Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      August 10 (Sat)      August 9 (Fri)      August 8 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Nico Pattyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability and sourcing concerns. No claim of notability other than performing well in the International Quizzing Championships, no substantial sourcing. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Some coverage in Dutch-language sources from Belgium: [1] and [2]. This is about him doing a parody of something [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. Google news yields 2 possible third party sources but they are routine coverage of retiring and missing out on a season. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and England. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman for Best Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is an award given by a television network. There is no coverage much less GNG coverage of the topic of the article which is the award. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fakt Marathi Cine Sanman: Not really opposed to Keep as WP:SPLITLIST. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. No GNG or SIGCOV. Redirect won't really of any help and there is no coverage justifying the article's existence. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Conservatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scottish Conservatives; as an AtD and a not implausible search term. Precedent for this, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Young Labour plus other subnational jurisdictions (Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Canada, South Australia, Virginia, USA). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scotland is not a subnational jurisdiction. The Scottish Conservatives function as a separate party. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scotland not being a sovereign state means it is a subnational jurisdiction. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge Insufficient notability for standalone article. Relevant text could be merged in Scottish Conservatives. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Plenty of sourcing available. Youth wings of major political parties are generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No type of organisation is inherently notable. Please provide sources to satisfy WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied, WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a clearer consensus that Scottish Conservatives is an appropriate redirect/merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onam and Islamic Preachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The recent comments by few religious leaders, which kerala as a whole took it as communal and non secular , should not be given weightage in Wikipedia here. so i find it is non sense to add as an article. This is a Wikipedia article on communal speeches of 2-3 islamic speakers. Also note that in the article Onam it is said that it is a Hindu festival. From the point of islam, celebrating festivals of other religion is not allowed. So creating an article on specific to Onam based on 2-3 Islamic speeches is non sense. Also article used unreliable source such as sunnivoice.net and only news links of Islamic preachers making communal speeches on celebrating Onam

You can find the artcile here: ^[1]

another one : ^[2]

"There is no legal text compatible to this produced even after five centuries from the region, but some preachers with the influence of Arab cultural Islam and its wide influence in the various realm create commotions through unexpected comments against Onam celebrations of Muslim communities. The idea of branding of other cultures as un-Islamic was introduced as part of ‘reform’, but now it silently lingers even the tongue of traditionalists."

These are comments passed by one or two islamic preachers and never to be considered the view point of all Muslims of Kerala. They have rejected these as seen from the article.

The religious organization of muslims in kerala , which represent 95% of muslims in kerala are : Sunni organizations (AP or EK).

These organizations never said 'officially' any comment on onam. Usually it is through fatwa Muslims organizations declare their views. No one released a fatwa.

Mere communal comments of some communal leaders cannot be considered as a mass view and never to be the part of wikipedia as an article

This is a religious promotional article , only made from 2-3 religious preachers speeches — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsrvb (talk • contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a subarticle of the main article Onam. This article was created apparently because there was a lot of vandalism on the page Onam because several people wanted to remove content that say Islam is against celebrating non-Muslims' celebrations including Onam. EK Sunnis' several organisations, in a joint statement, has said Islam is against following rituals of other religions.^[3] Moreover, Simsarul Haq Hudawi, belonging to EK Sunnis, has said celebrating Onam is not allowed in Islam.^[4] Ponmala Abdul Qadir Musliyar, secretary of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama of AP Sunnis has said Islam does not allow to participate in celebratory or non-celebratory activity of non-Muslims.^[5] Mujahids also have said Islam is against celebrating Onam. Reference for all for them are given in the article itself. Fsrvb is one of the persons who belong to those who engage in vandalism by removing content (see: 1 , 2 and 3) saying it is not notable but notability applies to the article as whole, not to content in it. However Wikipedia is not a place to present opinion which few or no one believe. But that is not case here: overwhelming majority of Muslims including Sunnis and Mujahid Salafis have asked Muslims to avoid participating in the Onam celebration. In Kerala 85% (75%+10%) of Muslims belong to either AP or EK or Mujahid organisations (read the article). See: WP:DUE which says:

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof.

The article suggested for deletion is notable and would avoid vandalism and there is enough reason to create a separate article. Fsrvb, who created an account on 28 July 2024, moved the page Onam and Islam whose name at the time was Onam and Muslims to Onam and Islamic Preachers. Fsrvb also suggested the article for deletion. The page Onam is protected for an indefinite period because the topic is controversial. There has been vandalism on the article Onam several times. The vandals were removing the word related to Hinduism to remove mentioning the association of Onam with Hindus and Hinduism(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Such vandalism or disruptive edits were reverted by adding the term which shows the topic's association with Hinduism or Hindus (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Similar edits (1, 2, 3, 4) have been done by Fsrvb. Hence this suggestion for deletion of the article is part of vandalism of removal of content.Neutralhappy (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Neutralhappy. The article was created as a subarticle and to spread the DUE that was given to that topic. There are various reliable sources that cover the topic significantly and hence SIGCOV and GNG are met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merg The article 'Onam and Islamic Preachers' is unnecessary, put it as section on Onam page and merge this page with Onam.Spworld (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely promotional. Wikipedia never host hateful content based on extremist remarks such as 'ISIS views on US' or 'Islamic preacher's views on Christmas' 71.178.219.196 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Jalisco cities by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article functions as a fork from Municipalities of Jalisco. Unlike the linked article, List of largest Jalisco cities by population, is unsourced and outdated. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just redirect it, obviously duplicative so doesn't need a discussion. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, as the information is simply duplicate to another article. jp×g🗯️ 06:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, did you mean to vote for redirect? I'm not sure what information you think needs to be merged in, if it's simply duplicate. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if there is anything not duplicated, it should be merged. I think they result in the same outcome (the one page is a redirect to the other). jp×g🗯️ 22:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well, we have opinions for deletion, merger and redirection so I'm going to relist this discussion for a few days until this gets sorted out and, hopefully, JPxG sees this question addressed to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Fox Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It does not meet presumed notability under WP:NBUILD and while it might mean something in the local community, it's just a run of the mill old building that doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article and the sources don't meet the threshold of independent significant coverage needed for for GNG. This appears to be a part of the broader walled garden on Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA buildings/subject matter. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and California. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of the two book sources, the first falls under WP:ARCADIA and consists only of a photo and its caption. The second is some hyperlocal press (possibly the same as Paper Vision Press / Western Tanager Press?) and has only two passing mentions. This level of coverage is not significant and not enough for WP:GNG, even setting aside the Carmel-related issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Of the four sources available, we've got two primary source government documents and two books from unreliable publishers. Left guide (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The comments above are the valid default criticisms of the Carmelopedia. Axad12 (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dedaub LTD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NCORP. All sources I could find are trivial mentions. C F A 💬 22:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Technology. C F A 💬 22:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Malta. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I see the page's history, initially the page had few references. But, some editor came and added too many references and moved the page. The references are actually not spamy. But, later an admin has removed about 10 references with an opinion of ineligible references. Assuming the admin is right, the subject has no more mentions in other reliable references. So, it does not pass the notability requirement Bauyosad (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the sources in the article are not about the company - some merely namecheck one of the founders (e.g. the ACM conference in which Smaragdakis was a co-chair). The only source I see substantially about the company (and which is also in the article) is the Times of Malta. Search does not provide anything more. Lamona (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnet J. Segal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Part of a self reverential walled garden (created by one editor) of every last grain of sand in Carmel-by-the-Sea, referenced by non RS hyper local media. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to be a historically significant person. Those with long ties to the community say Segal is as important a person as Carmel has ever had. - Agha, Laith (15 Oct 2006). "Recalling City's Quiet Leader: Barnet Segal's importance to Carmel inspires debate". McClatchy - Tribune Business News. ProQuest 463233258. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Big difference between being regarded as an important person of NYC vs being regarded as important that's a city that is township level in terms of size. There's so much sentence for sentence duplicate contents with other articles. Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Most of the article is from a single source, the Carmel Pine Cone, and that is a strike against notability. There is an obit in that publication, some minor mentions in the SF Chronicle, and almost a page in the Dramov book. My "keep" is weak also because I don't find sources more modern that would show his notability. But it's also "keep" because the local sources are extensive. BTW, small places can be important, too. I don't know what the duplicates are that you are finding - if you have time, could you elaborate? That could make a difference. Lamona (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lamona:, look at Harrison_Memorial_Library#Barnet_J._Segal_Reading_Room, for example. This article and that article appears to be part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea themeed walled garden WP:CFORK. The Dramov book is an WP:ARCADIA book, which I would consider to be essentially no impact on claiming notability. Graywalls (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a different take on Arcadia. Small publisher, specializing in local history. Obviously won't have the gravitas of Oxford U Press, but seems to be strong in its niche. It is NOT self-publishing, and actually pays royalties to authors. I did a publisher search in WorldCat library database and got over 5K titles - so held in many more than 5K libraries. Also, I don't mind that there is duplication between related articles. In my experience, duplication between related articles is the norm. Lamona (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Isaidnoway Nvss132 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GBT Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company. "None of the sources is independent and secondary, and none of them does anything to show how the company is notable." So wrote Bonadea in January '23 here (limited visibility, so I've reproduced it here), about an earlier version that had a greater number of equally feeble references. The comment still applies. Googling brings many hits, but those that aren't mere mentions all seem to be mere PR puffs from GBT Technologies itself. Hoary (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only sources I find about the company are stock/investment reports (including recent ones foretelling bankruptcy of the company, but not giving much info beyond that). Of the sources in the article, the ones about the company were written by the CTO and CEO. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources found that would contribute to notability, for search strings "gbt technologies", "genesis blockchain technologies", and "gopher protocol inc". Plenty of routine business announcements, legal disclosures, and press releases, but no IS ∩ RS ∩ SIGCOV. Folly Mox (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also, are we communicating via math now? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable former congressional candidate. Given the coverage cited on this page, it's clear that Kulkarni received more media attention than your average congressional candidate, but I don't think a few articles in national outlets is enough. Plus, in the 4 years since his last congressional run, Kulkarni seems to have received zero media coverage. The fact that his media attention completely dried up the moment he was no longer running shows that he isn't notable and that people probably won't be searching for him in 10 years. This article was previously nominated for deletion in May, but that discussion was closed as "no consensus" after only 1 editor participated. That editor voted keep--but they seem to have a personal connection to Kulkarni, judging by the fact that they uploaded the photo of him on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Louisiana, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and reasons given in first AfD--Mpen320 (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Huffaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per article, Director of UX Research for Google, but no further claims of notability. Two sources are linked from the article, the first appears to be a small interview in a highly specialized publication, the second is a personal blog of one of Huffaker's colleagues. His Google scholar profile indicates one paper with 1,000+ citations and a handful around 500, not sure I would classify this as highly influential. Can't find many other sources while doing WP:BEFORE. Doesn't seem to be notable by WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, or WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Computing. Bestagon ⬡ 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This person's publications seem to be in the realm of sociology, and I'm thinking this is not a high citation field - would like to hear other's views on that. The article is a stub that does not really focus on their academic impact - it needs fleshing out in that regard if it's to stay. Qflib (talk)

TESCREAL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Delete (nomination). 'TESCREAL' refers to a nonsense conspiracy theory that disparages people such as Nick Bostrom without citing any sources that are credible on the question of whether Nick Bostrom is an 'evil eugenicist' or whatever. If the principals hadn't coined 'TESCREAL' the title would be Weird accusations by Torres and Gebru that everyone who talks about AI (but isn't focused on certain political priorities) is part of a worldwide conspiracy to implement an catastrophic version of eugenics and it would be obvious that it shouldn't be the title of an article on Wikipedia. The term 'TESCREAL' is simply an attempt to invoke reification bias – the idea that something with a name necessarily 'carves reality at the joints'. Jruderman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC) (E: due to new COI, I am disconnecting my name from the nomination reasons and downgrading from bold to italic.) Jruderman (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There remains significant sourcing on this article that indicates WP:N. there are mostly WP:SPS blogs that describe this as a conspiracy... Folks attempt to invoke WP:FRINGE on this mostly as they see any criticism of their pet philosophy as outrageous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I still feel like the majority of the "Alleged TESCREALists" section is WP:SYNTH whereby big name people who are well-connected to ONE of these ideologies, or loosely/possibly connected to a few, are lumped into being part of the theorized TESCREAL "movement", by either random commentators, or some journalists seeking readers.
  I think these types of tenuous connections to an overarching ideology are almost WP:GOSSIP, but I guess Wikipedia's policies around famous people MAY make it acceptable: if the news covers "Elon Musk says Trump is anti-TESCREAL" and "Trump says Musk is a TESCREAList" - than we can include those sourced personal attack statements?---Avatar317^(talk) 21:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SYNTH states that wikipedians can't do original research and use that. Most sourcing in article is pretty clear about directly stating person x is associated with TESCREAL. If multiple sourcing all state that these folks are criticized by person x as being part of TESCREAL, I see no reason to not include.

  "Some have alleged Elon to support some TESCREAL ideals. (source 1, source 2)" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give specific indication of which attribution should be considered wrong? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Avatar317's concerns, and have removed the various "so-and-so is alleged to support TESCREAL because they support one of the letters" content. The rest of the article seems well-enough sourced to be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding removal of material, see [[4]].

  If necessary, we can open up another talk section about it or WP:BLPN section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I've reverted the indiscriminate blanking because this has already been discussed at length. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the BLPN discussion remotely having a consensus to include what is, roughly, third-party accusations regarding an ideological bundle that the targets either disagree with or have not even deigned to acknowledge. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the fact that the content was added back change your position? Alenoach (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. There will (probably) be an RFC about some of this content once this AFD closes. (Also some of the later comments here are just weird.) Walsh90210 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well sourced, and the suggestion that this is a "nonsense conspiracy theory" is Jruderman's own opinion — not one that exists in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Expanding a bit to address a few of the arguments by other !voters.

  • WP:FRINGE concerns should be handled in the same way we handle other notable fringe topics; that is, if there is quality sourcing available that describes this as a fringe theory, it should be incorporated into the article. But claiming that the topic is fringe based on personal opinion, without any RS to support that stance, and arguing it should be deleted because of that, falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.
  • Concerns about the "Alleged TESCREALists" section should be handled via the normal editorial processes (talk page, WP:BLPN, WP:RFC if needed), not AfD. The section makes up only about a quarter of the entire article, and certainly wouldn't justify WP:TNT even if it was determined that the section should be omitted.
  • I don't think the page should be merged back into Gebru or Torres' pages, primarily because 1) it independently meets the GNG, but also because 2) it will result in two roughly identical sections at each page which then need to be maintained separately. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reliable sources are required for inclusion, but we also try to stick to including only things that are true. There is no rule requiring reliable sources for removal of misinformation or personal attacks. Jruderman (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think an article needs to be deleted because it's a "nonsense conspiracy theory", you need to at least demonstrate that that's more than just your own personal opinion (not to mention demonstrate why that means it ought to be deleted — many nonsense conspiracy theories are well documented on Wikipedia). I could say that we should delete the article on, I don't know, eugenicists because I think the term is a "nonsense conspiracy theory", but such an argument would be rightly ignored at AfD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  which sourcing is unreliable or untrue? and can you provide the evidence? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres. The sources that use the term TESCREAL often relay directly the views of Timnit Gebru or Émile Torres. The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies, so making it the title of a Wikipedia article is somewhat tendentious. And the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks, often attributing opinions to people that would deny having them. Dispassionate, fact-based journalism generally avoids ideologically loaded terms like TESCREAL and uses more precise vocabulary to refer to the philosophy they are talking about. Alenoach (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The term has received widespread use beyond Gebru and Torres, and I mean use, not just reporting. The sources in the article prove this, especially the academic ones. A grouping can be a concept also, these are not mutually exclusive. Can you provide examples of the mentioned 'personal attacks'? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Point by point

  1) "Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres"

  I don't think it would meet WP:MERGEREASON, which specifically argues against merging if:

  • The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
  • The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short

  2) "The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies,"

  TESCREAL meets WP:GNG due to reliable sourcing. It probably is a contentious grouping and philosophers can argue about it all they want, but that doesn't mean we get to be arbiters of whether it is valid or not, only if it is notable. And the context of personal attacks, in terms of criticizing WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, seems tenuous.

  3) the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks,

  This is mostly WP:BLP talk again. See above my reply to Walsh, but we've discussed that criticism of WP:PUBLICFIGURE can and should be documented.

  4) "Dispassionate, fact-based journalism"

  Most contemporary philosophies often do not get massive news coverage. In fact sourcing for wikipedia is only mandated to be WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT. There is no mandate for entirely unbiased sourcing and it seems onerous to demand that of TESCREAL when other philosophies regularly use sourcing that is biased towards them.

  As an example, when looking at the Effective Altruism article, I count at least 9 sources from MacKaskill, the founder of EA, 3 from centre for effective altruism, at least 4 more from Peter Singer, another leader of EA, and a few opinions and philosophical arguments in journals. Its not wrong to use WP:OPINION to fill in sourcing.

  In terms of reliable sourcing in the current article that discusses the term (and arguable aren't opinion pieces), see the following: [5] [6] [7] [8] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is well sourced and has received widespread use in the media and also a considerable use in academic literature. The language of the nomination is highly POV and personal. The editor has not provided a credible argument for his accusation that this is a 'nonsense conspiracy theory', and the statement that the sources (which one?) does not cite 'any sources that are credible' is factually wrong. The justification of the nomination has more bias than the whole article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no conspiracy or anything fringe here. There is legitimate and significant criticism against the unifying and overlapping narratives promoted by those in the transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism communities. Gebru and Torres have quite remarkably presented a cohesive critical theory of technological utopianism in the form of a simple to remember neologism to describe the last 25 years of a campaign of distraction and misdirection that has infected entire parts of our society and prevented social change from occurring, all because a small group of tech bros believe that humanity should stop addressing our current social problems and simply resign ourselves to becoming cyborgs. This is, actually, what people like Kurzweil, Musk, and many others believe. It's a legitimate topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is probably worth noting here the presence of a keep vote made on the explicit basis of the article's usefulness as a political smear. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s not worth it, as there’s no political smear implied in anything I’ve said here. This discourse is part of the longstanding criticism of technological utopianism. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It has to do with the irrational basis for utopian ideas promoted by people in the tech industry which often has the result of delaying mitigation of social issues. One contemporary example that is being widely discussed by philosophers in this regard, and is part of the same body of work, is the notion of promoting space exploration, such as the kind we find in the language of Elon Musk. This language is entirely irrational, as there is no rational basis for supporting space exploration (and I consider myself a strong supporter of it). This example is directly relevant. Musk appeals to the threat of human extinction to promote colonizing Mars. He speaks of becoming a multiplanetary civilization, which is the language of mitigating the existential risk of extinction, in other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. By so doing, he gets lucrative military contracts and government subsidies, and never has to actually deliver on his utopian promise. Meanwhile, many other social issues go unaddressed without funding. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And how does this have anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia POLICY? I understand that you like this concept as a criticism of TU, but that is NOT a policy based argument. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What a weird comment. I just directly answered and refuted the allegation that I was supporting an article based on a political smear. I was not. In my reply, I gave an example of the criticism and how it directly pertains to the subject of the article in question. This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as stated by the nominator. Since you evidently missed it, to reiterate: it’s not a conspiracy like the nom claimed, and it’s not a political smear of any kind. It’s a relevant and timely criticism of technological utopianism based on relevant, scholarly opinions. The criteria for deletion has not been met by the nom or anyone else. Time to close. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the risk of getting dragged on Mastodon for this aside, I think this is a WP:TNT case. The prior three comments to keep were from the article's primary authors. Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months, and pretty much any thread started there is guaranteed to get a very prompt hostile response from one of them. Neutrality concerns are vaguely insinuated to be part of the conspiracy. I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK. There was a BLPN discussion about this before -- while there was only one person in the discussion who wasn't active at the article's talk page, their response was that it shouldn't have a list of people alleged as being it. Citing this discussion as some sort of definitive proof that this section needs to be in the article is very bizarre to me. But it is one of many bizarre claims that are made on a regular basis with respect to this article.

Essentially: two people claim there is some group that does XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. Cool. A few people have reported that these two people claimed there was some group that did XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. That's also cool. But what we don't have is any reliable source saying this -- they're quoting someone else saying this. It is a very fundamental distinction. For example: a certain politician (incorrectly) said another politician was born in Kenya; there are all kinds of sources that reflect this; but that source does not say the guy was born in Kenya! It says that the guy said he was. We would not use this source to say that the guy was born in Kenya: it's just common sense.

The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult, which exists for the sole purpose of denigrating people that its creators disagree with. Someone might respond to this by saying "no, you've got it all wrong, they're just describing a tendency". Yeah: they are describing a tendency... of people who they hate and think are evil, and regularly go on extended diatribes about how they are ruining everything, and created the term to be able to say negative things about them more easily. They post on social media about this Wikipedia article.

Nobody else uses this term. It is not used by the people who it allegedly describes. There is no group of people who call themselves this. The term is not ever used for neutral commentary on a "tendency" -- it's used as an insult for when people are stupid. We would not, with a straight face, write a Wikipedia article called DemonRat Party and then say, wow look, all of the sources say that they're awful people who love taxes and crime, we'd better just write about these claims at great length, because look they're notable. Imagine for a minute that a WSJ editorial and National Review columnist called the Democrats the "DemonRats", so we had RS SIGCOV: we would still not turn DemonRat Party blue because the resulting article would be bad. We would definitely not want to keep it if it were being written entirely by people who had spent several months arguing that we needed to include diverse perspectives by writing said article to be as long as possible and say as many negative things about the DemonRats as we could possibly fit in it. It would also be bad to write an article called Child molestors and/or Donald Trump supporters, WP:SYNTH together a bunch of sources criticizing each of these groups individually, and then say "this is clearly notable because we have 800 studies about child molestation, 800 studies about Trump voters, and then 2 thinkpieces saying one was the other".

Political insults can be notable, but this isn't an article about a political insult. It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) of the factual claims about politics being made by its originators. While it's possible to come up with a bunch of passing mentions where someone used this term, and a few pieces of coverage of the people who invented it saying it -- and while it may indeed manage to barely scrape past WP:DICTDEF -- it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing. What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH bordering on WP:FRANKENSTEIN, and I think that since the term (and indeed this specific Wikipedia article) is being actively used as a cudgel to own the libs, we should either make this into a stub or a redirect or an article that is very closely focused to be about the term as a term and not a dumping ground for random political commentary that happens to mention the term. jp×g🗯️ 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point by point rebuttal of this wall of text.

• "Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months"

That we can argue against bad-faith arguments and demand you point out specific places where the article is failing is not owning the article. If you cannot point to specific arguments, and keep changing why you think this article is bad indicates flawed WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.

• "I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK."

Every section on that article is concerned with TESCREAL. Looking over most sourcing, most sourcing talks for long lengths about TESCREAL.

• "There was a BLPN discussion about this before"

You never answered questions about WP:PUBLICFIGURE or why it would not apply. Also, I have always found the reasoning that TESCREAL=Political Attack to be a bit flawed. By that logic, the section about Transhumanism#New_eugenics would indicate every transhumanist is a eugenicist.

• "Essentially: two people claim"

The Kenya Birther conspiracy can be attributed to Donald Trump, then we can use overwhelming sourcing to state its false. Do you have overwhelming sourcing to state that TESCREAL is a conspiracy that balances out the dozens of sourcing that explains it? In the past folks have attempted to completely delete large portions of this article on the basis of a single blog page.

• "The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult"

Unless you find a source that suggests this, beyond the blog post of the philosophers that are criticized by Gebru and Torres, this argument is unsubstantiated. Even if it was a political insult, we have plenty of those documented, along with alleged people who have epitomised the political insult.

• " Nobody else uses this term."

There are close to 25 sources in the article that all use the term. The original AfD was deleted for notability, but since then the term has come into resurgence with significant sourcing.

• "it's used as an insult for when people are stupid"

Sourcing and the article says nothing about intelligence of the people who are alleged to be TESCREALISTS.

• "It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) "

Find the critical information to criticize the term or to justify a policy such as WP:FALSEBALANCE. So far, most sourcing indicates that people take this criticism from Gebru and Torres as actual philosophical arguments, not just some petty insult.

• "it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing."

Again, provide a list of why all the sourcing is bad?

• "What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH "

Every sentence is cited and attributed. We do no original research. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info. JPxG has:

• continued to assert that I insult everyone I disagree with on the talk page (I was confused tbh?) [9]
• that Joaquim has falsely accused editors of COIs on the talk page [10]
• and now has suggested I and Joaquim have been WP:OWNING the page by continuing to edit, discuss controversial changes

He has thrown out constant walls of inconsequential texts and vague WP:WIKILAWYERING that take time to debunk. I'm happy to work point by point, but much of this remains frustrating waste of time. I'm a firm believer that all editors are biased, myself included, but much of this has become less of dealing with the article, and more WP:FORUM behavior that may be worth ignoring in the future. For any closer, this latest comment by JPxG could well be considered WP:FORUM instead of actually based on real wiki policy and discarded.

I want actual sourcing that proves me wrong, so we can include it in this article with the criticism it needs, like all philosophical arguments. (see my edits where I add criticism here [11][[12] [13] [14]) I am willing to engage in good-faith discussion, instead of blindly thrown out wikiterms that dont apply. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed permission to type three paragraphs of text at an AfD. As for your "points" -- you were given specific objections to specific pieces of content, some different times, by some different people -- why don't you go read through the old threads? I'm not going to just arbitrarily type out eight paragraphs in their entirety over and over again every time you feel like it -- especially when your response to a several-long-paragraph post is to insult it for being a wall of text.

I agree completely that trying to engage on the talk page with you and Joachim (its top two editors by a wide margin) is a frustrating waste of time. This is why I don't think the article is salvageable. jp×g🗯️ 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - from WP:PROFRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." - I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.---Avatar317^(talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I see this as similar to the Cold fusion case, where the authors went DIRECTLY to the press to publicize their results, rather than wait for others in their field to vet their findings.---Avatar317^(talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, that there are already folks already citing Gebru's and Torres' works, which are published in First Monday, which is a peer reviewed internet focused journal.
• Cold fusion gets debunked by reliable sourcing. I don't see reliable sourcing that "debunks" the idea of TESCREAL, at best like philosophical back and forths that discuss and sometimes criticize it.
• Gebru in particular is a highly regarded scholar in the field of computer ethics. Torres is still a postdoc, but working with Gebru on this seems like the normal academic process.
• What would the debunking of a counterargument against a philosophy look like exactly?

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

How do you even establish that? Every mention of TESCREAL must trace its origin, this alone doesnt make it simply 'Gebru & Torres theory/creation'. Many of the sources do use TESCREAL beyond simply stating its origin.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.

Thats not how philosophy works, there is no agreement of validity, people simply use concepts for their analytical value, and the article does present academic literature confirming this use. By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism and many related articles, because there definitely isnt 'MANY' philosophers agreeing that the 'theory is valid'. The thing that matters most in this different is that TESCREAL is recent, but that doesnt annul the 30-something sources confirming its notability. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that is how religious studies work. If someone claims: 1) that a new religion or cult (TESCREAL) exists, meaning it has followers who follow specific tenets; 2) that this new religion has many adherents in a certain industry; and 3) that specific powerful people are believers; and maybe also 4) that it CAUSALLY motivates them to do nefarious/bad-for-humankind things; than for mainstream scholars to accept this theory the person(s) claiming this needs proof to convince mainstream scholars. That has not happened here. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But who is talking about a 'cult' exactly? I dont think that Torres and Gebru, neither the sources used in this article, seriously insists in attributing a cultist behavior, that is not essential at all. Secular religion is concept of substantially different meaning when compared to simple religion.

If you want transhumanism-religion implications, you sure can find an incredible wealth of research. Neither of this is important for this article anyway. The article is not based on this at all. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism"

This approaches WP:POINT but let's have a separate AfD after this one, ok? Jruderman (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not WP:POINT because this is not a rule after all, just a particular interpretation of what it means to have academic notability. It doesnt apply here and wont apply there. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, in agreement with Avatar317 explanation. Historyexpert2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pause discussion? I want to see what Torres says here and on Twitter over the next few days. Jruderman (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  why would twitter matter? wait did torres spread awareness about this afd? is torres a wikipedia editor? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lowkey, rereading these questions, they sound rhetorical and sarcastic. I did not mean that, actually was curious.

  I've been in a situation where the subject of an article has posted about their AfD, I dont think i saw torres or gebru post about AfD, but if they did, we can use ((Not a ballot)) template to inform voters about the policy and to help inform closer that AfD was unnecessarily publicized. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Their Twitter might matter as an appropriate primary source and as a hint of what the future may bring for the term "TESCREAL". It doesn't have to be Twitter, or only Twitter 🙂 — Jruderman (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CLOSEAFD has info about withdrawing an afd tho apparently it only works if all voters are keep? i think merge votes prevents that? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not looking to withdraw the AfD at this time. More like recuse myself. Thanks, though: you're helping me clarify my stance. Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a pretty slippery slope. Also, bringing in Twitter here should be grounds for withdrawal alone here. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i dont think coi means editors dont have access to the processes including afd, as long as they disclose coi should be fine?

  withdrawal apparently only works if everyone voted keep so far.?

  i have no clue about twitter, but im of understanding it cant help determine notability or content of article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was getting at elements of Wikipedia:Canvassing, not at COI. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jruderman: Can you elaborate on what you mean here, and also perhaps about the "new COI" that led you to modify your nomination? It gives the impression that something is happening off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's right, GW. I am trying to negotiate a compromise with Torres that might include their support for deletion of the TESCREAL article.

  Please treat my new stance in this AfD as "procedurally neutral". Please take into account my initial opening arguments only to the extent that the arguments speak to you.

  — Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jruderman: An attempt to "negotiate a compromise" with Torres regarding this article is baffling to me, given that Torres did not write this article (nor do they edit Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware). While some weight is given to the opinion of an article subject in deletion discussions regarding BLPs about them (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), I don't see how their opinion on this article would be relevant at all, or why anyone should be attempting to "negotiate a compromise". What would Torres even be compromising on? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm avoiding sharing details at this time. Sorry. Continue the deletion discussion if you want. Jruderman (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That has to be a joke. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not just a joke, but it falls afoul of the proscription against "secret" canvassing. This entire Afd should be closed as keep at this point due to the enormity of evidence pointing to a bad faith nomination. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  … i mean it’ll close in 4 days anyways.

  Whoever closes this, it’ll be a hornet’s nest to watch whatever the heck happens? TBH tho, it’ll be a hornet’s nest the next time someone tries to do AfD on this again too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let this run 7 days. There are editors arguing Keep but a not insignificant number who think the article should be Merged and the closer has to take their arguments into account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [15], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fracket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This stub-length definition of a supposed neologism fails WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sourcing is primarily student publications (see WP:RSSM). This belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Fashion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and Sororities Rublamb (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I contested the PROD because there are enough sources and potential sources for a much fuller article. WP:NOTNEO indicates that exceptions are for a neologism that receives significant coverage in multiple sources. Major coverage is included in New York Magazine and publications at Dartmouth, Penn State, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Bucknell, and Syracuse. The coverage in college magazines and newspapers represents diverse locations and dates. Frackets are also mentioned in and sourced to a scholarly journal (Qualitative Sociology), two books (one by the editors of Seventeen magazine), Philadelphia Magazine, and CNET. Inclusion of the term's relationship to a company and literary inclusions suggest a potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. Its inclusion in an academic study gives credibility to the term beyond a neologism. Rublamb (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate Rublamb's efforts to add sources and expand the article. Below are some initial thoughts on the sources and external links added:

• The Cut: Qualifies as WP:SIGCOV in an independent, reliable source.
• Dartmouth Jack-O-Lantern 1 and 2 and the Bucknellian, either obvious Onion-style satire or self-disclosed as satire.
• The Crimson (Harvard), 34 St (Penn), Onward State (Penn State), Vanderbilt Hustler, Phillymag churnalism from Daily Pennsylvanian (Penn), Her Campus (Drexel chapter; this article is primarily based on an Urban Dictionary definition), JERK Magazine (Syracuse), The Tab (Penn State), University Girl SU (Syracuse). Some of these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, some are unreliably sourced (i.e. to Urban Dictionary), and the more substantive items read as opinion-style articles rather than factual reporting. Under WP:RSSM, "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available." This is a case by case situation and I don't think there's anything I would consider reliable WP:SIGCOV here.
• DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.: one-paragraph or one-sentence WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS out of a full book.
• A CNET article posted in 2023: all content post-November 2022 considered unreliable per WP:CNET.
• Use in a novel - see discussion of use-mention distinction at WP:NEO.
• Odyssey Online Brandeis and Odyssey Online Penn State: a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and thus unreliable. (According to its website, "Join Odyssey here to create, post and share your content. No approvals, no barriers. It's just you, your content, and your readers.")
• Mears and Mooney, Qualitiative Sociology: A single passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV.

To sum up, I think we have just the article in The Cut as WP:SIGCOV to qualify toward WP:GNG, and we need more. Outside of student media, there's not enough in-depth coverage of this neologism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the sources and potential sources. I have removed Odyssey as a source; good catch. However, disagree with some of your analysis.

• You seem to dismiss college newspapers as a reliable source or as having significant coverage. In fact, college newspapers are reliable, and given the universities involved, represent significant circulation. If there was just one article in one campus newspaper, you would have a point. But, as demonstrated by the various publications, the topic has significant coverage in a geographically diverse group of campus publications. Yes, the majority of the articles are features rather than news articles, but that is to be expected with fashion and culture topics. Note that the satirical publications are listed in external links and are not sources for the article.
• Tab and Her Campus are publications written by college students but are not affiliated with a specific campus. Thus, these to qualify as non-campus sources.
• Mears and Mooney mention the topic three times in their article, covering the origin and social importance of the fracket. The point is not whether this is trivial or significant coverage but that the term is being discussed in a scholarly article about campus life. This recognition of the term fracket by academics shows that it has moved beyond an Urban Dictionary term or neologism. This also demonstrates coverage in non-university publications.
• I agree that the mentions in the two books (DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.) and the novel are not significant coverage. Rather, these demonstrate coverage by mainstream publishing houses, ie. non-university publications, showing that the term has moved beyond a campus neologism, which is one of your main reasons for this AfD.
• While we can't use the Urban Dictonary as a source for Wikipedia because it is user-generated content, there is nothing wrong with using a source that discusses the Urban Dictionary's definition. That is, in fact, the very definition of a secondary source.

Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sourcing is inadequate for an entire mainspace article on this topic. Redirect to coat as a second option, and possibly merge over into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Response: If we go with redirect (which would be more beneficial to users and is also my second choice), another option would be Fraternities and sororities#Glossary as the term is already included there. I guess we need to decide if this fall under fraternity culture or clothing? I think the former, give the term's orgin. Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was surprised to learn of this term, but am convinced it has generated enough usage and secondary sources to pass the notability test. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Małecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Equestrian who does not satisfy sports notability. There are two references. The first one is a database entry, and database entries do not establish sports notability. The second is an obituary, which may count toward general notability but is the only significant source. He competed in the Olympics, but does not have Olympic notability because he did not receive a medal.

The Heymann criterion is to find additional sources within six days.

• Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find better coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Poland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify precisely per Robert McClenon. BD2412 T 00:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any additional support for Draftify outcome?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) No one is going to do anything with this in draftspace – it will go untouched and deleted. Focusing on the source, it is over 600 words on him and mentions he was a multiple time national champion. It is SIGCOV. We do not have access to Polish newspaper sources from the time, but still have a pass of WP:SPORTCRIT. I don't think this should be draftified – why should it not be kept? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the source found and Enos733. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The obituary points to a reliable source. "Poniżej tekst o Marku Małeckim z książki Mistrzowie Polski wydanej w roku 2010 przez Akademię Jeździecką:" in English - "Below is a text about Marek Małecki from the book Champions of Poland published in 2010 by the Equestrian Academy." I think that work is online here: https://pcbj.pl/0496-2/ > https://olimpijski.pl/olimpijczycy/malecki-marek-wladyslaw/. On that page, it has this bibliography with multiple sources: "Bibl.: Głuszek, Leksykon 1999, s. 267; Pawlak, Olimpijczycy, s. 163; Habinowska, Ludzie i konie, s. 227, 305, 403; Jeźdźcy olimpijscy, s. 67-69; Kronika Sportu, s.900; Księga sportu, s. 480; Porada, Igrzyska, s. 884; Baza danych Muzeum Łowiectwa i Jeździectwa w Warszawie; Wywiad środowiskowy" "Głuszek, Leksykon 1999, p. 267; Pawlak, Olympians, p. 163; Habinowska, People and horses, pp. 227, 305, 403; Olympic Riders, pp. 67-69; Chronicle of Sport, p.900; Sports Book, p. 480; Advice, Games, p. 884; Database of the Hunting and Riding Museum in Warsaw; Community interview." Without access to this material, I cannot really go further, but my sense is that sufficient sources are available. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above - and agreeing with BeanieFan11's comments on draftification.Ingratis (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boardmasters Festival line-ups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Article is a huge magnet for WP:FANCRUFT that currently cites only one source. Only verifiable source to back the information is a WP:SPS: the website itself. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and United Kingdom. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is only 1 source and that does not establish notability. Dympies (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Largely unsourced. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although largely unsourced at the moment, it is clear that enough sources do exist to sustain this page (I've already managed to reference the first two years, and it's obvious to me from a quick internet search that there will be sources for other years too). It being potential fancruft does not speak to whether it should be deleted - notability is established by the reliable sources which exist elsewhere. Overall, yes, this page is poorly written, but I think that's a surmountable problem. I'll keep cleaning it up in the meantime, but I do think this one's worth keeping. Gazamp (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This isn't Woodstock by a long shot. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Now that the self-published source has been removed and better sources are being added, I think this discussion should primarily focus on whether the subject is notable (i.e. by assessing the sources). WP:FANCRUFT itself is not a rationale for deletion. Gazamp (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Per the improvements by @Gazamp, there are many WP:RS discussing the line-ups of the notable Boardmasters Festival - and the content may be due it's own page per WP:SPINOFF. ResonantDis_tortion 07:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: now that work has been done on adding improved sources I don't see it would be controversial for this article to stay. Editing84 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after article changes. Please review current article after additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this list definitely can be verified, and deletion is not cleanup. The question is whether this information should exist on the wiki at all, and IMO it should. It's no more crufty than e.g. comprehensive record label discographies, of which there are plenty. Mach61 18:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there are sources like ScienceDirect that use the concept of a matrix field, I do not see how the term itself is notable in the general mathematical community (and even searching for "matrix field" (with quotes) on Google mostly returns results that have nothing to do with the meaning used in this article). So, I agree with the talk page comments. GTrang (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article was originally created in 2016 by User:Skpandey12, citing a 2015 paper by one S. K. Pandey that was later removed for being published in a predatory journal. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the term were only used in mathematics, I'd suggest redirecting it to matrix ring. But a lot of the uses (maybe the majority) are in physics, where matrix field theory is a subject. XOR'easter (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly per WP:TNT. There are potential sources on the matrix representation of fields, such as Wardlaw's "Matrix representation of finite fields" (Math. Mag. 1994), but I think the article would need different content at a different title, so we might as well just delete the one we have regardless. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein. I also concur that these things actually appear in mathematics (for instance commutative subfields of matrix division algebras are somewhat important in the theory of semisimple algebraic groups) but i don't think the terminology "matrix field" is standard. jraimbau (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Matrix theory (physics) where matrix field theory is discussed. There are two kinds of matrix fields--a type of structure in abstract algebra and a class of quantum field theories associated with string theory. The math version has possibilities, but notability is unclear and this article does not do a good job of covering the topic. Matrix fields are a topic in physics, e.g., here is a book on the subject. I suggest a redirect to the physics topic. If the math version is ever rewritten, the redirect could turn into hatnotes or a DAB page. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benji Krol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

declined and rejected at WP:AFC but moved to main space, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Brazil. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The author has confirmed a connection with Benji Krol's manager, where they said: its just that i was emailing with krol's manager and i wanted it to be perfect in this comment on their user talk page. Svampesky (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sammy that is something I was not aware of, I just edited the page and moved because the person does have notability. 30 million followers on TikTok is not a low amount in my point of view. But as I said I was not aware of that. And I also have nothing to do with that author just to be clear. Meio2934 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As you can see here TikTok He does have notability in the public. Charlie D’amelio also came from the same source Meio2934 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of TikTok followers has absolutely no influence on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your assertion that TikTok follower count has no bearing on notability, it’s all in perspective, for you someone could have no notability in your eyes. But in someone’s else’s yes. While follower count alone does not define notability in its entirety, it can significantly contribute to a person’s influence and public recognition. For example, individuals like Charli D’Amelio have used her substantial TikTok followings to build successful careers, attract media attention, and secure partnerships with major brands.

Follower count serves as a metric for reach and impact, both of which are essential elements of notability. Meio2934 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not...please read WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, not in it’s entirely but they are. Someone can have notability without follower and can also have with it. Meio2934 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you are saying whatsoever, but follower do count as a form of notability. Not enough for a Wikipedia page but it is a form of notability. Meio2934 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we are discussing notability in Wikipedia terms here! Theroadislong (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: very weak sourcing and major WP:BLP problems. Restricting attention to the best available sources give us a WP:BLP1E situation at best. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've made an effort to remove the poorly sourced content, including the removal of non-notable names who were accused of crimes, editorializing, original research, and content sourced from user-generated content. The article is a WP:BLP1E as the only reliable sourcing that would establish notability for Krol is about allegations of child sexual misconduct, with one source labelling it sexual assault by saying: accused of sexually assaulting a minor online. As it stands, the article is dangerously close to becoming an WP:ATTACK page. I think this AfD should be withdrawn and the article WP:G10'd. Svampesky (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For the ease of administrators viewing this, I think that a comment ending "the article [should be] G10'd" should being "Speedy delete" instead of "Comment" ;). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, because I've !voted above, the comment might look like votestacking. I've striked out the sentence. Svampesky (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I see, I missed that -- sorry! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and is very poorly sourced. And I removed the allegations section per BLP, poor sourcing. We don't include allegations of that nature without high-quality sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While the Sultanate is likely notable, this award is not. The sourcing does not support any notability. The Sultante of Sulu: Notes From the Past and Present Times report is from an employee of the Sultanate; the El Sultanato de Sulú y la Real y Hachemita Orden de la Perla source is from someone receiving the Grand Cordon of this award; the Memorandum and Succession sources are not about this award, or even mention it; the Notable Members of the Order and Heraldry sources are self-published from the award; and the American Institute of Polish Culture source is a one-mention blurb about someone who received the award. In all, it's puffery/promo masquerading as a notable subject from the org itself, employees, recipients, or just mere mentions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritobrota Dey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Current referencing is all WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A WP:BEFORE finds the same. Coincidentally, the majority is all churnalism from TOI. I would expect other publications to write more about her in-depth if she was notable for the roles. CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"May be considered notable...." Can you show the "reliable" sources to prove notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify On the surface, it seems the TV shows they've been part of are notable-enough, and they've had recurring/starring roles in them, which IMO lets it escape outright deletion - that said, the article in its current state isn't ready for mainspace, per NEWSORGINDIA concerns. Draftify it and let editors find better sourcing. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: the actor may well be notable but in it's current state the article is not well sourced. With adequete sourcing it might be developed to read less like a directory as well. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, need indepth coverage. Youknow? (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify. Page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO with poor sources. There is no coverage on her life and career and one of her tv show Ashtami ended just 2 months after release due to low ratings. I am also voting to draftify is the page can be significantly improved with reliable secondary sources on subject's life and career expansion. Currently it fails consideration of a standalone notable page. RangersRus (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once at most. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ghana. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ivo Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Aside from dying in World War I, this player does not seem to rise to WP:NCRICKET. I already removed some information about his brother and his mother, as they lacked sources. The article is looking pretty bare at this point. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete: Found a book describing him as a "first class cricketeer" [19] but it's barely a few paragraphs. This is also a brief mention [20]. Just don't have enough on this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mentioned in plenty of book sources, in quite some detail. AA (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where, we don't have any listed? Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Final Wicket: Test and First Class Cricketers Killed in the Great War (which I have) goes into great detail on him. Wisden has an obituary on him in its 1918 edition, which also goes into a good degree of detail. I'd imagine there's coverage in newspapers from the time too, The Times certainly mentions him following his death. AA (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is all fine and I appreciate the additional resources added, but, does that still make him a "notable" player in the eyes of WP:NCRICKET? I'm hardly knowledgeable of cricket, does

  "he represented Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and also Middlesex in two first-class matches in 1912."

  counts as "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"? Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  NCRICKET goes on to say "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." Playing for Middlesex in first-class cricket counts as "the highest domestic level", so it depends on whether he has "sufficient coverage". Going by what AA has written, he probably does. JH (talk page) 08:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there are a number of Neighborhoods in Houston articles, this particular one looks to be more of a promo page for an everyday housing development, rather than an actual geo/socio region. In fact the header alone says it is within "the greater Inwood Area". I don't think this particular collection of townhomes is notable in any way. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note also:

  • previous speedy deletion in 2008, which was reverted by the page creator
  • previous speedy deletion of "Forrest lake townhomes" for "blatant advertising"
  • other questionable contributions from this particular editor

  Hornpipe2 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: "Forrest Lake" seems to be a common name for places all over the world and North America... Nothing found about this particular version that makes it oustanding... 50yr old property development that doesn't seem any much different than any other suburb, pretty much anywhere in the US or Canada... Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A housing subdivision for which independent RS coverage is limited to a local interest profile in the Houston Chronicle. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since the only sourcing for this development is a local interest profile, then it is only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Hundred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are only two articles worth of media coverage on this record as of writing this and neither of them are even long enough to prove its notability. An alternative to deletion in this case would be to draftify this article and wait for more lengthy and meaningful coverage about this album. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and South Korea. lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 17:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per nom, there is not enough coverage to meet WP:NALBUMS criterion 1 or to indicate that the subject meets the other criteria. Given that it was a recent surprise release and that the artist's other work has been covered by Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, Far Out Magazine, The Fader, and Paste, I think it can be reasonably assumed that significant coverage will start appearing soon that can be used to build a draft until the notability criteria to move to the mainspace is met. Second best option would be merging the article's content to Parannoul and creating a redirect to there. LeMeilleurMiel (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nomination and redirect to artist's page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify looks the way to go. I believe this will be notable. PuppyMonkey (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was released only few days ago on streaming services and so there haven’t been many international reviews yet, but there has been a few like https://www.brooklynvegan.com/mavi-oso-oso-parannoul-fucked-up-ravyn-lenae-larry-june-reviews/. There’s more media coverage in Korean but they might fit in the category of routine music coverage. It’s Rate Your Music’s #1 album of 2024 thanks to Parannoul’s dishard fans, PuppyMonkey thinks this will be notable, there’s no point in removing a page that will be notable in a few weeks. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Like LeMeilleurMiel said, this was a surprise album, and it was released on a Wednesday which is unusual because full length albums are usually released on Friday. I would expect more coverage to be published in the future, especially considering Parannoul's previous albums have received coverage from fairly significant music magazines/news sites.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Tell (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacking significant coverage per WP:NFF, draftify until the film receives WP:SIGCOV BOVINEBOY2008 16:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep located two new sources to corroborate filming and post-production on the film, latter source also confirming multiple release deals sealed. Succinct to continue existing in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Rusted AutoParts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamic Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources are cited and I was unable to find any with a Google search. I was also unable, with a Google search, to find an entry in a reliable dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOR and WP:GNG. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented in the last AfD - which was only a few months ago. Looking myself this does seem to be a very common and well known idea even outside of actual believer circles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to Planets in astrology or another befitting article, per nom. A cursory search on Google Scholar did not bring up any reasonably reliable sources on the topic. The unimpressive Google Scholar and Google search results leads me to believe that this is not a significant enough topic to be a standalone article. ArkHyena (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All sources appear to be first-party - this looks like it could be self-promotional and non-notable to me. It seems to be German-origin software, and I tried looking at the Deutsch Wiki version of the article to see if it was any better, but it seems to be in roughly the same state. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the deletion. Contao is an OpenSource CMS like WordPress, Joomla or Typo3.

What would it take to keep the article online?

Here, for example, is an article about Contao:

https://phpconference.com/blog/the-wonderful-world-of-contao/

or here are some statistics from buildwith

https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/Contao 2001:A61:5018:4B01:D4E2:6152:5CC6:5C09 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Hornpipe2 [21] by Pearson, source #7, and the PHPConference source linked above appear to be secondary. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaseen Abdalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria listed for track & field and long-distance running. (1) did not finish top 8 of the European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons. (2) did not finish in the top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition. (3) Have not won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships or Youth World Championships. The list continues. Also, 2 out of the 4 sources used are sport-aggregate websites that collect statistics about any and every athlete. In the 3rd ref, he was mentioned in passing. He might be good at the Youth level, but he did not win any international events. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Keep. The Sudanese flagbearer at the 2024 Olympics. Significant coverage here and here in accordance with WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Two sources above are fine for notability. Rest are also helpful Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Tennessee, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the subject meets WP:NCOLLATH for the major NCAA DI school records he has set. Even if he didn't meet that criteria, the WP:GNG overriding the specific guidelines is met per above. Also, don't you think that if we wait just one more day, we will have some more articles / coverage considering he is running the Olympic marathon tomorrow? --Habst (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As others have mentioned, this page meets GNG, warranting inclusion, even if it did not meet any SNG (which it does). WP:SPORTBASIC: Meets the requirement of being the subject of multiple non-trivial publications (see the two currently referenced in the wiki page, with more to follow following the marathon). Furthermore, he has garnered African and American media attention as he is DEBUTING at the Olympic Marathon. Additionally, I am not sure what source references him in passing, but sports aggregate websites are not able to establish notability alone, however with the already existing sources where Abdalla is the subject, they are able to add context. --Wibbit23 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Tons of coverage and existing sources, really strange nomination. Also, NCAA is not "youth" level, and he competed in the Olympics... Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of windmills in Friesland (T–V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unclear why we would need such a detailed list of a type of building, most of which are not individually notable and no longer existing. Replicating other, highly specialised databases here is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. There are or were more than 20,000 windmills in the Netherlands, and many more in other countries. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Lists, and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominated for deletion are:
• List of windmills in Friesland (A–C)
• List of windmills in Friesland (D)
• List of windmills in Friesland (E–G)
• List of windmills in Friesland (H–I)
• List of windmills in Friesland (J–K)
• List of windmills in Friesland (L–M)
• List of windmills in Friesland (N–P)
• List of windmills in Friesland (R–S)

• Keep All - per WP:NLIST - the individual windmills do not need to be notable. As the editor doing the majority of work on the various lists of windmills, I've been using my discretion to include all windmills which can be verified to have existed. That the Friesland list has had to be split into several sub-lists is determined by the amount of templates that can be included before the limit size is exceeded. There are over 100 lists of windmills, many of which include all mills. Are we to delete those too? Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The individual entries don't need to be notable if the group is notable, and even then "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A list which needs to be split in 9 separate pages is a large list, and a discussion whether this isn't overkill (assuming the group is notable) is perfectly acceptable, independent of whether we have other lists of windmills or not (I note that many of these other lists seem to be limited to still existing windmills, not including the often shortlived ones from the past). Fram (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The majority of the UK windmills lists cover all known windmills. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And articles like List of windmills in North Brabant cover only the existing ones, no idea what your point is or how this is relevant for this AfD discussion. Fram (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The intention is for all Netherlands windmills lists to cover all mills. Also Belgium as their mills are also well documented. It is easier to verify mills standing than those not standing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cover those lost. We've both said our piece, now let's let other editors have their say. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Condense down to a single list of the entries that have their own articles, as a reasonable navigation aid (as much as I think that gets overused, it's actually pretty appropriate here). Otherwise, this is just a massive database dump. It may or may not even be reasonable to combine all the separate province lists into a single list for the whole country, but I'll remain ambivalent on that one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madhur Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madhur_Sharma. Still doesn't fit WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG BoraVoro (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why did you choose AfD instead of WP:G4. GrabUp - Talk 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:N. Youknow? (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. It could have been speedy deleted through WP:G4. GrabUp - Talk 05:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page fails WP:GNG with 9 unreliable sources on the page and the other 7 are about song entries and interview for song WP:PROMO. Fails significant coverage and notability to warrant a standalone article on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Meise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are about the company; fails to meet WPANYBIO; COI (created by the employee - see the name of the author). BoraVoro (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digiboxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of reliable sources, notability and media coverage. BoraVoro (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article with some sources talk about launches and COO appointment and others are for paid promotions and advertisement. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 OFC U-16 Men's Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN as collection of non-notable children. It lacks independent sources and it doesn't help that is so incomplete either. Moreover, there exists ample precedent to delete youth squads across continents and sports at AFD/2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship squads, AFD/2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads, AFD/2016 South American U-17 Women's Championship squads, AFD/2017 AFF U-18 Youth Championship squads, AFD/2015 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship squads, AFD/2009 FIBA Africa Under-16 Championship for Women squads, AFD/2011 African U-17 Championship squads, AFD/2013 SAFF U-16 Championship squads. Geschichte (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – A festival of red links. Only a select few players will reach WP:GNG. Sources measuring the squads must be included in the main article, and the precedents presented by the Geschichte support the deletion. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per other AFDs listed in nom. Just a ton of redlinks which isn't useful or pass WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a student housing cooperative, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage in third-party reliable sources from a geographic range beyond the purely local -- but five of the nine footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability (its self-published content about itself from either its own website or its pre-web newsletter, and a directory entry on the website of an umbrella organization that it's a member of) and a sixth comes from the university student newspaper of the university whose students this co-op serves, which still isn't independent of the topic and thus doesn't count toward GNG at all.
And while the three remaining footnotes are proper media coverage, they still aren't building a particular strong case for inclusion: they're all just going "Newspaper, Date" without providing the title of any specific content in that newspaper on that date, and two of them are from the local daily newspaper and thus aren't counting for anything toward the ORGDEPTH test.
So there's only one footnote here ("National" Post 1967, which is really the Financial Post since the National Post didn't exist under that name until the 1990s) that's starting to build a proper case for notability, but just one hit of extralocal coverage isn't enough to get this over ORGDEPTH all by itself.
This just doesn't state anything about the co-op that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of coverage in Canadian media.[22], [23], [24]. Last one's probably the best. That and the Financial Post article should be enough for notability; it was one of the first such residences in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here's the Financial Post article [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - I'm struggling to see how after reading the 1967 Financial Post article, that User:Bearcat nominated this. That's very in-depth coverage 55-years ago, and easy enough to find more recent articles, as has been done above. Perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is absolutely clear and unequivocal that passage of it requires a lot more than just one article. So there's no conflict that should be difficult to understand: Bearcat nominated this because one acceptable source is not enough all by itself. The only thing one source precludes is speedy deletion; one source is not even close to enough to immunize an article against an AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me User:Bearcat that you couldn't find a single second article in your BEFORE. The AFD process is clear and unequivocal that you don't AFD articles just because they are poorly referenced, if the referencing can be easily improved. As the referencing has now been improved as well, I'm sure even you can agree that this nomination should be immediately withdrawn. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are now more news articles added to the article. These include the Montreal Gazette, CTV News, and CBC News. With the passage of time, more can be added to the article. Thanks also for not deleting this article until I can get my hands on a copy of Leslie Cole's 2008 academic volume, Under Construction: a history of co-operative housing in Canada. Thank you. (Dw861) — Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeisel number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find more sources about the Zeisel number. Most of the engine searches as in Google Books or Google Scholar shows the Zeisel number is related to chemistry instead of mathematics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I think OEIS is reliable, I am unwilling to admit it as evidence for notability for sequences (too indiscriminate), and MathWorld is worse (not as reliable and too packed with neologisms). Everything else is unreliable web pages and forum postings. We have no actual publications on this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The OEIS is reliable but indiscriminate, so merely appearing there isn't enough to justify an article here. MathWorld has a history of not being good enough (I gathered some examples here). A literature search doesn't find anything we can use. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yam Kaspers Anshel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A first runner-up Miss Israel who did not place in the Miss Universe pageant doesn't merit an article. All I'm seeing is "What 7 Miss Universe contestants look like without makeup on" in Business Insider India. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Israel. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't pass the GNG. gidonb (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Filmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ian_Parovel#Filmography: not opposed to keep (broadcast on major French networks during years, some sources but no time to improve it) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Crawlies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cosgrove_Hall_Films#1980s: for now; but some sources seem to show this could deserve a standalone page (like https://c3z3.com/www.animatormag.com/issue-17/issue-17-page-23/ which is based on an interview but offers comments on the production), so not opposed to Keep -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) (!vote changed to plain Keep after checking the sources presented by Cunard that help show this may pass the requirements for notability and can be reasonably expanded. Thanks a lot, Cunard, as always.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Jefferson, David (Autumn 1986). "Francis Vose director of Creepy Crawlies at Cosgrove Hall". Animator. No. 17. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11.

     The article notes: "Creepy Crawlies is a new series about seven insects that live at the bottom of the garden. They find things we would regard as rubbish, but they see it differently. ... The animation team is lead by director, Francis Vose, Rachel and Loyd are animators and Mark and Bryan are the cameramen. Vose is given the script and he breaks down each scene into shots. ... The Creepy Crawlies set is unusual in that it is circular in design and can be viewed from all sides. The whole thing is on wheels and can be rotated. This gives depth within a shot because all the available studio space can be given over to the one large set. It also saves space by being able to revolve any side towards the camera."

  2. MacDonald, Keith (1987-01-03). "After Samantha for breakfast". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "The Christmas card that proved the biggest talking point this year was covered in creepy crawlies, the creations of the Chorlton cum Hardy fun factory of Cosgrove Hall productions where ITV's latest pre-school series has been born. The Creepy Crawlies, which starts on Wednesday, are a colourful lot — in fact the card carried a suggestion that the creepy crawlies might be detached and framed. Paul Nicholas supplies all seven voices for Mr Ancient, an elderly caterpillar; Ariadne, a fluttery spider; Mr Harrison, a rather pompous snail; Lambeth, a body-building beetle; Anoraka, a woodlouse; a worm called Suppose the Nose; and a very pretty Ladybird."

  3. Powell, Lynne (1987-01-07). "Lynne Powell's TV Star Choice". Birmingham Metronews. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Just Good friends' Penny would think this highly appropriate Paul Nicholas, alias Vince in the hit BBC series, turns up as one of The Creepy Crawlies on children's TV today. Silken-voiced Paul is the narrator and every single voice in the series, including Lambeth the body-building beetle, Anorak the wood louse and pompous snail Mr Harrison. The new 13-part series, on Central at 4 p.m. is repeated tomorrow."

  4. Inglis, Ruth (1987-03-30). "How to animate a cartoonist". The Guardian. ProQuest 186765378. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Hall and Cosgrove had an idea as Walt Disney realised before them that animators did their best work as a team. Unlike most other artists who tend to bloom in private, car toonists need to test things out together. Two young animators at Cosgrove Hall for example, had cogitated for months on how to get Worm in and out of his hole in gradual stages in The Creepy Crawlies, a series now showing on Thames for the under-fives; they ended up by making 31 different lengths of worm sculptures for this saga of suburban fauna."

  5. "Thames variety". Screen International. No. 586. 1987-02-07. p. 32. ProQuest 963226852.

     The article notes: "Creepy Crawlies, 13 x 10 min. From Thames' subsidiary Cosgrove Hall Productions, comes a new original pre-school series which introduces an entirely new set of Cosgrove Hall characters living at the bottom of a suburban garden. Paul Nicholas provides the voice of narrator."

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

  Cunard (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venkataramane Gowda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. None of the positions occupied is NPOL-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Political candidate, not showing much notability beyond that. This is typical [26] coverage of any candidate in an election, to inform the electors, but nothing notable about standing for office. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as businessman and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Rubin (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON for this actor. One credit in a major film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal and Merciful Society of the Bearer of Medals and Awards of Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks notability, all the sources are expired domains, Wix websites and Wordpress blogs. Seems to be yet another title mill organization. They seem to have a Facebook group which lists their PO BOX address as being in Washington State US, further increasing my skepticism of this being a legitimate org. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Royalty and nobility, and Belgium. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks like an honours mill, but even worse is the sourcing. WP is not a place for honours mill promotion. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Concept (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing relies entirely on interviews with people connected with the company, announcements, or mentions in passing due to their involvement in organising events, those sources do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- just wanted to contribute as the writer of the article. I wrote it after reading about the company's focus on work in the black diaspora, which aligned with a wiki project I've been involved with on and off. I did look closely at the sources for this article, because I know the ones I was using to establish notability (references 1-3) have interview content within them, but in looking at each article overall it seemed that there was significant content outside of the interview quotations, and that that content contained independent analysis- including looking at the wider industry context they are operating in, with statistics etc included in that. I also looked at the publications and writers to make sure they were both independent from the subject and engage in fact checking as part of their editorial process. I know 100% interview content does not establish notability, but I feel it is fairly uncommon for independent articles on companies or the people behind them not to structure their articles around a fair amount of interview content. The fact the company were also included in a way that was more than a passing mention in other major stories on Afrobeats, like the Rolling Stone one, suggested to me notability within the Afrobeats industry. Anyway, I just wanted to engage and outline why I used the sources I did. Thanks Thebookstamper (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point to specific paragraphs in the sources that contain in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company* that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry if this is a bit messy, I'm doing it on the fly, so haven't gone through all the sources. Appreciate it might not be the most forensic exercise because of that... Thanks for your time.

  In the Pulse article:

  (Citing these as examples of content about the company, not directly generated by something the company has said, or paraphrasing. They may reference something said by the company, but as I see it are writing their own analysis around that. Or the company is then responding to a point made by the publication.)

  Section: ‘The show which became a lesson’

  Coupled with the rise of social media, that show contributes to how Ugeh now perceives social media as a marketing tool. These days, his team studies social media based on demographics. Some artists are stronger on Facebook than Twitter or TikTok while others are bigger on Instagram. Some artists are also big on the four. An artist’s audience determines social media marketing and engagement is a key metric for measurement. While Ugeh admits that social media has aided event companies, he admits that social media phenomena should be taken with a pinch of salt.

  Section: ‘What’s the process of organising a show at Duke Concept’

  Sometimes, unplanned artists also approach the team through their booking agents The team then uses a data-driven approach to see where the artists can sell and whether Duke Concept would be willing to tour those places. These days, the events happen in mid-range markets to big markets. It’s unlikely that Duke Concept would take an Afrobeat artist to a small and predominantly white market like Milwaukee, Wisconsin at this time [...]

  It makes sense. The attitude of a city like Boston to touring and nightlife would be much different to that of smaller markets. The pulse of young attendees also matters as much as their priorities. It's more likely that a 21-year-old, who was bred in New York would be willing to spend $200 on a ticket than his equivalent in a smaller market. Ugeh offers it from a perspective of comparative analysis, not with factual totality. As much as urban culture influences pop culture, the rising state of Afrobeats suggests that the racial spread of America must be taken into consideration while planning an event for an Afrobeats artist.

  Section: 'Pricing'

  (In response to Ugeh referencing fair pricing set by Duke Concept):

  But pricing also depends on the format of the venue. As much as Duke Concept might charge $250 for front row seats in a seated theatre, the people at the back might pay as low as $30. While ticketing is already booming, secondary ticketing has grown a life of its own. Market Watch reports that, “The global Secondary Tickets market size is projected to reach USD 2755.5 million by 2027, from USD 1502 million in 2020, at a CAGR of 9.1% between 2021-2027.” Ugeh believes that there is nothing anybody can do about it. He believes that the best way to fight it is to encourage people to purchase their tickets early enough, discourage hoarding of tickets and to always make tickets available at the venue.

  WMV article:

  (Including this para as an example of referencing another source- an interview given to a different publication, not their own):

  The Nigerian moved to New York City with his family a decade ago and shortly after; launched the company. In the early days tried to do an Afro-Caribbean showcase with headliners Timaya and Mavado in 2014, he told Pulse it was a “flop”. He references that show as growing pains but one lesson he learned was that; Caribbean events are marketed differently from African events- mainly Afro-music require digital promotions while at the time reggae- dancehall events required linear advertising, along with street “posters”and guerrilla marketing.

  Rolling Stone:

  Now, there’s plenty more evidence that Afrobeats is connecting in the U.S. Last October, Burna Boy became the first African solo artist to headline the Hollywood Bowl; this year, he’s slated to play Madison Square Garden, the first headlining performance for a Nigerian musician at the storied New York venue. Duke Concept, the production company behind the shows, was founded by Osita Ugeh in 2013, two years after he moved to the United States from Nigeria. The business initially had to be scrappy, producing concerts at small nightclubs and DIY warehouses — some of the only venues available to Afropop artists at the time.

  Today, things look much different. In 2018, Duke Concept secured a partnership with Live Nation, and last year spearheaded the U.S. tours of African acts such as Wizkid, Omah Lay, Olamide, Adekunle Gold, and Diamond Platnumz.

  Billboard:

  Osita “Duke” Ugeh, who, as CEO of promoter Duke Concept, has been booking U.S. tours for African acts like Burna for the last decade. (He secured Burna’s first sold-out U.S. show in April 2019 at Harlem’s Apollo Theater — where he again made history as the first Afrobeats artist to sell out the venue.) But as Ugeh knows well, Burna’s arrival at the Garden was far from preordained. Since founding Duke Concept in 2013, he has struggled to get artists like him into big rooms. Now, as Afrobeats continues to expand its reach, Ugeh says he and his 15-person team are starting to see that reflected in the kind of venues the genre’s artists can play: He has gone from booking two to three U.S. tours for Afrobeats artists a year to booking two to three a month, with Davido, Tiwa Savage, Rema and more scheduled for later this year.

  When his “One Night in Space” show at the Garden was announced in December, Duke Concept launched a joint venture with Live Nation, expanding upon a relationship that began in 2018, when Burna himself approached the company about a tour deal. He insisted on bringing Ugeh along; subsequently, UTA’s Christian Bernhardt, Burna’s touring agent, introduced Ugeh to Live Nation’s director of touring, Andy Messersmith. Thebookstamper (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and edit. Thanks to Thebookstamper for the comprehensive response but I don't agree that the extracted paragraphs provide sufficient in-depth information about the company. The Pulse article extracts are either commenting on or repeating comments made by the company or providing stats about the secondary ticketing market. The WMV article talks about the founder (not the company) and does not have any in-depth information about the company. The Rolling Stone article has a (generic) sentence describing the company and also repeats an announcement about securing a partnership - neither sufficiently detailed. The Billboard article is again about the founder or the partnership, not the company and does not provide any "Independent Content" by way of analysis/commentary/etc, just repeats information already provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @HighKing, please change this !vote into a comment, it is double dipping with your nome statement. Mach61 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Have to agree with the nom that none of the sources that cover this subject in detail are sufficiently independent; w/r/t Thebookstamper’s argument that the articles which have interview content have non-interview content as well, I would note that just because a statement isn't in quotation marks doesn't mean it was a journalist's own independent writing; it may be a paraphrase of what the subject said during the interview, or information provided by the subject in a press kit or such. Mach61 09:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passed the guideline WP:GNG very clearly, as i have understood it. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]