Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 19

< August 18 August 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement on whether the sources meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 06:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schön Properties

AfDs for this article:
Schön Properties (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, fails WP:NCORP. Article references amount to trivial coverage only and WP:BEFORE does not reveal any WP:SIGCOV. Article created by a WP:SOCK, heavily edited by socks, previous AfD was a sock party. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. PS a "sock party" sounds like fun! MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Singapore and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,not notable, Alex-h (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a far from favourable article about a company and its problems. The best-founded keep opinion in the 2018 AfD was that by feminist: not so much the 2017 interview with the COO or the coverage of their sponsorship of a cricket team, as the seizure of assets and funds in 2018 (see also August 2021 coverage here). While a firm running into problems is not inherently notable, it would be good to see this addressed in respect of the present re-nomination? AllyD (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The acquisition of the Multan Sultans franchise (and subsequent default) is trivial coverage from the perspective of establishing notability for the company. The investor displeasure and asset seizures fails WP:ILLCON. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning keep. Just a few points, this is in fact the third AfD for this article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schon_Properties was also for this article prior to the article being moved. In my search I found the following [1] [2] [3] [4] I think these are more than just trivial coverage Neither User:The Donkey King nor User:Feminist were socks. One of the accounts was a sock, but no sock-party in the previous afd. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist (talk · contribs) was the only non-sock. By the way, are you the creator of this article? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the coverage appears reliable and independent, and suggests a fairly large real estate company. Their development troubles continue to get coverage, as recently as March [[5]]. They are part of a larger Schon Group [[6]], headed up by a billionaire owner who also seems notable [[7]], so perhaps this could be fleshed out and a few redirects added to bolster this. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a business operating in the UAE and Pakistan. While there is a relative paucity of sources in English, neither UAE nor Pakistan are English-speaking and there is not a doubt in my mind that there are sources in Arabic in those countries. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many news articles to show that the company meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Gnintegma

Odette Gnintegma (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found these sources: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18] as well as many many other sources from foot.tg, africatopsports.com, 228foot.tg, togogoal.tg, sosports.tg, togofoot.tg, actusalade.com, lesportif228.com, , togotribune.com, YouTube, icilome.com, etc. She was nominated for 2022 Best African Women's Player, one of the articles above even dubbed her "undoubtedly the best Togolese player currently", and is clearly significant figure in Togolese women's and international football. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per sources found above. The Google translate tool is useful for subjects with a non-english speaking media profile. Several articles demonstrate significant coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sportsfan 1234 would you consider an early close here? Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferial Daoui

Ferial Daoui (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Current sources in the article are primary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aminata Diadhiou

Aminata Diadhiou (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kirk (presenter)

Roger Kirk (presenter) (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 radio presenter which does not establish notability. Poorly written. The only sources cited are a profile on a defunct media website and a forum thread. Flip Format (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are other sources available of his on-air work, including audio of him launching Magic 828. However Wikipedia says the source is blacklisted. I shall try to find alternative sources to further demonstrate his notability and would ask for time to do this. Rillington (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia isn't a directory of everyone who's ever appeared on UK local radio. This person isn't notable just because he was the first voice on a station - if anything, that merits the passing mention it gets under Greatest Hits Radio West Yorkshire and no more. If good quality, reliable sources can be found then I'm happy to withdraw these local radio DJ nominations - but having appeared on a local radio station isn't in itself notable. He appears to be yet another jobbing local DJ who has bounced from station to station over a career - this is material that would suit a radio fan site but isn't currently encyclopedia material. Flip Format (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reference now added and I think there are others that can be added to allay any concerns about a lack of references. And just because someone has worked at a number of different stations it does not mean that they are not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now added an additional reference to further demonstrate his notability. Rillington (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You said delete per nom. One argument for deletion was a lack of independent sources. I have now added even more independent sources. I've also removed some subjective content to further improve the article. Rillington (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my vote, consider it the exact same rationale as the editor exactly below me. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see "independent sources" here - there are two recordings of his show, one entry in MediaUK which appears to be a listing of everyone in the broadcast business, and a list of his BBC shows. The first two are not about him, the BBC one is a mere list of shows, and the MediaUK is a minimal bio. I don't find other sources but if there are some in UK media publications then those should be added and we should be pinged here. Lamona (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources added to the article by Rillington. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My delete !vote was after the "sources added". None of them support GNG, and my analysis of them stands. Lamona (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I even saw it before casting my views. I believe it meets BIO with sources added to the article by Rillington. You can never ever change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear majority for deletion, and the argument is reasonably well grounded in the guidelines. The highest elected position Rotzler has attained is deputy mayor of New Paltz, New York, which has a population of around 7000. It is hard to argue that this is a "major local figure" per the WP:NPOL guideline.

Arguments have however been presented that Rotzler is notable anyway due to media coverage under the WP:GNG. Some of this is behind a paywall, but my review of the material that is there indicates that while these arguments are in good faith, they are not thoroughly convincing. The articles cited in the article are local news stories, some which merely cover Rotzler's participation in a political debate. In this discussion sources were presented showing that she was an early pioneer in officiating same-sex marriages well before this had become widely accepted. But also this is at a very localized scale, and even there the coverage of her is minor.

As such, the consensus here is that the subject meets neither the specialized WP:NPOL nor the general WP:GNG criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Rotzler

Rebecca Rotzler (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 and WP:GNG. Being a deputy mayor of a small town/village does not warrant presumed notability under NPOL. Neither does being a national party co-chair. All of the article's sources (as of this posting) are either WP:PRIMARY or containing only trivial coverage of the subject. After exploring multiple search engines, per WP:BEFORE, I could not locate any WP:RS-compliant sourcing that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems notable, I think WP:GNG is satisfied due to the following:
  1. "Along with Mayor Jason West and his appointed deputy, trustee Rebecca Rotzler, Walsh gained international notoriety this year for promoting same-sex weddings in New Paltz." Wasserman, G. J. (2004, Jul 27). New paltz trustee leaves greens. The Poughkeepsie Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-paltz-trustee-leaves-greens/docview/436614502/se-2
  2. She is the subject of this article: Wasserman, G. J. (2004, Jun 16). Deputy mayor to OK same-sex nuptials. The Poughkeepsie Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/deputy-mayor-ok-same-sex-nuptials/docview/436616100/se-2
She's mentioned in a bunch of other things, not exactly significant coverage, but more than passing mentions:
  1. Wasserman, G. J. (2004, Jan 14). New paltz board backs off pay hike. The Poughkeepsie Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-paltz-board-backs-off-pay-hike/docview/436597808/se-2
  2. Wasserman, G. (2003, Jun 03). New board sweeps out attorney. The Poughkeepsie Journal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-board-sweeps-out-attorney/docview/436573280/se-2
I note every article about is by the same author in the local same paper, the Poughkeepsie Journal, but my assessment is that it is a reliable source. CT55555 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, a deputy mayor is not necessarily notable, but given the Poughkeepsie Journal, which is a newspaper founded in 1785 and now owned by Gannett, and a few other mentions in mostly local papers, with headlines like "deputy mayor presides over gay weddings." The mentions are minor but I think her same-sex marriage thing got her some coverage that wasn't just passing. Andre🚐 18:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:BASIC and the national coverage she has received, e.g. Green tide sweeps into New Paltz, N.Y. (CS Monitor, 2003, more than a passing mention due to context and some biographical information), Mayor With A Mission (NYT Magazine, Mar. 28, 2004, apparent coverage in the context of a focus on West, but subscription blocked), Christian Science teacher banned after lesbian marriage (AP/Boston.com, June 25, 2004, more than a passing mention due to context). There is also local coverage, with contributions from the AP: Judge bars New Paltz officials from presiding at gay weddings (Daily Freeman, June 25, 2004, more than passing mention due to context). There appears to be non-routine political coverage to help support notability from multiple sources over time, including national coverage, which could be used to further develop the article. Per WP:GNG fn4, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source, but broader coverage is available. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The NYT magazine article only has a couple of passing mentions of Rotzler; it shouldn't count towards notability. Hatman31 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - based on my research, it looks like a paragraph could be added to this article about her role related to gay marriage (and the litigation) in the era before Obergefell v. Hodges, and the NYT article may help provide context for article development. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am able to view the NYT article today, and I agree that there is not much, (e.g. "Despite encouragement from local Greens, West and Rebecca Rotzler, who works at the county Board of Education, along with Julia Walsh, a New Paltz student activist, were all still reluctant to run for the three board seats. But then President Bush went to war in Iraq.") but there seems to be more than a passing mention, and it seems to fit with other national reporting on her political career development that could help further develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What we have is an interesting individual, with a smattering of independent coverage, but no significant coverage about her life or her policies while in office. Fails WP:NPOL. The coverage in all of the sourcing (about the subject) is similar - passing mentions or maybe a line about her work and connection with the mayor, Jason West, who was the focus of most of the coverage. Even the article "Deputy mayor to OK same-sex nuptials" only contains one line about the subject "Deputy Mayor Rebecca Rotzler is scheduled to certify same-sex marriages Saturday." There is no obvious redirect target. --Enos733 (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small town (population 7,324) municipal employee fails WP:NPOL. "Deputy mayor" is far from an inherently notable position, especially for a town with a population this small. Local coverage just doesn't cut it. Novemberjazz 23:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't think any of the sources presented have significant coverage on Rotzler; just a sentence or two mentioning her at most. Hatman31 (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails per WP:NPOL. Notable sourcing by itself does not count as significant coverage and is not sufficient to justify existence of article given the nature of the passing mentions in those sources. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep argument above is that someone who has regularly gotten one of her friends to write an article about her to fill out copy in a local paper is notable. I rather find that all significant coverage being from a single local paper (and all written by the same person) establishes that she does not fulfill the GNG. Rockphed (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jason West, to whom she was the deputy. The article and West mentions the same-sex marriage officiations, and can easily accommodate the words "along with his deputy mayor Rebecca Rotzler". BD2412 T 05:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - holder of public office, notable as chair of the Green Party (United States), a federal level political party.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails per WP:NPOL. Bruxton (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meets WP:POL per "was a New York State delegate to the Green National Committee" which is representing the whole state of New York for a party at the federal level. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to cite POL the policy page? If you meant NPOL I am not finding allowances in the guideline for delegates and party chairs. Bruxton (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I meant NPOL indeed. I thought about it as such: she is a delegate to a body representing the green party at a national level. Therefore she is an official representative for a group pf people, (green party constituents in New York) and represents them within the grouping that is at a nation wide level. She represents New York state-wide, just not everyone in New York but just Green party voters in New York. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruxton is correct in saying that they "(are) not finding allowances in the (NPOL) guideline for delegates and party chairs". As I referenced in the nomination statement with the link to the discussion that established consensus on this matter, NPOL does not confer presumed notability on national/state party chairs, and there is ample precedent for the articles of national state/party chairs (who did not meet WP:GNG) being deleted. Sal2100 (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Because I was a candidate for the exact same office in the past, I am not going to !vote, but I feel the starter of an article needs a lot of work to improve the citations. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this person fails WP:NPOL and is not otherwise generally notable. The town is just too small and the coverage is too minor. PopoDameron (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regrettably does not meet the NPOL guideline. Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Zeschkowski

Elie Zeschkowski (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 vanity spam sourced entirely to press releases, sponsored posts and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons described well in the nomination... translation: "as per nom" :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. He seems very proud of his wartime travel business for Russian oligarchs, but all I could find on him in RS was a brief self-promotional quote by him in a Le Figaro piece on this new niche market [19]. I felt physically ill reading this article. Storchy (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The crazier thing is that I can't find any sources about him prior to like July 2021...and not just reliable sources, unreliable, social media and everything in between, which seems odd given that his self-proclaimed notable company (that he also claims won the Golden Palm Award, which let's just have a moment and laugh at that) was started in 1995. I'm convinced this is at least partially a hoax, in that maybe someone with his name exists but I have serious doubts. For example, his company's website was only registered in 2020, 25 years after it's supposed creation, which sure, 1995 wasn't exactly a happening time for the internet but I have a hard time believing it would take 25 years to register, I have an even harder time believing he formed in 1995 since he appears to be at most in his 30s. Add to that, his supposed profession and those he caters to and has worked with, there's no social media presence whatsoever - aside from a Facebook group, not even business page, formed in June 2020. PRAXIDICAE🌈 09:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a Palme d'Or for travel agents, that is bleakly amusing. According to his company's website, though, it's actually an unrelated award called "Golden Palm Leaders of Africa", which I can only find mentioned here. No idea what this level of helicopter-drop SEO and paid coverage costs these days, but yeah, could be a hoax. Storchy (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd just be rehashing the nomination statement - I agree with it entirely. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is very to little sourcing that can be found except for self promotion. --Canyouhearmenow 11:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination, pr and self promotion, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisons in Rajasthan

AfDs for this article:
List of prisons in Rajasthan (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:NOTYELLOW and it is just a wp:directory. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is broad agreement that lists of prisons are notable per LISTN, which explicitly does not require individual list entries to be notable. NOT YELLOW is a stretch here. No one is looking at this list to see which prison they'll go visit, but there are encyclopedic uses for a list like this. The hundreds of lists found in are uncited as well, so nom's argument applies to all of them and yet all of them aren't nominated. This looks like BIAS. Central and Adams (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I read the reasoning why the AFD for this article last year ended in Keep, and agree. There is ample coverage of the article's subject, so its a valid information list, even if individual items on it aren't proven notable on their own. Dream Focus 21:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs maintenance. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although the closure statement in the first AFD is very persuasive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisons in Haryana

List of prisons in Haryana (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)

Just a wp:directory delete per WP:NOTYELLOW KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is broad agreement that lists of prisons are notable per LISTN, which explicitly does not require individual list entries to be notable. NOT YELLOW is a stretch here. No one is looking at this list to see which prison they'll go visit, but there are encyclopedic uses for a list like this. The hundreds of lists found in Category:Lists of prisons are uncited as well, so nom's argument applies to all of them and yet all of them aren't nominated. This looks like BIAS. Central and Adams (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Aboker

Mohamed Aboker (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abukar

Mohamed Abukar (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are primarily stats or database links. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. The article is lacking content that should be in a BLP (does have his birthday) so looks more like a resume or stats written as prose. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he also fails #2 in WP:NBBALL. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aboukar Hassan Adani

Aboukar Hassan Adani (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:SPORTBASIC mandates: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (emphasis added) The article fails this mandate. Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per WP:NTRACK. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Erotic Werewolf in London

An Erotic Werewolf in London (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 film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The only reference included in the current article is not a valid review, as it is from a non-notable blog rather than a reliable source. I did some searches for any kind of significant coverage or reviews, and I actually did find one good source, this book has a full entry on it. However, beyond that I was unable to find anything beyond very brief mentions of the title, and one source is generally not enough to establish notability. As neither the writer/director or production company are notable themselves, there is no target for a Redirect or Merge as an WP:ATD. I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply WP:PRODing it, in case anyone else has more success in finding additional reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage. There are some reviews listed here but unfortunately I don't recognise any of those sources as reliable. If someone disagrees I'm willing to reassess my vote, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cannot find anything more in Google. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Zeddedm (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sufficient coverage. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The nominator has stated the article ought belong in cleanup. A significant number of sources have been presented as evidence for keeping the article. There are no delete votes. Per SNOW, I am closing this discussion on the grounds that any other conclusion other than keep is exceedingly unlikely given the current discussion. Given the clear outcome, I consider it detrimental to allow the nomination to run for the remaining time period. However, if anyone disagrees with this close please ping me on my talk page and I will undo the closure and leave the discussion to be closed by an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Padgett

Jason Padgett (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 must question the notability of this article on the basis that Jason is in no way a physicist or mathematician, with his claims of having any ability in those areas is unsubstantiated by any mathematician or physicists. He never published any work in the field (and its been 2 decades!) and his understanding of the subject is also very elementary. Its more newspaper sensationalism that got him the fame after his diagnosis by Treffert (a very strange event considering that he clearly is not a mathematical savant; maybe it was on the basis of synesthesia alone?). Don't know whether that warrants the article being deleted, cause one can argue notability on the basis of him being somewhat known (in the same way that other people who make big unwarranted claims are known). Maybe instead one should merely alter the article slightly to make it clearer? Add a lot of "alleged by Jason" into the article? OpenScience709 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Articles for deletion is not Articles for cleanup. This article is not very well written, and can certainly be condensed, but Padgett seems to clearly meet the general notability guidelines. He doesn't need to be a practicing mathematician or physicist to be notable. His life and writing has been covered multiple times by independent, international media outlets going back at least a decade. In addition to the sources already cited, see for instance the following.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] He has a devoted chapter in a recent scholarly book,[13] is featured prominently in chapter 2 of Berit Brogaard's The Superhuman Mind,[14] and his story appears in at least one introductory psychology textbook.[15] In short, there is sufficient secondary material to craft a neutral, verifiable, accurate, encyclopedia article without resorting to original research. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ok, it should be in articles for cleanup. Thanks for the detailed response! From an article cleanup perspective (and citations perspective), the problem is that none of the sources actually show that he is a "mathematical marvel", so I'm not sure how the article should deal with that. They all claim it, but they do not explain why, or prove it, and for the life of me I could not find any proof. They at most state that he can "see" mathematical formulas, which is a very ambiguous unverifiable statement by Jason. His sketches, while pretty, do not have any real mathematical meaning, besides the ambiguous meaning assigned to it like "oh this represents pi". I could draw a bunch of lines and say "this represents the complexity of pi", but that does not do anything. All the articles show is that he has synesthesia. If he could suddenly do insane mental calculations, or he became a top class mathematician, or he suddenly started producing fascinating original mathematical ideas that stimulate research, then sure. But that did not happen. So how should the article make this clear? OpenScience709 (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Karlinsky, Neal; Frost, Meredith (April 27, 2012). "Real 'Beautiful Mind': College Dropout Became Mathematical Genius After Mugging". ABC News.
  2. ^ Lewis, Tanya (May 12, 2014). "A man became a math wiz after suffering brain injuries. Researchers think they know why". Washington Post.
  3. ^ Skwarecki, Beth (May 2, 2014). "Review: 'Struck by Genius' by Jason Padgett and Maureen Seaberg". Chicago Tribune.
  4. ^ Kaye, Marcia (17 April 2014). "How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel by Jason Padgett: review". Toronto Star.
  5. ^ Fitzpatrick, Richard (May 20, 2014). "A beautiful mind: how an assault turned a man into a maths genius". The Irish Times.
  6. ^ Treffert, Darold A. (August 2014). "Accidental Genius". Scientific American. Vol. 311, no. 2. pp. 52–57.
  7. ^ Cytowic, Richard. "Struck by Genius: How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel". New York Journal of Books.
  8. ^ Farris, Dale (March 15, 2014). "Struck by Genius: How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel". Library Journal.
  9. ^ Sibbald, Tim (December 2019). "Book Review: Math Ability and the Injured Brain". OAME Gazette. 58 (2). Ontario Association for Mathematics: 44 – via ProQuest.
  10. ^ Fernando, Gavin (January 9, 2017). "Acquired savant syndrome: When tragedy turns you into a genius". News.com.au.
  11. ^ Keating, Sarah (July 8, 2020). "The violent attack that turned a man into a maths genius". BBC Future. BBC.
  12. ^ Dossey, Larry (September–October 2012). "Fractals and the Mind" (PDF). EXPLORE. 8 (5): 263–265. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2012.06.010. PMID 22938742.
  13. ^ Matyas, Jessica (2020). "'A Stream of Water is Endlessly Beautiful': Jason Padgett and Acquired Savant Syndrome". Famous Case Histories in Neurotrauma. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003008798-12. ISBN 9781003008798. S2CID 225462440.
  14. ^ Brogaard, Berit (2015). The Superhuman Mind: Free the Genius in Your Brain. New York: Hudson Street Press. ISBN 978-1-59463-368-3.
  15. ^ King, Laura A. (2014). The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. p. 61. ISBN 978-0-07-803540-1.
  • Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the sources support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Discoveries III: Dead Sea

World Discoveries III: Dead Sea (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 documentary film, not properly referencing any credible claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim evident here at all is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about the film's existence -- but the only references present here at all (until I stripped them as dead links) were primary source content self-published by companies directly associated with making the film and a tangential reference verifying the existence of the Dead Sea itself without ever saying anything about a documentary film, which isn't what it takes. As I can't read Hebrew, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to Hebrew-language sources can find enough coverage to salvage it -- but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Israel. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no proper sourcing can be found in any language. TH1980 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything on the film, the only thing I did find was this Wikipedia generated book. The article doesn't even have the producer's name. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG or any WP:NFILM criteria, lacks any RS at all per a Google search, also, the article's prose isn't good; with no targets suitable for merging/redirecting nor any content worth saving, IMHO this is a easy delete. VickKiang (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cannot find anything more in Google. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Zeddedm (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Soda Popinski. The discussion since the post-DRV relisting hasn't really changed anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Popinski

AfDs for this article:
Soda Popinski (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 article's AFD was closed as redirect in 2019 after its sources were analyzed in detail. The article was recreated, but nothing has changed - the reception section is entirely either trivial mentions or listicles, and this article fails WP:GNG on its own. Hopefully another AfD will cause it to be a protected redirect that cannot be recreated over and over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Russia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are entitled to your opinions and well within your right to disagree over whether this article should be split back out from the main list, but your statement that "nothing has changed" is disingenuous and factually incorrect. Anyone can compare the diffs and recognize that the current version of the article is heavily rewritten compared to the version that was nominated for AfD back in 2019. A major source that that was not present in previous versions of the article, is an entry about the character in a 2017 book about video game characters, which extends to 2 pages' worth and addresses the topic directly and in detail. That is not a trivial source, and neither are the sources I have cited under "Further reading", which refutes the previous nominator's assertion that the article could never be more then a WP:PERMASTUB. I do not currently have full access to the journal articles cited under the section, but from the previews I could see, the contents that are directly relevant are not passing or trivial mentions. I reiterate, significant coverage is defined "as more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", so these sources do demonstrate that the character has been discussed within contexts outside of a simple reading of his role as a video game boss. Certainly, on the same level of cultural relevance as Glass Joe. Calling for salting and hoping it will stay that way because it allegedly may be "recreated over and over" is also incorrect, and strikes me as bad faith, because this article was only recreated once following the 2019 AfD, which was also the first time the question of the topic's notability was ever scrutinized. Haleth (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have to spell it out, I meant that nothing has changed with regards to the article's sourcing or significance thereof. If nothing had literally changed at all in the article, then it would be grounds for simply turning it back into a redirect, not sending it again to AfD.
    Overall, when you strip out everything that is dependent on trivial coverage, you get nothing that cannot be included in List of Punch-Out!! characters while fitting in a single paragraph.
    I think it's obvious that if the article was already recreated once, it can be recreated numerous times later as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All I have to say is, I disagree with your assessment with regards to the sourcing and significance as I think it is incorrect, but I don’t expect you to ever change your mind. With regards to article recreations, you speak as if it is an unacceptable anomaly and opinions expressed in prior discussions are sacrosanct. On numerous occasions, you and I have recreated content for articles that were absent or removed from mainspace in the past as a result of contentious disputes, quality of said articles notwithstanding. Haleth (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - The character is still not independently notable. While the current version appears to have copious sources, none of them are significant coverage at all. Many, such as the Guardian articles, are literally one sentence mentions that simply state "his name was changed in the US version". Most of the rest are either general reviews/discussions of Punch-Out, where the character is just briefly mentioned, or are "top ten" style lists. And even those "top-ten" style lists don't have significant coverage - for example, the "Four Examples of Russian Music in American Popular Culture" article is, again, a single sentence mention of the character. There is, quite simply, not enough significant coverage that demonstrates any kind of notability that would justify splitting this back out from the main Punch-Out character article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge. The 'reception and analysis' section is suprisingly serious, with next no focus on listicles and an interesting discussion of how this character embodies some stereotypes, something that was noticed by numerous sources. The problem is WP:SIGCOV, but I also didn't check the cited book which claims to have relevant content on two pages. Now, what really matters is not the character, but the issue of stereotypes in the game, or wider context, but if this stays, we don't have to be ashamed that we are keeping fancruft. If the analysis is deemed to be streteched (SIGCOV fail), then it should still be preserved by being merged somewhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do own a physical copy of the book. The entry is specifically about Soda Popinski, not the characters of Punch Out as an ensemble. It runs to a total of 3 pages, though the actual content is roughly equal to two pages' worth of volume. Haleth (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haleth Just a note that since you never pinged me, I never saw your reply until now... it would be good if we could see a scan of these pages, not to verify what you said, but to see whether there is useful content (non-plot) there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus, I don't see a point in making the effort to scan the exact pages from my end, since the consensus is consolidating around a definite merge-and-redirect, and I am personally ok with the emerging consensus. However, you could peruse the book through Google Preview and judge the contents of some of the collated articles that show up in said preview. That said, there is no tangible plot whatsoever in most of the Punch Out games so Soda Popinski's entry is entirely about what his portrayal represents, the background of the supposed Japanese antipathy towards Russian culture and how depictions in Japanese pop culture tend to reflect that. Someone else in this discussion called it a "glorified listicle" with "two page mentions", and that is blatantly incorrect: the source is a book with a reputable publisher and edited by a pair of academics, which collects about 100 standalone articles from various authors that analyzes fictional elements from a real world perspective. Each article is about the same length as a typical feature article published by an established RS like this one. Haleth (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haleth The book is available through Z-library, but I am having some trouble accessing it now (GBooks is mosty useless, I get only two snippets). I am leaning towards agreeing this may be SIGCOV, and given this and all the other sources, my preference is for weak keep vs merge. If only we had one more good source for SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Soda Popinski (i.e., restore redirect). Everything that is said in this article can be said with greater concision in the existing section without any loss in fidelity. That Popinski was designed as a stereotype applies throughout that character list page, not specific to this individual character. Inclusion in this "100 greatest game characters" book, for notability purposes, is arbitrary. The question is what source material warrants a content split, and when I check these sources, all I see are brief mentions edited together to give the appearance that the commentary is more voluminous than it is. Remove the trivia and anything that needs to be said fits within the parent list's section. Take the few academic sources that mention this instance and cover it in context of the series' characters, which is why that list article exists. czar 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with @Haleth:'s assessment here. The article complies with the spirit of notability, being well-sourced and having multiple sources of non-trivial coverage, enough to build a small encyclopedic article. Soda Popinski also has real-world coverage that extends outside the games, as demonstrated in the article. Also, since the characters from Punch-Out article is over 70KB in size, that plays another factor in this being an appropriate spin-out. Despite the previous consensus for a redirect, there should be no prejudice towards a recreation if there's an improvement, which this article now clearly shows. Keep in mind that consensus can change, and a 2019 redirect may not necessarily be a 2022 redirect. MoonJet (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article is not going to be notable, it should not be spun out regardless of the parent article's size. The parent article should simply be pared down instead.
    Of course, a lot of characters are going to have real-world coverage, but your assertion that it has "multiple sources of non-trivial coverage" conflicts with the facts, unless you can note the WP:THREE sources that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this character is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that if the parent article is that big, a little more leeway should be given. Notability, while important, is not the only factor for determining if something should get an article. But regardless, notability is fully satisfied here.
    Real-world coverage is a good way in establishing notability though. "Trivia" means unimportant, so if a character receives real-world significance, then it is not trivial coverage, regardless if said source is short. The fact that Soda Popinski placed in a top 100 video game characters of all-time list alone shows he has some importance outside the Punch-Out series.
    Three sources? Well, let's start with the aforementioned "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" source. Then there's the sources controversy around the character, like GamePro and The Escapist. The character even has a bar named after him, which multiple sources mention. If that's not real-world significance, then I don't know what is.
    While three sources is the recommended minimum, keep in mind that just two sources are also fine if one of them is really good, which I would argue the "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" source is. WP:GNG notes merely "multiple sources," which is anything more than one. MoonJet (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe it meets WP:GNG. The article has significantly improved since the prior AFD and, just because there are a lack of sources talking about exclusively the character, it does not mean that the sources are worthless in proving notability. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's exactly what it means. WP:SIGCOV is not optional in proving notability, and without enough significant coverage in reliable sources, the character is not standalone notable. What is there is mostly trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was stating that a source can be not trivial, but also be not solely focused around the character. Those two are not mutually exclusive. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As every other "keep" vote said. — Smuckola(talk) 02:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:EVERYONEELSE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an advice essay. But since we are on the subject of opinion pieces about discussion etiquette, I think a lot of people would agree that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Whether Smuckola's opinion hold any weight is up to the closer, not you. Haleth (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "it's just an advice essay" is less discrediting than you may think. In fact, only essays that follow established policy are allowed in Wikipedia namespace. Otherwise, it would have to be moved to userspace for being an opinion that runs contrary to Wikipedia policy. That means this essay lines up with the actual policy such as WP:NHC. I should add that you are currently accusing me of WP:BADFAITH for simply giving sentence long, perfectly rational and non-combative responses stating my case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Most coverage appears to be trivial and the remaining useful sources can be adequately summarized in a character list. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment after relisting: He's a minor character who has appeared in two video games. The references are bottom of the barrel listicles and passing mentions. WP:THREE applies here. If three quality sources exist that are substantially about this character, surely they would have been made by now. When and if they do, then we can revisit this topic. Until then, merging is the way to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge there is something resembling a proper article, and not just a stub. But a lot of the reception section is cobbled from WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Remembering a character as a stereotype is a pretty legitimate and serious treatment, and it's well sourced, but maybe falls short of WP:SIGCOV. In an ideal world this would be further improved but I would still WP:PRESERVE this and give it more time. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I appreciate Haleth's efforts at improving the article, but Czar's comments here are the ones that hit home to me: Once the trivial mentions are pared down, all the sourced content in this article can be easily covered at List of Punch-Out!! characters#Soda Popinski. Moreover, presenting the article's key point - that Soda Popinski is designed as a stereotype - as part of a standalone article for the character implies to the reader that this aspect is in some way unique to Soda Popinski, when in actuality it is an aspect of the Punch-Out characters as a whole. Put another way, I'm not seeing anything here to indicate that Soda Popinski has true notability independent of the Punch-Out cast. Having a bar named after him doesn't cut it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect I don't think it has notability independent of Punch-Out Andrevan@ 00:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as merge, but overturned at DRV. Relisting for another week. Before commenting, I would suggest reading the DRV to get an idea of what issues need to be focused on in the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) The DRV was out of order for never notifying this AfD. (2) The DRV's argument is that we need to "refute specific sources" when the argument this whole time has been to look past the lack of major sources and consider the trivial sources together as a whole? (3) What sources do y'all need to see specifically addressed? The "WP:THREE" sources given above were clearly inadequate. "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" is basically a summary of all that can be said about the character, and our case has been that this info can be easily contained within the existing character list. So we relisted this discussion for GamePro and The Escapist? The former mentions Popinski in two sentences and is the definition of a passing mention. The latter is unreliable source and is also a single sentence. Really not seeing what has any ambiguity about this. czar 16:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was never notified about any DRV either. I would have voted to uphold the result if it wasn't purposely kept secret. There is no reason to overturn? Reading it now it seems like a pure "I didn't like the result therefore it is bad". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The Escapist is not listed as unreliable, but situational. It is also not published in the "caution" period between October 2017 and July 2018.
    (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, I believe the Escapist article is trivial coverage. It is an article about Punch-Out's racial stereotypes as a whole, which is perfectly fit for the reception section of Punch-Out or as part of the list of characters, but Soda Popinski is only mentioned as one of numerous examples and is not given any special significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: While the GamePro source is technically a passing mention, it does note importance of the character. As already pointed out, the Escapist is, for the most part, reliable, per consensus at WP:VG/S (the article was not published between October 2017 and July 2018).
    These two sources, on their own, I would agree are not enough, but in conjunction with the "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" source and the sources that talk about the bar named after him, I think are inline the spirit of notability.
    I also found a source from Kotaku discussing him. Yes, its a listicle of Punch-Out characters, but again, it's being used in conjunction with other sources.
    You could say that notability doesn't guarantee an article, and that's true. But at same time, what is the benefit in having Soda Popinski in a Punch-Out character list article over his own article? After all, the aim here is to improve the project, and I'm certainly not convinced that him being crammed into a character list, when he already has a decently detailed article, an improvement.
    As for the DRV, I have no idea why this AFD wasn't notified of it. I was actually wondering the same thing myself. I probably should have left a message to the original closer of this (TigerShark), but at the same time, he seems to have been mostly MIA lately. It was not my intention to keep it "secret." MoonJet (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who initiated the DRV, it is YOUR responsibility to do the notifications (see steps 3, 4, and 5 of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review). I'll take it on faith that you simply forgot or missed those instructions when opening the DRV. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Kotaku article is literally a listing of every character in the franchise. That is less evidence of any independent notability that Soda Popinski has, and more evidence that the proper way to cover him would be in our series character list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the original closer has largely been MIA. I definitely did miss step 4 though. I thought the original closer had to leave that note. This was the first DRV I've ever opened, so please cut me some slack. So I'll keep this in mind if I open any other DRVs in the future, which probably won't be any time soon, since I almost didn't open this one.
That's why I said the Kotaku source wouldn't be enough on its own, Rorshacma. MoonJet (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm more persuaded by Czar's stance in this one. The coverage is weak and seemingly bloated as an attempt to cover that. It could be condensed into the character list with little lost. (For example, a sentence that says "Publications found him to be a Russian stereotype.(ref 1)(ref 2)(ref 3) rather than the redundant current format of "Publication 1 found him to be a stereotype. (Ref 1). Publication 2 found him to be a stereotype too. (Ref 2). Publication 3 said he was a stereotype of sorts.(ref 3)" etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have expanded my comment above, post-relisting. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was unaware of the DRV and that the initial closing had been overturned for a relist until now, but I will say that my stance of restoring the redirect to the main character list has not changed. I have never been of the opinion that a bunch of pieces of trivial coverage in a couple different sources adds up to cumulatively become significant coverage. And after over a month and a relist, that is still all we have on the character - a bunch of extremely trivial (in many cases, nothing more than a single sentence or two) bits of information on the character. And almost always in the context of discussing Punch-Out and its characters as a whole. That latter fact is a pretty clear indication that the character is adequately covered in the main character list article here, and not split out into a separate article. I agree with the initial closing of this AFD, and if the proper notifications for the DRV had gone out, I strongly suspect it would not have been overturned. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I have never been of the opinion that a bunch of pieces of trivial coverage in a couple different sources adds up to cumulatively become significant coverage."
I don't necessarily disagree. After all, a bunch of trivial sources is still trivial, right? However, I do disagree that the sources used to prove notability are trivial. The "Development," "Reception" and "Legacy" sections give important details on the character covered in the sources, most notably his origins, the controversy surrounding his original name and the bar named after him.
"And almost always in the context of discussing Punch-Out and its characters as a whole."
There's a whole paragraph under "Reception" discussing him outside the context of Punch-Out, and a section discussing him outside the series as well. This shows that Soda Popinski has some significance, rather than being just another Punch-Out character. MoonJet (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per czar, Axem, and Serge. There's no significant coverage; everything here is passing mentions and listicles, none about Soda Popinski in particular. All the content here could easily fit into List of Punch-Out!! characters without losing anything. JOEBRO64 12:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the figure is enduring and the article meets WP:BASIC WP:GNG at least. Reminder that WP:THREE is not a guideline or policy, it is an essay. We should not be using it to exclude articles. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • THREE is an essay that has nothing that conflicts with established policy, it's just a clarification of it. Saying "show me proof that it passes GNG" and "show me WP:THREE" is essentially the same thing, just with a helpful explanation because many don't understand it.
    Soda Popinski is, obviously, not an actual person, so WP:BASIC does not apply. As a fictional character we have to consider whether the character would be a better fit for a list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message and correction @Zxcvbnm:. A bit rusty over here. I changed the guideline referenced. We have a decent article here, and I believe it is good for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It must also be noted that three sources is the recommended minimum. Two sources also suffice if one or both are substantial enough (which I would argue his two-age entry in 100 Greatest Video Game Characters is). MoonJet (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you would argue, but I heavily doubt that any admin on this site would agree with that assessment - that a two page mention in a glorified listicle is enough to merit an entire article when almost no other secondary sources exist. I have had articles merged by unanimous consensus with many more sources than that. I recommend taking a good long read of the notability policy, because repeated bludgeoning with incorrect assertions can be considered disruptive. Instead of assuming everyone else is wrong, maybe consider you are misinterpreting the relevant policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying other people are "wrong." There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they are flat-out wrong.
"I have had articles merged by unanimous consensus with many more sources than that."
On the other hand, I've seen many AFDs where a music album or television show episode was kept based on just two reviews. It depends on what the subject is, the quality of said sources and who shows up to vote. Certain WikiProjects tends to catch the attention of more inclusionists than others.
"I recommend taking a good long read of the notability policy."
I'm well-aware of the notability guidelines and the purpose behind them, rather I just don't agree with certain assertions of it that you and certain other editors have. Also keep in mind that nowhere do that or any relevant guidelines say or suggest that listicles or any articles of the type can't be used to establish notability like you seem to suggest.
Besides, that source is more in-depth than most listicles. It's basically a review on the character. Granted, it's just one review, so it wouldn't pass SIGCOV on its own, but we have other sources discussing his cultural significance too. MoonJet (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Referenced content could easily be incorporated into List_of_Punch-Out!!_characters#Soda_Popinski. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List_of_Punch-Out!!_characters#Soda_Popinski, mainly per nom and Czar. For an article that fails WP:GNG, I have to agree with Piotrus that it's surprisngly serious and well-written. This AfD is apparently debatable, and was put in DRV, but IMHO it's obvious that GNG is failed. Almost all of these refs are listicles or trivial mentions, though a few are more debatable, IMHO. It seems that ref 1 is an RS that is significant, IMO. But ref 2, which is just cited once, is just a general guide on alcohol in video games, so isn't significant enough. Ref 6 is also only cited once, which seems to me that it isn't significant enough; even if it is so, we have just two refs being reliable, indepedent, and significant, still very borderline. The only other plausible non-trivial ref is the one from The Escapist, which has two caveats: a) it's only situational, b) it discusses the character for less than one paragraph. A lengthy paragraph, preferably longer than 100 words (I know I cited an essay for the latter, but the former is from WP:AfC) is needed to be significant, this ref's coverage doesn't meet the mark (not all of the paragraph discusses Soda, even if so, there's only 82 words). So, with this ref being not significant and possibly unreliable, I'm unconvinced. So, there's probably just one ref counting towards GNG, at a very optimistic standard there's two, which still is borderline, so I support a merge strongly. VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvatata

Sarvatata (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 recently reviewed and failed this at Talk:Sarvatata/GA1. My reasoning there is very clear but having reviewed it, I don't think its actually notable at all. The article centres on an individual Sarvatata and the whole premise of the article is the inscriptions on an old carving. The dynasty section is unsourced, and the article even starts with an opinion "was possibley". The rest of the article is a translation inscriptions from the stone. No evidence of WP:GNG. This is more appropriate for academic discussion and a research paper but not wikipedia as it is an opinion piece, certainly doesn't pass WP:NBIO >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes and also given the source for dynasty section. Is that right or not. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srimant ROSHAN The page is not notable. The sentence Some scholars consider him to have been a part of the Kanva dynasty. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. Instead, there is an inscription which names Gajayana as his gotara or dynasty name, though it also is unclear.. There is no evidence that this person is notable per WP:NBIO. This article serves to tell us that there's an inscription somewhere that mentions a person thats all. We need more information beyond knowing that the individual exists. The community will now decide the future of this article per the discussion here. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First, kings are inherently notable. Second, this one appears in multiple RS. It's hard to top having his name carved on walls 2400 years ago and people are still writing about him today. Central and Adams (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair the article has been cleaned up and additional sources have been found. Originally it was speculated that the individual could have been a king on the basis of the ruins. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (would prefer to merge somewhere) -- The sources cited appear to be RS, though I do not know if they actually support what is said. Ultimately, the subject is the interpretation of a single inscription, about a person of whom (as far as I can tell) we otherwise know nothing else. If he could clearly be linked to a dynasty, I would have suggested merging to that, but the link is apparently dubious, so that there is no obvious merge target. "King" is an ambiguous term. It could be a translation of rajah, which means a local ruler, potentially only of similar status to a country gentleman. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions, if there really is (as appears) no evidence for this figure aside from these inscriptions. Furius (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be agreement that the article content should be kept, but there is an emerging split between whether it should be merged to an appropriate target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Hathibada Ghosundi inscriptions. As pointed out, the word "king" is a translation, and I'll point out notability is derived from sources, not "inherent" proclamations. No proof this local ruler existed without these notable inscriptions, such as they are. Any speculation not directly related to and ascribed to reliable secondary sources is synthesis and as such cannot form the basis of an article on English Wikipedia. Better to Merge or Redirect so when better scholarship is eventually available, this search term is referenced. BusterD (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Kings (and other such political leaders) are generally considered to fall under WP:NPOL as a head-of-state, but this is very bare bones at the moment. I would not feel comfortable voting either keep or delete. Can anyone find any more info on him? Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main premise of this person being a King is the engraving/inscription. However, as others have pointed out, the term "King" has very lose connotations when referring to tribal/rural/ethnic communities at a certain period of history. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Ormiston

David Ormiston (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 placed a PROD on this article with the rationale: "One second-tier appearance plus fewer than 20 fourth-tier appearances is insufficient for biographical notability; nor can substantial coverage of the subject be found.". The PROD was removed without comment. I am now bringing this to AfD with the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cliffe

Jim Cliffe (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:BLP of a filmmaker, not making any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE and not citing any strong reliable sources. The references are entirely to blogs, not WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media or books, and the strongest notability claim on offer is that his films exist, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of much stronger sourcing than this. An editor who commented on the AFD discussion about his short film Tomorrow's Memoir offered up one article about Cliffe from his hometown local newspaper, but notability still requires more coverage than that. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was the aforementioned other editor who offered this 2005 article, which is more a discussion about this person than his film. That alone isn't enough, however I also found this from 2008 and this from 2012. I am not suggesting it's a significant amount of coverage, but I think it makes the subject pass notability as it is, in the nominator's words, WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in real media. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two hits of "local guy does stuff" in the subject's own hometown newspaper, and just one hit beyond his own hometown, isn't enough coverage to pass GNG. GNG is not just "count the media hits and keep anybody who exceeds two" — it also takes into account issues like geographic range (hometown coverage doesn't count for as much as nationalized coverage does) and the context of what the person is getting covered for (it takes a lot more media coverage to make a person notable if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists" than it would if you were able to shoot for "notable because Oscar".) Bearcat (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem a bit fixated on this idea of "local/hometown coverage", whereas the three example articles I posted above are from three different publications over a wide timespan, of which one, The Province, is one of the major newspapers of British Columbia (which itself is not a "little town", but a Province of Canada). Besides, if looking at policy, WP:BASIC notes that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.", which I think has been covered. I took your point, to a certain extent, on Tomorrow's Memoir, but I think there is about enough on this guy to run with a keep. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fixated on anything that isn't a real thing: a "local vs. national coverage" test really does enter into the question of whether a person with only two or three sources has cleared WP:GNG or not. If he had 20 or 30 sources from all across the entire country and into the United States, then it wouldn't matter a whit if a couple of the sources were local to Vernon/Salmon Arm -- but if you can only show three footnotes of which two are local human interest coverage in Vernon and Salmon Arm, then one hit in a major market daily newspaper that's still in the same province as Vernon and Salmon Arm isn't enough all by itself to bridge the gap. GNG really, truly isn't just "count the media hits and two or more = booya!" -- it really is an interaction of multiple factors besides just the raw number of hits alone, inclusive of both the context of what the person is getting covered for and the geographic range of how widely they are or aren't getting written about. A person whose coverage is almost entirely local to one area isn't automatically as notable as a person who has a genuinely nationalized notability claim just because they might technically have the same raw number of sourcing hits in newspapers.com. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability also is not a comparison against someone else who may be more notable, or less. I have not, by any means, done an exhaustive search as I didn't think I necessarily needed to upon coming across the aforementioned articles, and AfD is not fundamentally about building the article, it's about expressing a view as to whether it should or should not remain. Besides, it isn't just my opinion alone that will decide the outcome of this, I simply have expressed an opinion that I think there is something there to justify not deleting. Others may agree, or take a contrary view. Notability can be a subjective topic at times, but in relation to policy, and the one I mentioned being WP:BASIC, looking at this objectively, I feel it satisfies this criteria. I respect that you seem to have a different view, and that is fine, but please try and refrain from badgering me about it. Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - current article sources fail GNG - Media Mikes is not a RS. Online only film review goes to film's notability, not Cliffe's. Interviews do not establish notability. I also agree that the local newspaper coverage does not establish notability; Vernon has a population of 44,519, Salmon Arm has 17,706. That's not the be all end all, but to me it shows that the coverage is local interest ('local kid makes it big') as opposed to actual coverage on a notable director. Fails GNG and filmmaker notability guidelines. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - Additional interviews include Dread Central, The Georgia Straight, Moviehole, and reviews in established media like Film Threat. Cliffe is currently directing TV projects, and his latest feature as writer/director, 'The Haleo Protocol', is in development on IMDB. Russo42 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per sources discussed above. I'm not sure why one would claim that the The Province is local - it's one of the bigger newspapers in Canada and about 500 km from Salmon Arm. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: - The Salmon Arm Observer is, however, based in Salmon Arm. I did not claim the Province was a local newspaper. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I missed the context of some of the earlier comments. I certainly don't see a problem with using one of the local references as meeting GNG when there is significant coverage elsewhere. If he hadn't have directed (and written) that 2012 film with Danny Glover in it, I doubt there'd be enough coverage. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly nobody in this discussion claimed that The Province was local to Salmon Arm. What was said, and was said correctly, is that one piece of wider-than-local coverage is not enough wider-than-local coverage to singlehandedly secure passage of WP:GNG for a person whose sourcing is otherwise still entirely local to his own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Häkkänen

Matti Häkkänen (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:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one gets hardly any coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears to pass C#3 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary". Entry in 1978 edition of Who's Who Finland. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the reasons explained by Goldsztajn above CT55555 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in absence of reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Kuka kukin on (Aikalaiskirja) is 1) not reliable and 2) shouldn't be called country's standard national biographical dictionary. For point 1, it suffers from the same problems as many other Who's Who books, where the information is sourced from the article subjects themselves (see fi.wp article fi:Kuka kukin on). For point 2 I'd place that title on Suomen kansallisbiografia which does not have an entry for the article subject. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kittos @Ljleppan, those are important points. I'm continuing to sit on the fence on this, but would note two things: Kuka kukin on is not purely self-published, it is curated, and long predates the Suomen kansallisbiografia. Notability is enduring, it's not surprising that biographical dictionaries 25+ years apart might have different entries, but we would not necessarily say those only appearing in both are notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's might not be technically self-published (as there is a publishing company involved), but what I've gleamed of their operations is not great and it appears to be extremely similar to the UK (RSP entry) and US (RSP entry) versions. I'm not claiming that the article subject is non-notable because they are not mentioned in Suomen kansallisbiografia, merely that inclusion in Kuka kukin on is (in my view) insufficient to reach ANYBIO#3. Ljleppan (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's reasonable to distinguish between pre-internet era and subsequent versions; there's a qualitative difference. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as stated, the dictionary aspect of this is arguable. There are many of these dictionaries out there which allow the subject to write their own text for inclusion. So, without extra sourcing outside of the dictionaries and the web crawlers that have picked up the dictionaries verbiage I would hold the vote to delete. --Canyouhearmenow 12:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Sourcing does not give a green light to an article that is basically a pseudo biography or resume. None of the positions the subject held give qualification for an article. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Ziarko

Maciej Ziarko (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 athlete. Before search doesn't yield any third party sources. No medal record either. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, with top results being LinkedIn. No medals, and a 10th-place finish in a team event at World's is insufficient to create notability. If there are Polish sources out there that we missed, please notify me. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBIO, no Polish interwiki even (and pl wiki is pretty inclusionist). PS. Query for ""Maciej Ziarko" 1983 -wikipedia" yields nothing reliable. Hoax warning. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found a single mention in Kronika Sportu Polskiego 2004 (Chronicle of Polish Sport 2004); he appeared to have come 7th in a competition, unfortunately it’s snippet view only so it’s not clear what is the competition. In any case, a single mention is not significant coverage so does not meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KRSNA (rapper)

KRSNA (rapper) (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 looks like a promotional page. There are few links of newspapers but those can be arranged for some local singers of a village or neighbourhood. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. Article is very promotional. The first two citations in the article from the Times of India and the Hindu are good. Most coverage I find is about a scuffle with a cricket league over allegedly plagiarizing one of his songs. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Easily a notable musician, and doing a quick news search brings up full articles in Gulf News [20], Telangana Today [21], and he has a nice little paragraph in Focus: Popular Music in Contemporary India. (And this is alongside what's already listed in the article.) He clearly meets notability standards, despite any actual prose shortcomings the page may have right now. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why you people trying to support such a promotional article. It is already mentioned that news papers are publishing such articles for local performers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Article clearly needs work and I may be to blame for my contributions in it. I acknowledge my shortcomings as an editor (although I try my best for it to follow the laid down guidelines). I think the article looking promotional is due to fans editing the page. It needs some experienced editor to retouch it. Nevertheless, there is no reason to delete the page. As mentioned, the artist is easily notable (especially recently). AnDob24 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Australian Baseball League postseason

2011 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2010–11 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Australian Baseball League postseason

2012 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Australian Baseball League postseason

2012 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2011–12 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to 2012–13_Australian_Baseball_League_season#Postseason.

2013 Australian Baseball League postseason

2013 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2012–13 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2012–13 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect send this to 2012–13 Australian Baseball League season, its what is best for the article at this point. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 11:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2014–15 Australian Baseball League season.. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Australian Baseball League postseason

2015 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2014–15 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2014–15 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2015–16 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Australian Baseball League postseason

2016 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2015–16 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2015–16 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2016–17 Australian Baseball League season. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Australian Baseball League postseason

2017 Australian Baseball League postseason (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)

Content merged into 2016–17 Australian Baseball League season –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's discussed in Australian media, search using .au websites. No issues. Same for all similar nominations above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Content has been merged, this AfD is un-neccessary. Same with the other two. This is consistent with other seasons articles. GenQuest "scribble" 15:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected per WP:PROMERGE. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too 2016–17 Australian Baseball League season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Němec

Michal Němec (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 ski mountaineer. Before search didn't bring up any third party coverage, and has no medal record. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 14:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslava Paliderová

Miroslava Paliderová (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 athlete, doesn't pass WP:BIO. No medal record, and a before search didn't bring up any third party coverage, just usual stat websites. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable (NBIO) person that fails WP:NSPORTS with a record high of 5th place. Comments: There will likely be many of these as this was created by a blocked user that claimed 50 accounts with the IP apparently tied to the German Department of Defense. There is an emerging record of deletions as articles created that fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article with no medals that I saw. Examples are usually ski mountaineers (usually teams including relays) such as (random checks) Michiko Horibe (never placed higher than 3rd), Sari Anderson (stat page, interview, personal web page, and dead links, but placed 2nd, North American Championship, individual), Olav Tronvoll (prod), Miguel Caballero Ortega (high of 4th), Elena Nicolini (high of 3rd place and prodded), Paola Pozzoni (1984 Olympics placed 9th). I mention this as I see an issue and will likely be out of touch the next week. I am not a fan of mass deletions (at all) but this may deserve thought in the case of this creator. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Joseph (footballer)

Antonio Joseph (footballer) (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: per sources to this article add there. If anyone opposes as non reliable, these shown here, [22] [23]let me know here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These doesn't even come close too meeting GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ivan Milenin. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10+. By the time I finish writing this, another 10+ will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage as required by NSPORTS and GNG. The two sources presented by Ivan Milenin are mere passing mentions which do not contribute to SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 04:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above insufficient. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Sources noted above are passing mentions and not significant enough to pass GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, passing mentions are not sufficient for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial mentions are never ever enough. Aside from that we have the usual database websites. Clear delete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and what is out there would not in my opinion support a notability claim. --Canyouhearmenow 12:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy & Security Goys

Privacy & Security Goys (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 don't believe this page passes WP:GNG or has WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Websites. Justiyaya 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm seeing significant coverage of the group in weekly electronic (and possibly self-published; can't quite tell) newspaper New Delhi Times (<www.newdelhitimes[DOT]com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/30-December-2019-5-January-2020-16-new.pdf>), though I'm unsure if this is the sort of source that we should be basing an article off of especially given that it's on our blacklist. It gets a somewhat passing mention in an article from the Henry Jackson Society think tank, as well as the somewhat passing mention in GNET that's currently in the article. I can't exactly access the TRAC source, nor do I know its reliability, but it appears to at least cover the group somewhat. Even if the TRAC souce provides SIGCOV, I don't think that we see WP:GNG-level coverage (i.e. significant coverage by multiple independent RS). I also don't see any way that this could pass WP:NGO nor WP:WEBCRIT, so I lean towards deletion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University

Department of Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Maritime University (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 don't think individual departments within a university are inherently wp:notable and nothing special about this department to make it notable. KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first department that introduced Marine Fisheries in the whole country (honors level). Which is unique. Also, the top-rated professors from all over the country are managing this. That is why, it must be notable for this country. Bangladesh is focusing on oceanic resources. So, Marine Fisheries is currently one of the most trending topic for us. AAShemul (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AAShemul (talk · contribs) On what scale are these top rated professors rated? I don't think being the first is enough to meet notability. Maybe one day it may meet notability. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm. Mehedi Abedin 20:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More suitable as a section within the university's article than as a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olli Huttunen (biathlete)

Olli Huttunen (biathlete) (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 biathlete; A before search didn't bring up third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say as well that I would support a Redirect to the page Ljleppan noted above as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Per leppan and Spf121188, -- Otr500 (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sauram raj tuladhar

Sauram raj tuladhar (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)

Speedy deletion was declined. AfD for clearer consensus. Reading Beans (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to The Chronicles of Prydain#The Book of Three. RL0919 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fflewddur Fflam

Fflewddur Fflam (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:FANCRUFT of a children's book series. I'd suggest a merge into Chronicles of Prydain, but the article already has a section that I think covers the character in enough depth. BrigadierG (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I've PRODed it with the same suggestion, after which it was redirected, then AfDed. Well, no harm in discussing, shrug. FYI my BEFORE did not suggest any stand-alone notability, and note that this likely true for pretty much all other articles about characters from The Chronicles of Prydain, which I will be PRODDing or AfDing in the foreseeable future, barring sudden improvements to said articles. This one was the worst of the bunch (reference-wise). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grade (consulting)

Grade (consulting) (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 an unreferenced (WP:V failing) piece of WP:OR, with a dubious scope. We don't know what country or countries this concept is relevant too; we don't know if it is truly limited to just " information technology consulting and management consulting", we don't know if the division into those six roles is universal and has no exceptions, etc. Due to poor referencing (and my BEFORE not finding much), WP:GNG of the topic is also an issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This piece is WP:OR. I really cannot find significant coverage of this concept by independent RS, though I'm able to find similar articulations that have been made by consulting firms in describing their own HR models. There really isn't secondary source coverage of this concept. There is use of the term "consultant-grade" in the context of medicine, but that is a wholly different concept. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination and Red-tailed hawk. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Robbie the Robot. Which may or may not be kept itself. Sandstein 12:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob the Robot

Rob the Robot (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 not a good disambiguation page. The television series should go here. There is the one-and-only Robby the Robot and two robots named some variation of Rob, none of which qualify as "Rob the Robot". Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Monk characters#Trudy Monk. Sandstein 12:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trudy Monk

Trudy Monk (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 year ago I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:BD2412 with the following rationale "a better solution would be to merge and redirect these articles to a List of characters in Monk". We do have List_of_Monk_characters#Trudy_Monk but since the article discussed here is just a plot summary, with nothing rescuable to merge (in terms of reception, analysis, etc.), I'd suggest that a simple redirect will suffice. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and WP:SOFTDELETION, there is no need to hard delete history. Note that the content in the target list of characters is nearly identical to what we have here, so POVFORK is an issue too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as proposed. Unfortunately, WP:PROD is a one-size solution that involves deletion of the page history. Perhaps the solution would be to develop a PROD-adjacent policy for redirecting a title. BD2412 T 16:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 I thought I did propose something like this, calling it "proposed redirect", a while ago somewhere, but I can't find out where it was, and obviously it didn't attract much attention. My idea was to have a pararell system to PRODs, with templates and categories, but one that would explicity result in soft deletion rather than hard. Ironcally, if memory serves, it was torpedoed by a certain now-topc banned inclusionist who ranted against it due to his opposition to anything that "makes deletion easier"... shrug. I'd be happy to support such a proposal if you ever make it. In either case, I often try to suggest redirect targets in my PRODs, and sometimes the closing admin pays heed. Sadly, this is not always the case, and I've also found myself asking closers to undelete the harmless history, but it's hit or miss, sometimes they don't care, and sometimes it's too much effort for me to bother pushing them for it. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you renew this proposal, I will support it vociferously. BD2412 T 03:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That might work. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not opposed to the idea either, but how does it significantly differ from just a redirect, other than a timer? Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The timer, and notice on the page, would be an improvement over boldly redirecting, where there might be an objection that would lead to an AfD. BD2412 T 16:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Monk characters#Trudy Monk: Trudy Monk does not have any significant coverage in reliable sources. Since all of the sources are primary, there is nothing to merge. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Susmuffin. Trudy barely makes a handful of appearances (in flashback, of course) in the entire series. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1632 characters (fictional)

AfDs for this article:
List of 1632 characters (fictional) (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 I am somewhat fond of 1632 series, and some of my early wiki edits were related to that topic, having stumbled upon some of our old fancruft, well... here it goes. Unreferenced list of characters from a minor series. If it was at least partially referenced, I'd recommend merging to 1632 series, but as it is not, a redirect is the best I can think of in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. PS. Few years ago we deleted the list of non-fictional characters that appear in that series (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 1632 characters) but this list survived an AfD ~6 years ago, although the only substantial keep vote was just making an argument "lists of fictional characters for all notable series are ok". Well, our standard are tightening, and I don't think this argument will fly these days. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To main page. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - The article fails WP:NOTPLOT and has no references to meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. It is not a valid WP:SPINOUT because there is nothing to show that the context of the plot information cannot be sufficiently handled by the main article. If the result is redirect, someone using primary sources as a basis might be able to salvage it for a merge, but otherwise no content should be retained at this time. TTN (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTCRIT, unreferenced. Avilich (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1632 series as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPLOT, do not redirect. A redirect would make sense only if 1632 series covered the characters to some degree, but it does not, and should not: the article explains that "the narratives are not oriented on one group of protagonists with a strong lead character, but instead are carried by an ensemble cast". Sandstein 12:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International 2013

AfDs for this article:
Miss Grand International 2013 (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 event held in 2013. There has also been the previous AfD in 2013, but I think nothing has changed as I couldn't find sources which are reliable and talk about the event in detail. Ratekreel (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Possible 'and salt also has been removed through CSD once (Log of creation and deletion) KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Oz characters (created by Baum)#Trot. Sandstein 12:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trot (Oz)

Trot (Oz) (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 prodded it a year ago with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by an editor (no ping, they are topic banned from deletions now) with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). The article hasn't improved since; it is a poorly referenced plot summary with a tiny listing of media apperances. A redirect to the work she appears in, The Sea Fairies (the story she debuted in), seems like the best outcome in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE I can think of (or perhaps List_of_Oz_characters_(created_by_Baum)#Trot is an even better target). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1: nominator did not advance an argument for deletion (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raimo Kauppila

AfDs for this article:
Raimo Kauppila (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)
  • Keep Athlete twice in the top 15 at the Olympic Games and winner of nine medals (four individual) at the European Championships. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While participation based criteria have been removed from WP:NSPORTS (i.e. it's not sufficient to have competed in Olympics, see WP:NOLYMPICS), I would imagine the European Shooting Championships medals fit the sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level part of WP:SPORTSCRIT. Indeed, a cursory search shows there is relatively easily accessible online sourcing:
  • Yle staff (29 May 2012). "Raimo Kauppila karsiutui kaksoistrapin finaalista". Yle.
  • Sjöblom, Petri (29 March 2000). "Raimo Kauppila korjasi virheet lopussa". Helsingin Sanomat.
  • Aulio, Erkki (3 July 2002). "Kauppila luottaa kotikenttäetuun". Helsingin Sanomat.
  • STT staff (25 July 1996). "Häiriöt pilasivat Raimo Kauppilan ammunnan". MTV Uutiset.
Based on these, it seems likely that further offline coverage exists in physical newspapers that are both too new to be in the Finnish newspaper archive, while concurrently being too old to have been published online. My !vote is weak because I'm not super familiar with the sports criteria, the available online sourcing is a bit so-and-so and further hypothetical sourcing doesn't count for much. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Finland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ljleppan. /Julle (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Looking at the article history, because there was no motivation as to why this should be deleted, it looks like there was a PROD back when the article merely included that Kauppila had participated in the Olympic Games. It has since been updated and expanded. As I understand it Kasper2006, who has !voted keep, took it here in response to that. Is anyone actually arguing for deletion of the article in its current state? /Julle (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources added by Ljleppan. @Julle - you are correct, but I'm sure someone will push for deletion presently nevertheless. Ingratis (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple-medal-winning athlete. BD2412 T 01:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Other World

The Other World (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 toy line by a non-notable (or at least red-linked) company, referenced to two fan pages and what seems to be a passing mention in a local newspaper. My BEFORE failed to find any reliable WP:SIGCOV. Given this is referenced, I am AfDing instead of PRODing, but I have little hope this can be saved. Still, I would be happy to be proven wrong... PS. Since the company seems to have been Hong-Kong-based, maybe there are some Chinese sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Action Figure Archive has an entry on the Other World. I'm not sure what you mean "fan pages". Is there policy that fan pages are not notable? Action Figure Archive seems to be a legit repository for toy info. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv Please see WP:SPS. Unless the fan page is maintained by an estabilished expert who has published scholarly works on the topic, it's not considered a valid source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current refs are undoubtedly not RS, so none of these refs meet WP:NPRODUCT or even WP:GNG. Ping me if more refs are found (I couldn't find any, partly because of the generic title). VickKiang (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's likely valid sources exist in the form of published books on vintage toys from the 80s. Until then, there's not enough online sources to save the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but if we can't find any refs, your argument might be like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, IMHO. VickKiang (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And once someone finds sources, there's always WP:REFUND. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sadly, as I think those monster designs are great, I have to agree with the nomination. The sources within the article are not sufficient for establishing notability, and I am unable to find anything on the toy line or Arco Toys outside of fan sites and sales pages. Rorshacma (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Five (Montana)

Lake Five (Montana) (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)

Lake lacks significant coverage to establish notability under NGEO or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herbamount, Indiana

Herbamount, Indiana (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'm having trouble establishing this as anything beyond a post office. The few non-clickbait or gazetteer hits are for a grape variety. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Checked county GIS service and nothing calls this area Herbamount. Checked Google Streetview and couldn't find any signs that called this area Herbamount. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alkali Lake (Lincoln County, Montana)

Alkali Lake (Lincoln County, Montana) (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)

Lake fails NGEO/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Montana. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom., this does not meet WP:GEOLAND for named features as there is insufficient reliable sourced informatiuon to make an encyclopaedic article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elk, Indiana

Elk, Indiana (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)

Google completely drops the searching ball on this one: for one thing, it is determined to put Elkhart in the results no matter how hard you try to exclude it. What I see in the aerials and topos is most likely a rail point, but I haven't been able to confirm anything. There's no sign of anything one might call a tow, as the cluster of buildings shown on the topos turns out to be a farm. So I can't see keeping this. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Same as Fox Hill, checked county GIS system] and nothing calls this area Elk. I checked Google Streetview and didn't see any signs that called this area Elk. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 1942 topo shows an "Elk Station" along the railroad tracks at this location which disappears sometime before 1965. It must not have been a very important stop; a newspaper search restricted to Martinsville only returned coverage of the animal. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Hill, Indiana

Fox Hill, Indiana (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)

Another searching problem, but I can't find anything that showed this to be anything besides the early subdivision it appears to be on the ground. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fox Hill is listed on Google Maps as a place but when I checked the county GIS system nothing lists that area as Fox Hill. Example. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (footballer, born 1989)

Matthew Brown (footballer, born 1989) (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Bryan

Caleb Bryan (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: No current evidence of notability, but that could change with more/better sources.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Carpenter

Lamar Carpenter (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Chagropango (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage that I could find outside of this trivial mention announcing him as part of a starting lineup and this twitter post, which is a routine call-up announcement, likely trivial, and not independent. SmackJam (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Désiré-Francois Ammomoodhoo

Désiré-Francois Ammomoodhoo (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. No Google news hits. Sources such as [30] and [31] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anaëlle Rassoie

Anaëlle Rassoie (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Found one source here [32] but that is not enough to meet the latter criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cart

AfDs for this article:
X-Cart (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 is time to revisit this. I'll cite a comment from the second nomination: " This article is a waste of Wikipedia space. All the sources above are terrible - press-releases, prices, mentions - they really do not show any notability; actually they just prove that the company uses Wikipedia as advertising platform and it is hardly notable. If these are all the sources, then I can't imagine how this advertising page can be improved".

This is absolutely correct. Ovinus just cleaned up the article, but it's still a mystery to me how it was kept after the second nomination: the eight links provided there by User:Ad Meliora, a user who mysteriously appeared and disappeared, are just terrible--dead, PR, single mentions, trivia, commercial websites. This needs to be deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thanks, Drmies, for taking the plunge for me. There are lots of reviews, probably enough to pass WP:NPRODUCT, but as this article is about the company (and its product of the same name), we need WP:CORPDEPTH-level sourcing. We have at least one somewhat independent source, i.e., the one I put in the article ([33]); that source references another source about the same security incident ([34]). I can't find any other similarly independent sources, though, and I wouldn't personally consider those sources to have appropriate depth. Ovinus (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails wp:CORPDEPTH, apparently not enough reliable sources with enough coverage, so also fails wp:SIGCOV. NytharT.C 02:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would offer to send this to draft if there was a serious attempt to improve this article but I don't see that happening. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did look at the sources provided in the previous AfD as well as a previous version of the article, and I cannot fathom how this survived AfD last time. This one single source is a review that might show notability, but it's a lone article and WP:GNG requires multiple third-party sources. The other sources provided in the previous AfDs were literally press releases and the like, sources that are absolutely not independent and do not contribute to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It was agreed to be kept in the previous discussion. Article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated in the said discussion. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources, exactly, do you believe were indicated in that previous discussion that show notability? The press releases? The activity on the last AfD were from yourself, along with a sockpuppet, and an editor who edited for a month two years ago and has not been seen since; not exactly a thoroughly discussed AfD. It looks like the sources from that discussion were thrown in as "whatever is on Google that matches the product name" because a lot of them are literally press releases; it looks like the editor who added them either did not read through what they were adding to the discussion, or did not understand Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. Either way, citing that previous discussion as cause to keep the article is problematic, because the sources brought up were problematic, and apparently were not looked at very carefully because there are obvious issues with those links. - Aoidh (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two of the links are dead, but salvageable. They only contain mentions of the product. The rest of the links still work and none of them are press releases. I believe they are reliable and talk about the product. So, don't you dare argue with me. My "keep" stands no matter what. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To say that none of the remaining sources are press releases is inaccurate, and it becomes obvious when you take the time to actually examine the sources. This is taken from this press release from GlobeNewswire. This is an exact copy of this press release from PR Newswire. Of the two deadlinks, this is as a trivial mention as possible and this is just a promotional copy of the first deadlink, which is just as trivial. I'm not trying to change your keep argument, just pointing out to the closing admin and others commenting that your keep rationale is based on inaccuracies and is inconsistent with what WP:GNG requires in terms of reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether or not we keep or delete an article has nothing to do with the political bent of the subject, and everything to do with notability, as demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As such I am entirely setting aside the many !votes here that do not examine evidence for notability at all, and are instead screeds about wokeness and conspiracies within Wikipedia. For the benefit of these !voters, I will note that I was unaware of this discussion until 30 minutes ago, when I found it among the deletion discussions requiring closure; and also that my personal preference is quite strongly for documenting completely any controversial academic work, rather than removing it. However, to do so we need evidence of notability, and there is clear consensus here that such evidence does not exist. If someone wishes to work on this in draftspace, I will gladly provide a copy in the understanding that a mainspace move will not be made without more sourcing than has been examined here. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Willoughby

AfDs for this article:
Emily Willoughby (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 article was submitted for deletion in May 2021. The reasons given were that the article fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. This is clearly the case, since that time no reliable sources have been added. In the old afd there were 10 deletion votes and 7 keep votes, however, 2 of the keep votes were from anonymous IPs with no editing history. I am suspicious about that, I am not sure why the article was kept as "no consensus" but the issues clearly remain. This person is not notable enough for biography article and it is not possible to write a biography about them other than a few lines because independent reliable sources do not exist. Four of the sources cited are the International Society for Intelligence Research that might be the only thing they are actually notable for in regard to proper sourcing but it is debatable if the International Society for Intelligence Research is a reliable source, using it four times seems undue weight.

The other sourcing I find deceptive, for example source 1 Terakado, Kazuo (2017). The Art of the Dinosaur. PIE International. pp. 159–177 is not an independent source but a book which Willoughby contributed her artwork to. Source 11 is a deadlink and doesn't look like a reliable source. Source 12 is just a book she has contributed to. There are no academic reviews of this persons work. As for the article history itself, the article looks like it was created by a sock but even if it wasn't, the self-promotion is obvious as they have edited their own article. It looks like this person is desperate to get Google traffic to their books with a Wikipedia article. As for conflict of interest it must be noted that Captain Occam (Willoughby's partner [35]) who was banned from Wikipedia for promoting racist pseudoscience has also edited the article. I see here conflict of interest, lack of independent reliable sourcing, self-promotion and other violations of Wikipedia policy. I believe the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2022 (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/2022 August 19. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Willoughby looks to be a promising scientific illustrator and early career scientist who has achieved some notice for her art, the significant coverage in secondary sources is lacking, no matter how highly her art may be regarded by paloeoart enthusiasts. The only news coverage I found was this 2013 human interest profile in The Times of Trenton, of the type of local news coverage you'd expect for a high school valedictorian or any other "local resident does interesting thing" article. Having art published in books and journals is commendable, but doesn't in itself equate to notability, just as not every costumer, boom operator, or animator on a major film warrants an article, even though their efforts contributed to a notable work. I do not however see the supposed "self promotion", COI-editing, or SEO gaming, as the edits made by those with supposed connections are minimal and conservative (full disclosure, I have made more edits to the article than the other two combined). What I see instead is over-enthusiastic "dinofan" type writing, which unfortunately affects several articles on paleontologists and paleoartists, where 'biographies' quickly become indiscriminate lists of species named and/or illustrated, relying heavily on primary sources (see e.g. Luis Rey, John Conway, Gregory S. Paul and Darren Naish). Dinosaur fans really like dinosaurs, and think naming one or drawing one is just about the most amazing thing anyone can do (even if it's a routine part of a job). Many academic biographies need scrutiny for this type of gushing. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my previous reasoning last AfD. There's simply not enough reviews of her work in reliable sources to qualify for WP:NAUTHOR, the only notability criterion she'd remotely qualify for. Clear fail of PROF as a postdoc and GNG for general lack of reliable sources about her. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. What is everyones thoughts on this article passing WP:ARTIST? I feel like she is really close to passing bullet point 3 with her work but because of her field she might not get additional recognition. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, Bullet point 3: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors Willoughby was widely cited an as an inspiration by many amateur paleoartists on twitter, but I think "peers or successors" generally denotes professional artists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair, it was kind of a gray area for me and I just wanted to be sure I wasn't misreading anything. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Minnesota. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning by Hemiauchenia and others above. Aside: I should note that her association with Captain Occam has timely associations with current controversy involving her person. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't look like WP:PROMO to me in it's current state, but in any case that could have been solved by clean-up and WP:DINC. However, she certainly doesn't meet WP:NPROF. WP:NARTIST is more of a possibility, but I'm not convinced she's at that level yet. WP:TOOSOON, as I said at the last AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The most likely claim to notability, as others have pointed out, would be point 3 of WP:ARTIST. However, she does not pass, because her work is not the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Chagropango (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think she's very much borderline in terms of WP:ARTIST criteria, but something worth considering as of this second time around is the recent controversy surrounding her views on genetic intelligence on race that have gone viral within the palaeo community. Given her anecdotal fame and respect within the palaeoart community, it could previously be assumed she'd increasingly meet these criteria as time goes on, making it tempting to "go easy" on the notability criteria. But now that a large portion of her primary audience base is no longer iterested in platforming or tolerating her, it seems very likely to me she will only become less regarded as important and less covered in secondary sources going forward. Her notability has probably peaked as we speak and will only go down, unless an unprecedented switch in sentiments happens to occur around the controversy. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not within the palaeo community, but I guess the other possible outcome is the controversy itself generates some secondary sources for WP:GNG, but I suspect they wouldn't be significant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the same reason given in the previous AfD: she does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR nor WP:NARTIST. Re: the notability criteria for artists, she does not meet criteria #3 - there are no art historians, theoreticians or critics who have written on her work within the context contemporary fine art; nor does she meet any of the other criteria of NARTIST. Most of the article citations consists of non-independent primary sources. Netherzone (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is the co-author of God's Word or Human Reason? It is notable as per:
  1. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/book-review-gods-word-or-human-reason-an-inside-perspective-on-creationism/
  2. BLANCKE, S. God’s Word or Human Reason? An Inside Perspective on Creationism. Journal of Cognitive Historiography, [s. l.], v. 4, n. 2, p. 283–285, 2017. DOI 10.1558/jch.37809. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=139640280&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 19 ago. 2022.
ADditionally she has contributed to various other books, as an artist, and WP:CREATIVE guides us that people are co-creators, it doesn't require them to get significant coverage, just the thing they co-created. If I udnerstand correctly she co-created Dinosaur Art II which is gets significant coverage here:
  1. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/paleoart-and-dinosaur-art-2/544505/
  2. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-scientific-palaeoart-of-dr-mark-witton/
  3. https://www.nhpr.org/environment/2022-06-12/what-jurassic-park-got-wrong-and-right-about-dinosaurs
Her work is in commons here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deinonychus_ewilloughby.png and noted for being so here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-birds-evolved-from-dinosaurs-20150602/
Her work also gets mentioned here: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/paleoart-that-makes-fossils-come-alive/article34555441.ece and also here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/who-was-the-snuggliest-dinosaur-of-all
I don't think this makes the perfect pass at WP:ARTIST or WP:AUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE but I'm not an algorithm, I'm a human able to add up the various elements here and they give me an overall impression of someone whose art is notable, and her inclusion therefore is a helpful addition to the encyclopedia. CT55555 (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those links, if they mention Willoughby at all, are passing mentions. Giving credit to an artist is professional courtesy, not significant coverage. Repeated interviews of a sheriff or fire captain about crimes or fires in their city don't make those professionals notable, even if they themselves have solved many crimes or extinguished many fires. I can find my own Wikipedia username mentioned in articles. This doesn't mean I'm notable. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a sense, yes. They briefly mention her. Because they are about the works, but that is what WP:CREATIVE calls for = the work to be notable. I quote The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (emphasis mine) CT55555 (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually search for "Willoughby" in those links, they do not mention Willoughby in any detail so would fail to be used as biographical information, there is simply no content to be added here. How can we have an article with no in depth sourcing? Answer us that. How can we build an article on passing mention? The only mention in text of Willoughby in this review you cited [36], says "radiometric dating and the age of the Earth (Willoughby, Chapter 3)". This was a book that Willoughby contributed a single chapter to. Nowhere does Darren Naish review Willoughby's contributions to the book. So what would the point of adding this source be? Likewise this piece [37] in Quanta Magazine only mentions Willoughby in a footnote at the bottom of the article "June 4, 2015: The dinosaur silhouettes in “The Incredible Shrinking Bird” graphic are based on the following illustrations: Monolophosaurus by Jordan Mallon, Deinonychus by Emily Willoughby, and Velociraptor by Matt Martyniuk." How or why would this reference improve the article? The same with the article in The Atlantic [38], search for "Willoughby", she is mentioned only once. This is what the article says "the artist Emily Willoughby notes in Dinosaur Art II: not a direct route going anywhere, but, rather, a messy bundle of approaches". Yes that is it, how does that one odd line show that Willoughby is notable? Or how could that reference be used on the Wikipedia article? None of the sources you listed give any biographical information about Willoughby. Doing a Google search to find any old link that mentions her name does not make her notable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reminder from slightly higher up on WP:NBIO than WP:CREATIVE: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that. I'm not following this like an algorithm saying she must be included because of that. I'm considering that, plus the various other factors as a whole, going by what I think is the spirit of the guidelines, not the technical details of it...informed by WP:5P5 CT55555 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disregarding the seemingly demanding "answer us that", the implication that you can demand things of me, and that you're speaking on behalf of a group, but please let's go easy on each other here.
I think these links demonstrate that the works she co-created as notable. That is what WP:CREATIVE calls for, that is the only point I am making. CT55555 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, I have a lot of respect for your work as an editor but you are misinterpreting the CREATIVE/NARTIST guideline. Netherzone (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to learn. Where do you think I'm going wrong with my logic? CT55555 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable comments. For the books, my understanding was she only one of five authors for God’s Word or Human Reason? and it was unclear to me how big a contribution she had to Dinosaur Art II, hence I wasn't 100% convinced if that counted as "major role in co-creating", but there is some weight to it at least. Her work being on commons doesn't really count for anything, especially when uploaded by the subject. There are some mentions in independant sources, but I wasn't convinced that her contributions had enough coverage (especially if she didn't do a large fraction of the piece of work). Her images are certainly used by others, but that's more run of the mill for her professional to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am reconsidering my !vote. Partly waiting to see what @Netherzone says in reply above. CT55555 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a conference/festival thru the weekend. If I find time to do a source analysis chart I will post it. Netherzone (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read Dinosaur Art II, but if it is anything like Dinosaur Art then Willoughby is a featured artist who was interviewed by the authors, not an author of the book. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As full professor in biology, I second the statement that Willoughby's co-authorship of the book "God's Word or Human Reason?" defines notability. The significance of the book is reflected in a good number of thoughtful reviews on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Human-Reason-Perspective/dp/1629016381 Friedrichwsu (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Amazon reviews do not hold weight. I think the reviews for Shortcuts to Mindfulness: 100 Ways to Personal and Spiritual Growth (Auman, 2014) look just as thoughtful... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Friedrichwsu, your full professorship holds no more weight than any other editor here. For a better understanding of our criteria for notability for writers, you might want to read WP:AUTHOR. Amazon reviews are not the same as a review in an independent reliable source. Amazon "reviews" are user-submitted content with no editorial oversight or peer review. Netherzone (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She may become notable in the future, but she isn't there yet. "local resident does interesting thing" sums it up. Athel cb (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the notability guideline, A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Based on my search of the WP Library, my online search, and sources identified in this discussion, it appears WP:GNG and SNGs are not sufficiently supported, and this article should be excluded per WP:NOT, because it would otherwise essentially be an advertisement due to the limited secondary coverage of her and her work at this time. For example, her illustrations appear in the 2014 National Geographic source noted above, but the source does not discuss her work directly. In the 2018 SciAm blog noted above about Dinosaur Art II , the author Darren Naish is not independent (e.g. "As with the first volume, I was scientific consultant, and assisted Steve [White]") - this does not support WP:NBOOK notability. The 2022 NHPR source noted above states "For older readers, or anybody who loves a good coffee table book, check out Dinosaur Art II, which features a number of excellent paleoartists" in a list of recommendations - this does not support WP:NBOOK notability. In the 2021 Hindu source, she talks about her own work, although there seems to be some limited support for her WP:BASIC notability as a paleoartist. Similarly, in the 2017 Atlantic source cited above, she is quoted as support for the article commentary about paleoart generally, not her work primarily. With regard to God's Word or Human Reason? An Inside Perspective on Creationism, Darren Naish also writes the 2018 SciAm blog book review, which includes content such as "(UPDATE: BUY SIGNED COPIES DIRECT FROM THE AUTHORS HERE)" and mentions her twice ("Kane and co-author Emily Willoughby realised – clear and comprehensive response was warranted" [to the Creation Museum] and a mention of the chapter she wrote) while directly discussing the work of other co-authors in detail. Stefaan Blancke in the Journal of Cognitive Historiography includes commentary such as "the contributing authors [...] take creationism seriously. [...] as former creationists, they fully realize the significance of religious beliefs in people's lives. [...] This is wonderfully illustrated by the short life stories of the authors that follow each of the chapters." Overall, there is some independent secondary coverage of her work, but per our guidelines and policies, we do not seem to have enough at this time to support an encyclopedia article about Willoughby, and it does not improve the encyclopedia per WP:IAR to serve as a promotional medium for artists and authors who have not yet received GNG or SNG levels of coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per my reasoning in the last AfD, and per the excellent arguments above regarding the shallowness of sourcing and promotionalism. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a coincidence that this "delete" campaign started after false accusations on social media regarding some of her art, and completely bonkers statements about her scientific work. This delete campaign is a witch hunt, plain and simple. 64.180.15.95 (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry bro but the accusations are actually all true if you look into them, but whatever is on social media is irrelevant to Wikipedia, the fact remains her bio fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG and there are other issues at play, per policy the article should be deleted. It's the lack of reliable sources that her article should be deleted it has nothing to do with a witch hunt. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, they are not true: The ignorant and misguided demonization of a behavior geneticist. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of any controversy around her in the first AfD, and do not care about it one way or the other in this one. All that is relevant is whether she passes one of our notability guidelines, and she does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Markjoseph125, whyevolutionistrue is a blog filled with personal opinion, not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, not accurate, not fair. Yes, some blogs are like that, but Dr. Coyne is a well-respected professor of evolutionary biology at a major universe, with an impressive list of publications to his name. Furthermore, he provided reasons why the attacks against Emily were misguided; in brief, her scientific paper showed that intelligence is partially heritable. This should surprise absolutely no one who is not a creationist. She didn't even talk about race. Prehistorica made the woke jump from "intelligence is partially heritable" to "By now a lot of you are aware, but for anyone in the dark, paleoartist Emily Willoughby is involved in “research” that is directly tied to eugenics, racism, and classism.
She also believes, or is at least indifferent to, the myth that intelligence has a racial component."
This is simple character assassination. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy's statement about the whyevolutionistrue site is true, accurate, and fair, as a matter of Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've misread. Psychologist Guy didn't comment on Dr. Coyne's site; his "Sorry bro but the accusations are actually all true" refers to the Twitter accusations against Emily (believing race is part of intelligence, etc.) Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Psychologist Guy wrote, whyevolutionistrue is a blog filled with personal opinion, not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Hence my reference to a statement about the whyevolutionistrue site. The Twitter accusations to which you refer are entirely immaterial to the question of whether this article should or should not be deleted. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. His comment "Sorry bro but the accusations are actually all true" is *earlier* than his comment on Dr. Coyne's blog. Furthermore, in context, his comment, as response to 64.10.15.95's comment that this is a witch hunt against Emily, is very clearly directed at the Twitter campaign against her. You've misread again. Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained what I was responding to. I have not "misread" anything. The fundamental point is that the so-called "Twitter campaign" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, this article should exist. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The only way that could change is if the so-called "Twitter campaign" were itself documented in reliable sources, and in sufficient depth that it could overcome the serious reluctance of the Wikipedia community to have articles on living people known only for one thing. Such coverage would have to be quite substantial. People being upset at somebody on Twitter is, in the vast majority of cases, not news. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Markjoseph125, No one here has attacked Emily Willoughby. Many of us don't even use Twitter or other social media. Please stop with the "witch hunt's against Emily" accusations - these type of statements are not only personal attacks, which is against a key Wikipedia policy of No Personal Attacks, they constitute a conspiracy theory that WP editors are bad-faith editors. Please review and digest our policy WP:NPA and WP:AGF one of our core behavioral guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jerry Coyne is sending people here. [39] If there are readers willing to argue her cause on Wikipedia, I’d urge you to jump into the fray. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia supposedly has a neutral point of view. This is the very last site on the internet where we should be allowing Twitter-style lynch mobs. As the *only* reason she is being considered for deletion is political, it must be resisted. Of course, the "notability" squib is mere misdirection; as pointed out above, this is a witch hunt, pure and simple.Markjoseph125 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The timing is very convenient, but if one wants to dismiss the argument against notability as "mere misdirection" surely you should come equipped with actual counter arguments that this doesn't hold water? What exactly makes her notable and the arguments she isn't incorrect? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the timing is "convenient" (I would have said "suspicious"). I will let others argue the "notability" red herring (I would only say that it would be a trivial exercise to find hundreds or even thousands of other articles on Wikipedia that would not meet notability criteria. Unless it's some teenage kid putting up a page about himself, it's just not a major issue). You didn't address the point that this is just a Twitter-style lynch mob, and that said cancellations are already common, and becoming routine. Accusations suffice to prove guilt (can you say Joseph McCarthy?). This simply needs to be resisted, because once the mob lynches one victim, they just move on to the next one. Remember: Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a playbook. Popping a paper into a memory hole, updated for the electronic age, is deleting someone's Wikipedia page for any and every reason, making Emily or whomever into an unperson, with its concomitant chilling effect on free speech.
Amusing comment posted by someone on Jerry Coyne's blog: "it’s ironic eh? She is notable enough for the woke anti-racists on twitter to take note of her and cancel her as an illustrator and as a researcher. But she is obscure enough in both art and science that the same cancellers can then migrate over to wikipedia and argue for deleting her page there. In between those two positions there is some insight into how trivial her transgressions must be." Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no cancellation going on here. Deletion of a Wikipedia page does not make someone an unperson. I am a person, yet I do not have a Wikipedia page. Conversely, people cancelled by social media can and often do have Wikipedia pages. I find the alarmism that is quickly descending upon this routine deletion discussion to be very alarming. Yes, I say routine, because, despite the unfortunate timing of the current discussion, as an outsider you do not notice the fact that dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia pages are deleted every single day for a myriad of reasons. The central notability standards that are being used to assess Willoughby's article are not different from those used to assess any other biography of a living person on this website. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant here. Willoughby is not the first palaeoartist whose article is being considered for deletion, nor the last, and yet I would be surprised if this same level of canvassing and off-site vitriol occurs for any others. I am finding that the majority of the pitchforks are indeed coming not from inside but from outside the barn, especially now that the Article Rescue Squadron is somewhat diminished. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markjoseph125, comment on content not on contributors. Do not attack other editors with whom you disagree by calling them "Lynch mobs" or accuse good faith editors of acting out of a "political" agenda, or call them "cancellers". Please read No Personal Attacks WP:NPA - it is WP policy. Netherzone (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I also note that a fair number of others have noted that the attack on Emily is politically motivated. And that this all started with a very clearly politically motivated tweet (the one by Prehistorica). And that a couple of lines up, one of the pro-deletion people referred to me as an "outsider," implying my ignorance of Wikipedia.
There are thousands of Wikipedia articles on subjects less notable than Ms. Willoughby. I only had to click the "random article" link once to find this one-line article: Grömbach. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. However, you must realize 1) that you entered this discussion after Jerry Coyne's post and made reference to it; 2) that you referenced your contributions in the comments of Coyne's post; 3) that you immediately made comments upon entering this discussion that - I quote the editor you are replying to - engaged in personal attacks on others in the deletion discussion, contrary to standard site policy and etiquette; and 4) that it is possible to simultaneously not support the vitriol against Willoughby on Twitter and also to engage in a standard policy procedure on Wikipedia which recognizes the unlikelihood of there being sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish her notability as an artist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markjoseph125 A couple of comments about the existence of the Grömbach page. First, it's a category error to compare notability of people and places. The guideline for the notability of geographical entities, WP:GEOLAND, states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Clearly that's not a criterion one can apply to a human being. For Willoughby, one needs to establish Wikipedia-type notability as a person/scientist/illustrator. Second, in any case, pointing to the existence of other articles is a classic "argument to avoid" in deletion discussions - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. An article may be created at any time by someone without the scrutiny of the community. In addition, editors are bound by policy, not by the decisions of a small group of editors on any other content page. This isn't case law.OsFish (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the category error. I actually wondered about that when I commented. I skimmed the notability criteria, didn't see anything unusual, and didn't realize that there was a separate set of criteria for places.
But, I still wonder. After all, every single person who ever played major-league baseball, even if they only played one game, has a Wikipedia page. Is Rugger Ardizoia, who pitched two innings for the Yankees in 1947, in his only MLB game, really notable? Or Bill Batsch, who had one pinch-hit at-bat for the Pirates in 1916? They both have Wikipedia pages.
While I sort of understand the points that have been made about notability here, it's a simple fact that Emily was co-author of an important book, and now has published a scientific paper. That should be enough. I see the notability criterion as a way to weed out the self-promotion, the vanity pages, and the advertising, not to keep out people that might or might not be just on one side or the other of a line which really is not all that well-defined. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We actually had a giant discussion a few months ago about the wiki-notability criteria for sports people, with the general conclusion being that they should be tightened up. It will take some time for cruft from earlier generations of Wikipedia — articles based on a single line in a database, and the like — to be cleared out, but the process is underway. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Markjoseph125, those are questions that are constantly debated on the WP:NSPORT talk page, where I and many others have been working to raise the bar for sportsperson inclusion. While demonstrating WP:GNG coverage has always been required for these biographies eventually, we have recently substantially tightened all athlete bio criteria such that any presumption of notability for any reason was eliminated, merely participating in a professional game does not indicate sources are likely to exist, all sports articles must have a source of SIGCOV cited, and evidence that a subject meets GNG must be much stronger than vaguewaves to unnamed offline sources. We are now working our way through the tens of thousands of athlete stubs created under laxer standards, and you're welcome to join in with policy- and guideline-based reasons to delete these pages. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. Actually, as I've made clear in my notability comments during this discussion, I favor having this information directly at hand (Bill Batsch is my new favorite 1916 Pirate!), and a lenient policy toward notability, removing mostly junk, such as advertising, vanity pages, and self-promotion.
But, if you really do this, then you'll also need to go through thousands of place names, bands, insects, ad nauseam. An awful lot of work for a result that may not even be positive. In other words, I think your time could be better spent. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She easily passes any notability test. Her name has 30,400 hits in Google. The associated pictures are her art. The 'woke' fanatics are after her. Some anti-Science, anti-fact crazies are after her. That is what this is really all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschaeffer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pschaeffer - google hits are irrelevant. If you believe they easily pass any notability test, then for your vote to be a !vote, you need to specifically point out the sources that meet the criteria you think they pass. Additionally, indicating that every person who has !voted delete above is an "anti-science, anti-fact crazy" is also not a good route to take. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The academic subject of this discussion appears to be notable enough in her field of paleoart, as she has had illustrations published in books and the prestigious journal Nature. Paleoart seems to be a niche profession, so it may be hard to find a universal criterion of notability in it. As some people have pointed out above, this academic has been the subject of a social media controversy recently, and as such we must keep in mind the possibility that many people are motivated to erase this page for this reason instead of notability per se. If that is the case, this would not be an acceptable reason to delete her page. Gandalf 1892 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:GNG is the universal criterion of notability (for Wikipedia). -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Merely being published is not sufficient for wiki-notability in any field. XOR'easter (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appears to be an ideological campaign against her. Why are the deleters so eager to get rid of her? Maybe this could be revisit after the current smear attack blows over. Roger (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – (edit conflict) This Afd is mentioned in a blog post that came out today. Rather than link it, if interested search for The imminent cancellation of Emily Willoughby: a fight to remove her from Wikipedia and it will come up #1 (on g, d, or b). It completely misunderstands or misstates the Afd as willful 'cancellation' of material that Wikipedia objects to for political reasons. Responding there is probably a complete waste of time. That said, if there is a lot of media attention as various commenters have mentioned, it's worth considering whether the Afd might be tainted. I'm not sure if anything can be concluded from this, but examining the page views for this Afd (currently 550) and five other pages nominated around the same time, I found this: Elijah Long: 22, Rusty Edwards: 18, X-Cart 28, Anil Keshary Shah: 157, Anaëlle Rassoie: 12 page views. Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though I argued to keep before scoring out my !vote, the outside influence here is obvious for all to see. There seemed to be consensus to delete, I'll say that even thought I didn't vote delete. It would be good to identify commenters who have no other AfD input CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry for the duplicate reference; this is the same site Hob Gadling already referred to above; I didn't recognize it from the name. Mathglot (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See latest page views. (It was 1,203 when I looked; not sure how often it updates.) Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views now at 2,203 3,217 (link above). The value seems to update once a day, early or mid-morning UTC. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC) —Update occurs around 07:00 UTC. Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The accusations against her are entirely false. The 'deleters' should do their research before believing in gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4406:3E00:953A:D9A4:B0D1:15F (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)— 2A02:C7F:4406:3E00:953A:D9A4:B0D1:15F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


  • Keep. I have no professional expertise by which to judge Emily Willoughby’s paleo-art. But as an African evolutionary historian, I have devoted a lifetime to exposing the irrationality of eugenics and the hidden motives of those who pursue this pseudo-science . So, I feel confident in saying that Emily Willoughby’s work is not what we should be expunging either from the academy or Wikipedia. In fact, we need to encourage more thoughtful, creative and intellectually adventurous women like Willoughby to enter the male-dominated fields of genetics and biology. Why? My latest book, Straightening the Bell Curve, exposes the unspoken masculine insecurities that drive this type of work. When looked at closely, eugenicists exhibit an odd preoccupation with issues like black athleticism, musculature and the National Basketball Association. In fact, one of the principal contributors to The Bell Curve, Canadian psychologist J. Philippe Rushton exposed the underbelly of this work when he blurted out in an interview that Whites had higher IQs because: “It's a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can't have everything." Any controversies that arise from Willoughby’s work should be vigorously debated. But her career should be encouraged, not snuffed out by those committed to combatting racism in all its forms. Conniehilliard (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)— Conniehilliard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize established knowledge, not host debates or encourage careers. We document the careers of scholars who have already been influential in their field. Encouraging women to enter male-dominated fields of academia is, I happen to think, a noble goal. However, by its very nature, Wikipedia can only support that goal in a secondary or tertiary way, by providing information about women whose work in those fields already has demonstrable merit. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conniehillard, could you please share how you happened to find this AfD on your first edit? Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I had over the past several months been sharing views with an old and dear Harvard classmate of mine about "woke culture". He is a biologist who has been supportive of my efforts as an evolutionary historian to pioneer the field of ancestral genomics. And I was not as familiar as I probably should have been regarding the meaning of "woke culture". So, in preparing me for the kinds of barriers my new book in progress might face he sent me an email describing the woes of Emily Willoughby. This professor and I may not share the same views, but my own work has shown how critical the need is for female scientists to involve themselves in genetic topics. There is a surprising degree of toxic masculinity displays parading as rational thought in eugenics thinking about race and intelligence among some presumably notable male scientists. Connie Conniehilliard (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume, perhaps, that this Harvard alumnus, biologist, and Emily Willoughby advocate is none other than Jerry Coyne himself. Therefore, this user has also been canvassed by Coyne. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know this guy, Jerry Coyne. Conniehilliard (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equivocal Keep. Jerry Coyne did not exactly "send" me, but he certainly alerted me to the problem. Emily Willoughby has written for a blog that I help manage, The Panda's Thumb. All that said, I think the page is weak and unaccountably omits entirely her work on intelligence, which is presumably why the mob is going after her. I think a decision should not be taken in such fraught circumstances. As someone else has noted, there are plenty of other weak pages, and no one minds them. We should not let the mob have their way or even seem to have their way. Theopticist (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Theopticist — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Theopticist (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
There is no mob here. Nothing unusual is happening here. I would be delighted to add further support to keep this page if we can establish notability (which I tried to do above). If something is missing, that's great news. We can improve the article. Now is the perfect time to do that. Please share any links that have significant coverage and are produced independently about her work. If you do so, I am certain we could persuade people to keep the article. If you want it kept, that is the way to do it. CT55555 (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make head not tail of how to Keep or Delete. Sorry Theopyicist for using your 'reply' to make a comment here!
What an &%#$ dogs breakfast this system is - man, I thought the 'behind the scenes' was better - I can imagine so many coming here and leaving in disgust at the mess.
Anyway, of course Keep, but it won't matter, because the Delete HAVE come here for idealogical reasons. And THIS comment will get a comment itself, saying I am wrong blah blah blah, nothing unusual happening...so disingenuous. Say it all you want. We all know what's going on. Keep hiding behind your oh so obvious 'process' talk which will inevitably end in Delete being upheld. All according to Plan, I mean Process.
And so falls Wikipedia - now this is also tarnished and diluted.
Spare me the replies that are copy-paste of those above about 'this is about other issues' etc etc. Just leave it.
Thanks Theopycist - again, sorry for piggy-backing, but for newbs trying to navigate, it's so primitive here.
So for one of the posters, don't be suspicious of an IP address only - anonymous - it's an outcome of the crap system. I was about to post anonymous, but will create an account just for you. Ubernez (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC) — Ubernez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete A long comment this, but I think it might help. First of all, to those who have been directed here by Jerry Coyne via his blog or his appeal on Twitter, welcome to Wikipedia, or at least, what goes on behind the curtain in editing. I hope you stay and contribute.
Secondly, I'm afraid Professor Coyne has rather dramatically misunderstood the situation. This discussion is not about anyone's politics. The issue at hand is whether the topic of "Emily Willoughby" (the science illustrator/researcher) is, according to Wikipedia policy, "notable" enough to merit its own page. Politically controversial people are not "cancelled" from Wikipedia. (Think of a famous person who's been "cancelled". Go look at their wiki page. It's still there.) I'll explain what "notability" means on Wikipedia in point 5 below.
Thirdly, dispute resolution on Wikipedia is not done by voting, but by !voting. That is, we don't simply count votes. People need to put forward arguments based on policy. That is why you see regular editors here citing WP:this or WP:that in their explanations. They're linking to the policies regarding potential notability of people as article subjects. Please also note that as seasoned editors, they are not enjoined in battle with each other, but discussing civilly how the policy should apply here given the evidence produced thus far. This includes willingness to changing their mind if new evidence comes to light. Conversely, if someone says "delete" or "keep" but cites no reason according to policy, their !vote may simply be ignored by the administrator (person empowered) who closes the discussion. So please, if you have come here to !Vote "keep", please look for evidence to support your position. If we have better sources, we improve the encyclopedia. (Or you might change your mind after looking at the evidence and policy.)
Fourthly, the mere opinions of Wikipedia editors on who is or is not notable are irrelevant, regardless of who you might be in real life. Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources. (Looking at some of the arguments already put: RS does not include Twitter comments or Amazon reviews.) So if you want to say that person X is a significant figure in their field, you need to show that such opinions have been stated in independent reliable sources, or that such recognition is reflected in major real-world awards and appointments. Experts are of course welcome on Wikipedia because they have command of the material and sources. But they can't pull rank or simply vouch for something. (For one thing, how would we deal with fake claims of expertise?)
Fifthly, specifically about this proposed deletion. The issue is not whether Emily Willoughby exists and works as a science illustrator/researcher. It is whether she is notable enough as a science illustrator/researcher to merit a page. The basic policy is the general notability guidelines which require significant coverage in independent reliable sources about her. These guidelines are very general, such that over the years, the editing community has developed more specific policies to apply in specific cases. Here, the policies on academic notability WP:ACADEMIC and artistic notability WP:CREATIVE appear to be the relevant ones. Each lists a range of criteria the subject would normally need to fulfill at least one of which to reach notability. The problem that those !voting delete have (myself included) is that in our judgement, she doesn't appear to meet any of them. (She may do in the future, of course - no deletion is a permanent deletion). Regarding WP:Academic, the only thing that remotely resembles notability are points 2 & 3 with her association with the International Society for Intelligence Research, but it simply isn't one of the top academic societies in that field and their student prizes don't count as major. To quote policy, it's not like a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society. Regarding WP:CREATIVE, no one has yet produced evidence of notability in the required form: independent reliable sources describing her as having significant original impact or influence. There need to be independent reliable sources on the topic of Emily Willoughby, illustrator, talking directly and subtantively about her work and its impact. Passing mentions are not enough. Having her work published is not enough. Mere google hit numbers are not enough. (Imagine how Wikipedia could be manipulated if we weren't stricter about this sort of thing).
To conclude, I want to emphasise to those visiting, via Professor Coyne, the editing side of Wikipedia for the first time, please stay and help to improve the encyclopedia. It's fun and serves the community. In this instance, please bring evidence that would satisfy the policies on notability. The more well-sourced material, the better. OsFish (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This discussion is timely, and as one of the people who strongly wanted to keep the article the first time it was nominated for deletion, I cannot say that I am invested in its continued existence any more. I agree with many of the points made above: her art, while arguably influential by some metrics, is not the subject of many secondary sources, and her research is unremarkable beyond an insular and incredibly controversial subfield of genetics. An open request to any more Coyne subscribers wanting to influence this discussion: complaining about "the woke mob" isn't doing you any favors to support claims of an apolitical perspective on the situation. You all share certain views of Coyne's, some of which may be objectively correct and well-supported while others may be subjective opinions without as much factual merit as claimed. I should also share our guidelines for meatpuppetry and how it is inappropriate in any AfD discussion: "A close variation is the "meatpuppet", people recruited from outside Wikipedia to try to alter the result of a discussion (for example, if your article about a web forum is up for deletion and you post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia")." Simply put: don't do it. Willoughby will survive not having a Wikipedia article, it's a very minor thing in the grand scheme of things. Not having a Wikipedia article is far from the biggest current threat to her reputation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Not having a Wikipedia article is far from the biggest current threat to her reputation." I think this statement discredits you directly.
Regarding your "meatpuppet" accusations, I will remind you that the people who read Jerry Coyne's blog are on average a select subset of the general population, disproportionately scientists and intellectuals. Calling these people "meatpuppets", again, is tantamount to discrediting yourself twice in the same paragraph. Orgrosu (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using the usual vocabulary (and explaining it in the same contribution!) discredits nobody. Read OsFish's explanation. If it's too long for you, here is a shorter version: You need to give actual valid reasoning, based on Wikipedia rules, for keeping the article. Otherwise, your contribution is just noise that will not be taken into account.
If you are a "scientist and intellectual", you should be able to make a solid case for your position. If you don't do that, but instead use empty rhetorics like "mob", as others have done here, you are wasting your potential as a "scientist and intellectual", and it simply does not matter who you are; you could just as well be a forum insult bot.
The goal of studying is to learn how to arrive at a conclusion by valid reasoning. The goal is not to earn a degree that gives your conclusion (which you arrived at by whatever means) more weight in the eyes of impressionable people.
Coming here and trying to "vote", without having any valid reasoning behind it, and attacking people you disagree with, is typical meatpuppet behaviour. So, put up or shut up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Orgrosu here, I think it's by no means incorrect to argue that the twitter thread which started Willoughby's "cancellation" is much more consequential to her reputation than this article, which had an average of only 7 daily pageviews before the controversy erupted.[40] Both her detractors and supporters can agree on that. "Meatpuppet" is a specific piece of Wikipedia jargon which appears to apply to this situation, and is not meant to be a crass insult towards Coyne and his fans. If you want to demonstrate your (or Coyne's) supposed intellectual superiority in this discussion, you should start by making any points towards why this article in particular is worth keeping. Complaining about "the woke mob" (and other statements along those lines) isn't an argument, it's just a complaint. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hob Gadling I refrained to vote because I don't have the level of expertise necessary to assess whether the scientist in question achieves the customary notability standard. Two items however raised my suspicion about this deletion proposal: the phrase I quoted, which is clearly derogatory, and the timing - in the context of her being attacked on social media. The word "mob", again, in this particular context, is an apt description. Amusingly, your "empty rhetoric" is just that.
@Fanboyphilosopher Here's my point:
If I have to choose between having articles up about people of questionable notability, or having Wikipedia purged by activists, parsimony, common sense, and general alarm about the future compel me to choose the former. Orgrosu (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you entertained the possibility that, had you and other readers of Coyne's blog not entered this discussion based on his call to arms, the word "meatpuppet" might never have been used in the first place? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain, pray, what you find wrong with me taking part in this discussion? Orgrosu (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that it is because "recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited"? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My username _is_ my name. So I am not allowed to influence decisions on Wikipedia, but _you_ are? What's the reasoning? Orgrosu (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. As many of us have pointed out, canvassing - asking people in a non-neutral manner to join an editors' discussion (on deletion, on a behaviour issue, on policy changes etc) - is against the rules. That principle is part of a whole culture of encouraging neutrality and policy-following that enables the encyclopedia to survive. Also against the rules is incivility. That doesn't simply mean no insults, it also means assuming good faith on the part of other editors. If such rules were not in place, the project would have collapsed years ago.
Now, if you had all turned up to argue politely for keeping this article according to Wikipedia policies and with reliably sourced evidence, people would still be annoyed at the canvassing, and it would have to be noted by the closing administrator, but there would be much less aggro. However, that's not what you've all done. Instead, you've turned up in an openly partisan manner armed with what is, frankly, a conspiracy theory about woke editors trying to cancel people from Wikipedia for which you have, and this really needs stressing to followers of a critic of pseudoscience, zero evidence. (Professor Coyne seems to have imagined it.) When people ask these new editors to make arguments according to long-established, open, clearly-stated policies about which people and topics do or don't get a Wikipedia page of their own, almost none of you respect that and instead suggest it's part of the same, unevidenced "woke" conspiracy. (Ironically, given Professor Coyne's stance on the issue, the only reference any "delete" editor has made to the issue of "correct" or "incorrect" views has been to policy about not giving undue weight to creationism as a fringe view.)
Of course we're going to kick back against all that. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not take part in culture wars. If or when Emily Willoughby satisfies the criteria for inclusion, she can be the topic of an article. That's it, really.
And seriously, if you want to stay and help improve the encyclopedia, please do so. Just respect the rules of interaction among editors. They've worked pretty well so far. OsFish (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any reasonable rule that I might have broken. If not trusting the editors on this was being uncivil, then I am guilty of that. I have however been clear why. Most of the time a soldier should indeed follow orders, however there are cases when they shouldn't. I considered this to be such a case. Also, quoting things such as "canvassing", "meatpuppeting", are simply thinly veiled suggestions that I should not be part of the discussion. Why exactly should that be? I offered my argument, and I'll offer it again: it is prudent, especially when people suspect foul play, to refrain from deleting the article. Just don't. Revisit the decision later, when the situation will have cooled. Simply the amount of (charged) discussion speaks to this. Orgrosu (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That reasoning does not make any sense in the Wikipedia context. When articles are up to deletion, anyone can come and say "I suspect foul play", and all the reasoning for deletion is null and void and the article stays? That's silly. Deletion is decided based on sound reasoning, not on fantasies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Orgrosu: This will be my last reply to you in this AfD.
1. Despite repeated requests that you address the substance of the AfD - that this topic is not notable enough to merit its own article - I'm afraid you have contributed nothing to that discussion. You have made zero reference to any of the notability policies let alone offered evidence that the topic meets any of the criteria therein. When people refer to the question of whether someone is here or not to build an encyclopedia, it has a concrete meaning: are you trying to improve content? Thus far, you haven't tried. That can always change, but it's up to you, not anyone else.
2. You HAVE broken a rule. Professor Coyne and all those who responded to his call have broken an established rule against organised campaigning. You know this, because you have been told directly, with quotes from the rule, and given a link to that rule. It is not good to pretend you haven't.
3. "Suspicion" of foul play is, without evidence, meaningless on Wikipedia. We have processes to address foul play. The thing about them is, assertion of foul play by any editors must be backed by evidence of some kind. You have presented zero evidence. To repeat: the idea that we're trying to "cancel" someone because we're "woke activists" is a conspiracy theory proposed by someone who, despite all their undoubted scholarly achievements, doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. We don't cancel people here. It's not within the rules. At worst, we have barely civil arguments about how to reflect published criticism of a notable living subject - which often bloats an article, but never ends with deleting it.
4. Because the "keep" votes of people coming from Professor Coyne's blog haven't engaged with policy on notability, there isn't a heated discussion of the issue in hand. !Votes which simply ignore policy can in turn simply be ignored. To repeat from point 1: you've got to engage with policy and cite evidence. This isn't a strict head count. No matter how much all of you think Emily Willoughby is a wonderful researcher and artist, real world, independent, reliable sources and organisations have not sufficiently caught up with that. The proper Wikipedian response is: if such sources and other real-world indications of sufficient notability are not there (yet), then, sorry, no article (yet).
5. I have been replying to you and making comments in the hope that in explaining how Wikipedia works with evidence and policy and so making clear to you what your task is if you want to influence events, I might convert one or two new visitors to being Wikipedians. Clearly with you I've failed. I hope I haven't with others.OsFish (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only "mobbing" going on here is from canvassed activists who are not here to build the encyclopedia. Without the canvassing, very few who watch the list of academics at AfD would've been aware that there was anything controversial going on with her and would've evaluated retention solely based on Wikipedia notability. You can even verify for yourself that almost all of the delete !voters here and at the first AfD are just regulars at deletion discussions in general (or ones related to paleontology/art/women/academics specifically) and essentially are agnostic to any external circumstances surrounding the subjects; certainly you can't argue any of them were brought in to the prior AfD by any agenda. So your claims of some concerted effort to "cancel" or "purge" Willoughby for "woke" reasons are totally off-base. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Orgrosu: I also lack the expertise, so I did not vote either.
So, "mob" is an apt description for people who, using sound reasoning, discuss whether a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but "meatpuppet" is not an apt description for people who turn up in that discussion without a clue and without any reasoning, but with preconceived notions on what this is about, because someone else told them to do it?
That one does not fly. You should read Faith vs. Fact to find out how discussions are supposed to work. (I liked it a lot.)
Not having a Wikipedia article is far from the biggest current threat to her reputation is just a true statement. Most post-docs are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and not having one is not a big deal. See WP:ACADEMIC. See also this article on Panda's Thumb for a similar case. Here is the deletion discussion, with Creationist meatpuppets. From creationists, that sort of thing is to be expected, but Coyne should be better than that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"far from the biggest threat to her reputation" implies there are bigger threats to her reputation. It's hard to know what other threats you had in mind, and in the absence of them being mentioned (or otherwise well-known) I hope it is easy to see how someone can interpret this as a smear.
The word "mob", which I haven't brought up, but simply defended it's use, was referring to what is happening on social media, which is the context for all this and the only reason for being concerned by the deletion of some post-docs' page.
Someone above mentioned trusting the editors. Well, we are editors, aren't we? If we're not, explain why. If we are, why shouldn't the trust extend symmetrically? @JoelleJay was suggesting he's here to build the encyclopedia and Jerry Coyne's readers are canvassed activists. Orgrosu (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the biggest threat was what is happening on social media. The problem here is that you people conflate that with what is happening here. This would be understandable if the deletion !votes did include personal attacks at Willoughby, but they do not. The conflation is all just imagination of Jerry Coyne, and of whoever put him on to it, and the people who come here the fight the deletion are just acting on faith (or gullibility, to use another word for the same thing).
If Jerry Coyne's readers had brought forth valid reasons why the article should stay, that would have been very welcome. The point is that they are just making noise. I am also here because I read this on WEIT, but I know how this works, and most of you people do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She. And are you disagreeing that you are canvassed activists, or that you aren't here solely to prevent this article's deletion? Again, none of the 10 delete !voters at the first AfD had any knowledge of her work beforehand, but every single one of them came to the exact same guideline-based conclusions delete !voters in the current AfD have been arguing: that she (still) does not meet NPROF, NARTIST, NAUTHOR, or GNG. Meanwhile, the keep !voters in this AfD have been casting aspersions about the motivations of other editors and have yet to produce a single guideline-backed reason to keep the article. AfDs are not decided on head counts, so no matter how many people Dr Coyne sends here, if there aren't valid arguments to keep it the article will be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will refrain from voting here, but it needs to be noted that this article was last DRed long before the current controversy, and it was only saved by palaeontology-oriented editors (including me), but even then it only amounted to 7 keep votes against 10 deletes. Non-paleo editors did not and still don't recognise notability, simply based on existing guidelines, not due to whatever is happening to the subject now. So all these drive-by editors crying foul about the motivations for this DR really need to go back and look at the first one and defend this article in accordance with the relevant policies instead of hand waving about censorship and "wokeness". It doesn't help the case at all, rather the opposite. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think something needs to be said here about how the cogs of Wikipedia process turn - that is, usually they do not until someone takes the initiative to make it so. And, indeed, here they are turning, regardless of whatever motivations the original nominator for this second nomination may have had, and so it is appropriate to participate in the due process. I, as I suspect is likewise the case for many previously active editors involved in this discussion, do not think the pursuit of optics relevant to the improvement of the encyclopedia. Indeed, they have also triggered a much-needed re-evaluation of articles throughout our own project. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I had a brief look at the discussion on Professor Coyne's blog, and I was very struck by two things. First, the impression a lot of people had there that Wikipedia is some sort of centrally directed project with people in charge promoting some sort of concerted bias, when it's quite the opposite. Literally anyone can edit, which means there is no central direction. I had thought that was very well known, but apparently it isn't. Which leads me to the second thing: they therefore don't understand the architecture of Wikipedia that allows for the production of - as many of them openly appreciate - very often high quality material they find indispensable. It's not a free-for-all. It's a rules-based, rather bureaucratised process that has developed to promote cooperation and reduce conflict among around 100,000 regular editors/44 million registered editors. There are lots of rules and policies and conventions that exist to take the heat out of disputes. It's what lots of people wish Twitter was: you're not allowed to sound off about what you reckon without providing evidence, and if you handle evidence badly, you lose, and if you're abusive, you can be sanctioned, and you can even get banned, and all of this not by a single central authority, but by the community.
Which leads to two points of incomprehension when they've contributed here to this AfD. One is that they don't realise they are triggering policies designed to protect the encyclopedia against organised attempts to corrupt content. It does matter that a lot of people who've never or barely edited before suddenly turn up all on the same discussion after being encouraged to do so off-wiki. Meatpuppet is a term used on Wikipedia precisely to describe such users. They should ask themselves - is it really so weird that a globally dominant project like Wikipedia has policies and practices to prevent partisan manipulation from the outside? The other point is that when regular editors beseech them to argue in accordance with agreed policy, many have decided that it's a smokescreen. They don't appear to realise that reliance on policy is key to the project. It hasn't occurred to them. Although I endeavour to be civil, I would suggest to some of the visitors from Professor Coyne's blog that they need to reign in their sense of superiority. They don't know it all about how Wikipedia works. They should be polite, and when regular editors welcome them and explain openly what's required to get decisions to go their way, they should, you know, listen. No one has put an argument for deletion based on political views. It's all been about policy, and every regular editor has been keen to direct the new users to these policies. OsFish (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of disingenuity in your comment. Yes, it's kind of true that "Literally anyone can edit" but then you add "which means there is no central direction." Well, no. There are moderators. People who can semi-protect articles, or ban/block users. So, we may all be equal, but some are more equal than others. I'm not against oversight, and I've reverted my share of vandalism, but pretending there is no central direction won't wash.
The attacks on Dr. Coyne are uncalled for. Yes, there was one sentence in his second post that should not have been there: "If there are readers willing to argue her cause on Wikipedia, I’d urge you to jump into the fray." But no one's perfect, and in any case, this post was a follow up to his post wherein he called out the unwarranted attack on her by a Twitter mob.
Remember, this whole kerfluffle started, as even the people in favor of deleting the article have admitted, right after the Twitter attack. That means that (1) people from Twitter came over here first, to nominate the article for deletion, or (2) some of the people here who are arguing for deletion are doing so for political reasons, but are pretending it's procedurally based (a number of people here have indicated that is a serious possibility), or (3) by the most fantastic of coincidences, right at the time that the Twitter attack occurred, a Wikipedia editor with some knowledge of the paleoart scene happened to notice this article, and realizing that the person was not sufficiently notable, honestly nominated the article for deletion. Uh huh.
The idea that there is no political maneuvering (specifically, woke cancellation) going on in Wikipedia is untenable. In the general sense, it's a movement that is taking over many or most of the most influential policy/decision making instruments of our society, such as the universities (where you can't even be considered for a job unless you sign a loyalty oath DEI statement, many corporations, and major social-media platforms, resulting in such nonsense as libelously accusing a bakery of racism and renaming birds, all pretending to be "social justice". To think it's as pervasive as it actually is, but isn't affecting as influential a site as Wikipedia is, shall we say, improbable.
But here's a specific example (yes, it was raised by someone on Dr. Coyne's blog, but that's immaterial). I'm quoting the person, but I've checked the links: The best-known example of this principle, which Coyne posted about last month, was the “Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence” Wikipedia article. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/07/25/more-ideological-distortions-of-biology-from-dawkins-and-from-an-article-on-pervasive-ideological-censorship-of-wikipedia-articles/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(2nd_nomination) In that case, it was widely understood that this was a notable subject that deserved its own Wikipedia article, and the article was deleted under the pretense that it would be replaced with a better article about the same topic. But now, two years after the article was deleted, it’s clear no one has any actual intention to replace that article.
Woke anti-semitism is hardly a secret (it's one of the many ways in which they resemble their extreme right-wing mirror images); all I'm trying to do here, though, is demonstrate that there is political pressure on Wikipedia. And it's very difficult to believe, in light of the timing of the request for deletion, that that is not the case with Emily Willoughby. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as far as I can see, the vast majority of the folks favouring deletion have been on Wikipedia for a significant amount of years, whereas most of those favouring Keep are single purpose accounts who clearly have been sent here via Twitter. By the way, "woke anti-semitism" is an oxymoron - "woke" is not a synonym for "left-wing". Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've been editing Wikipedia for close to 20 years. And I wasn't using "woke" as "left-wing". I was using it as "woke". In a nutshell, totalitarian cultural power-grabbers using social justice as a pretext, and engaging principally in performative acts (I can multiply the bakery and bird examples ad infinitum).
And I seriously doubt that *anyone* was sent here to vote keep from Twitter! Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they've clearly come from somewhere, have they not? Brand-new accounts, accounts with a handful of edits, accounts that haven't edited for years, and so on. Meanwhile, Woke anti-semitism is hardly a secret (it's one of the many ways in which they resemble their extreme right-wing mirror images). No, of course you weren't using it as "left-wing".. but I see you've redefined it anyway, even though it's used most of the time by the right as a synonym for "something I don't agree with". Black Kite (talk)
Indeed that somewhere is Jerry Coyne's blog (see comments by Hob Gadling), which our friend self-identifies as having been sent from. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that no one came from Dr. Coyne's blog. I said that the *original* request for deletion came before Dr. Coyne posted, and was therefore either someone coming from Twitter, or an editor who just happened to tag the article right as the teapot-sized tempest started brewing. Markjoseph125 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not caring to create an article even if one with that title could in principle exist isn't "political pressure". Sometimes people decide that the topic is better covered as part of another article, like Scientific racism. On other occasions, people just decide that they have better things to do with their life. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the article was nominated this time around was likely related to the recent controversy, but that is totally immaterial to the reasons given for deletion, which are valid and guideline-based. It also is not evidence, at all, that the rest of the delete !votes are here with an agenda. As I said in another comment, you are welcome to check for yourself that most of the delete !voters are regulars at AfD; several of us (Hemiauchenia, Netherzone, Kj cheetham, me) were even at the first AfD. How could we have been brought here by Twitter or be !voting for "political reasons" if neither of those were possibilities at the first AfD? JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MarkJoseph, if you want to have an unfocussed rant at the state of the world, Wikipedia is not the place. I had a look at that bird name issue - it changed on Wikipedia because leading ornithological bodies changed their usage. I genuinely don't know how anyone could think that shows a conspiracy on Wikipedia let alone someone with your 20 years' editing experience. The same goes for Wikipedia documenting the bakery case - that's not evidence of Wikipedia bias, that's just Wikipedia documenting historical events. I'm really very confident that Wikipedia wasn't behind the case in the real world(!). Again, no idea how you think the article's existence is supposed to show nefarious editing.
In any case, none of what you have said has any pertinence to your claim of a woke conspiracy on Wikipedia, let alone in connection with this AfD. Not even the case of the article on Ashkenazi intelligence. It was finally deleted after fifteen years of formal discussions where people hoped it would stop being, by common consensus (read the multiple AfDs - I just have), dreadful because it was being used by racist editors to promote pseudoscience. That improvement never happened. The AfD came after the nominator had tried to bring it up to standard themselves and ultimately concluded it was in such a state that it was better simply to invoke a rare procedure allowed in the rules to raze it to the ground and start again. The community in the form of other editors in the discussion, agreed. There was no "totalitarian powergrab". It's not part of a pattern.
The truth is, the only people bringing politics into this discussion and !voting with open political motives are those claiming a political conspiracy. It's all a bit Foucault's Pendulum. Now, if you could try to focus on this page's business, ie the policy as it is regarding what counts as notability in the appropriate fields pertaining to this subject, that would be really, really, really, nice. OsFish (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we should stop trying to convince those people that what they are doing is pointless. The read-only protection of conspiracy theories is notoriously difficult to break, and those who still do not get it will stay that way. It's a bit late, the "discussion" is too long already (and I contributed to that; I hoped that Coyne followers were more reasonable than the usual suspects) but we should just ignore them and let the closer sort it out. The hot-air contributions will be ignored. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To the folks arriving here via Coyne, I wanted to let you know that Coyne refused to publish my comment explaining that there is no woke lynch mob situation here. I left the following comment on his site, which Coyne chose to hide from you:
It is often the case that a Wikipedia biography lacks sufficient citations for Wikipedia's notability standards. There are many, many, biographies on Wikipedia that should not exist because the subject is not notable enough. Such an article may sit there for quite a while, largely unnoticed, until someone comes along to nominate it for deletion.
It is probably true that social media attention on Willoughby is what caused someone to nominate the article for deletion. But it is a whole separate question of whether she meets the notability standards for biographies on Wikipedia.
And it may well be true that, sans the social media storm, nobody would have bothered to nominate the article for deletion. But that doesn't mean the article deserves to be there, according to Wikipedia notability policies.
Sending people to the deletion nomination discussion is likely to have the opposite effect you intended. Wikipedians have a name for it -- canvassing -- and they hate it. Wikipedians are trying to decide, as impartially as possible, whether an article meets Wikipedia's notability policies. That process is disrupted by external canvassing, which forces Wikipedians to deal with random folks entering the fray who often have no understanding of Wikipedia policies. 2001:920:198C:83C:6368:537D:F8B4:5555 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange to see all these complaints about an outside web side. Is WP open to everyone or not? Yeah, Wikipedians hate it when outsiders have an opinion. Roger (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that you yourself are as much a "Wikipedian" as everyone else here, right? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not complaints about "an outside web side": They are complaints about someone who has so little clue about Wikipedia that he calls a normal, everyday process "lunacy" and suggests his followers to write to the editor of Wikipedia, whoever he/she is [41], sending a gaggle of angry people who do not know the first thing about deletion discussions either, are not interested to learn them, and only disrupt the process. His own website (which is not a blog!) enforces "Da Roolz", but da roolz of another website can be ignored at will? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failure to meet the wiki-notability standards for academics or artists. I could write an analysis at greater length, but I think OsFish has done a more than good enough job of that already. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a postdoc is usually too soon to have achieved the scholarly impact needed for academic notability (as measured, for instance, by the citation counts in her Google Scholar profile). One reason for this is that it's difficult to disentangle her accomplishments from those of her more senior collaborators. In her case, there is one high-citation publication, in which she is in a middle position among a large number of authors; her first-author publications, while having some impact, are not yet at the level needed to make a convincing case for notability. Best-student-paper awards explicitly do not count towards academic notability; they are too low-level an accomplishment. Her creationist-apologist book has again many coauthors and so far we only have one dubiously-reliable deadlink website review; this is not the multiple books with multiple published reviews needed for notability as a book author. Even if she had borderline notability for either of those activities (which I don't think she has), the fringe nature of both her work on intelligence and creationism would call for a higher standard of in-depth sourcing of that material, clearly evaluating it as fringe, to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view. That leaves her dinosaur art. Although she is obviously talented, we would need third-party publications about this art, or its inclusion in the permanent collections of multiple notable museums, to satisfy our standards for notability as an artist, and again we have no evidence of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...fringe nature of both her work on intelligence and creationism... Perhaps you misread the summary of the book? It's anti-creationist. Juan el Demografo (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, and so niche rather than fringe, but it makes no difference; the real issue is that it lacks published reviews, has many authors, and appears to be her only book, so is far from enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per all of the above. Nothing else to say, except that I'm tired of microcelebrities getting hyped on the routine deletion of articles on barely better known microcelebrities and thinking they can bruteforce the AfD with the most naives of their community. It's happening on the regular now. Besides that point, I've independently checked it out, there is no way that, with the current documentation available online, this person reaches the level of notability desired for keeping her article up. I was gonna vote to keep it, to AfD it once for good in a few months when the controversy has dried up, to avoid bringing such attention on it, but now, I see no reason for not removing this article soon and clean (as well as those of other paleoartists, depending on the result of the discussion on the WikiProject Talk page, naturally). Larrayal (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DO NOT DELETE -- There is clearly a Twitter mob behind this unfair call for Willoughby's cancellation. See Eric Turkheimer's Twitter thread (in her defense) for details: https://twitter.com/ent3c/status/1558078849132466177 Bws92082 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC) — Bws92082 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Neither your comment, nor the Twitter thread to which you link, makes an argument grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bws92082, What is your evidence that any of the delete !voters are "Twitter mobsters" rather than good faith editors. Please focus on content not contributors, and review WP:NPA. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As both Netherzone and Hob Gadling are becoming increasingly vitriolic, I'm not responding to them. I've stated my arguments for notability in my reply to OsFish above, and my arguments that there is indeed woke cancellation pressure on Wikipedia, and specifically on this article, in another reply (the long one ;-) to OsFish, also above. Maybe the arguments are insufficient. Maybe not. Markjoseph125 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded at your Talk page, as this Afd is not the right venue for it. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because this seems to be a politically-charged case, let me first make the following disclaimers. I wonder by academics AfD several times a year, which is why I am here and I have no prior familiarity with the subject, nor her views, nor her supporters or critics. Neither was I invited by anyone to comment. That said, I will offer a different perspective from the comments above, but one that I have made before here at AfD. Namely, notability standards, as they exist in practice on WP, are actually much lower than their official descriptions represent because of the unchecked epidemic of special-interest editing that has resulted in too-many-to-count BLPs of non-notable people that happily exist on WP. Holding this one to a standard which thousands of other BLPs are allowed to violate is unfair and damages WPs credibility. For example, I would observe that Willoughby's citation tally of ~1600 is much higher than that of postdoc Vicky Forster's tally of ~300. Willoughby seems to have lots of other coverage, is published in the book world, etc. (as noted above), but Forster has no other real claim to notability. This suggests that Willoughby is at least as notable as Forster, whose BLP, though notability-tagged, still survives. In that sense, deleting this article would be contradictory. 128.252.172.29 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because other articles exist doesn't mean that this one should. It's entirely possible that the Vicky Forster article would be deleted if attention were called to it, but that no one has bothered to call that attention yet. And even if we were comparing them, which we shouldn't, one number being bigger than the other doesn't mean there's a contradiction or inconsistency in any meaningful way. Overall citation numbers are not typically used in evaluating notability, for reasons that this case actually illustrates rather well: for example, being one of several dozen coauthors in the middle of an author list doesn't really indicate that one played a major role in the work. Our notability criteria for scientists are about recognizing people who are pioneers in their field, not junior code monkeys who happen to get coauthorship a couple times.
    If the project overall isn't living up to its standards, then we need to work harder to meet those standards, not lower them to the point where they're already met. Advertising and promotional content exists on Wikipedia, despite our policies against it; should we just accept that as the standard that exists in practice and give up? If bowing to "special interests" and keeping trivial fluff is bad for our credibility, then shouldn't we delete this article tout de suite? XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, Willoughby seems to hold a legitimate PhD (dissertation here), so using words like "junior code monkey" is incredibly demeaning. Second, as I mentioned, Willoughby seems to have lots of other contributions, whereas Forster does not, so your GS-only strawman is invalid. Third, I used Forster only as an example to illustrate a larger characteristic about WP, namely that there are gross differences of standards to which articles within the same class are held. Panelists here !voting Delete are (either knowingly or unknowingly) requiring this article to clear a higher bar than tens of thousands of other WP academics BLPs. The Vicky Forster BLP I just quoted is a conclusive counterexample refuting your claim that PROF is "about recognizing people who are pioneers in their field". Again, these are the kinds of blatant contradictions that hurt WP credibility and make it seems politically-driven. 128.252.172.29 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about politics, but how do you explain the previous[42] deletion request from before this controversy even began? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, anytime the "not a ballot" notice appears, it means someone already in the discussion has sensed that politics (small "p") are afoot, almost always on the "keep" side (as they seem to be here), since AfD adversarially positions the article on the "delete" side. It's why I gave a disclaimer at the beginning of my entry. The 1st AfD has nothing to do with this, as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, I didn't even look at it. Thanks. 128.252.172.29 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yes, the first AfD does have a lot to do with this, because it proves that problems with the article were pointed out long before the current controversy, problems which have not yet been solved. The pre-controversy AfD got 10 deletes against 7 keeps (including mine), so it was inevitable a new AfD would come up again at some point, and here it is. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a former junior code monkey and middle-of-the-author-list coauthor myself, I reject the idea that an accurate description of many, many CV items is at all demeaning. That's simply how academic careers begin — as "assistant bottle-washers", one might say — and it's one reason why the GS numbers you quoted are simply meaningless for the purpose at hand. I could have pointed to other reasons why Forster might be judged notable when Willoughby isn't, but that's not the point here. The existence of a page that happens not to have gone through a deletion debate is not a counterexample to our guidelines, because the community hasn't yet discussed how those guidelines apply to it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how you personally rationalize it, calling a woman a "code monkey" is offensive. I can't believe this sort of thing is tolerated on WP. 128.252.172.29 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to complain, go to one of the drama boards. Since XOR'easter did not actually call anybody a code monkey except themselves, there is not much hope for any success. Can you please stop this diversion now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have Jonathan Coulter's song "Code Monkey" stuck in my head again. I blame XOR'easter. (Also, as should be clear from the song, the stereotypical code monkey is male, so it's far from being a gendered-against-women insult.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to 128.252.172.29: Firstly, this case is not politically charged on Wikipedia. None of the delete arguments have cited any politics. None of the arguments claiming it's political on Wikipedia have provided any evidence of that. If crying "politically charged" without evidence were allowed in Wikipedia discussions to prevent decision making, it would be a nightmare. Secondly, and really crucially, we are NOT bound by the decisions or absence of decisions of other editors at the same level. Notoriously, such arguments are called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and are considered invalid. If you see another article that you think does not clear notability, the appropriate response is to flag it (as someone has done already in your example), giving those involved in creating that article a chance to make notability clearer before triggering a bureaucratic process like Article for Deletion. It is not to think that such articles will be useful in other discussions about notability. By the by, I recommend new editors look at the discussion you refer to so they can see what a proper debate over policy and sources looks like.OsFish (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anytime "Not a ballot" notice appears, it obviously means there are political (small "p") forces afoot...and, of course I meant these politics are on the "keep side" (thanks for assuming otherwise). Predictably, you give the standard boilerplate advice of deleting other articles, but that doesn't really happen. The problem, in a nutshell, is very simple to describe: (1) Non-notable BLPs are created at a far faster rate by special-interest editors (editathons, wiki-eds, etc) than they can be policed by organic and general-interest editors. (2) The aggregate number of them now existing on WP is enormous and continues to increase. (3) This state of affairs constitutes a de facto standard of what the acceptable level of notability is on WP, irrespective of what WP policies and guidelines say. (4) It is unfair to judge the notability of Willoughby against a higher standard than what actually exists in practice. People who have given any meaningful thought to this understand such inconsistency was bound to arise because WP has no real mechanism to enforce uniformity. So, until there is a means to enforce notability at creation-time and to mass delete tens of thousands of non-notable BLPs, the rational choice is to judge articles at AfD according to the actual notability standards on WP. 128.252.172.29 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    0. It is clearly wrong to claim articles don't get deleted. People can look at the outcomes of articles up for deletion now. The discussion you cited where you argued for "keep" ended in deletion.
    1&2. To argue that bad material exists therefore we should tolerate it when we see it is an argument to abandon all standards. It's nonsensical.
    3&4. There is no such thing as a "de facto" standard of notability on WP. We don't do de facto; we do policy. This isn't case law. If you want Wikipedia to change that approach, you can't do it at this level of applying policy. You have to try and change policy itself with the full glare of the community on you.
    4. Yes, you're going to find inconsistencies on Wikipedia. It's a drawback of the model. The answer to that is not to lower standards. It's to work, and to work out, how to enforce those standards better.OsFish (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, please read carefully: I said Non-notable BLPs are created at a far faster rate by special-interest editors (editathons, wiki-eds, etc) than they can be policed by organic and general-interest editors. Of course some are deleted, but there's no comparison to the rate at which they are created because the number of special-interest editors is far higher than the number of good people like yourself policing these articles. As to your other point, I think some eds are so conditioned to policy that they cannot see beyond. It's simple: the very existence of these zillions of non-notable BLPs means that the existence of non-notable BLPs is acceptable. That is a de facto standard. As usual, I fail to reach the congregation with the gospel, so to speak, so I'm retiting from this one. I'm sure we'll debate this again sometime. Thanks. 128.252.172.29 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to being an argument for giving up — the logic is the same as saying "corporate PR exists, therefore we should allow more of it" — this unfairly presumes that participants in edit-a-thons and the like cannot follow our basic policies and guidelines. Having narrow interests or wanting to contribute to a niche topic isn't bad. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to change the rules, Wikipedia talk:Notability is thataway. Until you succeed, we will continue using the current rules. Can you please stop this diversion now? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the "not a ballot" template [43] after Hob Gadling noted "Jerry Coyne is sending people here" and linked to the website [44]. My hope was for the template to serve as a quick primer about our policies and guidelines as well as the general expectations for discussions related to articles nominated for deletion. Also, we do have a variety of ways to review notability after article creation, including New Pages Patrol and these types of discussions, according to actual notability standards. There can be differences in opinion on how to interpret the policies and guidelines, but these are our mechanisms to help maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft to allow for further research. If nothing develops within the allotted six months, the draft will be deleted as abandoned. BD2412 T 20:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have been a bit surprised that this article passed initial notability inspections since I first noticed it. It does clearly not meet notability standards for Academic, and I dont see any evidence it meets the criteria for Artist. (disclaimer: I have been involved in editing disputes against Willoughby on wikipedia). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_19&oldid=1107257859"