losing my mind a little with that map: I can‘t find E404 to save my life. E403 is there, but E404 between the two named cities just isn‘t. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably looking at the main map instead of at the top-left inset. gidonb (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah, there it is. Thanks. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error 404, road not found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Error 404 as the road really cannot be found. Perfectly sensible redirect :) ^[Humor] (Sadly 1st April's long gone - I guess I have to be serious and say Delete for being a non notable road, Fails SIGCOV and GNG). –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that it is an actual E-road, then WP:GEOROAD does apply. However, its existence is in question. --Rs chen 7754 21:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, the road was planned but never built. And how rigidly should we adhere to a guideline that says "typically" when we haven't been able to identify any good sources? I understand that SNGs are intended to supplement GNG, but an NEXIST argument for a road that never existed seems to be a stretch, and I don't think we should keep an article with no appropriate reliable sourcing, even if it technically falls into an SNG. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article would have to be completely rewritten, because this article about a fake road is, as far as I can tell, about a 100% real road. Such roads are "typically notable" but I'm not seeing GNG, only mentions and primary sources. It is worth noting that almost the entirety of Category:International E-road network is stubs - do we need to have some wider review, here? casualdejekyll 21:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you cannot be serious about the last part. For example, European route E75 exists in 37 language Wikipedias. Are we the English Wikipedia so arrogant that we think we should delete an article that 37 other Wikipedias have? Rs chen 7754 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care how many WIkipedias it's in - the English Wikipedia is the English Wikipedia. Anyway, there appears to be usable sourcing in the Italian and Russian versions of the E75 article for improvement of ours. But that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. casualdejekyll 01:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I'm interpreting WP:NROAD correctly, this kind of road is not inherently notable. International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable (my emphasis). It's the networks that are notable, not every single road that belongs to the E-road network. At least that's how I'd interpret that sentence. What do you think User:Rschen7754? Actualcpscm (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly not the intent of the sentence. It would be like saying that states, provinces, cities, and counties are inherently notable... but countries are not. Rs chen 7754 00:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this truly is a hoax, then of course it should be deleted. If not, keep per WP:DINC. –Fredddie ™ 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb's comment above includes supporting documents that confirm this was a serious proposal, at least for a brief moment of time. This one [18] appears to be the minutes of some city/regional council meeting where members debated the merits of rebuilding and expanding the existing road N348 (which OSM confirms does exist in this area) for E404. However, if this is the only other source that can be found, it implies to me that this proposal was short lived and fizzled, as the portion of it I read (via Google Translate of course) sounded like nobody was enthusiastic about it. Dave (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you imply, there sure are reasons it never got off the ground. I removed my delete because the ghost bridges and a tiny 404 road section on them actually received sufficient coverage. At nlwiki this is a second article next to the 404 article but we should combine. I don't have the bandwidth to redo the article or even to argue a lot about this. Sorry. The topic is notable. gidonb (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz, I donno if the below refers to my message above but I had already corrected my !vote. Sorry for putting you on the wrong foot, if I did. gidonb (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is confusing because in the discussion, it looks like some editors think this article should be deleted but are not coming out saying the word, "Delete". I understand that AFD is NOTAVOTE but the closer should not have to interpret your intent by reading between the lines of comments. Right now, we just have a nomination statement askinf for Deletion, two editors advocating Keep and a misguided Redirect request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOROAD is a thing, and it explicitly mentions the International E-road network as types of routes that are typically notable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GEOROAD doesn‘t indicate that planned roads are also notable. Given that this was never built, I think coverage would be much more limited than in the cases GEOROAD was intended to refer to, so I don’t think this is notable under that guideline. We also have very little to go on to make, say, an NEXIST argument. I don‘t see it. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 06:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GEOROAD does not apply to roads that were not actually built. Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International E-roads are notable per WP:GEOROAD. Roads are notable even if they were never built and gotten past the planning stage since there was at least a proposal for a road to exist, and usually there are interesting reasons why a road never got built. Unless this is a hoax, which does not appear to be the case, then this should have an article. Dough4872 16:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make things up. There is no precedent whatsoever that a nonexistent highway is automatically notable – significant coverage be damned – merely because a number has been assigned were it to be built. International e-roads might be notable, but this is not a road. There must be better sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely not sure. Looking at other pages, we could create a start-class article for this, but only using sources from the EU, which may not be secondary, and even then it's not much of an article. I think deleting this would make the encyclopedia worse, but it also fails WP:GNG, and WP:GEOROAD doesn't provide clear guidance. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also different languages have different sources and the Dutch language version even includes a bit about ghost bridges which were constructed and then deconstructed (and the ghost bridges have their own article too!) If kept, this article should be revised to look like the Dutch one. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The more recent delete comments are based on the idea that this road was never built. I'm.. not actually sure that that's true? It appears on File:International E Road Network green.png, for some reason. Clearly, it wasn't built as originally intended. I think it might be the otherwise inexplicable disconnected segment of A11 from Bruges to Westkapelle, Belgium, which doesn't otherwise appear to have anything to do with the rest of the highway.. or any other highway, for that matter. casualdejekyll 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it doesn‘t appear on Google Maps, nor Apple Maps, nor satellite imagery. What piece of highway are you referring to? The A11 from Bruges to Westkapelle looks relatively normal to me. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't built, it was a cancelled freeway dating back from 1977 according to the Dutch article. Stub ramps were built over the railroad tracks, that was the extent of it. Cancelled freeways can indeed be notable as well, so whether it was built shouldn't determine the outcome. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion about this over at the talk page of WP:GEOROAD. I think there is some agreement that unbuilt roads need to meet GNG, or at least are not automatically notable the way a comparable road that was completed is. This is really a question of how we read GEOROAD, so that discussion may be helpful for this AfD. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 06:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least there should be a redirect to list of unbuilt European motorways - if this would be the only item in the list I think it's fine keeping it as a stand-alone page. It's very minor information but I don't want to lose it, especially considering it could be expanded. SportingFlyer T·C 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or it can redirect to International_E-road_network#B_Class_roads where it is listed as "road never built". Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps doesn't show E numbers at all in Belgium, and that's the only mapping service I checked. I'm generally unsure - that was just a guess. Note how I haven't !voted any which way, because I really have no clue. casualdejekyll 20:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we have no clue (because there seems to be no verifiable info on this whatsoever), that supports a deletion more than anything else. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely wrong that there's no verifiable information on this. There's available sources in the Catalan wiki including potentially [19] (the other two don't mention the road, not sure if this one does but the Catalan wiki translates to that the works are available there) and in two Dutch wiki pages, and continues to appear on maps for some reason. Also considering this was cancelled in 1977 there may be more information in historical newspapers, and nobody has undertaken that search yet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that we haven‘t actually identified verifiable information beyond „It exists.“ in the discussion. Re-reading my comment, it’s clear that this was not expressed well. My bad! Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's also not true. If you search for the right road, there's plenty on the cancellation for a stub, as per my previous comment. The problem is the information's potentially duplicative, as the E-routes combine a number of local routes, and this E-route would have been potentially concurrent with a single stretch of road. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem may be we might be looking for the wrong thing. The E404 was going to be attached as a European number to a motorway which was unbuilt as part of either the A17, A301, or A11 per several different sources: [20] [21] for the A11 extension, and then the A17/A301 through some Dutch wiki-sleuthing and List of motorways in Belgium. So this really should be concurrent with either the A11 article or more likely the A301 article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Keep per foreign language coverage found by @Gidonb: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following are just a few sources on the subject. The difficulty is that the national newspaper archive of Belgium blocks access to the more recent articles. That said, there is much more, also in other newspaper on the destruction of the road. [22][23][24]][25][26][27] gidonb (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable after sources have been found on it. There's an editorial question as to whether this should be a stand-alone page or a redirect to a new page on a local Belgian road, considering most sources talk about the road and not the European designation for said road, but considering that page doesn't exist yet, this is currently the "correct" place for it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form since there are clearly sources on it. --Rs chen 7754 18:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The most recent commenters (who've looked at the recently mentioned sources) are advocating Keeping this article or at least leaving this page title as a Redirect. So, my question is if there is more support for a Redirect than Keeping this article and, if so, what would the target article be? I'd especially like to hear the opinions of editors who in the early stage of this discussion were advocating for Delete as this discussion has clearly evolved since it was started 3 weeks ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything above. I feel vindicated for never bolding a !vote until now casualdejekyll 22:12, 28 August 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadpan comedians[edit]

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

We don't have a list for any other style of comedian. A category version was previously deleted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is List of stand-up comedians. I'm not saying it's a style of comedy, but I'm sure there's a distinction between comedians who do stand-up and those that don't. Conyo14 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a List of musical comedians. pburka (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. It is inconsequential whether or not other similar articles exist. It is inconsequential that the category was deleted, because categories cannot be referenced. Articles can. The scope of the article exists as a list of comedians "who have used deadpan as a part of their repertoire"; it is not a list of comedians that only use deadpan techniques. This is a well-sourced list that also meets WP:LISTN, as per sources such as

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredibly vague inclusion criterion. That someone can find a source that mentions that "actor X gave a deadpan performance in film Y" is no basis for a list. If you have to do such gymnastics to define inclusion criteria in a way that appears to differ from the article title, something is seriously wrong.
Of the two refs presented above, the first only goes for notability of deadpan itself (which has an article already, and rightly so). And the second is a listicle. Listicles. Don't. Count. They're low-effort churn meant to drive clicks and that's it. William Shatner hosted SNL once and gave a deadpan delivery in one skit (not to mention Airplane II). Should he be on this list? Is he even a comedian? Where's the line? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this is restricted Keep but restrict to people who are noted as deadpan comedians, e.g. Steven Wright and Bob Newhart. Who in their wildest dreams even connects someone like Bea Arthur with being one? Satisfies WP:NLIST because they are discussed as a group, e.g. here, deadpan comedy actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Newhart is the very personification of deadpan. That's how he delivered his jokes on stage, and that's how his television characters were played. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deadpan should be expanded to include examples of significant comedians well known for their deadpan style, but a list of comedians who have just had that term used in one source to describe them, or a particular performance, is not sufficient for selection criteria. Deadpan is an important skill that any good comedian would be able to use "as a part of their repertoire", and it's fairly subjective to attempt to list who is a deadpan comedian in particular. Ben Stein or those Clarityfiend listed should be included in the main article as specialists in this, but many of those listed I would not generally describe as deadpan comedians, even if they are talented enough to have made good use of the style in some instances. Reywas92^Talk 23:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Merge Per above. Move some of the content to Deadpan and preserve as much of of the editors' hard work as is appropraite: That being only comediens whose sources refer to them as deadpan explicitly. I observe that not all of the sources given in the present article contain the word "deadpan." The determination of whether a comedian is subjective, of course, but it should not be Wikieditors who draw that conclusion without that confusion explicitly backed up in a published source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Just a point about the CC/GFDL licenses: this suggestion needs to be a merge !vote, because history needs to be kept for attribution. —siro χ o 04:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Merge, then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Deadpan is already short enough to contain the entire list, and I do agree that we need to exercise a bit less editorial decision making on who to include, and instead improve our selection criteria likely narrowing the list. In absense of merge consensus, keep per NLIST (here's another source for that [28]) and in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE / WP:5P3 —siro χ o 05:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think "stand up comedy" is more inclusive, in that it's any style of comedy where the lone performer is addressing a live audience. "Deadpan" can be standup, but is it's own genre therein. Jack Benny is the perfect example, where he would stand in front of an audience without cracking a smile, while telling the audience some ridiculous story. Same thing with George Burns, although not necessarily referred to that way. In every show, he would step towards the camera and tell the audience some odd-ball story while smoking his cigar. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided among those wanting to Keep, Delete or Merge. Unless there is a great influx of participants to this discussion, it looks like at least some of the information in this article will be preserved in some context.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 23 August 2023 (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. For me, this will be a textbook case of an AFD discussion that evolved over weeks of discussion. Many AFDs I see are basically decided in the first 48 hours after an article is nominated but this discussion really needed more time to consider the article subject with supporters on different sides making good contributions to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalshi[edit]

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

Appears non-notable, most of the sourcing used, while in RS, is about other things and mention this firm in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Oaktree b, could you please provide a source evaluation?

I'll attempt it, most sources are pay-walled Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've skipped over some sources, due to formatting above (I only counted 12, but there are more than that).

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Blomberg News (June 16, 2023)	appears un-connected	appears un-connected	? Pay-walled	? Unknown
Blomberg news (May 26, 2022)	appears un-connected	? pay-walled	? pay-walled	? Unknown
LA Review of Books	writers appear un-connected	appears reliable	good half to third of the article is about this enterprise	✔ Yes
Politico	RS per wiki table [29]	reliable source	article is about the company seeking market regulator approval	✔ Yes
CNBC	appears un-connected	I have no concerns	~ short article, but talks about the company	~ Partial
The Information	? paywalled	? paywalled	? paywalled	? Unknown
Error: a source must be specified				? Unknown
Forbes	? unsure, from a Forbes contributor	? Forbes contributors	good half of the article about the firm	? Unknown
NPR	? not known	? not known	? podcast, unable to listen currently	? Unknown
Blomberg News (April 20, 2023)	? paywalled	? paywalled	? paywalled	? Unknown
Tribune de Geneve	? paywalled	? paywalled	? paywalled	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, we have 2 good sources, one meh source, rest I'm unable to evaluate due articles being paywalled. Pro Tip: Don't reply to the comment when using a source table, it doesn't display correctly and you have to fiddle-fart around with the table. Argh. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work currently and don't want to start blasting a podcast from NPR for all to hear. I'm not really seeing notability with the two sources above. Almost, but not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. No need for the NPR podcast, I should've specified that it's a "source to consider" rather than something to evaluate for the source assessment table.

Here are gift links that will allow you to read the Bloomberg articles: The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events, A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything, Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan

For the Fortune article (From Lil Nas X to the climate, Kalshi wants to let investors bet on it all), disable Javascript and you'll be able to access it.

These two articles are not behind a paywall:

How Event Contracts at Kalshi Differ From Sports Betting
Did Kalshi Kill PredictIt? Friday’s Decision On Election Wagering Will Be Revealing Mooonswimmer 19:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article by The Economist and and this one published in The American Prospect can also be considered. Mooonswimmer 20:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable per Mooonswimmer's refs.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but should be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is not a PR placement.Masckarpone (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: blocked as a sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appear to be trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release. Article is written promotionally. Cool idea for a company, which I have actually heard of and played around with, but probably not passing WP:NCORP or WP:GNG at the present time. Andre🚐 04:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a source assessment of the articles I linked above? And which sources are press releases?
Regarding the promotional tone, I agree that the bit about being a competitor to PredictIt could be worded (or removed entirely), but I don't see how the article is written promotionally? Please provide suggestions on what to tone down on, what to rephrase, and what is best removed entirely. Mooonswimmer 05:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage is day to day grist of the mill stuff like taking a press release and writing a puff piece about it on a blog. You can tell when it's stuff like "A New X Will Release a New Y" without that thing having actually happened yet. Basically a routine product announcement or announcement of new business opportunities such as raising money, announcing a new hire etc., do not go to notability. See also WP:SIGCOV. WP:LASTING It's true that the Bloomberg pieces, as a whole, constitute a fairly in-depth profile on the company. Politico, Forbes, and Techcrunch definitely feel routine to me. The rest, I guess you could make the argument, and maybe we should. It seems that they are largely about this one event, namely the CFTC approving prediction markets to operate. If that is the only notable aspect I think it is a fail of WP:NCORP. You can make a GNG argument if you will argue that The Information, LA Review of Books, etc are comprehensive in-depth and not routine. I will admit it's close and I could change my mind if perhaps, there was a reliable journal article, book, or academic source. Andre🚐 18:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg (article #1, article #2)

The Information (article)

Tribune de Geneve (article)

CNBC (article)

Fortune (article)

Los Angeles Review of Books (article)

Articles on companies are not my strong suit, but I believe that these 7 comprehensive in-depth articles published by independent, secondary, reliable sources would be enough to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This NPR segment is also worth taking a look at.

I believe the TechCrunch, Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal articles only partially contribute to notability as these types of pieces constitute relatively routine coverage considering they were published in the early stages of the company. There are plenty of other reliable sources that discuss Kalshi in-depth but mostly within the context of the recent CFTC political trading proposal, so I am not counting these articles towards GNG.

It is also worth noting that Kalshi is one of only a few designated contract markets in America ("a regulatory classification that puts Kalshi in the same bucket as historic derivatives exchanges like the CME Group-owned Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the former New York Board of Trade, known today as ICE Futures U.S.") and is the first and only federally regulated exchange for trading on real-world events. As "gimmicky"/"promotional" as it sounds, I think it has some significance. Mooonswimmer 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this promotional and I'm assuming paid-for article. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Most sources are obviously press release churnalism. - MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloomberg (article #1, article #2)
- The Information (article)
- Tribune de Geneve (article)
- CNBC (article)
- Fortune (article)
- Los Angeles Review of Books (article)
Could you please provide an evaluation of these sources? Articles on companies aren't my forte, but I would have assumed that 5+ comprehensive, in-depth articles published in independent, secondary, reliable sources would be enough for WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.

"promotional". It would be greatly appreciated if you could reword, remove, or point out any material you deem promotional. I see how the "PredictIt competitor" part could be seen as promotional but I need some further guidance. Your help in toning down the article would be appreciated.

"assuming paid-for". I regret to hear that that's what you assume, especially considering I spent hours creating what I thought was a well-written, balanced, and well-sourced article, but that is not the case. This is a company from my city, which currently runs the only regulated platform in a field I'm very interested in (betting on real-world events), and which I have read about very often lately in the context of their election trading proposal. It has been on my list for quite some time and I assumed the available coverage was more than enough. Mooonswimmer 20:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references listed above by Mooonswimmer. In addition, there are more listed on the company's Y Combinator profile: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/kalshi. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be very helpful if those editors who are arguing that the sourcing consists of press releases would review the sources offered by User:Mooonswimmer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY, sources have been located that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Weak Delete probably WP:TOOSOON. I'll preface my !vote by pointing out that a lot of the coverage is recent. For example on June 12 2023, the topic company submitted a selection of self-certified contracts to the CFTC which effectively would allow companies to "bet" on the outcome elections. This has generated "coverage" and "news" and we're faced with a couple of questions. First, is the coverage about the proposed "product" (i.e. the contract) or about the company. And second, if its about the company, is it "in-depth" and "Independent Content". With one exception, none of the sources are convincing and appear to simply summarise events to date without offering any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The exception is the LA Review of Books article which I believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. At this time I'm unable to locate any other source which meets the criteria and we require "multiple sources". I'm open to changing my mind if another source is eventually located. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lengthy discussion about sources - unroll if want to read and/or contribute
Not that recent, we are talking about coverage over the last few years. Did you also review the sources on the Y Combinator profile? - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] A source assessment table would be appreciated. I intentionally picked out sources that don't really focus on the Kalshi’s recent submission of congressional control contracts, and avoided the more routine coverage published shortly after the company's inception. Mooonswimmer 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] I won't bother building a source assessment table because there isn't a template for GNG/NCORP, but I've looked in detail at every source. I started a long response but I'm trying to avoid writing long responses where unnecessary. If you like, pick a source you think meets NCORP and I'll tell you why IMHO it doesn't. Also a Y Combinator profile would not contain "Independent Content" seeing as its written by the company (the second sentence even starts with the words "We built Kalshi....") and Y Combinator is involved with the topic company as its incubator. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] What I think @Indefensible meant was the articles listed on the Y Combinator profile, but I've already included the ones I believe meet GNG/NCORP. We can start with the first article I offered: A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything The article is from Bloomberg, a reputable and reliable publication, and qualifies as a secondary, independent source, as it is authored by respected journalists unrelated to the company. The content's significance and coverage seem to align with the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, as the information reported in the article does not appear to fall under the examples of trivial coverage mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). While it is true that the article references quite heavily the company's founders for information, this is not a piece of churnalism, and the fact that Bloomberg follows trusted editorial standards suggests that a degree of trust can be placed in the reported information. Some situations may demand truly independent sources, like investigative journalism, but in this case, the pursuit of extreme intellectual independence might not be necessary, given the credibility of Bloomberg's reporting and editorial practices and the nature of the information. If we were to limit ourselves to purely independent sources, what would any secondary party actually be able to say about any company itself? The article provides comprehensive coverage of Kalshi's inception, including the founders' background, regulatory hurdles, and the potential risks and benefits of its business model. It doesn't simply regurgitate information like a rewarmed press release but delves into the complexities of prediction markets, the regulatory landscape, and the company's interaction with regulators. The piece goes beyond superficial reporting by providing context and delving into the history of prediction markets, regulatory dynamics, the founders' motivations, the complexities of operating a prediction market platform, the broader debates about the role of prediction markets in finance. It provides nuanced information about the company's approach, the concerns raised by regulators, and how the founders navigated these challenges and includes insights from Kalshi's founders, regulators, and industry experts. The article also presents opposing viewpoints, such as the concerns raised by regulators about potential manipulation. Far from trivial and shallow reporting, in my opinion. Do passages like this not constitute independent journalistic opinion, interpretation, additional insight, and analysis: That Kalshi prevailed was less a testament to Silicon Valley-style innovation than it was to persistent lobbying and legal wrangling. Lopes Lara and Mansour didn’t invent anything from scratch; they took a well-established concept and forced a change in the way it’s governed. The result, depending on whom you ask, could usher in a new era of market-based enlightenment, or it may push Wall Street’s most destructive tendencies even further into the real world. At least this is how I see it based on my personal understanding of guidelines. Please let me know how you view it and why you think this article is not up to par. Mooonswimmer 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] First, there's no information provided about the company which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company. There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of this company. Second, once we ignore the information provided by the company and look for analysis/opinion/etc, we're left with a mere couple of sentences which to my mind falls short of what is required to meet CORPDEPTH. This article provides more opinions about the market than about the company. Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment". As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization - which to my mind covers most of the authors opinions in this article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] *First, there's no information provided about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company** While the article does discuss the market in general, it's an article about Kalshi; its founders, inception to gaining regulatory approval, business model. Is this not information about the company? The information is not solely based on the company's own statements but is also provided through the lens of journalistic reporting. Could you give me an example of potential information about any company that one could gather without using a source affiliated with said company? And is there anything that says for notability, we cannot use reliable sources whose reporting depends on sources affiliated with the organization? *There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of this* company. There is indeed quite a bit of superfluous information about the market in general, but there is more than a decent amount of information about the company itself. I mentioned the information about the overall market to drive the point that this isn't a lazy piece of churnalism that's rehashing a press release, it's an article that discusses Kalshi while also including opinion and a lot of context regarding prediction markets and regulation in general. Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment".** Does the highlighted part of the article not discuss Kalshi's unique contribution to the market and its potential significance in the financial landscape, and is not the authors' opinion on its innovation, or rather lack thereof? In my opinion, it's an example of some of the original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject we'd be looking for in such a source. The guideline says "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject," not that the content in its entirety should be original analysis. There is plenty of original analysis, investigation, and opinion in the article, even if it does not form the bulk of it. As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization The source doesn't only describe a specific topic related to the company. As I mentioned above, the article covers the company's background, regulatory hurdles, and plenty of information about the company itself. I can point out this information if necessary. CORPDEPTH states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The article provides a detailed overview. It includes some commentary and analysis. It certainly provides the company with a level of attention extending beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. Would you say the article's coverage falls under any of the examples of trivial coverage highlighted? I personally don't see how it would fail CORPDEPTH. My apologies for the lengthy responses. Mooonswimmer 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] It is lengthy and I've been guilty of that myself in the past. I've rolled it up so it won't put others off - they can still unroll and contribute it they like, hope that's OK. I'll try to keep this focussed and short. Don't get hung up on the word "information" - it represents "independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc". Examples? Analyst reports for one. Or perhaps an article comparing this company's strategy/performance to a competitor. Or a published independent case study on their market. Or even the LA Books Review article just about gets over the line. Not regurgitated company bumpf with general information that originates from sources affiliated with the company. You say there's a "decent amount" of information about the company itself. Can you point to parts that clearly originate from a source unaffiliated with the company and which have information about the company? This article (and others) rely entirely on comments/information either attributed directly to the founders or people associated with them, or simply comment/summarise the public CFTC papers. You ask if the highlighted part discusses Kalshi's "unique contribution to the market", etc. No, it doesn't - or at least not in a way that satisfied CORPDEPTH. It's a mere three sentences which is insufficient in my opinion to meet CORPDEPTH and the final sentence isn't even relevant as it's about the future direction of the market as a result of the new decision. Where else in the article is there any in-depth "Independent Content" that we can look to? I remain unmoved (on this article). You claim this is deep/significant coverage which contains analysis of the company. But ::when you read it carefully it is clear that the information about the company is attributed to company-related sources. The remaining pieces are lightweight, more about the future of the market in general than the company and insufficient detail for CORPDEPTH in any case. But as I've said earlier, we have one source. Another and I'm happy to change my !vote. Is there perhaps an analyst report covering the "predictive market" space which talks about this company? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] No worries, I hope a few other editors will contribute to the assessment of this source as well. I'll try to address this concisely to prevent any unnecessarily long, circular discussions. Would you say the crux of your issue with this source is it failing CORPDEPTH? If so, could you briefly state why you think the article fails to meet it? I believe the article meets the criteria for CORPDEPTH as it offers substantial coverage that goes beyond what is routine and trivial. The content includes a detailed account of the company's founding and the regulatory challenges it faced, which I consider to be substantial coverage of the company itself. The level of attention provided in the article goes far beyond mere mentions or routine updates. While it's true that a significant portion of the article draws information from sources affiliated with the company or regulatory bodies, there is no clear indication that this prevents the article from meeting the criteria for CORPDEPTH, based on my interpretation of the guideline. Also, what do you think of this USBETS article? Mooonswimmer 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Lets stick with one source at a time. The crux of the issue is not just CORPDEPTH, but ORGIND and CORPDEPTH together. You can't take content that fails ORGIND and use that content to pass CORPDEPTH which I think is what you're trying to do. You say above the source offers substantial coverage - the content goes far beyond mere mentions, etc. But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc. That's the point I'm making. That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Ignore that content, all that fails ORGIND. What's left that meets CORPDEPTH? That's the question I'm asking. Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph. You've isolated three sentences so far which I've said (a) they're not all even about the company and are tangental at best and (b) we need more than a couple of sentences. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc. That's the point I'm making. That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability. What is your basis for this? The article doesn't really go against anything WP:ORGIND mentions, in my opinion. Adherence to ORIND doesn't imply chasing unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information. This can result in absurdity, as highlightedin this conversation on the talk page of the explanatory essay Wikipedia_talk:Independent_sources#Relationship_between_this_topic_and_ORGIND (where you also coincidentally participated). The authors of this article are unrelated to the company. There is no reason to believe they have any vested interests and it is not a sponsored post. There is no self-promotion or product placement. They are respected, senior reporters and this is their niche. The article was not produced by anyone affiliated with Kalshi, it was produced by the reporters and by Bloomberg. It isn't a copied/regurgitated press release, as it includes some original analysis, interpretation, and investigation, and there's consensus that Bloomberg has a reliable fact-checking and editorial process. The article doesn't seem to fall under any of the examples of dependent coverage listed. There's a distinction between a press release or an article simply rehashing a press release and an article containing a lot information derived from parties associated with the company, or with regulators. Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph. When Lopes Lara and Mansour approached the CFTC in the spring of 2019, some officials in the part of the agency responsible for reviewing their application, the Division of Market Oversight, were skeptical, according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are confidential. There was a sense among the DMO’s seasoned regulators that, for all Kalshi’s talk of revolutionizing finance, this was just a turbocharged iteration of something that had previously been rejected, and with good reason. But it wasn’t the DMO’s job to look at the big picture. The staff review was supposed to be limited to ensuring Kalshi could complete a checklist, “23 Core Principles of a Designated Contract Market,” which included keeping good records and having the requisite financial resources, among other items. The five commissioners would then make a decision. With Trump in the White House, three of them were Republicans ideologically predisposed to the further proliferation of markets into American life [...] Despite the overriding reservations of some DMO members about the riskiness of event contracts, Kalshi demonstrated it could meet the 23 criteria and was approved unanimously. “Once they check all of the boxes, they’re in,” says one person with direct knowledge of the CFTC’s review process. The part that says according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process = anon source. We don't usually place weight on anon sources. In any case, from context it appears the anon sources were people familiar with the internal reaction at CDTC/DMO. But - and please this is the key point - this para contains zero in-depth details about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This is a discussion about an application and about the general (political) environment. CORPDEPTH - Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the company or organization. Not a gossipy anon-source description of the reaction to their application within a different org. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Kalshi’s case was bolstered by the emergence of a number of prediction markets that hadn’t bothered to try to get regulatory approval. One upstart, Polymarket, let its customers bet hundreds of thousands of dollars anonymously using cryptocurrencies, making it difficult to track. Another market, Augur, which facilitates private wagers between parties using the blockchain, couldn’t regulate bets at all and thus hadn’t stopped users from betting on whether public figures would be assassinated. Kalshi, by comparison, argued it was doing everything right. (The CFTC would go on to fine Polymarket $1.4 million in January 2022 for running an unlicensed exchange. Polymarket says it’s now complying and is “excited to help pioneer the next phase of smart contract-based financial solutions in collaboration with regulators.”) Same as above, fails CORPEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Up to this point, the CFTC’s process for vetting their exchange hadn’t involved asking exactly what markets they planned to run. That discussion came after approval, by which stage momentum was already firmly on Lopes Lara and Mansour’s side. When Kalshi sent across a preliminary list of 30 proposed contracts in March, it unleashed chaos within the already overworked DMO. The division was set up to deal with exchanges that might create two or three new markets a year. Kalshi’s business model called for new ones practically every day. Some of the proposals were uncontroversial, such as questions tied to the weather or gross domestic product. Others, among the initial list and submitted subsequently, seemed troubling. DMO officials worried that contracts tied to Covid-19 numbers, for example, amounted to gambling on human suffering, which is one reason markets on war and terrorism are prohibited. (Similar logic doomed ex-admiral John Poindexter’s Policy Analysis Market, a controversial George W. Bush-era plan to uncover intelligence by getting security analysts to bet on events in the Middle East.) Regulators also couldn’t see how speculating on who would win the Grammys, say, was any less a form of gambling than betting on the New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl. Futures contracts are supposed to allow traders to protect themselves against economic risk, and it was hard to understand who, apart from perhaps John Legend, might need to hedge the winner of best R&B album. Same as above. We're not writing about the CFTC or the DMO, nor are we writing about the market. Still fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Kalshi played down such risks, noting that manipulation and insider trading were concerns for any market. It had built a surveillance system and said it would hire a team to monitor for anything improper. “People trade on events all the time—they just use options and other instruments that are harder to track. This is a way to bring all that into the open,” Mansour says, summarizing the argument. Kalshi also didn’t include contracts on elections, which the Democrats on the CFTC might have considered a red line. This is a summary of parts of the public letter. Still fails CORPDEPTH as above HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Today, Kalshi is growing. Its staff of 32 operates out of an office in New York’s SoHo with big windows and exposed brick. It’s also added some new names to its board, including Quintenz, who left the CFTC 10 months after Kalshi was approved. He says he joined because of “my interest in the hedging and risk management opportunities event contracts could provide the market.” As of mid-May, there were 75 markets on the company’s website, such as “Will there be negative GDP growth by Q4?” and “Will NASA land a person on the moon before 2025?” The exchange recently reached 2 million contracts traded a week, a jump from where it started but still a comparatively tiny figure compared with other futures exchanges. Many of the early adopters are prediction market enthusiasts, lured away from PredictIt and Polymarket. Wagers on the site are currently capped at $25,000, but Kalshi has said it hopes to increase that to $100,000 and then beyond, depending on the market. A small amount of information about the company based on information on their website and a quote from a (new) board member - no independent analysis/opinion/etc. No clear indication of fact checking (other than perhaps checking that the summary accurately represents what was on the website and what was said - which still means it is PRIMARY). Also inadequate for CORPDEPTH. We can also move on to another source if you remain completely unconvinced. Insight from other editors would be appreciated. Mooonswimmer 01:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Let's pause for a sec. If you can't accept/understand that (IMO) this Bloomberg source fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I really don't see the point in going through this for every other source either. You complain about unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information but are failing to grasp that this has nothing to do with "ideals" and nothing to do with the "presentation" of information. This is a really simple process. We want indications of "Independent Content" not repackaged company information. The journalist has done a fine job with this article and this source can be used to write about the process of applying and how obstacles were overcome, etc, but we look for a particular type of source for establishing notability and this doesn't meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Could you please point out the specific way in which the article contradicts the guidelines outlined in ORGIND? The unrealistic journalistic ideal I mentioned is expecting that sources of the information in the article be strictly unaffiliated with the company, even when the coverage is significant and includes original interpretation, and when the consensus is that the unvested publisher has high editorial standards. ORGIND doesn't require each source contributing to notability to be an investigative journalism piece; it simply specifies that the coverage must steer clear of being a press release, a sponsored, or a piece of churnalism. A secondary party needs to consult primary sources for their reporting. How can one possibly compose an analyst report without employing company-affiliated sources like financial statements, earnings reports, investor presentations, and even press releases, for example? If you could briefly point out how the article fails ORGIND, that would be appreciated. I might be missing something in the guideline. We can then briefly discuss a few other articles, including the second Bloomberg article, the USBets articles, and this Gaming Today article. Your insights on how they fail CORPDEPTH and ORGIND would also be helpful. Mooonswimmer 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] Mooonswimmer Lets take it to my Talk page rather than here? This isn't the place for in-depth discussions like the one we're having and it just annoys most other editors. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lengthy discussion about sources - unroll if want to read and/or contribute

Not that recent, we are talking about coverage over the last few years. Did you also review the sources on the Y Combinator profile? - Indefensible (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source assessment table would be appreciated.

I intentionally picked out sources that don't really focus on the Kalshi’s recent submission of congressional control contracts, and avoided the more routine coverage published shortly after the company's inception. Mooonswimmer 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother building a source assessment table because there isn't a template for GNG/NCORP, but I've looked in detail at every source. I started a long response but I'm trying to avoid writing long responses where unnecessary. If you like, pick a source you think meets NCORP and I'll tell you why IMHO it doesn't. Also a Y Combinator profile would not contain "Independent Content" seeing as its written by the company (the second sentence even starts with the words "We built Kalshi....") and Y Combinator is involved with the topic company as its incubator. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I think @Indefensible meant was the articles listed on the Y Combinator profile, but I've already included the ones I believe meet GNG/NCORP.

We can start with the first article I offered: A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything

The article is from Bloomberg, a reputable and reliable publication, and qualifies as a secondary, independent source, as it is authored by respected journalists unrelated to the company. The content's significance and coverage seem to align with the standards of Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, as the information reported in the article does not appear to fall under the examples of trivial coverage mentioned in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

While it is true that the article references quite heavily the company's founders for information, this is not a piece of churnalism, and the fact that Bloomberg follows trusted editorial standards suggests that a degree of trust can be placed in the reported information. Some situations may demand truly independent sources, like investigative journalism, but in this case, the pursuit of extreme intellectual independence might not be necessary, given the credibility of Bloomberg's reporting and editorial practices and the nature of the information. If we were to limit ourselves to purely independent sources, what would any secondary party actually be able to say about any company itself?

The article provides comprehensive coverage of Kalshi's inception, including the founders' background, regulatory hurdles, and the potential risks and benefits of its business model. It doesn't simply regurgitate information like a rewarmed press release but delves into the complexities of prediction markets, the regulatory landscape, and the company's interaction with regulators. The piece goes beyond superficial reporting by providing context and delving into the history of prediction markets, regulatory dynamics, the founders' motivations, the complexities of operating a prediction market platform, the broader debates about the role of prediction markets in finance. It provides nuanced information about the company's approach, the concerns raised by regulators, and how the founders navigated these challenges and includes insights from Kalshi's founders, regulators, and industry experts. The article also presents opposing viewpoints, such as the concerns raised by regulators about potential manipulation. Far from trivial and shallow reporting, in my opinion. Do passages like this not constitute independent journalistic opinion, interpretation, additional insight, and analysis:
That Kalshi prevailed was less a testament to Silicon Valley-style innovation than it was to persistent lobbying and legal wrangling. Lopes Lara and Mansour didn’t invent anything from scratch; they took a well-established concept and forced a change in the way it’s governed. The result, depending on whom you ask, could usher in a new era of market-based enlightenment, or it may push Wall Street’s most destructive tendencies even further into the real world.

At least this is how I see it based on my personal understanding of guidelines. Please let me know how you view it and why you think this article is not up to par. Mooonswimmer 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's no information provided *about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company. There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of *this* company. Second, once we ignore the information provided by the company and look for analysis/opinion/etc, we're left with a mere couple of sentences which to my mind falls short of what is required to meet CORPDEPTH. This article provides more opinions about the market than about the company. Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment". As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization - which to my mind covers most of the authors opinions in this article. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, there's no information provided *about the company* which originates from a source unaffiliated with the company

While the article does discuss the market in general, it's an article about Kalshi; its founders, inception to gaining regulatory approval, business model. Is this not information *about the company*? The information is not solely based on the company's own statements but is also provided through the lens of journalistic reporting. Could you give me an example of potential information about any company that one could gather without using a source affiliated with said company? And is there anything that says for notability, we cannot use reliable sources whose reporting depends on sources affiliated with the organization?
There's a lot of superfluous information about the "market" in general but that isn't relevant to evaluating against the criteria for establishing notability of *this* company.

There is indeed quite a bit of superfluous information about the market in general, but there is more than a decent amount of information about the company itself. I mentioned the information about the overall market to drive the point that this isn't a lazy piece of churnalism that's rehashing a press release, it's an article that discusses Kalshi while also including opinion and a lot of context regarding prediction markets and regulation in general.
Even the part you've highlighted, which follows on from comments on this type of "market", is more a comment on the potential future impact on "market-based enlightenment".

Does the highlighted part of the article not discuss Kalshi's unique contribution to the market and its potential significance in the financial landscape, and is not the authors' opinion on its innovation, or rather lack thereof? In my opinion, it's an example of some of the original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject we'd be looking for in such a source.

The guideline says "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject," not that the content in its entirety should be original analysis. There is plenty of original analysis, investigation, and opinion in the article, even if it does not form the bulk of it.
As per CORPDEPTH, Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization

The source doesn't only describe a specific topic related to the company. As I mentioned above, the article covers the company's background, regulatory hurdles, and plenty of information *about the company itself*. I can point out this information if necessary.

CORPDEPTH states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

The article provides a detailed overview. It includes some commentary and analysis. It certainly provides the company with a level of attention extending beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. Would you say the article's coverage falls under any of the examples of trivial coverage highlighted? I personally don't see how it would fail CORPDEPTH.

My apologies for the lengthy responses. Mooonswimmer 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is lengthy and I've been guilty of that myself in the past. I've rolled it up so it won't put others off - they can still unroll and contribute it they like, hope that's OK. I'll try to keep this focussed and short.

Don't get hung up on the word "information" - it represents "independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc". Examples? Analyst reports for one. Or perhaps an article comparing this company's strategy/performance to a competitor. Or a published independent case study on their market. Or even the LA Books Review article just about gets over the line. Not regurgitated company bumpf with general information that originates from sources affiliated with the company.

You say there's a "decent amount" of information about the company itself. Can you point to parts that clearly originate from a source unaffiliated with the company and which have information about the company? This article (and others) rely entirely on comments/information either attributed directly to the founders or people associated with them, or simply comment/summarise the public CFTC papers.

You ask if the highlighted part discusses Kalshi's "unique contribution to the market", etc. No, it doesn't - or at least not in a way that satisfied CORPDEPTH. It's a mere three sentences which is insufficient in my opinion to meet CORPDEPTH and the final sentence isn't even relevant as it's about the future direction of the market as a result of the new decision. Where else in the article is there any in-depth "Independent Content" that we can look to?

I remain unmoved (on this article). You claim this is deep/significant coverage which contains analysis of the company. But ::when you read it carefully it is clear that the information *about the company* is attributed to company-related sources. The remaining pieces are lightweight, more about the future of the market in general than the company and insufficient detail for CORPDEPTH in any case. But as I've said earlier, we have one source. Another and I'm happy to change my !vote. Is there perhaps an analyst report covering the "predictive market" space which talks about this company? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hope a few other editors will contribute to the assessment of this source as well. I'll try to address this concisely to prevent any unnecessarily long, circular discussions.

Would you say the crux of your issue with this source is it failing CORPDEPTH? If so, could you briefly state why you think the article fails to meet it?

I believe the article meets the criteria for CORPDEPTH as it offers substantial coverage that goes beyond what is routine and trivial. The content includes a detailed account of the company's founding and the regulatory challenges it faced, which I consider to be substantial coverage of the company itself. The level of attention provided in the article goes far beyond mere mentions or routine updates.

While it's true that a significant portion of the article draws information from sources affiliated with the company or regulatory bodies, there is no clear indication that this prevents the article from meeting the criteria for CORPDEPTH, based on my interpretation of the guideline.

Also, what do you think of this USBETS article? Mooonswimmer 01:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stick with one source at a time. The crux of the issue is not just CORPDEPTH, but ORGIND and CORPDEPTH together. You can't take content that fails ORGIND and use that content to pass CORPDEPTH which I think is what you're trying to do. You say above the source offers substantial coverage - the content goes far beyond mere mentions, etc. But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc. That's the point I'm making. That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Ignore that content, all that fails ORGIND. What's left that meets CORPDEPTH? That's the question I'm asking. Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph. You've isolated three sentences so far which I've said (a) they're not all even about the company and are tangental at best and (b) we need more than a couple of sentences. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But then you admit a significant portion draws information from sources affiliated with the company, etc. That's the point I'm making. That content cannot be used to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

What is your basis for this? The article doesn't really go against anything WP:ORGIND mentions, in my opinion. Adherence to ORIND doesn't imply chasing unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information. This can result in absurdity, as highlightedin this conversation on the talk page of the explanatory essay Wikipedia_talk:Independent_sources#Relationship_between_this_topic_and_ORGIND (where you also coincidentally participated).

The authors of this article are unrelated to the company. There is no reason to believe they have any vested interests and it is not a sponsored post. There is no self-promotion or product placement. They are respected, senior reporters and this is their niche. The article was not produced by anyone affiliated with Kalshi, it was produced by the reporters and by Bloomberg. It isn't a copied/regurgitated press release, as it includes some original analysis, interpretation, and investigation, and there's consensus that Bloomberg has a reliable fact-checking and editorial process.

The article doesn't seem to fall under any of the examples of dependent coverage listed. There's a distinction between a press release or an article simply rehashing a press release and an article containing a lot information derived from parties associated with the company, or with regulators.

Point me to content that meets both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH - which paragraph.

When Lopes Lara and Mansour approached the CFTC in the spring of 2019, some officials in the part of the agency responsible for reviewing their application, the Division of Market Oversight, were skeptical, according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are confidential. There was a sense among the DMO’s seasoned regulators that, for all Kalshi’s talk of revolutionizing finance, this was just a turbocharged iteration of something that had previously been rejected, and with good reason. But it wasn’t the DMO’s job to look at the big picture. The staff review was supposed to be limited to ensuring Kalshi could complete a checklist, “23 Core Principles of a Designated Contract Market,” which included keeping good records and having the requisite financial resources, among other items. The five commissioners would then make a decision. With Trump in the White House, three of them were Republicans ideologically predisposed to the further proliferation of markets into American life [...] Despite the overriding reservations of some DMO members about the riskiness of event contracts, Kalshi demonstrated it could meet the 23 criteria and was approved unanimously. “Once they check all of the boxes, they’re in,” says one person with direct knowledge of the CFTC’s review process.

The part that says according to interviews with people who were directly involved in the process = anon source. We don't usually place weight on anon sources. In any case, from context it appears the anon sources were people familiar with the internal reaction at CDTC/DMO. But - and please this is the key point - this para contains zero in-depth details about the company, fails CORPDEPTH. This is a discussion about an application and about the general (political) environment. CORPDEPTH - Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" of the company or organization. Not a gossipy anon-source description of the reaction to their application within a different org. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalshi’s case was bolstered by the emergence of a number of prediction markets that hadn’t bothered to try to get regulatory approval. One upstart, Polymarket, let its customers bet hundreds of thousands of dollars anonymously using cryptocurrencies, making it difficult to track. Another market, Augur, which facilitates private wagers between parties using the blockchain, couldn’t regulate bets at all and thus hadn’t stopped users from betting on whether public figures would be assassinated. Kalshi, by comparison, argued it was doing everything right. (The CFTC would go on to fine Polymarket $1.4 million in January 2022 for running an unlicensed exchange. Polymarket says it’s now complying and is “excited to help pioneer the next phase of smart contract-based financial solutions in collaboration with regulators.”)

Same as above, fails CORPEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Up to this point, the CFTC’s process for vetting their exchange hadn’t involved asking exactly what markets they planned to run. That discussion came after approval, by which stage momentum was already firmly on Lopes Lara and Mansour’s side. When Kalshi sent across a preliminary list of 30 proposed contracts in March, it unleashed chaos within the already overworked DMO. The division was set up to deal with exchanges that might create two or three new markets a year. Kalshi’s business model called for new ones practically every day. Some of the proposals were uncontroversial, such as questions tied to the weather or gross domestic product. Others, among the initial list and submitted subsequently, seemed troubling. DMO officials worried that contracts tied to Covid-19 numbers, for example, amounted to gambling on human suffering, which is one reason markets on war and terrorism are prohibited. (Similar logic doomed ex-admiral John Poindexter’s Policy Analysis Market, a controversial George W. Bush-era plan to uncover intelligence by getting security analysts to bet on events in the Middle East.) Regulators also couldn’t see how speculating on who would win the Grammys, say, was any less a form of gambling than betting on the New England Patriots to win the Super Bowl. Futures contracts are supposed to allow traders to protect themselves against economic risk, and it was hard to understand who, apart from perhaps John Legend, might need to hedge the winner of best R&B album.

Same as above. We're not writing about the CFTC or the DMO, nor are we writing about the market. Still fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalshi played down such risks, noting that manipulation and insider trading were concerns for any market. It had built a surveillance system and said it would hire a team to monitor for anything improper. “People trade on events all the time—they just use options and other instruments that are harder to track. This is a way to bring all that into the open,” Mansour says, summarizing the argument. Kalshi also didn’t include contracts on elections, which the Democrats on the CFTC might have considered a red line.
This is a summary of parts of the public letter. Still fails CORPDEPTH as above HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Today, Kalshi is growing. Its staff of 32 operates out of an office in New York’s SoHo with big windows and exposed brick. It’s also added some new names to its board, including Quintenz, who left the CFTC 10 months after Kalshi was approved. He says he joined because of “my interest in the hedging and risk management opportunities event contracts could provide the market.” As of mid-May, there were 75 markets on the company’s website, such as “Will there be negative GDP growth by Q4?” and “Will NASA land a person on the moon before 2025?” The exchange recently reached 2 million contracts traded a week, a jump from where it started but still a comparatively tiny figure compared with other futures exchanges. Many of the early adopters are prediction market enthusiasts, lured away from PredictIt and Polymarket. Wagers on the site are currently capped at $25,000, but Kalshi has said it hopes to increase that to $100,000 and then beyond, depending on the market.

A small amount of information about the company based on information on their website and a quote from a (new) board member - no independent analysis/opinion/etc. No clear indication of fact checking (other than perhaps checking that the summary accurately represents what was on the website and what was said - which still means it is PRIMARY). Also inadequate for CORPDEPTH.

We can also move on to another source if you remain completely unconvinced. Insight from other editors would be appreciated. Mooonswimmer 01:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pause for a sec. If you can't accept/understand that (IMO) this Bloomberg source fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I really don't see the point in going through this for every other source either. You complain about unattainable journalistic ideals and downplaying the vital role of reliable, independent sources in assessing and presenting information but are failing to grasp that this has *nothing* to do with "ideals" and *nothing* to do with the "presentation" of information. This is a really simple process. We want indications of "Independent Content" not repackaged company information. The journalist has done a fine job with this article and this source can be used to write about the process of applying and how obstacles were overcome, etc, but we look for a particular type of source for establishing notability and this doesn't meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the specific way in which the article contradicts the guidelines outlined in ORGIND?

The unrealistic journalistic ideal I mentioned is expecting that sources of the information in the article be strictly unaffiliated with the company, even when the coverage is significant and includes original interpretation, and when the consensus is that the unvested publisher has high editorial standards. ORGIND doesn't require each source contributing to notability to be an investigative journalism piece; it simply specifies that the coverage must steer clear of being a press release, a sponsored, or a piece of churnalism.

A secondary party needs to consult primary sources for their reporting. How can one possibly compose an analyst report without employing company-affiliated sources like financial statements, earnings reports, investor presentations, and even press releases, for example?

If you could briefly point out how the article fails ORGIND, that would be appreciated. I might be missing something in the guideline. We can then briefly discuss a few other articles, including the second Bloomberg article, the USBets articles, and this Gaming Today article. Your insights on how they fail CORPDEPTH and ORGIND would also be helpful. Mooonswimmer 16:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mooonswimmer Lets take it to my Talk page rather than here? This isn't the place for in-depth discussions like the one we're having and it just annoys most other editors. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging nominator Oaktree b and Andrevan. Oaktree b, your rationale was "most of the sourcing used, while in RS, is about other things and mention this firm in passing." Andrevan, you mentioned that the coverage is "trivial passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE press release". To me, this is clearly not the case in the list of sources I provided, as the coverage clearly isn't trivial or incidental, nor are they press releases or rehashed press releases. Could you please address the sources I listed and explain how the coverage is trivial, in-passing mentions?

Here they are again, with a few additional sources:

Most of your sources are pay-walled from my location, I'll trust you to enlighten us as to what they say. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two are blocked by my firewall at work, so no comment. I haven't reviewed Fortune as given here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied above with gift links that will allow you to access the Bloomberg articles. ~~The last two sources listed here seem to be accessible, and you can bypass the Fortune paywall by disabling Javascript~~. Mooonswimmer 19:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content of the article in Tribune de Geneve: Mooonswimmer 04:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content of Tribune de Geneve article that is behind a hard paywall
Sondage et prévisions Kalshi, le site qui permet de parier sur presque tout Une plateforme de trading reconnue par le régulateur américain permet de faire des paris sur les événements politiques et économiques, le climat ou encore la course à la lune. Nicolas Pinguely Publié le 06.06.2022, 11h28 Un retour de l’Homme sur la lune, d’ici à 2025, figure parmi les paris proposés sur le site Kalshi. Presque 90% des personnes ayant misé estiment que cela ne se produira pas. KEYSTONE L’Homme retournera-t-il sur la lune d’ici à 2025? L’économie américaine va-t-elle entrer en récession au second trimestre? L’année 2022 sera-t-elle la plus chaude jamais enregistrée? Aux États-Unis, il est désormais possible de parier sur presque tous les événements sur le site Kalshi. Un phénomène nouveau qui risque de bousculer le monde des prévisions économiques et politiques. Créé en 2018 par deux anciens étudiants du Massachusetts Institute of Technology de Boston, Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour, Kalshi est en train de décoller. L’année dernière, les deux entrepreneurs ont récolté plus de 30 millions de dollars pour assurer le développement de leur bébé. Le broker en ligne Charles Schwab et la firme de capital-investissement Sequoia Capital ont notamment mis la main à la poche. Les financiers approuvent Le monde de la finance semble enthousiaste. «Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique», confie John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud à Genève. «Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique.» John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud Fonctionnement en mode binaire Son fonctionnement est assez simple. Les paris sont pris sur un mode binaire. Il s’agit pour les investisseurs de répondre oui ou non à une question. Si vous avez vu juste, vous empochez 1 dollar par contrat acheté. À l’inverse, vous ne toucherez rien du tout si votre pari est perdant. Durant la vie du contrat, la cote va évoluer entre zéro et un dollar. Aujourd’hui, ces paris sont réservés aux personnes basées outre-Atlantique. Un exemple? Prenons l’une des quelque septante questions aujourd’hui posées sur le site. Le Sénat américain va-t-il réguler les géants de la technologie avant janvier 2023? À la cote actuelle, un parieur payera 16 cents par contrat s’il estime que cela va se produire. Mais il devra débourser 84 cents s’il pense que la régulation ne sera pas mise en place à cette date. Cela donne une bonne idée du sentiment des investisseurs. Dans ce cas précis, rares sont ceux qui envisagent une percée significative dans le domaine cette année. Dès lors, Kalshi serait une solide jauge pour appréhender le futur. «Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient», souligne Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement. Point positif, les cotes des différents paris sont librement consultables sur le site. Pour John Plassard aussi, le modèle développé par Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour va dans le bon sens. «Là tu paries de l’argent, alors tu ne vas pas indiquer quelque chose qui ne fait pas sens. Les convictions sont beaucoup plus fortes, par exemple en matière de chômage ou d’inflation», soutient-il. Mieux que les sondages Le site serait une alternative intéressante aux sondages classiques. «Cette plateforme répond à une vraie demande, estime Anton Sussland. Cela donne une autre vue que les sondages, souvent imparfaits, particulièrement lorsqu’il s’agit de jauger les risques de récession ou d’anticiper les décisions politiques.» Ce dernier rappelle qu’en 2016, personne n’avait vu venir le Brexit anglais ou l’élection de Trump à la présidence américaine. Vraiment plus intéressant que les sondages? «Clairement oui, répond John Plassard. Dans un sondage Bloomberg sur les statistiques économiques à venir, les gens vont parfois exagérer et mettre des valeurs extrêmes sans réelle raison, ce qui crée un biais.» «Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient.» Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement En vérité, le concept n’est pas totalement nouveau. Une plateforme similaire avait été créée au début des années 2000. «Intrade.com avait été lancée en 2001 et a disparu en 2013, faute d’avoir trouvé un cadre régulatoire adéquat», explique Anton Sussland. À l’époque, ce site très populaire a connu son heure de gloire lors de l’élection d’Obama en 2008, dont il avait prévu la victoire. Par la suite, il a été contraint de mettre la clé sous la porte, sous la pression des autorités de régulation, soit la Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Aux États-Unis, cette dernière est très scrupuleuse et conservatrice pour tout ce qui a trait aux plateformes financières d’échanges, de jeux et de paris sportifs. L’intérêt public est prépondérant. Les mises sur les assassinats, les actes terroristes ou encore les guerres sont par exemple clairement interdites. Aval des autorités De son côté, Kalshi a été officiellement reconnue comme plateforme de trading par la CFTC à fin 2020. La protection offerte aux investisseurs s’est avérée déterminante pour obtenir ce feu vert. «Kalshi permet de vous couvrir contre une série d’événements susceptibles d’affecter vos finances», peut-on d’ailleurs lire sur leur page web. À l’heure actuelle, deux autres sites américains permettent déjà de parier sur les résultats politiques. Mais à une moindre échelle. L’un est lié à l’Université de l’Iowa (iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu) et l’autre se nomme predictit.org. Si tous les deux ont obtenu une exemption de la part de la CFTC, ils ne sont pas pour autant reconnus comme plateforme officielle de trading. Grâce à cette reconnaissance, Kashi veut, elle, passer à la vitesse supérieure. Nicolas Pinguely est journaliste à la rubrique économique depuis 2018. Spécialiste en finance, il a travaillé par le passé pour le magazine Bilan, à l'Agefi et au Temps. Il a aussi occupé différents postes dans des banques et sociétés financières, notamment dans la microfinance. Plus d'infos Vous avez trouvé une erreur? Merci de nous la signaler. Mooonswimmer 04:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content of Tribune de Geneve article that is behind a hard paywall

Sondage et prévisions

Kalshi, le site qui permet de parier sur presque tout

Une plateforme de trading reconnue par le régulateur américain permet de faire des paris sur les événements politiques et économiques, le climat ou encore la course à la lune.

Nicolas Pinguely

Publié le 06.06.2022, 11h28

Un retour de l’Homme sur la lune, d’ici à 2025, figure parmi les paris proposés sur le site Kalshi. Presque 90% des personnes ayant misé estiment que cela ne se produira pas.

KEYSTONE

L’Homme retournera-t-il sur la lune d’ici à 2025? L’économie américaine va-t-elle entrer en récession au second trimestre? L’année 2022 sera-t-elle la plus chaude jamais enregistrée? Aux États-Unis, il est désormais possible de parier sur presque tous les événements sur le site Kalshi. Un phénomène nouveau qui risque de bousculer le monde des prévisions économiques et politiques.

Créé en 2018 par deux anciens étudiants du Massachusetts Institute of Technology de Boston, Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour, Kalshi est en train de décoller. L’année dernière, les deux entrepreneurs ont récolté plus de 30 millions de dollars pour assurer le développement de leur bébé. Le broker en ligne Charles Schwab et la firme de capital-investissement Sequoia Capital ont notamment mis la main à la poche.

Les financiers approuvent

Le monde de la finance semble enthousiaste. «Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique», confie John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud à Genève.

«Je ne vois pas ce site comme un casino, mais comme une manière de s’impliquer dans la vie politique et économique.»

John Plassard, spécialiste en investissement de la banque Mirabaud

Fonctionnement en mode binaire

Son fonctionnement est assez simple. Les paris sont pris sur un mode binaire. Il s’agit pour les investisseurs de répondre oui ou non à une question. Si vous avez vu juste, vous empochez 1 dollar par contrat acheté. À l’inverse, vous ne toucherez rien du tout si votre pari est perdant. Durant la vie du contrat, la cote va évoluer entre zéro et un dollar. Aujourd’hui, ces paris sont réservés aux personnes basées outre-Atlantique.

Un exemple? Prenons l’une des quelque septante questions aujourd’hui posées sur le site. Le Sénat américain va-t-il réguler les géants de la technologie avant janvier 2023? À la cote actuelle, un parieur payera 16 cents par contrat s’il estime que cela va se produire. Mais il devra débourser 84 cents s’il pense que la régulation ne sera pas mise en place à cette date. Cela donne une bonne idée du sentiment des investisseurs. Dans ce cas précis, rares sont ceux qui envisagent une percée significative dans le domaine cette année.

Dès lors, Kalshi serait une solide jauge pour appréhender le futur. «Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient», souligne Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement. Point positif, les cotes des différents paris sont librement consultables sur le site.

Pour John Plassard aussi, le modèle développé par Luana Lopes Lara et Tarek Mansour va dans le bon sens. «Là tu paries de l’argent, alors tu ne vas pas indiquer quelque chose qui ne fait pas sens. Les convictions sont beaucoup plus fortes, par exemple en matière de chômage ou d’inflation», soutient-il.

Mieux que les sondages

Le site serait une alternative intéressante aux sondages classiques. «Cette plateforme répond à une vraie demande, estime Anton Sussland. Cela donne une autre vue que les sondages, souvent imparfaits, particulièrement lorsqu’il s’agit de jauger les risques de récession ou d’anticiper les décisions politiques.» Ce dernier rappelle qu’en 2016, personne n’avait vu venir le Brexit anglais ou l’élection de Trump à la présidence américaine.

Vraiment plus intéressant que les sondages? «Clairement oui, répond John Plassard. Dans un sondage Bloomberg sur les statistiques économiques à venir, les gens vont parfois exagérer et mettre des valeurs extrêmes sans réelle raison, ce qui crée un biais.»

«Lorsqu’il y a de l’argent en jeu, les gens disent vraiment ce qu’ils pensent, et pas seulement ce qu’ils voudraient.»

Anton Sussland, conseiller indépendant en investissement

En vérité, le concept n’est pas totalement nouveau. Une plateforme similaire avait été créée au début des années 2000. «Intrade.com avait été lancée en 2001 et a disparu en 2013, faute d’avoir trouvé un cadre régulatoire adéquat», explique Anton Sussland. À l’époque, ce site très populaire a connu son heure de gloire lors de l’élection d’Obama en 2008, dont il avait prévu la victoire.

Par la suite, il a été contraint de mettre la clé sous la porte, sous la pression des autorités de régulation, soit la Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Aux États-Unis, cette dernière est très scrupuleuse et conservatrice pour tout ce qui a trait aux plateformes financières d’échanges, de jeux et de paris sportifs. L’intérêt public est prépondérant. Les mises sur les assassinats, les actes terroristes ou encore les guerres sont par exemple clairement interdites.

Aval des autorités

De son côté, Kalshi a été officiellement reconnue comme plateforme de trading par la CFTC à fin 2020. La protection offerte aux investisseurs s’est avérée déterminante pour obtenir ce feu vert. «Kalshi permet de vous couvrir contre une série d’événements susceptibles d’affecter vos finances», peut-on d’ailleurs lire sur leur page web.

À l’heure actuelle, deux autres sites américains permettent déjà de parier sur les résultats politiques. Mais à une moindre échelle. L’un est lié à l’Université de l’Iowa (iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu) et l’autre se nomme predictit.org. Si tous les deux ont obtenu une exemption de la part de la CFTC, ils ne sont pas pour autant reconnus comme plateforme officielle de trading. Grâce à cette reconnaissance, Kashi veut, elle, passer à la vitesse supérieure.

Nicolas Pinguely est journaliste à la rubrique économique depuis 2018. Spécialiste en finance, il a travaillé par le passé pour le magazine Bilan, à l'Agefi et au Temps. Il a aussi occupé différents postes dans des banques et sociétés financières, notamment dans la microfinance. Plus d'infos

Vous avez trouvé une erreur? Merci de nous la signaler. Mooonswimmer 04:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this discussion is heavily tilted towards Delete, as of today there is a discussion about additional sources and since at least one editor says that it's close to meeting GNG, I'll relist it for another week. If those who are arguing Keep could point out the references that solidified your opinion, that would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-future-of-futures-on-kalshi-and-prediction-markets/ is critical and reviews the subject in detail, it should meet. Need to review the other references again. - Indefensible (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how good of a source GamingToday is, but as far as I can tell https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/kalshi-event-contracts-vs-sports-betting/ is another in-depth and independent review of the subject. Also somewhat critical: "However, Kalshi can’t offer event contracts on certain events. Federal law prohibits event contracts on geopolitical events like whether a war will break out in a certain country. Kalshi also can’t offer event contracts on political events, like elections, votes, or impeachments." So unless someone knows that GamingToday is not considered reliable from somewhere, it should also meet. - Indefensible (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing for https://www.usbets.com/did-kalshi-kill-predictit/, this is an independent piece which the subject refused to communicate with the author on. It contains external analysis such as: "Harry Crane, a professor of statistics at Rutgers who has studied prediction markets, says PredictIt’s loyal and engaged user base offers a case study in why Kalshi offering regulated political prediction markets is of public interest. That could be viewed as a positive by Kalshi as it looks for approval to offer political markets." That should be 3 without even including any of the others from generally reliable sources including Forbes, WSJ, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted gift links above to 3 Bloomberg articles behind a paywall: The Startup That Lets Hedge Funds Bet Millions on Real-Life Events, A New Prediction Market Lets Investors Bet Big on Almost Anything, Hedge Funds Could Bet $100 Million on US Election in Kalshi Plan
This article by The Economist and and this one published in The American Prospect can also be considered. I also mentioned these in the discussion as well after you voted and did not include them in my initial lists, they're worth taking a look at:
- How Event Contracts at Kalshi Differ From Sports Betting
- Did Kalshi Kill PredictIt? Friday’s Decision On Election Wagering Will Be Revealing
In addition, there many articles that cover Kalshi in-depth, but mostly within the context of its latest CFTC request, so they might not count towards notability: Bloomberg Law, Politico, Public Gaming Magazine, Bonus, WSJ, Bloomberg, and others

A._B., your insight would be appreciated as well. Mooonswimmer 21:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indefensible and Mooonswimmer, I don't typically get such an immediate response to comments made when relisting a discussion. It would be useful for those editors who advocated Deletion to return to assess the articles you present right here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LARB ref should be uncontroversial; Andre wrote above that "You can make a GNG argument if you will argue that The Information, LA Review of Books, etc are comprehensive in-depth and not routine." HighKing also wrote "The exception is the LA Review of Books article which I believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability." The question will be whether the others are enough or if that is just a half-step to meeting. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/05/voters-betting-elections-trading-00054723 is also good with a couple primary quotes sprinkled in and not just routine, although that reference might be more debatable. But from GamingToday, USBets, and others (which Mooonswimmer seems to have added more of that I have not reviewed), in my opinion there should be no question the subject qualifies for encyclopedic inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b (the AFD nominator) also evaluated the Politico ref as meeting towards GNG in their assessment table. So we should have at least 2 good sources right there. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, except we need to evaluate sourcing against NCORP and Oaktree b has been known to completely ignore NCORP criteria (as seen in another recent AfD discussion). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources can be described as follows: Sources that discuss the CFTC application and the ensuing drama that enfolded. None of those articles provide more than a generic description of the topic company. Some might talk about the general market too and mention others in the market. This includes pieces from Enonomist, Bloomberg, WSJ, publicgaming.com, bonus.com and bloomberglaw. These fail NCORP. Most !voters saying that these sources meet our criteria argue to "trust the journalist" and "but its a reliable source" which either shows a lack of understanding of NCORP or wilfully ignoring ORGIND's requirements for content to be *clearly* *attributable* to a *source* *unaffiliated* to the subject.

The USABets article discusses a "theory" that the topic company was responsible for shutting down another organization, PredictIt. It starts with unsubstantiated gossip and rumours, tweets, podcasts and blogs and goes on to get comments from people about the *theory* but not about the company, not content we can use to establish notability, insufficient in-depth information *about* *the* *company*.
The gamingtoday article gives an independent overview of the topic company and their "products" and their place in the market. In my opinion, this meets NCORP.
The prospect article is better since it doesn't just regurgitate company info or the various intrigues of their application - the author provides their own opinion/analysis between Kalshi's hiring of ex-CFTC officials and Bankman-Fried's previous attempts to secure favorable regulations. It goes on to also draw similarities with the involvement of Sean McElwee. These comparissons are not just about the application but are also an analysis of longer-term company strategy and are independent opinion. In my opinion, it meets NCORP.

I'm changing my !vote to Keep based on the above sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With HighKing switching their evaluation to keep, I think we should probably have a good case for consensus on inclusion here. - Indefensible (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ideal if Oaktree b could evaluate the remaining sources and provide their final assessment. Input from Andrevan and MrOllie would also be useful. Mooonswimmer 04:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much a !keep anyway based on my first table with two good-ish sources. The rest are gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avviare Educational Hub[edit]

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

No sources available to establish notability. No sigcov found. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Jdcooper (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a quick search on the internet and agree that there is no sigcov. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack sufficient references for inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Maryland College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Center for American Politics and Citizenship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politics research center. BEFORE turns up one article that mentions it (arguably meets SIGCOV) and a few poll reports that interview people connected to it, but not enough to meet NCORP or GNG. AviationFreak💬 05:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Maryland. AviationFreak💬 05:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to ~~Center for American Politics and Citizenship~~ University of Maryland College of Behavioral and Social Sciences Graywalls (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: That would be redirecting to the same article? AviationFreak💬 14:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I pasted wasn't what I meant to say. I changed it. Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above. There's nothing really sourced well enough to merge. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of results on ProQuest, many look primary but not all. - Indefensible (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (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 Uganda Cancer Institute with the option of merging sourced content. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda Program on Cancer and Infectious Diseases[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Uganda, United States of America, and Washington. UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can merge this to Uganda Cancer Institute as WP:ATD-M. —siro χ o 18:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if actual sources found). The sources here are about the Institute, and I don't find any on the program itself. Lamona (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Hogtown Press[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Under sourced and what is sourced seems to lack depth. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable under the WP:GNG. Not sure why this was tagged and even less so why this was nominated. The nomination appears to be in conflict with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and something along the lines of wikipedia has no expiration date (sorry could not find it back so no link -- assistance appreciated!) gidonb (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are adequate. Being burgularized by the RCMP Security Service is a sign of notability. (sad face) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Battler[edit]

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

I have not been able to independently verify any information in the article. The article was created two days after an ebook credited to the subject (and mentioned in the article) was published to Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HPFSPL/.

The only link in the article is under her personal website in the infobox. This link at the time of the article's creation would have shown only two works by this author, which would have failed GNG with neither being notable in their own right. Though it now shows 85 works, I cannot independently verify this information and can find no non-circular sources referencing the book "Wild Russian Mothers" which was allegedly the subject of controversy in Russia. (quote from article: "The original text was banned by censorship authorities.") Incidentally, the link also says she only has 11,020 readers.

I did find some information on other women named with the names in the article.

Anna Vasiljevna Levashova on Geni - not this person as the link's subject was born in the 18th century and the article subject was allegedly born in 1981.
Anna Battler on MyHeritage (b 1935 - d 2009)
an article on Lou Costello saying his wife was named Anna Battler, though other sources say her name was Anne
a book on building contracts in CA in 1914
a woman who arrived in Daytona Beach in 1917
and a social worker in London mentioned in a book published in 1994. The article's subject would have been 13, so definitely not working in London.

I have found nothing on the subject of the article that doesn't point right back here, not even by searching the titles of her published works.

While I want to assume good faith, the article's creator only ever contributed this page, with a single edit to it. They never edited anything else, and never added anything to this page after that single edit.

The article is itself orphaned and does not meet the requirements of BLP with respect to Verifiability.

This is my first time submitting anything to AfD, so I hope I've done all of this correctly. OIM20 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. OIM20 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources in the article. Nothing found otherwise, Gnews links to items from the 1760s onwards, so no help there. I'm assuming this is PROMO for the Amazon book as described. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article, which arguably should have been flagged for deletion much sooner. No coverage in independent reliable secondary sources found in Wikipedia Library or ProQuest or through a basic Google search for this Anna Battler / Anna Levashova / А́нна Ба́ттлер). She appears to be featured in this commercial YouTube video for Doors to Hollywood Film Academy. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m not sure how this one escaped scrutiny for so long, but now it’s justifiably been flagged. As others have commented, this is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (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 Interplay Entertainment. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interplay Discovery[edit]

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

Interplay Discovery was a program launched in 2010 by Interplay Entertainment for independent developers at a time when the company was publishing its first games since 2004. Under the program, the company published five games in total. A search for "Interplay Discovery" on search engines reveals little about the program, and it seems that the program would never be talked about again since 2011, when the last game under the program was released. I think this article is doomed to remain a permastub. However, I think the program would prove excellent for the Interplay Entertainment article since it involves the company reentering the gaming arena and trying to reclaim its former status as a reputable publisher, even if the attempt turned out to be short-lived. Free Media Kid$ 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid$ 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Interplay Entertainment. Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Timur9008 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interplay Entertainment, concur with earlier reviewers. - Indefensible (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodlands Preparatory School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a for-profit fully online school, this, per WP:NSCHOOL would need to meet WP:NCORP or else be notable under WP:GNG. Either way we would need multiple signiifcant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. I cannot find any. The name is a common one in a general search, but nothing I find is about this venture and specific searches are showing nothing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safetica[edit]

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find the usual product reviews and listings in non-selective business profiles, but nothing in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopewell, Washington County, Kansas[edit]

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

Mass-created GNIS permastub from a GNIS listing that itself seems to have been removed from the site. No evidence found that there was ever a village here; just a lone post office that served residents of dispersed farmhouses for 11 years. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seriously? Do you figure the US Postal system set up a post office and named it after one of the residents? There was even an academy there at one time. ^[1] — Maile (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you figure the US Postal system set up a post office and named it after one of the residents?" They did that all the time. Fourth class POs could be anywhere, and were often in people's homes, and it was common if the office was moved to a different house, it was renamed to reflect whose house it was moved to. Please read up on this before you respond to any more of these nominations. I'd particularly suggest reading WP:GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page you've linked references Hopewell Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. The references to academies i see there are to ones in Hopewell, Chester County, Pennsylvania and Indiana. There were three Hopewell post offices in Kansas, this one existed only 1879-1890. fiveby(zero) 03:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete All actual evidence points to this being a 4th class post office at an isolated farmstead (which is still there). The passing references to an academy by this name are useless because they don't say where it was located, and besides the fact of another Hopewell in a different county (which the maps show actually was a small town), there's nothing saying that the academy was or had to be in a town of the same name. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Andreas, A. T. (Alfred Theodore) (1883). "History of the state of Kansas : containing a full account of its growth from an uninhabited territory to a wealthy and important state, of its early settlements, its rapid increase in population and the marvelous development of its great natural resources. Also, a supplementary history and description of its counties, cities, towns and villages, their advantages, industries, manufactures and commerce, to which are added biographical sketches and portratis of prominent men and early settlers". Chicago : A.T. Andreas. pp. 577, 679. Retrieved 16 August 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete see above. fiveby(zero) 03:40, 30 August 2023 (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 13:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taqi Al Abduwani[edit]

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

non-notable professor, little sourcing, cannot find much specifically on the person — Karnataka ^talk 11:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Oman. — Karnataka ^talk 12:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 18:23, 25 August 2023 (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 13:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izudin Čavrković[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NPROF, and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, nothing here seems notable. --hroest 18:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very irrelevant stub with very few pieces of information Боки ✉ 00:33, 30 August 2023 (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. ✗plicit 13:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers[edit]

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

The article exclusively relies on primary sources, and there's only three. I did a search for news sources about the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, and couldn't find a single one that wasn't either a tabloid article, only mentioned the society tangentially, or both. The society doesn't seem to be independently notable. Cortador (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are numerous sources on JSTOR. See here for one example.--User:Namiba 14:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Socialist Lawyer is the magazine of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers" - it's another primary source. Cortador (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly meets WP:GNG. Very well-known and notable society. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability needs to be backed up by something. Just stating that something isn't notable won't do. Cortador (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be GNG. Didn't you notice that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - neither the Society's website nor its magazine are independent of the subject. Didn't you notice that? Cortador (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. The society has received significant coverage in books and periodical articles in GBooks and GScholar. This would be an example from GBooks. If a society was formed in 1930, you have to look at history books and periodicals, and at historic periodicals and books. It is not enough to just look at recent news sources. James500 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very visible within English legal circles, more than adequate sourcing to satisfy the GNG, eg active in the abolition of the death penalty in the UK (see Politics of the Rope (Arena Books, 2012), pp 90-91) or more recently their rejection of the current Labour Leader. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (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 13:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Pawlikowski[edit]

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

Notability Panamitsu (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Panamitsu (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could I be given 2 months for updating my page in Wikipedia, please?

I'm retired a Professor Emeritus because of health problems and had not been aware that my webpage needed updating. My health is better now but I’m currently travelling in Europe. I will be able to update my page after I’m back in New Zealand in mid September.

Please see the recently updated university page: https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/engineering/contact-us/people/krys-pawlikowski.html I could submit the latest version of my CV if it wold nbe helpful.

Kind regards,

Krys

————————————————————

Krzysztof (Krys) Pawlikowski

UC Professor Emeritus

Dept. of Computer Science and Software Eng.

University of Canterbury

Christchurch, New Zealand

http://www.csse.canterbury.ac.nz/krys.pawlikowski/

———————————————————— 2A02:A312:C447:5380:B8CF:239:2040:A911 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a resume or CV hosting service. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTOBIO concerns. Fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service, and that the subject should not be updating his own page. However, the page itself was created by an unconnected user and does not appear to have been subject to WP:COI edits from a review of the history. He appears to be notable per WP:PROF#C1 (see Google Scholar results) and I would argue is notable per WP:PROF#C5 (in Australia and New Zealand 'professor' is equivalent to distinguished professors in other countries, meaning that #C5 is met; "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon"). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:58, 29 August 2023 (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 13:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 in Ecuador[edit]

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

a WP:CRYSTAL case with only one mentioned event. can be recreated in 2024 — Karnataka ^talk 09:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Ecuador. — Karnataka ^talk 09:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is premature. - Indefensible (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2024 is yet to come. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON, but the article can be recreated next year.TH1980 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Králová[edit]

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

Notability has not been proven, it is more of a promo. She was a finalist in some competitions, but did not win any. Under the keyword "Zuzana Králová" search engines preferentially find other people with this name. Images uploaded and article written by a single-purpose account,which indicates a personal interest. FromCzech (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't meet Notability per WP:NCREATIVE. I spent the better part of the last day trying to justify a WP:TNT approach to just put the bio as a small part of an article about the business. Unless there are separate rules for fashion designers that I didn't see, though, it doesn't meet the guidelines.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Research notes:

Alrighty then.

First off, I found it absolutely hilarious that three websites ([30], [31], [32]) all copied a list page from Wikipedia. One of them didn't even bother removing the "edit" lines.

As to notability:

Her company website press page gives a starting point for verifying notability. Had I been able to prove it under any of the criteria, I would suggest that this page be restructured and renamed, to cover the company rather than to cover her personally, with a section of the page dedicated to her as president/owner. There's already a page that redirects to this one, so I don't think creating a new page for the company and then turning this page into a redirect would be a viable option.

About her: I found her listed as a contributor in Prague Leaders Magazine, January 2011 where she interviewed Eva Zamrazilova (p 58-59). There's a picture of Kralova on p 52. She was quoted twice in a book titled "Becoming a Fashion Designer". The book seems to be a series of questions asked of multiple people in fashion design, so it's not about her, but about entering the profession. Published copy; draft copy.

Her website press page had a Rock and Tonic interview, 11 Aug 2019. She talks about herself and about the Fish_Fish project covered in Arsutoria #451 (see below for link).

I also found a blog post - not hers, someone who met her and tried on some of her designs.

There are links on the talk page that were removed from the source listing in the article at one point; WP:NONENGLISH was cited as the reason.

http://www.webnoviny.sk/lifestyle/zuzana-kralova-modneho-guru-nachadz/231171-clanok.html - 2010 interview
http://diva.aktuality.sk/clanok/26922/zuzana-kralova-madrid-to-je-sloboda-v-mode/ - same interview
http://www.informuji.cz/clanky/336-modni-navrharka-zuzana-kralova-predstavila-novou-kolekci-masculinity-in-transition/ - covers a showing of the collection "Masculinity in Transition" 24 Sept 2010. End paragraph is a brief bio of Zuzana Králová.
http://www.designcabinet.cz/doporucujeme/kralova-zuzana - exact same as last paragraph on informuji link above with the exception of the last two sentences.
http://www.starscom.cz/en/designeri-a-znacky/zuzana-kralova/ - is actually in English, though there is a Czech version as well. It's the blurb for the 2013 competition
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304194422/http://www.elconfidencial.com/ultima-hora-en-vivo/2013-09-18/desfilar-y-vender-un-sueno-hecho-realidad-para-los-alumnos-de-ied-moda-lab-madrid_45423/ - only has part of one sentence mentioning her as a finalist in Prague Fashion Week 2013.

Internet Archive was no help; the Foto DNG magazine has been removed. However, it is one of the titles on her company's about page.

I also looked in the Mercedes-Benz Prague Fashion Week archives (https://www.mbpfw.com/en/gallery/) and didn't see her listed under "Suzana", "Zuzana" or "Kralova", or even "Pyrates", which was a Swiss-based start up she presented with at Telekom Deutsche's 2016 Fashion Fusion. (That link downloads a file to your computer, so I'm not putting it here. Google should get you there as it did me if you're really interested, but I'm not finding anything else on it, so without SIGCOV it's moot, really. Other designers in the group, for those looking for more info and maybe luckier than me: Omar Benomar, Marie Lietaro, Regina Polanco. category: Digitally Enhanced Fashion. website listed as pyrates.ch, but this is the company: https://www.pyratex.com/new-about-us)

That said, I did find her in the 2013 program listing for 22 September.

About the company:

first to sign on with a company that was using Microsoft's XBox Kinect to get people's sizes via the camera's body scan. Small mention in 26 Feb 2014 CincoDias45 article.
S4Fashion interview, undated as far as I can tell.
Arsutoria #451 - Sustainability issue (ISSN 2531-920) - p 106, about reclaiming food waste fish skins for use as fabric.

Fashion coverage:

Cool Korea #41 May 2018: issuu page numbers - p 19; Cover, p 26-27; print page numbers - p 48; cover, p 81-88
The Prince magazine No 4 January 2018: p 15
Cool Korea #37 January 2018 - issuu page numbers - cover, p 18-19; print page numbers: cover, p 59-66
Made Now Vol 22: Faces. November / December 2017: p 43
Afi Vol 2, Issue 1: The Parachute. p 78-83
This Bitch magazine Issue 1, 4th & 5th picture down after the cover. They misspelled it as "Kralove". Their WordPress is set to private.
Fashion show at Matadero Madrid 2016; also listed on Product Fresco and Vanidad Magazine, though the latter doesn't name the designers.
Luna De Oriente a Occidente 28 December 2017 and 5 Dec 2017 - but this appears to be a blog? That's how they're listed on Facebook, anyway, and I'm not finding much else to go on.
Crazy Mary magazine No 2, 3 June 2014: p 121-129.

Fashion coverage I can't verify due to paywall:

Keyi magazine August 2019 issue.
Scorpio Jin Vol 13 Issue C, September 2017. "Pink Supernova".
Solstice Australia / Cool Australia magazine Spring 2018, Issue 11, p 24, 26, 28, 30
BeauNu magazine November 2017 (same model and one image same as in "New Woman" magazine; no date given so unable to verify - name returns too many results)
Cool Korea Beach No 38 February 2018. Her page has the cover for the regular issue 38, but the pages separately show the magazine title as "Cool Korea Beach". The regular issue is available in part on issuu, but the beach supplement is not.
Promo New York Fashion magazine issue #50: part 1, part 2
Elle UK September 2014
Vogue UK November 2013
Strobox Vol 3 October 2013

Non-independent sources about the company:

Loblanc interview 24 Sep 2018 (in Spanish)
Design book/company promo material
Not Just a Label - sales site?
Bohemicca coleccion - press release, 7 December 2017
promotional magazine self-published through yumpu.com (in Spanish)

There are some images on her press coverage page that I can't find corresponding external sources for. They aren't on the same continent as me, so maybe someone in Europe or Australia would have better luck. But some of them give too many results; for example, "Tele Magazine" gets results from "Cambridge Community Television" to a Sunday show in France to the Wikipedia page on Snooky Serna. Others, like "Avenue Illustrated", I can find the website for but I can't find the specific issue referenced on her press page (Number 53, for one, in that case). Still others, like Pigeons & Peacocks, would definitely show presence (as that's a publication for the London School of Fashion), but I can't verify the coverage. The write up was done by Charlie Craggs, but I'm not having luck finding even a defunct link for it. OIM20 (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the source analysis above by OIM20. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Badoe[edit]

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

Looks likely to fail WP:CREATIVE KH-1 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On the evidence shown, she does fail WP:CREATIVE. Unlike some, I am ready to consider recent prices realized as evidence of notability, but $ 2,000 is well below that threshold - $25K might do it. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found that high sold prices for an artist's work is a half-decent indicator of notability, however, low prices do not indicate non-notability. There are probably hundreds (or thousands) of notable artists on Wikipedia whose work sells for under $1000, especially artists whose work has fallen out of favour but they still merit an article based on the sourcing. Curiocurio (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd doubt that - for paintings of any size - prints and even drawings of course are different. But this price was produced as though leading evidence of notability. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Govind Das[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Found the page while searching for sponsored or paid news sources. Evaluation of sources from the article are below. I also did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing better. There was an article in Mid Day which is a “brand media” piece which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as do many of the references already on the page. CNMall41 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources:

1. The Indian Express, page not found

2. Hindustan Times, brief mention of him offering someone education.

3. Outlook India, “brand spotlight” article which is a sponsored post and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

4. Dainik Jagran, (through Google Translate) brief mention of him in a quote.

5. Times of India, brief announcement of him marrying 111 people. No byline so likely falls under NEWSORGINDIA.

6. Amar Ujala, (through Google Translate), mentioned once in the article which is not about him.

7. Hindustan, unable to translate but is a single paragraph so not likely in-depth about the subject.

8. Dainik Jagran, (through Google Translate) a few sentences announcing a trip overseas. Nothing in-depth.

9. Amar Ujala, (through Google Translate) same as above and posted one day apart so likely churnalism from a press release or PR campaign.

10. Amar Ujala, (through Google Translate), similar to the two above. Posted about week after giving a brief recap of him going on a trip to London. Nothing in-depth about him.

11 & 12 - Both are brief and appear to have the same content, nothing in-depth.

13. Source has no link for me to evaluate. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject fails WP:GNG for lack of in-depth third-party coverage by reliable sources; and separately fails WP:ANYBIO, per nom. Thanks CNMall41 for delving into the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. They are accurately described. Though, the first does exist archived, but reads like an advertisement. JFHJr (㊟) 05:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The byline for that is "Express News Service" which would indicate a sponsored post under NEWSORGINDIA so could not be used for notability. Appreciate you finding it in archive. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the sources analyzed above. Nothing but mostly churnalism. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 23 August 2023 (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.

Rob Yang[edit]

The result was ‎ Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 23:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This subject fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. His acting is not significantly covered to support an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his leading role in American Rust plus starring roles in Succession and Rabbit Hole, along with the totality of his other guest/recurring roles in other notable TV shows and movies seem to meet WP:NACTOR#1. For reliable stories, I've found these that aren't in the article: Rob Yang Boards Paramount+’s Espionage Drama ‘Rabbit Hole’ (Exclusive), ‘Succession’ Star Rob Yang Joins BBC Spy Drama ‘The Capture’, Filming On Second Season Underway, TV Talk at TCA: ‘American Rust’ actor talks season 2, 'It Was Like A Master Class Watching Jeff Daniels & Maura Tierney: Rob Yang On Showtime's 'American Rust', 'Rabbit Hole:' Rob Yang & Enid Graham on Throwing Out Your Theories & Working With Kiefer Sutherland, the Genre Master, 'Rabbit Hole' Star Rob Yang Teases What to Expect From Season Finale (Exclusive), Rabbit Hole's Cast Dishes on Crafting Their Complex Ensemble. Some of them are primarily interviews but together with meeting NACTOR they can help build a full article. Skynxnex (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I'll withdraw this nomination. Thank you, Skynxnex! JFHJr (㊟) 23:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helmes AS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. It's been several years but there are still not several independent reliable sources satisfying WP:CORP. JFHJr (㊟) 04:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Estonia. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all I can find [33], about some unsavory business dealings they were involved with. Nothing upon which we can build an article. Article as it reads now is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A peacockery-laden article about a company, created by a single-day account a couple of months after a previous instance was deleted at AfD. Searches find announcement-based coverage of new contracts, acquisitions of similar firms in Lithuania and Belarus, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither these nor involvement in the case mentioned above is sufficient to demonstrate notability; the previous AfD consensus should stand. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself is blatantly promotional, and the cited sources are promotional pieces, entry on database, and company's own websites. While the company was mentioned in some websites and articles, none of those are in-depth coverage sufficient in proving its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: blatantly promotional, non-notable, and unsourced. DrowssapSMM (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2023 (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. The result was ‎Withdrawn by nom. The article has improved significantly since nomination. Thank you to all who shored up this BLP's foundations. (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) (reclosed by me do to technical problem with closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

La Doña (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

This subject fails both WP:GNG as well as WP:ARTIST. This is not a draft space. JFHJr (㊟) 04:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references that I found using Google News searching on her birth name rather than her stage name. Probably passes WP:GNG now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several WP:BLPSPS (interviews where the subject talks about herself), scant promotional-looking mentions, and the artist talking about a different topic of coverage on NPR. The in-depth coverage is not multiple or from sources getting information independently from the subject. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. JFHJr (㊟) 06:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The artist has been profiled by The New York Times, Rolling Stone, NPR, Billboard and KQED — so both local and national press. She’s been asked to play at major music festivals (some of which were canceled because of COVID) and had Barack Obama recommend a song on his summer playlist.
It was surprising, quite honestly, that she didn’t have a Wikipedia page when we looked for her, which is why I created a stub bio before dinner so others could add to it (thank you for those who did(. Jenny8lee (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Eastmain. --MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can't access the NY Times (paywalled). NPR is an interview, Billboard is a small amount of coverage. [34] works as a food reviewer for a San Francisco paper and has some bio info. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2023 (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 List of Bleach characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uryū Ishida[edit]

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

Basically a fanpage. Looks well-sourced, but on closer inspection, most of the sources are primary and not RS. In order to merit a standalone article, there must be SIGCOV of the character himself, not simply the show he comes from. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to character list for now. I've recently rescued (unredirected) Yoruichi's article because I found sources sufficient to write the section on Yoruichi_Shihōin#Analysis. Sadly, I don't see such attention given to Uryu in sources. Current reception is based on WP:SIGCOV-failing mentions in passing and some trivial rankings/merchandise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as not only do the sourced help the article pass notability but the article is also quite well written. The casting section includes information on Ryo Yoshizawa's challenges and thoughts on playing the role and the reception section does have several websites (not just anime ones). When this was PRODed yesterday I started a discussion to improve the article and it has been only a day since, which I don't think is enough time to immediately improve it. Also, I disagree that it is a fanpage, as it has casting information and reception rather than just trivia, which fan pages usually do. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm of the opinion that Ishida is likely notable, but I'm not caught up in the series, and not going to spoil the arcs I haven't seen yet to prove it. Not the end of the world if it's redirected/merged, but again--I suspect the sources are there for notability. No objection to cleanup, of course. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Bleach characters if sources can't be found. There's some interesting and well-sourced information but no WP:SIGCOV. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge/Redirect to the Bleach Character List. I think it's possible for sources to exist out there, and some likely do, but right now the article's sourcing state is rather weak. I wouldn't be opposed to it sticking around, but unless some extra stuff comes up, I think I'll have to lean this way. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Ávalos[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least five caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbeth Moreno[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Kose[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 23 August 2023 (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. Seems no doubt that NAUTHOR is met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sai Deepak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in December 2020 pursuant to a deletion discussion. Recreated in June 2023. Evaluation of the references are below but subject fails WP:ANYBIO. I noted the dates so it can be seen if there are any significant changes since the 2020 deletion. CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my evaluation of the sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business Standard – (July 2018) Reliable source but it is written by “Indian News” with not byline. Publication is known for being a content farm so source is questionable imho.
Indian Express – (July 2018) Talks about a case he was involved in and not about him.
Mumbai Mirror – (August 2018) Reads like a puff piece so not sure if we can consider it reliable. Owned by The Times Group with this discussion (although only one comment) from WP:RSN.
The Print – (June 2018) Never heard of publication prior to this but the article only contains quotes from the subject about a legal case so not significant.
Live Mint – (October 2020) Branded post (sponsored or paid for) so not reliable.
The Quint – (February 2020) Talks about a court case he argued but is more about the case than about him.
The Hindu – (May 2022) Another that talks about a case he argued but is more about the case than him.
Time of India – (February 2023) Brief mention. Article also has no byline and is likely part of paid content as recently discussed at RSN.
India Today – (November 2022) – Another one with byline of “India Today Web Desk” so no actual author and indicates more content farm as noted in the RSN discussion above.
Google link to search results – Original research. Points to no actual reference.
First Post – Subjects author profile. Not in-depth about the subject.
First Post – (September 2022) – This is a good article and thought it would be useful. However, the disclaimer at the bottom says “This author is opinion editor……views expressed are personal.”
The Print – (May 2022) This has a section about his book, but not in-depth about him. Could possibly be used to show notability for the book, but not for him personally in my opinion.
The Sunday Guardian – (October 2021) I will assume this is reliable for the book (not him), although I cannot find any editorial standards. There is a Wikipedia page about the publication so absent a discussion I am not sure.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NAUTHOR as his books has been subject of multiple reviews. Firstpost, Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies, Business Line, O. P. Jindal Global University and The Sunday Guardian. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple reviews" is just one portion of WP:NAUTHOR. The book itself would ALSO need to be "significant or well-known." Having a few reviews only verifies its existence. In addition, I previously cited sources such as First Post and stated why I feel they are not notable. I am seeing a lot of these types of references being part of content farms and believe this is also the case here with some of the references you cited. No byline, no editorial oversight, or written in a promotion manner. That aside, how do we know the book is significant of well-know? Was it possibly on a bestseller list? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple reviews" is a criteria for meeting notability guidelines. There are four criteria for NAUTHOR and it is not necessary to meet all fours.

We can say that the book is notable and "significant or well-known." because as per NBOOK, if 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.', then the 'book is presumed notable'. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis

1 - Firstpost - Reliable website which has detailed review about his book.

2 - Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies - Reliable journal which has detailed review about his book.

3 - Business Line - Reliable newspaper which has detailed review about his book.

4 - O. P. Jindal Global University - Press Release by Staff

5 - The Sunday Guardian - Reliable newspaper which has detailed review about his book. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the writer passes NAUTHOR and his book also passes NBOOK. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There are four criteria for NAUTHOR and it is not necessary to meet all fours" - You are correct. The issue is that you stated it meets one of the four (NA3), yet only quoted part of that one which supported your contention. You stated it must have multiple reviews but left out the part of NA3 that states "significant or well-known." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing two notability guidelines. The book must be significant or well-known. Just because a book meets Wikipedia notability guidelines does not mean that it is significant or well-known. Under WP:NBOOK, two reviews would qualify a book for a Wikipedia page. So maybe a book would qualify for a Wikipedia page but that doesn't fit the well-known criteria. If that were the case, anyone can self-publish a book, get two reviews on it, then qualify for an author Wikipedia page based on those reviews. I also think your assessment of significant coverage is wrong as you cited a press release which I have never seen used to establish notability for anything on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in but the existence of reviews or other independent sources IS what establishes notability. It's entirely possible for a hypothetical self-published book to meet notability guidelines while something from a big publisher doesn't, it's just that books from big publishers are more likely to become well known. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to butt in of course. You are correct about the reviews making a book notable. However, a book being notable for Wikipedia does not mean that it is "significant or well-known." I think the argument for !Keep in this case is that there is a presumption that if a book has a Wikipedia page it is significant, but that is not the case based on my previous statements above. It simply means it qualifies for a Wikipedia page and there is no inherent notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there are two contradictory views on whether or not book reviews received by the article subject are sufficient to establish his own notability. More opinions and review of all of these sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per @LordVoldemort728:'s sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the book is more notable than the person here. Book reviews are fine, but if the rest of the sourcing isn't up to snuff, you can't really build an article about the author. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Indian people mostly do not have any references which aren't Indian newspapers, however this doesn't mean articles about these people are not notable. Articles in newspaper columns which have syndicated ads on their webpage or are tagged sponsored aren't sponsored by the person the article is about, the ads are put up by an automated ad engine and regularly change. Also I'm inclined to agree with @LordVoldemort728, the 4 criteria in NAUTHOR are met as analysed below:
The 2 books written by the author have been cited by peers. The citations for the 1st one are available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=835200378983711540&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en, the citations for the second one haven't come in since this book is relatively recent.

The author has significantly advanced the understanding of Decoloniality, the Two-nation theory and the Constitution of India. He has also contributed tremendously to intellectual property law & its interpretation in India as one of his blogs has been cited by the Madras High Court in a judicial decision. Now should only that blog post be eligible to have a Wikipedia article, and not the author? Clearly the author isn't notable only for his 2 books but also his blogs & research papers, which have a decent number of citations & good h-index scores.

The author has created a significant body of work, including but not limited to: books, blogs, newspaper articles, research papers, lectures, speeches, forum discussions.

The author's work has attracted a lot of critical attention as evidenced by the citations & reviews, so NAUTHOR (4c) is satisfied. The author's work is also represented within the permanent collections of multiple notable galleries, including the European Parliament, multiple universities including but not limited to Harvard Law School & the University of Oxford, the British Library among many others, as evidenced by the WorldCat results: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1263872808, https://www.worldcat.org/title/1346408038.
Overall, NAUTHOR says even if only the book/body of work of an author is notable, the author is still found to be notable. Would like to know your thoughts @CNMall41, thanks for the stimulating & civil discussion. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"NAUTHOR says even if only the book/body of work of an author is notable, the author is still found to be notable" - Where does it say that? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

''This guideline applies to authors ... and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

In my opinion all 4 conditions above have been met as explained in the comment you replied to. I would be glad to provide more evidence of this criteria being met if required. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you mentioned Indian newspapers, take note of this reference you just added from LiveMint which is a branded post. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies. In the case of LiveMint, I didn't notice the article was authored by HT Brand Studio, which is indeed their advertising desk. I have changed the references & replaced them with articles not written by advertising desks/sponsored articles. If you do find any more changes in the references which need to be made, please let me know, I will search for reliable sources to replace them. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe this subject passes all 4 of the criteria, I believe you misunderstand the guideline. What references show he passes all 4? It is not about someone believing he is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers," it is about the references demonstrating such. Same for the other 3. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for criteria #1 (citations): This is the author's Google Scholar Page: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22J.+Sai+Deepak%22. He has a total of 60 citations for his research papers/books, I believe this is a good number of citations. Also, he has been cited by the Madras High Court in one of its judgements, this court is the Indian equivalent of a US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe this satisfies the 1st point.

Evidence for criteria #2: It is hard to prove whether someone has originated a new theory, idea or concept. However, the reviews pointed out by @LordVoldemort728 show that the author's books have significantly advanced the understanding of decoloniality, the Two Nation Theory and the Constitution of India.

Evidence for criteria #3: The author's Google Scholar Page, his books, speeches, lectures, forum discussions & arguments in courts of law do constitute a significant body of work. They have also been subjected to independent critical review as pointed out by @LordVoldemort728.

Evidence for criteria #4: This person's work has indeed attracted significant critical attention and has become a part of the permanent collections of several notable galleries/libraries. Linking the WorldCat results once again: https://www.worldcat.org/title/1263872808, https://www.worldcat.org/title/1346408038. Book #1 is a permanent part of 81 libraries, Book #2 is part of 22 libraries. These lists include the European Parliament, Harvard Law School, University of Harvard, the British Library among many other such institutions which are notable. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to have to agree to disagree at this point. Also, "galleries/libraries" is not the guideline. It is "galleries or museums." Please do not misrepresent what the guideline says. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not intend to misinterpret the guidelines. Will you be deleting this article or not, then? Is there an option for a poll, could we do one? PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

60 citations for a legal scholar is abysmally low. -- asilvering (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is a paucity of research in India, especially legal research, so citations are mostly by non-Indian researchers. In such a scenario, even 60 citations are good enough to feature on the list of most cited Indian legal scholars. Refer this list: https://allaboutil.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/top-cited-international-law-scholars-in-india/, the author concerned here would be at number 19 with the number of his citations. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also most of his work hasn't been published in research journals but on blogs. Citations of blog posts aren't accepted by Wikipedia as far as I know, I might be wrong though. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @CNMall41 (please excuse me for the unsolicited tag), I've changed most of the newspaper sources to ProQuest links. I wasn't able to find replacements for 4 sources though, which I've not changed. Please let me know if there is more that can be done to improve the reliability of the sources. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but might need COI warning. In addition to above, there is coverage that is critical of him: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2829780528/D826625A5184D56PQ/7, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2841176437/D826625A5184D56PQ/10, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2835516155/D826625A5184D56PQ/27. As these are more negative than positive, they cannot be said to be promotional but add to overall notability. - Indefensible (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proquest pieces are just summaries of other news articles. How would these count for notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't just summaries, they are verbatim copies of the newspaper articles which were earlier cited for this page. ProQuest hosts only notable print newspapers and their articles, you can check out their notability requirements at this link: https://pq-static-content.proquest.com/collateral/media2/documents/newsresources-catalog.pdf. PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. They are copies of the exact same references already listed in my previous assessment. As such, they wouldn't add to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would the Conflict of Interest which requires a warning in this case be? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what COI means, PunishedRottweilerAppreciator (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Covered by ample RSE'S.

Noted Indian Litigator who is/was involved in high profile cases/PIL like same-sex marriage etc.

Meets WP:GNG BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - There are additional "!Votes" on the talk page of this AfD for your consideration. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm going to put this out of its misery as clearly jo one wants to close this. That in itself signifies a clear lack of consensus.

This is the kind of AFD where genuine issues raised about the scope and upkeep of an article don't grip against the discussion. I have also seen this kind of thing renominated later on and found much less community indulgence if the core issues haven't been addressed in the period between discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of dive bars[edit]

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

Arbitrary list; violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia should not be used for arbitrary lists of "stuff". Clearly started by someone in the Pacific Northwest region of the US and would be a complete mess if it ever became comprehensive. WP:NOTDIR. Skyerise (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strong delete. This is an infinitely expandable list. It's like Seattle hipsters trying to emulate Jorge Luis Borges' The Library of Babel and its infinitude of books except with sticky floors and sweaty drunks. We don't need a list of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. I mentioned "Seattle" randomly, perhaps because I saw a picture of Linda's Tavern and the first link was to a Seattle bar. I just now saw that @Another Believer, the article's creator, lives in Seattle. This was not meant as a personal jab. My apologies.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, though I disagree with your assessment. Portland and Seattle have lots of dive bars! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I remain a "delete" because of the list's unconstrained scope, I'll note that this is otherwise a fine article. Nice pictures. All of the entries meet WP:NLIST. The topic overall meets WP:NLIST -- that is, it's a notable. Sticky floors - each one notable.

--19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Helpful list of notable dive bars, based on Category:Dive bars. Wikipedia has many lists of notable restaurants + List of bars, not sure why this one's any more arbitrary than those. List should be sourced and expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bar and grill restaurants suggests otherwise. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: Well, yeah, I see how "bar and grill" is more arbitrary. There's no Bar and grill restaurant or Category:Bar and grill restaurants. That's not the case here. "Dive bar" is a specific concept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the category not adequate? Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Your argument seems to be that as there are other lists just as worthy of deletion we should keep this one. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth -- I don't think all restaurant lists are worthy of deletion. I said if this list is arbitrary then so are many others. Care to comment on the appropriateness of this list specifically? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Total lack of any attempt at summary or citation. Skyerise (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the list could be improved. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess future !voters would take note of improvements. I can only !vote based on what I see. Skyerise (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really how AfD works but ok... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took just a few minutes to add 30+ sources to the article, which could still use further expansion and improvement. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reasoning for deletion yourself. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an infinitely expandable list that violates WP:NOT. The Banner talk 13:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would apply to any list of restaurants on Wikipedia. If the list of dive bars got too long, we could fork based on geography. Not a strong argument for deletion, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should tell that you wrote or strongly contributed to all these bar articles? The Banner talk 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write all of them, so no... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE since what qualifies as a "dive bar" is fairly subjective and thus expansive. Also vaguely promotional, in the sense of "my favorite bar is important enough to be listed on WP". As for these other lists with similarly vague criteria for inclusion, delete those too. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We have:
List of bars
List of pubs in Australia
List of former public houses and coffeehouses in Boston
List of pubs named Carpenters Arms
List of pubs in Dublin (city)
List of fictional bars and pubs
List of pubs in London
List of award-winning pubs in London
List of pubs in Norwich
List of pubs in Sheffield
List of pubs in the United Kingdo
List of barbecue restaurants
List of buffet restaurants
List of cafeterias
List of casual dining restaurant chain
List of restaurant chains
List of chicken restaurants
List of coffeehouse chains
And many, many more after that.

There's a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT going on here. Literally none of the above delete votes have any real rationale that doesn't apply to essentially every list of food-and-beverage establishments here on Wikipedia. Perhaps the only somewhat valid point is that the term can be subjective, but if there is strong sourcing about each entry being referred to as a dive bar, then of course it would merit inclusion here, and can have references reflecting that here as well. Easily done.

ɱ

(talk) 15:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are also infinitely expandable lists and I'd be fine if somebody wanted to delete them too. List of pubs in Norwich is an example of a more confined list which doesn't have that problem.

Wikimedia has another project, Wikivoyage, that's much better for local listings (although not lists).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...And most lists are "infinitely expandable" if you want to keep wikilawyering. The point is that we only include entities with Wikipedia articles and reliable sources to match. Nobody's suggested deleting List of cocktails, which technically can be expanded ad infinitum, but the point is that we curate it to only include the most notable of drinks. The same can be done, and is being done, here.

ɱ

(talk) 18:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1, completely agree, and this list is not promotional in any way. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also note that we need more content and organization on bar and cocktail culture here, not less. This is a move backward. Content on the food & bev industry is incredibly ramshackle here compared to, say, science or history topics, and I think the culture of Wikipedians hurts that, you see any sort of for-profit establishment and read everything, even a simple sourced list, to be "promoting" it. $ɱ$ (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is difference between coverage of bar and cocktail culture or the food and beverage industry and coverage of individual small businesses for the most part only covered by routine local sources. I'd love to see encyclopedia articles on the bigger picture, not so much on individual companies (or mere links thereto) that don't say anything about the "culture" or "industry". To begin with, a better Dive bar! I mean, that's a pretty generic term that's easy to throw around and has a degree of subjectivity, unlike those you've listed. Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "dive bar" is any more subjective than "pub". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all dive bars are pubs, aren't they? Per the article "Dives [dive bars] are like pornography: hard to define but you know it when you see it". That's pretty subjective. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, all dive bars are bars. Someone else would need to explain the differences between a bar and a pub. I only add "dive bar" to entries when sources describe the establishment as such. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is this not simply a section of List of bars, like "Biker bars" and "Gastropubs" are? Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A collection of dive bars undoubtedly meets WP:NLIST (e.g., [35]), and it only contains notable entries, making it far from indiscriminate. Heck, there's even a whole book on Seattle dive bars alone: Seattle's Best Dive Bars. Not seeing any real deletion rationale, especially if the list is kept to notable entries with sourcing describing them as dive bars. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom here. Is a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Subject is quite subjective and just because WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST with regards to similar lists doesn't mean this one should stay. User:Let'srun 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MJ, as the page meets the standards for list articles on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. There are really two key points here -- 1) WP:NOTTRAVEL, which specifically calls out this kind of information: "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like." And probably more importantly, as others have also noted, 2) "dive bar" is an inherently subjective term, with no clear definition. The fact that people write schlock like "the best dive bars in city X" listlcles (and even travel guides) doesn't justify a list of every bar that you can find that someone once deemed a dive bar. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor deletion rationale. WP:NOTTRAVEL does not apply as it is explicitly a list of notable restaurants which is allowed (no telephone numbers, star ratings, explanation of food, etc.). And being subjective means nothing either, otherwise List of movies considered the best would not have been kept seven times. We have reliable sources to designate what a dive bar is. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being subjective means everything. There are NO reliable sources for determining what qualifies to be on this list. It's a vague descriptor term that people apply loosely without any agreement about what it actually means from one person to the next. If one person out of ten calls bar X a "dive bar", while the other nine disagree, and happens to toss it in a travel guide, book, magazine article, or listicle, then it still shouldn't be on this list. But we'd never know that, because no one ever goes out of their way to say that bar X isn't a dive bar, or even attempts to classify bars as "dive" or "not dive". This is exactly the sort of dreck that fails NLIST completely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument falls apart based on dozens of other deletion discussions where lists based on subjective criteria are kept. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment. People, please stop saying "infinite". There have only ever been and only ever will be finitely many bars on Earth. While the number may be large, it's still finite. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It only list those which have their own Wikipedia article, making this a valid navigational and informational list. Category:Dive bars exist, and list articles are more useful than categories since more information is shown, making it easier to find what you are looking for. If a reliable source calls something a "dive bar", then its a dive bar. There has never been a rule saying a list article shouldn't exist because someone thinks its "infinitely expandable". Only dive bars notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article are listed here, not everyone that ever existed. Dream Focus 08:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid navigational list, and the category should also be deleted. See also my comment immediately above about why someone simply labelling a bar as a "dive bar" is woefully insufficient. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To help see just how asinine the claims of "it's not subjective, just go with teh reliable sourcez!!!11" is, I picked one entry more or less at random (Donnie Vegas, whose notability I question too, but that's a side point). The sole reference for it, [36], says all of "In short, Donnie Vegas has the soul of a dive bar." That's it. It has the soul of a dive bar. Well kiss my grits, that's good enough for me! But now I've got a new concern. Maybe we should spin out List of bars that aren't dives but have the soul of one. The possibilities are endless. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL and WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NPOV (per IP, what even counts as a dive bar? Besides “teh sources” that happen to call Snooters or Pete’s Pub n’ Grub a “dive bar”) Dronebogus (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got an essay that doesn't really pertain to lists; a 'travel guide' guideline, which a list of places all over the U.S. and potentially the world would fail by definition, and NPOV, which, how does a list present a point of view? If you think it's biased towards PNW articles, looks like you're gonna need to pony up and start writing about other notable places.

ɱ

(talk) 03:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hate this kind of article, and clearly this particular version needs a lot of work, but the topic meets WP:NLIST. I find references to WP:NOTGUIDE unconvincing; a list of businesses is in my opinion clearly not a culinary guide. Suriname0 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Infinitely* expandable list with no standard definition for inclusion -- even the Dive bar article is fuzzy on what qualifies. That leads us to INDISCRIMINATE, and that lack of specific focus is enough to kill off NLIST. I will also support IP...158's NOTTRAVEL and Let'srun's NOTDIRECTORY. And before you get all WP:WHATABOUT on me, (1) I would have the same !vote for 'List of Bars' and 'List of Pubs in the UK'; and (2) most of the rest of Ɱ's list (like "award-winning pubs in London" and "pubs and coffeehouses in Boston" and "fictional bars and pubs") are specific. 'Dive bars' is not. *Note for IP...158: Sorry, but they open new bars every day thus 'infinite' is a viable adjective, especially since the arguments above for 'keep' seem to think that if any source calls a place a dive, it's eligible for this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The arguments here that are based in policy (and not the ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT opinions or fears of infinite expansion) are focused on whether or not this article is appropriate per WP:NLIST. I don't see how this list of a type of bar falls into the four examples provided in WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is not a database, list of statistics or summaries or a log. All of the locations on the current list have supporting articles on the project so are considered notable, the question is whether a standalone list of a type of facility is appropriate. While I don't have an opinion of what should happen to this article, this relisting statement might be seen as expressing a POV so I'll let another administrator close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems a rather unmanageable list, but the discussion above sways me. We have a category for dive bars, why not have a list? Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not talking from IDONTLIKEIT. I like dive bars, and I even like some of the ones on the list. My objection is policy-based and rooted directly in the text of WP:SELCRIT: "Selection criteria... should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." [emphasis added] Even the Dive Bar article doesn't know what the term means. Explain to me how this is unambiguous: "The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree, and is the subject of spirited debates." I will withdraw this objection when someone unambiguously defines the term in the main article and thus this list. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Last1In. The meaning of a dive bar is not clear-cut, and I don't think just having a source using that term is adequate selection criteria for a list here. The criteria for this is overly broad – this adjective can be used for many places that are dated, dark, cheap, local, simply decorated, or otherwise downscale or generic. Quite a few of these are cafes or restaurants known for food, which practically flies in the face of the descriptions at dive bar, like Nacho Borracho which isn't even a bar at all, but a restaurant that serves alcohol! I've even been there (and a lot of other dive restaurants just like it). I guess one dive-y thing about many of these is that they only have routine local coverage and are hardly notable enough for their own articles. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The objections seem to be surmountable with inclusion criteria. It's not infinite because we can just use the WP:CSC. It's easy to decide what's a dive bar because we can say there must be sufficient sources calling it a "dive bar" to be listed as such in the lead of each article (or something like that). Of course we shouldn't have a list of all dive bars, but Wikipedia is full of lists of notable examples. Only weak because I'm only 75% convinced of my "sources call it a dive bar" argument above -- as per dive bar, "The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree", which makes it tough, but if sources carry us forward enough to have an article on dive bars and a category for dive bars, a list seems ok. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point on sourcing is on point. I wonder how many of the list would remain if we were to require two sources for each bar listed. Would there be any left? Skyerise (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lest we forget, newspapers are not secondary sources, they are primary sources per policy in most instances. In the case of this list, there are two sources that might be argued to fall under the Historical Reports exception. Otherwise, the list is a collection of the primary opinions of newswriters based on a nonexistent definition of 'dive bar'. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring two sources for every item definitely seems like moving the goalposts here. You shouldn't change the requirements, they should be consistent with other articles like this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only moving the goalposts, but also incorrect in suggesting that the stricter source criteria would eliminate all entries. Dive bars do exist, and some of them are indeed notable. I don't know why that's so bothersome to some editors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that dive bars 100% exist. So do bad restaurants, some of which are also highly notable. The reason we should not have lists for either is that there is no encyclopaedic (unambiguous) criteria for either. The fact that the current list article uses WP:PRIMARYNEWS for nearly all cites is a side issue that can be resolved with good research. But that research is for naught if we can't define the term per SELCRIT, something no one has done. That is literally my only argument here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely arbitary inclusion criteria potentially that could lead to an enormous list of junk. Its scrap. It the complete ass-end of Wikipedia with no historical value , useless to man and beast. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly disagree. Not arbitrary, because "dive bar" category and list inclusion are based on what sources say about each subject. Also, not prone to becoming a list of junk if maintained properly. Also, not without historical value; dive bar is a level 5 vital article, so there's clearly value in covering the topic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll try and take the parts of that one at a time. • Inclusion is arbitrary because there is no definition of 'dive bar' in any reliable source. • Most sources currently used are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and all suffer from the same lack of definition. By analogy, reviews in perfectly respectable magazines that call a movie 'obnoxious' would not substantiate creating a List of obnoxious movies. In both cases, one or more primary sources use an undefined term to make the claim. • Until there is a definition of a dive bar, the list cannot be curated proprerly and thus will become (or is already) junk. How would you challenge an editor adding a local Slug and Lettuce based on a single newsrag review calling it a dive? You couldn't, since the entire rest of the article is similarly sourced. • Dive bar is an encyclopaedic article because it explains what dive bars are and what reliable sources say about them. It does not try to enumerate which bars are dives, something this list is claiming to do in wikivoice. In fact, that article explicitly states that there is no definition. There is simply no way around SELCRIT on this one. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the concerns above that the definition of a "dive bar" is not clear enough to merit a list like this. The fact that this list contains everything from joints that only serve alcohol to fairly popular restaurants signifies that there's no real way to determine an inclusion criteria here that doesn't indiscriminately include random establishments. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIR. An exhaustive list would contain thousands of entries, and a source describing an establishment as a "dive bar" is a hand-wavy and arbitrary criterion. — SamX [talk · contribs] 06:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why so many people make the argument "that an exhaustive list" would be too long. That's so obvious. So would literally any other list on Wikipedia like this. Which is why this is relegated to notable entries. That's not a reason for deletion. Similarly, if a place is advertised as a dive bar, in the book New York City's Best Dive Bars ISBN 9780970312532, and has an entire The Guardian article, then I'm pretty sure we can call it a dive bar. That goes past what is needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even a list containing only notable entries would be incredibly long if we include every single establishment described by some listicle as a "dive bar". List of restaurants advertised as dive bars could maybe work, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, totally disagree. I would very much welcome expanding this list with other notable establishments which have been described as a dive bar in secondary coverage. I've seen much, much longer lists on Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which leaves a list of zero bars, since there are no secondary sources cited in the current article. Not one. That's beside the fact that no one has defined (or apparently can define) the term. At least SamX has suggested a list that could meet SELCRIT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to say except I disagree 100%. There are notable businesses which have been described as dive bars in secondary coverage, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. This is a fact, not a matter of debate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided two books in my comments that list and discuss notable dive bars in two major cities. Those could easily be considered and used as secondary sources. Books published by reliable presses and articles by major newspapers can also hardly be called listicles. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because to be notable, it actually has to be notable. A single listicle does not count toward notability. It needs multiple reliable sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An exhaustive list would contain thousands of entries Yes, and if it included imaginary bars, that, too would be inappropriate. Thankfully, it's neither. Straw man argument. a source describing an establishment as a "dive bar" is a hand-wavy and arbitrary criterion - it's WP:V. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like some editors are focused on the potentiality of an endless list instead of actually evalutating the existing sources used justify each list item. In fact, the discussion seems to have focused more on the idea of this list than the sourcing that that is present in the article. I thought the focus was supposed to be on notability not whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on Dive bars. As I said, I'll leave this discussion to another closer to handle. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'infinitely-expandable' commentary is a fuzzy way to invoking SELCRIT, like saying, "If we can't define what should be in the list, we can never remove things that should not be there." I think the Dive bar article is important, but that article itself shows why a list of dive bars is not: The precise definition of a dive bar is something on which people rarely agree, and is the subject of spirited debates. By analogy, Calvinball is a good article, and List of Calvinball venues is not. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infinitely expandable list, spam magnet, no clear criteria for inclusion, inclusion likely to be unverifiable or POV, need I go on? Stifle (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because half of those points, as already pointed out, aren't actually points. I'm fine if there's the argument that setting clear inclusion criteria would be difficult (although, I personally disagree as I have found plenty of secondary sourcing). But as Liz pointed out above, claiming that it's infinitely expandable or even a spam magnet is disingenuous. It's not, and the latter point (being prone to spam) isn't even an actual reason for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be FANTASTIC. When you post the sources that give an unambiguous, objective definition of a dive bar, I think this entire AfD goes away. If you could add them to Dive bar as well, that would be ideal. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree with Stifle. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: demanding an unambiguous definition of "dive bar" is unnecessary; the inclusion criteria should be that each venue has received significant coverage in reliable sources because it's considered a dive bar. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the sourcing for the included items is shaky at best. From a policy standpoint, the question is whether this is much of a list if we strip out anything that only has passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. I haven't had the time to do that review, but from what I read in this discussion, I'm not alone in that.~T P W 20:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Styles[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. An orphan article and coverage is mainly her being quoted in the media and not WP:SIGCOV about her. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not convinced this fails WP:ACADEMIC aka WP:PROF; criterion 1 asks if the academic's work is "highly cited", which a Google Scholar search suggests it is. De-orphaned article but yes, it is in poor shape and needs attention. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
?? Those are definitely not high citations, especially for psych. She has an h-index of 8 and 240 citations on Scopus, that is nowhere close to what we expect for professor notability... JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here is a comparison of her Scopus citation profile to that of 60 of her coauthors with 10+ papers.

Total citations: average: 2768, median: 930, Styles: 237. Total papers: 76, 42, 27. h-index: 19, 14, 8. Top 5 citations: 1st: 386, 139, 53; 2nd: 234, 78, 37; 3rd: 158, 55, 35; 4th: 132, 47, 20; 5th: 116, 44, 18.

Doesn't meet C1.

JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful if it is in fact a comparison against co-authors covering a similar sub-field of linguistic psychology. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Associate professors are sometimes notable, but the citation record doesn't look like a pass of WP:NPROF even in mathematics, a low citation field. (And certainly not for psychology.) No other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the record, I don't think we should be using total citations as the metric; although I do appreciate that this citation comparison is subfield specific. Styles is ~~an assistant professor~~ recent associate professor without any mega-cited papers. Maybe she'll get there eventually, but she's not there yet.Mason (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. simply WP:TOOEARLY for this person as discussed above. --hroest 18:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not highly cited for psychology, a high-citation field. We have no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This (https://www.ntu.edu.sg/news/detail/creation-of-50-new-named-faculty-chair-professorships-at-ntu ) suggests she has a "named chair" according to NTU. But their use of named chair is .. and hers is not a Full Professor Chairs but an Early-Career and Mid-Career Faculty Chair. This might allow a pass of WP:Prof 5. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Named chairs at the associate level definitely do not count for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy, Ontario[edit]

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

No evidence that this is or was ever a community; no significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 02:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was some prospecting activity in the township, I think, but I don't know if there was ever a mine. The Algoma Central Railway must have had some reason for locating a station here, but I can't tell what it was. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about a station, I assumed "railway point" just referred to the siding. –dlthewave ☎ 01:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a dot on a map, where trains can sometimes be found. It's named only because there is a siding there and some prospecting was done, but nothing these days. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a railway siding, not a community with buildings or residents for the purposes of being able to pass WP:GEOLAND, and is referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (maps and directory entries) rather than notability-building reliable source coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this is anything more than a railway siding, and there is no reliable sourcing to establish notability. Fails WP:GEOLAND. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Gupta (researcher)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. References on the page and in a WP:BEFORE are all about the company LoginRadius which was also deleted from Wikipedia. There are some interviews as well but these are not independent. Having patents or writing books do not automatically qualify someone for Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of subject's books has >50 citations per Google Scholar [37], not enough on its own. —siro χ o 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't read too much into individual citation counts. They're really field dependent. Mason (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Just meant as more of a note that it's not strictly an obvious delete, though I currently suspect it will end up there. —siro χ o 23:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Sweeny[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. And there is no inherent notability from being in the 100 Women (BBC). Lacking WP:SIGCOV in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Psychology, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention (singular) in the BBC 100 Women article on the BBC site, but that's all there is. She appears to be an employed social worker, doing her job. Nothing else I can find to support having an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2023 (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. Divided discussion, once again, but in this case, I find those advocating Delete to be more persuasive in making their argument that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Paneagaden[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PRODUCER and WP:NACTOR. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep: May meet requirements for Notability of Producers for Laloorinu Parayanullathu.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject clearly fails WP:GNG and even more clearly WP:NCREATIVE. An "important figure"? "Originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique"? "Created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? His "work has become a significant monument? No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Translate won't translate one of the web pages used as references, https://web.archive.org/web/20180131200801/http://www.tcvonline.co.in/home/technology/item/8673-2017-08-27-08-59-41 and I can't select the text to paste just the text into Google Translate. Another article (photo and several paragraphs) https://web.archive.org/web/20180207010752/https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/malayalam/kerala+kaumudi-epaper-kaumudi/josaph+panengadan+niryathanayi-newsid-72387710 similarly can't be handled by Google Translate, and dailyhunt.in is blocked from Wikipedia. I think the references in the article probably add up to notability, but I can't read Malayalam and Google Translate is being unhelpful. Perhaps someone who can read Malayalam can provide an analysis of the sources in the article and those that can be found online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added more sources as possible and the article was translated from Ml article before 5 years. Now some links were dead.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article was translated from another language five years ago or that it was posted up at that time can have no influence in a discussion about whether to keep it in the English-language Wikipedia or not. As to the totality of sources, and after retracing my previous search too, we still have one primary source and one that's irrelevant to our subject ("Convention calls for stir against garbage issue") out of a total of six. I can't see any mention of our subject in the Daily Hunt link either and the link to Janmabhumi Daily is about a documentary; our subject is name-dropped in it once as its producer. That's just not "significant coverage", especially when invoking exclusively sources whose reliability cannot be easily checked. We still have very little, if anything. -The Gnome (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that if watch the article now, its notability fails with the lack of multiple sources. But, I meant here, should consider that a major portion of the sources are not functioning now, after five years. At the time of the article creation, it had enough significant coverage.The dead sources had deeply mentioned him and his honour, Sakthan Thampuran award. Still, a functioning source, [38] also covers him deeply.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be only trivial mentions; based on the discussion above, nothing for significant coverage. I find no sources for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, Wikipedia's policy stands only for famous people/celebrities."Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." WP:BASIC. The issue is, there are multiple reliable sources here; but, not functioning now.[39], [40] these dead sources are from leading morning dailies of Kerala and, there were enough significant coverage for the article.Kaitha Poo Manam (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Slott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly promotional article, which is a solvable problem, but the available sourcing in the article and elsewhere looks too limited to warrant inclusion. There are a lot of results on Google, but they largely appear to be press releases or very brief references to/quotes by Slott. WP:SIGCOV seems lacking. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Finance. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - especially shameless advert. I started to trim the junk, and realize it was melting away. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Orangemike. Originally created by User:Edslott, too. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not much in terms of WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2023 (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.