Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 06	June 08 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hranush Yeghoyan

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

Prod removed without rationale or improvement. Working professional. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. A quick Google search for news about the subject in English and Armenian turns up zero hits. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basically, covert advertising, and the individual seems to be non notable based on the coverage in Google. Perhaps an Armenian editor could find something, but I doubt there is enough coverage even in Armenian. Java Hurricane 04:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latarian Milton

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

A poorly sourced article about a young adult who did stupid stuff when he was a minor. I had moved it to draft and discussed it with the article creator on my talk page, but they prefer to have it AfD'ed instead.

Something like "biographymask", the first source, is absolutely terrible and should probably be blacklisted (the same goes for "celebritygossip", source 5, whihc is very similar and seems equally computer-generated bullshit). The remainder are mostly "funny" articles from long ago, when the subject was a child, plus a bunch of unreliable sites (geni and so on) and copyvio links (youtube). In any case, per WP:BLPCRIME and general "do no harm" principles, we shouldn't have articles on such minors who have become the subject of media and internet fun and did some stupid stuff, but who aren't actually notable otherwise. And we certainly shouldn't have them with unverified claims about his current supposed jail sentence or criminal activities, as some of these "sources" claim.

If anyone wants to G10 speedy it as an attack page instead of having a full AfD, be my guest. Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the very idea of a 'notable' juvenile delinquent is worrying. I'd argue he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is an adult now, and currently incarcerated. Well, I can remove the juvenile delinquent statement. There are numerous juvenile's with articles including the 2019 Goodfield arson and Cayetano Santos Godino. Although he did commit further crimes such as carjacking and robbery later on. He was though an internet sensation. The Youtube video has 14 million views. Additionally, he was on Tosh.0, as well as a The Boondocks (2005 TV series) episode being based on his actions. A testament to his fame was the appearance on the Megan Thee Stallion commercial mixtape, which peaked at number 10 on Billboard 200 in 2019 (a full 10 years later). Additionally, his statements are as timeless as "Ain't Nobody Got Time for That" or Hide Your Wife, Hide your kids with Antoine Dodson or the Numa Numa (video) . BlackAmerican (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The first article you give as an example is about a crime, not about a criminal. The second article is not about a WP:BLP but a long-dead serial killer. The person here did some "funny" stuff when he was 8 years old: his later antics got less and less attention, his current prison sentence is sourced to an official document and not even to some newspaper reports. There is no indication that he is now in any way notable, and documenting the life of a troubled young adult because he had some internet fame when he was 8 years old is not what enwiki should be used for. Fram (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So two major television shows, and being the subject of a song by a top 10 Billboard album, from artist Megan Thee Stallion who won a multiple Grammy Awards isn't notable? Regardless of when it was, the serial killer was a child. Additionally, 2019 Goodfield arson names the Child and if you look at it List of youngest killers and is a redirect from the childs name of Kyle Alwood. In fact most of the names are given. There are also multiple news articles that give details about him. [1] He is another internet star as is Bhad Bhabie, Star Wars Kid, David After Dentist, Charlie Bit My Finger, David Bernal, Dramatic Chipmunk, and Judson Laipply. BlackAmerican (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl - a meme, right enough, but her life (at the time, not sure about now) was ruined by it. And WP, rightly, declines to name her. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alexandermcnabb and Fram. The references are unreliable, and there is no source for the Boondocks claim. But most importantly, there is absolutely no need to practically name and shame someone for a crime they did in their youth, and even if they're embracing it and not improving (as this guy seemingly is), not only does this make regular delinquents sound "notable", but it also comes with the implication that, in order to get a Wikipedia article, you should just commit a crime and be funny while doing so. Not the best message to bring across, no? AdoTang (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the response. Now the Boondocks claim is pretty obvious. You can google it and see the cartoon and see that it is him. [2]. You can see it here One reference is IMDB, which says here [[3] ] "Lamilton Taeshawn is based on Latarian Milton, a 7-year-old Florida boy who became an Internet sensation due to news reports of his run-ins with the law. In one incident, he took his grandmother's SUV for a joyride destroying property in the process. In another, he attacked his grandmother when she refused to buy him chicken wings. "It's fun to do bad things" and "He smokes with cigarettes" are direct quotes from the interviews with Milton." Or maybe WorldStarHipHop which has a whole video ]on him Since you might want a strong reference, is [[Jet (magazine) good? If so, you can see it here [4] where it says "the ‘docks is known to rip from the headlines, mocking everything from the Booty bandit to bad seed Latarian Milton, the latter boldly bragging about stealing and crashing his grandmother’s car"

I understand that you feel that he has been fully named for years. He feels no shame for it and as you stated he embraces it. Your very argument can be made against Bhad Bhabie, who hadn't done anything famous except for the quote, "Catch me outside, how about that?", which became a viral video meme and catchphrase . She was age 13 at the time she became famous for that. Is her behavior the message you want to bring across? Probably not, but its still generally notable. Her article survived an AFD. [5] BlackAmerican (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhad Bhabie had released a single which had charted in the Billboard Hot 100 at the time of that AfD. On the other hand, Milton has been used by others, but hasn't done anything himself to be considered a notable person. That some parts of society have no qualms in abusing a troubled youth to increase readership, laughs, ... is their problem, ut hardly something we should emulate. Our BLP policy is there to protect people, to "do no harm": while this doesn't mean that serious criminals shouldn't have an article, it does indicate that someone who did some stupid small-scale criminal stuff when they were young should be included here. Fram (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, you are putting forth a moral argument rather than GNG. Bhad Bhabie, peaked at 79 on the top 100, while Latarian, was the subject of multiple shows including comedy central, and the boondocks, as well as a Grammy Award Winning artist. In fact the album that he was the subject of peaked at number 10. [6]. His coverage passes GNG, which states, "General notability guideline

Shortcuts WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encomp"ass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were comparing someone who hasn't searched notability (or hasn't achieved it as such) with someone who did succesfully aim for fame, which is a false or unfair comparison. In this case, the person fails WP:PERP, with the additional aspect of being a minor when most of this happened (well, everything that made them "infamous" in some circles at least). BLP considerations overrule the basic standards of the GNG (not that the GNG no longer needs to be met, but solely meeting the GNG isn't sufficient). Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read BLP, it states, "Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)" Where did you see that it trumps GNG? If you don't believe its a good comparison, there are articles that compare them and call them kindred spirits. It's in the article. Perp doesn't apply, GNG Trumps Perp. He is known for his commentary not his crime. BlackAmerican (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG does definitely not trump WP:PERP: as explained in WP:BASIC (at the top of the same page as Perp), "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not." (emphasis mine), and PERP is one of these exclusionary criteria. Fram (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:BASIC you will see that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject" Can you tell me which one that Latarian does not fulfill? I also saw WP:PERP, and that clearly states a number of things including, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[11] Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." So essentially, what does PERP have to do with this IF GNG has been established? BlackAmerican (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perp is one of the exclusionary rules that may override Basic. "Historic significance" of a crime, and sustained coverage of the crime or the event in reliable secondary sources, for me isn't the same as being sampled by a musician and being mocked indirectly by some TV show. The crime is not historically significant, it is not the topic of sustained indepth sources, factual reporting, ... things which would actually support a biography. Fram (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you stated simply isn't the case. Additionally, it states "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:.....For perpetrators,....The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" Based on this, it should be included. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "be kind to one another". My opinion on BLP duty of care varies; there are positions on it I think counterproductive. Nonetheless, Fram's last sentence If anyone wants to G10 speedy it as an attack page instead of having a full AfD, be my guest is coming from a very real place. It does not improve the encyclopedia to have this. It does not improve anyone's life to have this. It is not an article where significant negative coverage is due and justified (there are plenty, but it isn't one). Vaticidalprophet 02:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the page that is really do no harm. There are plenty of people on wikipedia just like him. I am wondering why is he excluded. People like Bhad Bhabie, Antoine Dodson, Success Kid, Scumbag Steve etc BlackAmerican (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure what I could say here that would be clearer than Fram's explanation of policy or (maybe more importantly) Vat's explanation of decency above. Add in the questionable notability, and it becomes an even clearer delete !vote for me. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 09:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone would like to restore any of the material in this article with the intent of merging it elsewhere, please contact me (or any other admin). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heaviest trains

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

Mostly unsourced list. Most of the cited sources are unreliable or primary, and it's had maintenance templates (confusing, NOR, GNG, unreliable sources) for eight years. Needs TNT to be useful. dudhhr_Contribs 03:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 03:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what to make of it. Shankargb (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, to longest trains. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles and the terms seem to be used synonymously in the available sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, to longest trains per above. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to longest trains ... one might say heaviest trains are by axle load (true) but longest trains are more relevant as longest trains have more tonnage, hence (heaviest). --Whiteguru (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)--Whiteguru (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is written as an essay and the sources are unreliable as mentioned above. User:TillmanJosh (Josh) 7:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. killer bee  09:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards a merge (if anything is of value) and redirect as WP:ATD. Any thoughts from the !deletes or anyone else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While this discussion certainly leans more towards keeping the article than deleting it, I don't think that there is abundantly clear consensus in either direction regarding whether or not the available sources represent significant coverage. Among the keep voters, there appears to be general agreement that the article should be moved to Trial of Claudine de Culam or something similar, since the sources generally focus on the event, not a biography of the individual involved. Since there isn't clear consensus either way, I won't close this AfD with consensus to move the article, but I'd highly encourage interested editors to either start a move discussion on the article talk page, or perhaps to boldly move the article, since such a move doesn't seem particularly controversial. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudine de Culam

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

So, this was a girl who was convicted of bestiality and executed four hundred years ago. The article cites two books that apparently discuss this incident, but makes no mention of why this particular case is more notable than other historical bestiality convictions. The girl was not otherwise notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about the incident not the victim, so it can be renamed. I googled the girl's name and it seems that the sources who wrote about her are more than what is mentioned in the article. If this event has symbolic and historical value, it does not matter how famous the person is or why this particular event has been considered.--IamMM (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Trial of Claudine de Culam. It's discussed in:

Simon Porzak, "Perverting Degeneration: Bestiality, Atavism, and Rachilde's "L'Animale" " Nineteenth-Century French Studies Vol. 46, No. 1/2 (Fall-Winter 2017-2018), pp. 97-98 as an important case study for early modern attitudes towards bestiality.
Desmond Hosford "Uneasy Anthropocentrism: Cartesianism and the Ethics of Species Differentiation in Seventeenth-Century France" JAC Vol. 30, No. 3/4 (2010), pp. 521-523 as a key example of early modern ideas about the difference between humans and animals (the dog was also found guilty and sentenced to death)
Also in Villeneuve, La Muse'e de la bestialite' (1969) pp. 142-143. Furius (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it sad that they used to convict the animal as well, but that was the standard practice for a very long time, ridiculous as it seems to us now. The crux of this to my mind is that the sources all seem to be discussing the history of how the law responds to bestiality, and have collected incidents. What I'm not seeing is how this one is more significant than the myriad other examples, perhaps because it involves a young girl? In any event if it is kept I do agree that it should be moved to be about the trial. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do have Animal trial. Maybe one could consider merging there; but the focus seems to be on trials where the animal is the only "defendant", so not sure that's really appropriate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is really for us on WP to decide whether the example really is significant. If it is discussed and analysed by multiple sources (and used as a standard case study), as I think I have shown it is, then it is notable. The case is kind of analogous to Menocchio (though of course he's much more obviously notable). Furius (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole putting animals on trial is indeed bizarre to a contemporary observer, but OTOH sometimes a good lawyer could successfully defend them, see for exampele the Auton Rat Trial. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Trial of Claudine de Culam or similar, as suggested above. I think these sources represent sufficient historic documentation as well as modern analysis to make for a short article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails GNG. — Ched (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Trial of Claudine de Culam or similar. The article and all SIGCOV provided is about the trial not the individual. This probably is best presented as a section in a larger article or as part of a list (i.e. WP:NOPAGE), but that can be done boldly through the normal editing process, or a merge discussion if it really comes to that, and doesn't need to be sorted at afd. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be several other articles that this maybe could've been merged with, but they were so full of pro-bestiality original research that they've since been deleted. It's a troublesome area that was basically under the control of people who think raping animals is pretty cool, and so I and others have been trying to clean it up, that's how this got nominated as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: umm yuck. Kind of vaguely reminds me of the sexology stuff, definitely not the kind of topic area I would like to be involved in. Anyway either the topic of an article is notable or it isn't, and I largely agree with Furious that it isn't for us to decide which case studies we like or not, when academic sources treat something as a standard case study and provide analysis we do so as well. My initial thought on the NOPAGE question was that this would best presented in context with other early modern european trials regarding sexual behaviour but I don't know enough about how legal content is usually organised to say anything definitively. If there isn't a good merge target or standard practice is to have separate articles then we end up with a bit of a niche article but sometimes that is really the best way to do things and they can be done well (e.g. Glass Age Development Committee). I do sympathise with your cause and there are times I think it would be better to just delete articles that are frequently brigaded by advocacy editors regardless of notability, but ultimately that's not how policy works. Anyway, I'd just watchlist it or if your watchlist is already out of control bring it to the attention of others to keep an eye on things. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets WP:GNG and that really matters. Maybe it should be expanded further but no need to delete it. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that notability hasn't been disputed. Yoonadue (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving another round for further discussion. The only !delete was just a claim the subject fails GNG but doesn't break down the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources appear to discuss this only as one of many examples of criminalizing beastiality, and don't discuss it enough for notability. As there is no stand-alone coverage as the subject, I simply don't see notability here.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jackattack. As a stand alone article it fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is what I've been trying to express all along, it's noted in a few sources among other examples, not as a topic unto itself. Being part of a list of examples of something does not in and of itself confer notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except that's not how WP:SIGCOV works, which says directly but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The issue is not the the topic can't be covered in detail, just look at the Catalan Wikipedia article (see w:ca:Claudine de Culam). The issue is that doing so is not particularly encyclopaedic. Who cares about the minutia of the trial? What's really of interest from a legal history perspective is trial procedure, standards of evidence, and the way the moral agency of non-human crime participants was treated, and IMO that's best placed in context with other legal proceedings from the same time period/location. Having said that I probably lean more towards consolidating stubs in general, an it may be that editors in the legal history area prefer standalone stubs. I mean it's silly that so many geographical features are done that way but sometimes the fight over such things isn't worth having.
      Anyway I'm not a robot, ask me to look at the guidelines and I'll tell you it should be retained, but set aside GNG and ask me how much value this has or if there is much to be lost by deletion I'll say very little to none. EVENTUALISM has proven to be a far too optimistic an outlook, and the truth is that unless someone with a strong interest in the legal history of the era comes along this may languish indefinitely. And if such an editor does appear, whether or not this stub exists will matter very little, there just isn't much here.
      Other options? could be redirected to History of zoophilia as an ATD, but once pointed there the history is unlikely to ever be used, so again what does it matter? Could be draftified on the hope someone will find a merge target prior to 6 months, but we all know once in draftspace it will be forgotten until g13'd so what's the point? Bottom line it's a small potatoes afd. Should it be retained, if we adhere to the guidelines strictly then yes, but it really doesn't matter if this is deleted and I doubt anyone will care. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know it doesn't have to be the main topic, but it strikes me as one not-very-remarkable example from a list of examples. If I'm being perfectly frank I have a suspicion that bestiality advocates see her as a symbol of their long struggle to prove that animals totally like to have sex with people. While that in and of itself is not a reason to delete it I think it is worth considering if this may be another example of pro-bestiality influencing the project. Merging it with the history article only really makes sense if it was somehow important to how the law on the matter evolved over time, and I've seen no indication of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The thing is the way guidelines work the question isn't how remarkable among other examples is this one, it's solely does this pass GNG, or is this a populated legally recognized place, or has this person appeared in a professional footy-event etc. I'm not saying that if we were to redesign Wikipedia from the ground up we would keep things this way, but I'm not going to pantomime and pretend that I'm adhering to the guidelines when I'm not. OTOH, if someone were to make a bold nom that said yes this does pass GNG, but guidelines allow for occasional exceptions and this is one of them then I may well support, but if we're going to do that let's just be honest about it and state directly what we are doing. As for the advocacy editing I'm of two minds. Part of me feels that some articles and even topic areas are more trouble than they're worth, although and admitting I haven't checked diffs, disruption here isn't obvious from the page history. Another part of me is hard RBI, don't allow their actions to influence our content even one iota, revert their contributions, block them, clean up any disruption and otherwise carry on as though they don't exist, just record things neutrally and whether or not they like or don't like some of the things in our articles should be completely irrelevant. Finally I didn't say merged I explicitly said redirected (although on second look probably the refs should be copied over). But now that you bring up the advocacy portion it does seem to me there's no need for the testimony of the witnesses to be in wikivoice so I'll adjust that. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If relevant sources do not treat this in depth as an incident of particular importance, but only as an example to illustrate the phenomenon of animals being tried, Wikipedia should do the same. The topic can and should be mentioned in an article with a broader scope. Sandstein 13:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IP is right. In my view, as someone who was punished in a historically notable case, the subject clearly merits an article on its own (= meets notability, to put it in Wikipedia's parlance). While one can reasonably argue in favour of a change to a more suitable title, it is quite misleading to say that this does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Kerberous (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV per [7][8] TheRollBoss001 (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covino and Rich

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

I don't think this radio show meets the notability requirements for Wikipedia articles. The article feels like an advertisement for a small radio show which just happened to be broadcasted on SIRIUS XM Radio. Most of the references cited are just links to videos on YouTube or their Facebook page. There is also a draft about Steve Covino who is one of the hosts of the show which was declined for submission because "submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". The same issues also appear on this article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much "notoriety" is needed to maintain a Wiki, but the show's hosts were on international TV and radio platforms for over 15 years between their radio show on Sirius XM, their TV show on SNY, and their TV show on ESPN. The hosts are actively looking for more TV opportunities in addition to continuing to broadcast their radio show via podcasting on Patreon and Twitch. The pandemic severely affected their careers. If they were to once again return to television, I would assume that the new show would be listed on the Wiki of the network they would be employed by. The existing article should remain to chronicle their career and future endeavors, especially as they are both in their 40s and have plenty of time to grow their notoriety. Let me know if more sources are needed to help. Mercerboy (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercerboy, I've tried to find some notable sources about this show, but I haven't been able to find a major source other than the New York Daily News article, which is the most notable source used. If you can find some by all means add them to this discussion. But it should be noted that an account under the name Covinoandrich had edited the article years ago and has been blocked indefinitely since September 2013. There is a neutrality issue with this article. And a look at their edit history shows a conflict of interest. Thus the notability of this article is clearly a concern. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to try and find a way to enhance the "neutrality" of the article. As I am not a regular editor, I would need to find some guidance on this.

As for their show on Sirius/XM - since they did not renew their contract, SXM would have removed most if not all of their previous references to the actual radio show on the platform. The show was broadcast on SXM from January 2005 until February of 2021. The hosts are still employed by the company but only in their "DJ" roles on stations such as SXM Turbo with Covino and Pop2K with Rich Davis

There are a few articles which reference interviews from their SXM radio show where "entertainment news" was made with celebrities such as How Serious Are Zooey Deschanel And ‘Property Brothers’ Star Jonathan Scott? and This Is Us’ Chrissy Metz Shoots Down Rumors She’s Engaged to Bradley Collins. Their YouTube page has multiple video interviews with some of the celebrities they interviewed while on Sirius/XM.

I did find another write-up from the NY Post referring to the SNY show.

Not sure who controlled the Covinoandrich handle. I believe that there were some instances when the Wiki had been altered as a joke, usually referring to something that was heard on the show. The article should probably be restricted for editing as radio show listeners have a tendency to enjoy "pranks." Mercerboy (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a few articles and the interviews with celebrities don't help much to establish notability. Almost anyone who is on the radio can get interviews with actors and such. Unfortunately, this makes deletion favorable. And the article doesn't need to be protected from vandalism. Right now the debate over deletion is the more pressing concern. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercerboy, have you found anything? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement, not notable, bad sources, and the ones provided by Mercerboy don't look like enough, plus that New York Post article isn't even about this. This article looks like it's confused as to whether it's about the radio show or the hosts, so it decided to do both. And voicing such memorable characters as "Cholo" in a Grand Theft Auto game (without clarifying which one; it could be London 1969 for all I know) isn't notable since those are minor NPCs. AdoTang (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it notable. We learn so much on Wikipedia about people who we have no information about. If we attempt to delete every article due to our personal point of views than there is no need to visit this great encyclopedia to learn about people who we knew nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebtimes (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like you're just trying to say you want to keep it because you like it and think it's interesting. You're new, and your only edits so far have been to AfD, so here's a few quick tips:

What you find notable may not actually be notable. See WP:GNG for guidelines on what is and isn't deemed notable on Wikipedia. These also branch out to other notability guidelines for different topics.
Articles are not kept based on how interesting they may be, how much you or others like it, or if we have information on that person. There's no Wikipedia article about you, is there? Exactly. And don't create one, because it'll be gone within an hour.
No one is deleting this due to their personal point of view. It's being put up for deletion due to it basically being an advertisement without notable, verified sources.

AdoTang (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AdoTang, I suggest striking his keep vote since he has been editing keep on three Afd's where the same issues on notability are questioned. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find one article in Men's Health with some pretty good coverage, but other than that it was all routine advertising blurbs for their program. No reviews or academic citations of their program came up in a newspaper archive search, PROQUEST search, JSTOR search, SAGE search, GOOGLE Books or Scholar, etc. Ultimately lacks enough sources to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article was deleted by User:Fastily per criteria WP:G7 as detailed at WP:SPEEDY (non-admin closure).. 4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali R. Jaber

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

This article is cited entirely to paid-for press releases; all of the sources are clearly marked as such and many of them are identical in content, despite being hosted on different websites. I have done a WP:BEFORE search and failed to find a single reliable source about him so WP:GNG is failed considerably. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I do not see anything promotional and I see many verifiable sources cited. We must express our thoughts fairly. Nothing here is being sold, promoted and or advertised.Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC) http://nabatieh.org/news.php?go=fullnews&newsid=31389 — Lebtimes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:27, 7 June 2021‎ (UTC).[reply]

Delete: Press releases and being talked about in local papers for launching a complaint against a professor do not show how the individual is notable. ... discospinster _talk 00:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spiderone and Discospinster, though if this is staying, TNT it. AdoTang (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the unsigned comment. Sorry, I am still a new editor and I am learning. I hope to become a well known editor on Wikipedia. Thanks to one user who told me about signing with comments.

I would like to mention that I do not understand why we should nominate articles for deletion just because they are articles that are not important to us? User Spiderone has multiple articles that he published about Indian sportsmen with broken links and which seem ultimately promotional articles. As Lebanese journalist from Jounieh, Lebanon I and many other Lebanese and non Lebanese journalists have interest in researching notable people on Wikipedia. This website is the ultimate online encyclopedia. In this particular article I found nothing promotional compared to your articles Spiderone. This article has many verifiable sources of an incident that happened and what happened after the incident. When Lebanese and non Lebanese editors or journalists as myself want to get information about this person we come to Wikipedia. This person is known in Lebanon and everyone has a right to research information about him on Wikipedia for journalism and non journalism purposes. Some of these users are not giving valid explanations as to why this article should be deleted? There are multiple verifiable sources listed above and if someone who is NOT notable to you it doesn't mean they are not notable to other's. Non of you are Lebanese and I understand that. If discrimination stories seem irrelevant to you they are not to US and other minorities. This is like saying we shouldn't publish articles about African Americans, latinos, and LGBTQ, and Arabs. This is against what Wikipedia is about. Every notable human in any country deserves to have an article about them. One user on SPIDERONE's talk page mentioned that "just because one is on the Persian Wikipedia that doesn't mean that this person should be on the English version" this comment is clearly biased and it exhibits SPIDERONE's intentions for nominating articles about Arabic and Persian figures deleted. According to Spiderone "whether he has an article in Persian Wikipedia is irrelevant" This thinking should not be allowed on Wikipedia. I am so glad that I seen this article and I seen how some users think. In the name of equality, I ask for an admin to review this article and other similar articles. As a long time user SPIDERONE is also being backed by long time users in the nomination for deletion without reasoning. I will be sending emails to the Wikipedia board of directors and Gil Penchina. I will forward all this abuse that is happening on Wikipedia and the discrimination. When I joined this amazing online encyclopedia, I expected fair treatment and no discrimination. I joined with a mission of writing a book about ever notable Lebanese person that existed. These types of users are interfering with my mission and the mission of any other journalist. This is not the environment I expected.Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 03:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely unnecessary personal attack and an unfounded accusation of racism against me. That being said, if you feel that the Indian footballer articles that I have created are promotional and non-notable then please propose their deletion but may I please ask that you notify me when doing so. Whether or not a figure has an article in a foreign language Wikipedia is still irrelevant as a keep argument. WP:GNG is clear in its requirement for reliable sources covering the topic in depth which is ultimately failed here. There is clear consensus within the Wikipedia community that paid-for press content is not acceptable and doesn't make someone notable. This applies even to a White American or White European so the accusation of racism is ludicrous. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete paid for vanity spam sourced to blackhat SEO. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attack on Lebanese people. I am Lebanese and Christian just so you know. We do not discriminate against religion in Lebanon. Nothing you are saying is correct. Check each source above and tell me how they are paid? This is not personal attack. The links in your references are broken. I checked each source in the above articles and it doesn't say paid. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. The links above are not paid. If they we're paid I would believe what you are saying. Something does not seem correct here. Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 15:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebtimes (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am done arguing with any of you. I came here to write a book about every notable Lebanese person that has ever lived. Instead, I am creating a report with evidence and screenshots to send to the Wikipedia board of directors and CEO. I have evidence already of a lot of biased behavior. Alot of you are going to hear from top administrators for making false claims. This guy cannot tell the difference between a non paid news article and a press release and he wants to give people direction. I'm done. Forget the book.Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 15:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It literally says "Sponsored: Advertising content" at Fox. All of the other references used had similar warnings. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am mentioning the above references, in the talk page. I clicked on each one to verify what you are saying. It says information about his college incident. I did not find the word sponsored. Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 16:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a news article in Arabic and linked it above in my first comment. I also seen an Arabic article linked by the author above as well. I understand that you do not speak Arabic but those are not sponsored. We know these news channels in Lebanon. Maybe the references need updating. I am not sure however the above articles are not sponsored. I checked them.Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Sponsored: Advertising Content" just below the article date. If you want to write a book about Lebanese people that you consider notable, nobody is stopping you. However, Wikipedia has criteria for articles that this one simply does not meet. If he is so well known in Lebanon then there should be independent references showing that. The only one that has been presented is an Arabic-language translation of another article that is itself insufficient. ... discospinster _talk 16:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I checked each article above on this talk page and not one of them said sponsored. You gave your insight yesterday and mentioned that they are not notable for filing a discrimination complaint. Discrimination does not mean anything to you, okay. Now you are copying Spiderone's words. Spiderone and I are dealing with it. Please stop interfering with irrelevance. Your input is not needed. You are saying the same thing Spiderone is saying. Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 16:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you read WP:BLP1E very carefully as well as WP:GNG. He is essentially mentioned in one minor news story which has been rehashed across various websites. The news event itself is not notable enough for an article nor is the individual that made the complaint. Also, as per WP:NOTNEWS, Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Coverage certainly doesn't extend beyond this one minor local news story. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, let's just have an administrator confirm everything. Leave it up to them. I am knew on Wikipedia and not an expert yet however, I am an honest person. He is very popular in Lebanon. We all know him. Before and after the incident. Let the Administrators decide. There are articles in Arabic Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 16:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as Spiderone and Discospinster said, that page does say "Sponsored: Advertising Content" just below the article date. No "honest person" can claim otherwise. – Athaenara ✉ 18:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more notable than the average motivational speaker and digital marketer. – Athaenara ✉ 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the paid press in the world still doesn't add up to notability. All that's left is a WP:BLP1E that appears to not have much coverage beyond local outlets. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks and rants that have nothing to do with the actual deletion discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You are not the judge or jury to say who is honest and who is not. I am done arguing with anyone and I don't care what happens. Please go find something more important to do in life. I was nice to you and asked for guidance regarding rules and thing's I did not know and instead look at your behavior. You believe you are something important in life because of Wikipedia. You are not though! I as a journalist am more important than you, and he who is in the article is way more notable than you. You cannot come and say who is honest and who is not. Please go get a life and let it be. It stays oh well, it's deleted oh well. You made your point and now you are judging other people's honesty. Besides the online encyclopedia, you have no life, it is obvious. You want to be someone important in life but you are not and it is hurting you. Don't you dare call people dishonest for giving their opinion.Tony A. Al-halab Lebtimes 18:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much relevant data present in the article, doesn't appear notable to me.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The sources are twitter, which is absolutely not reliable, and an interview with him, which in no way adds towards reliability. His claims of antagonism from a professor at the community college he attended are at best a BLP1E problem, but in general the coverage is from such local sources it seems to also violate the not news guideline. This person is not yet notable by any measurable criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Dhulbahante fort

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

"Dhulbahante forts" is pure original research and is not mentioned anywhere in any academical sources anywhere. Searching it on Google only returns results from Wikipedia. It seems that Heesxiisoleh is attempting to spin Dervish history to make it seem exclusive to one clan only while negating the involvement of other clans, notably clans of the Isaaq subclan such as the Habr Yunis and Habr Je'lo, something which a source that this user frequently cites does as well (see [9] for that). It took me a while to remove mentions of it.

I might be considering filing a report on this user after this as well as this is an issue much deeper than this. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Dabaqabad (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh...

...I dunno what drama you and this other user are in for you to talk about it on AfD as if this was ANI or DRN, but this is a redirect.

Do you want to delete the entire article for the town? Or do you want to delete the redirect? Because the way I see it, you want to delete the redirect since this place exists, has solid sources, and seems to be notable, but at the same time, you put the deletion thing over the entire article, and the talk page link you put mentions an issue with sources. What do you want to do here? I'm confused, and I think others might be too.

And I recommend you maybe go to DRN for this scuffle you're having. AdoTang (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdoTang: I must have come to the wrong place then. Delete this please. Dabaqabad (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that, but you can withdraw it, I think. AdoTang (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdoTang: How? Dabaqabad (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main AfD page has a section on this, which in turn leads to this section, also on the AfD page. AdoTang (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there isn't reliable source-based evidence to establish notability required for this hypothesis. Having received a grant is not an indicator of notability, which frequently came up. Whether a re-direct would be helpful to readers looking for information on the topic is an editorial discussion. Should an established editor want a prior version to see if there's material worth merging, I am happy to draftify Star Mississippi 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quantized inertia

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

There is not enough coverage in the scientific literature from people independent of the proposers for an article on the topic. There are some popular science sources, two opinion pieces calling it pseudoscience, and one piece in Popular Mechanics, but again not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

the QI theory has more than 20 peer reviewed published papers. The wiki article was quite informative as it was standing some weeks back, but was recently ruined by a few wikipedia editors such as XOR'easter that wanted it to look bad so he and his editorial friends could delete it. That a blog and a journalist call it pseudoscience is more or less irrelevant. Any serious critics must pass peer review. ChrisCalif (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC) — ChrisCalif (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"There is not enough coverage in the scientific literature from people independent of the proposers " do you not understand how science writing works, it has to pass independent peer reviewers, more than 20 peer reviewed papers have been published on this theory. That means a lot of independent researcher have been looking at it and endorsed it for publications, plus editors of good journals. It is the critics of the theory that need to pass some peer review, something they clearly not have been able to do yet. Well there is a blog, and there is a journalist citing anonymous physicsts that it is pseudoscience. Ohh, some working on theories that this theory goes against that leak some info to a magazine journalist and for this reason you try to back up your argument for pseudoscience. Nice try! ChrisCalif (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, potentially, redirect to EmDrive#Speculation regarding new physical laws. Two of the three pop-science media sources discuss it in that context, so a brief mention there would potentially be acceptable. There simply isn't enough reliable, independent, secondary material on this topic to write an article up to our standards. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Wow, this page has been busy! And no, getting a grant does not imply wiki-notability. Nor does superficial, sensationalist "reporting" on the existence of said grant. If this were a philosophy seminar, we could have a long and entertaining discussion about the demarcation problem, and how one might draw a distinction between pseudoscience (e.g., creationism) and shoddy science (e.g., N-rays). However, that is largely beside the point here. The problem is the paltry state of the available references, and the fact that the sources that do exist fail to support more than a mention in another article. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is current science, and it's the subject of plenty of papers and a lot of discussion. It doesn't help that the author of the theory can be rather politically incorrect. Not sure if that is a factor in this AfD. Bmcollier (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Non-notable junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete – nom has summarized it well, or weak redirect per XOR'easter. —Quondum 02:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And restore the page to how it was before XOR'easter, Quondum removed interesting things about the theory and used a blog and magazine article as evidence for pseudoscience. And we will see what happen in the long run!! ChrisCalif (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage in independent sources is very scarce, and what we have is mostly negative. I find it wrong to justify the existence of an article with sources saying the topic is a concatenation of buzz words and bullshit or pseudoscientific. Tercer (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete! This is perfectly good scientific theory, backed up by peer-reviewed publications. It is NOT "junk science" or "pseudo science". Deletion would constitute unwarranted censorship, totally against the ethos of Wikipedia. What is needed is restoration of the article as it was, before it was deliberately trashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:3D00:D01:794B:BF42:3687:4B1 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC) Note: This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]
Weakly neutral or redirect As one who inflamed the debate, I feel obliged to say something. Some points: (1) Per StarryGrandma, it's speculative science, not pseudoscience (there's apparently one journalist who called it pseudoscience; and no scientists on the record that have denounced it as such.) (2) It's marginally notable: At least three pop-sci articles dealing with it. Clearly it has a fan-base. (3) Primary sources are thin. All primaries appear to have McColluch, the proposer/inventor, as co-author, except for one critique, which points out the calculations are absent from the primary sources, and when the calculations are actually performed, one gets a different result from the original claims. (4) I've personally verified the calculations. They are missing in McCulloch's work, and the single critique made by Renda appears to have errors. Its frustrating that no one, including McCulloch himself, have taken the time & effort to publish a reasonably correct derivation of the claimed effect. (5) Although I personally find the core idea plausible and worth investigating, it does appear (to me personally) that McCulloch himself behaves in a cranky, pseudoscientific fashion. QI is proposed as a cure for half-a-dozen scientific mysteries; the magnitude of the effect is adjusted by a factor of ten to suit whatever mystery is being discussed. Nothing deeper or more refined is ever published - no amplifications, corrections or further developments or evolutions of the idea. (*) To conclude: I won't attempt to apply WP's various rules & guidelines for this situation/article; that's for someone else to do. But the whole thing seems terribly borderline to me. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"McCulloch himself behaves in a cranky" what dose that has to do with pages one should have on wikipedia or not, but yes not surprised several here after him even personally. "Nothing deeper or more refined is ever published" false claim, please see if you can find something known as google.ChrisCalif (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read everything I can find. If you can provide a reference to anything detailed, that would be nice. Put it on my talk page, not here. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete! Personally I don't believe QI is correct, but is an interesting and valid idea. Deletion feels like a personally / personality driven vendetta. Every time I look at this page there less information? What's going on?. Let the idea live and die as it will and document it on this page, deletion is un-needed censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.37.100 (talk • contribs) — 82.25.37.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could the editors referring to pseudoscience reference by a journalist and a blog explain why they think this should have much more weight above many peer reviewed published papers. The editors claiming it is pseudoscience have a clear parallel to working similar to these: "100 Authors against Einstein" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein We are clearly talking about a vendetta against a person and a theory! I personally am skeptical to much of QI, do I want to delete information about it due to a journalist and a blog, of course not, I am not anti-scientific! Scientific questions can take 100 years of discussion to be settled. It is not done by journalist or even scientist screaming pseudoscience without their critics passing peer review and further discussion. These editors should explain why their argument make sense. Please explain to us! The history of science tell us exactly why also critics must pass peer review over time, and why not even 100 voices not passing peer review and or other (scientific standard) should be given much weight! These editors should be investigated if they are qualified or if they have a special agenda! XOR'easter and Tercer both claim to be physicists, how can it be they prefer to give MUCH more weigh to a blog and a journalist that loads of peer reviewed papers? ChrisCalif (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is sufficiently explained by the Notability policy, which is your responsibility to understand and respect. As the first sentence there says, notability determines whether there should be an article on a topic. References that are by people who are not independent of the subject (irrespective of peer review) do not to count towards notability. In this discussion, whether it is pseudoscience or valid science is irrelevant, and comments on that should be ignored. —Quondum 17:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Tercer, even a self claimed physicists, are using this as one of his main arguments to delete "I find it wrong to justify the existence of an article with sources saying the topic is a concatenation of buzz words and bullshit or pseudoscientific. Tercer (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC). So when someone have falsified your main arguments u just keep putting the deletion policy on another knob? Most independent that have followed what has happened clearly see that this is some kind of vendetta! A physicists using a blog and a journalist as part of his main argument against loads of peer reviewed published papers looks indeed more like a vendetta! Will this be taken into account, or are suddenly all the negative editors only on to one argument: lack of notability? Please explain? ChrisCalif (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quondum do you stand behind your arguments on the talk page of QI "from a perspective outside of WP, the idea of quantized inertia is categorically pseudoscience"," and you wrote on another page “ "every time I try to read a paper by McCulloch I am freshly appalled. [...] it needs to fit the reality: QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience, so we can't present it in a way that it could be perceived as believable. —Quondum 21:46, 4 June 21"

This based on a blog and a journalist or your own personal prejudice? Quondum now seems to have changed totally tactic for argument for deletion. Should we really trust a person ranting around on wikipedia (a public website) "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" and then suddenly switching to "whether it is pseudoscience or valid science is irrelevant". Should such highly biased editors be given any voting powers. This indeed look more like a personal vendetta against QI and perhaps agains even Mike McCulloch himself, we know Dr. McCulloch has attacked existing theories, but it is peer reviewed published critics. That he likely have made som researchers feeling furious about peer reviewed critics of their theories should be taken into account. A handful of editors at best (perhaps even some with multiple accounts) now just need something to hang QI on to delete it, and with it all or most of the critics of their behavior. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth thinking about in terms of thinking about if some editors here very biased " I suppose we need to be more brutally explicit on the talk page. I guess I'll be the one to to do so. —Quondum 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)" From Quondum own talk page where he an XOR'easter discusses how to hit down hard on the QI page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCalif (talk • contribs)

PS I am now threatened by that my account will likely be deleted/blocked, they claim I have harassed editors that want QI deleted (it can be no one else as I only have written critics arguments against these), or pointed out flaws in their arguments? So here we are asked to discuss arguments for and against deletion. Such things as "QI is horribly audacious pseudoscience" is okay to put out on a public page by editors at wikepedia that supposedly should try to be neutral. It is not considered harassment I was told when I asked how I was harassing anyone more than these editors, even if it of course can ruin a persons job, career etc if such information is spread widely in public forums. But to be a bit harsh against editors with such arguments is clearly not allowed? PS I have contributed to wikipedia since the early start (with often years breaks). What we see now is more and more unfair editing, wikipedia is in danger of being used as a propaganda tool by editors spending lots of time here, to marketing their own ideas and own people, rather than to be objective. I am still wonder what is the consensus now about one of the main argument for deleting the article, namely "pseudoscientific", a view now Quondum suddenly says is irrelevant, what about the other editors that have used this argument they still stand behind it? ChrisCalif (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. As stated above, this is a controversial hypothesis with many detractors, but an article on an unproven hypothesis should not be deleted just because the 'pseudoscientific' attribute has been applied to it. Many papers have been published, removed content should be restored to the WP page. Further new experimental work is starting this year ^[1] ... I suggest wait a year until this new work is concluded, if the test findings are negative then remove the page. Pteerr (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The inventor is editing the article himself or having his followers brigade edits. This theory and the experiments is a classic example of Pathological Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomorphic (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"having his followers brigade edits" please define followers, are other scientists interested in galaxy rotation models and therefore also this theory considered such followers? That someone is following a theory do not mean they are fans of the theory. Most researchers that are following are likely quite objective. So you must document that these followers are just fans without critical sense. I personal am following the theory and just did an edit to the theory, I am not a fan of the theory as I am quite critical to it. This is why the page indeed should have a section mention the critics, but if it is blogs and journalist with anonymous physicists as source this should indeed not be pretended to be strong scientific arguments against it, for that it has to be published in peer reviewed journals. ChrisCalif (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC) (Please do not delete my comments, the deletion decision should indeed be based on discussing, so it must be possible to comment on claims. ChrisCalif (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter followers. I have been watching them conspire on twitter with the inventor to make changes and brigade the article. Encouraging people to edit an article about one's own theory is about as biased as it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomorphic (talk • contribs) 21:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why can they not communicate on twitter? it is even more transparent than Quondum and XOR'easter conspire on Quondum's talk page " I suppose we need to be more brutally explicit on the talk page. I guess I'll be the one to to do so. —Quondum 15:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)" . Twitter followers do not mean twitter fans. For sure he also has fans, many that follow people on twitter, FB, instagram or wikipedia pages are just followers of peoples ideas etc. But you are sure all these are fans. Could even critics perhaps find reasons to step up for QI and McCulloch when they see how some wikipedia editors operate? One can naturally communicate on any social media, the issue here is if one have reliable sources to back up claims for deletion of the page. The pseudoscience argument used as main argument by several editors seems totally nonsense. If not stand up and defend it!! ChrisCalif (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Encouraging people to edit an article about one's own theory is about as biased as it gets" even if one at the same time shows to that some anonymous editor want to delete an article based on journalist and blogs claiming it is pseudoscience? Or perhaps that is the time when even critics of his theory want to stand up and defend, because they understand like me that even science itself then is under attack on wikipedia, by a handful of wikipedia editors. ChrisCalif (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Written further above by one who wants to delete : "This theory and the experiments is a classic example of Pathological Science." :Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science So more than 20 peer reviewed papers, mostly in very respectful journals (with few exceptions) must have tricked the referees and the Editor(s) into believe in false results, wishful thinking etc. By what, for example by QI tested against galaxy rotation data and fits without dark matter! Sure you or others can ramble about your own pseudo-views on blogs etc. but critics of peer reviewed published science actually require peer reviewed critics! And even when such critics passes peer review and gets published it can take time before the critics is accepted or refuted by others again. More than 20 + peer reviewed papers are published, only 1 critical(?), with constructive critics mostly. Claims such as "classic example of Pathological Science" seems to have zero backing, and must therefore concluded to be a highly biased view based on prejudice. Please debate if one claim otherwise, we are listening, if one has backing for the theory being "Pathological Science" then please provide good sources for such claims, otherwise you should come up with other reasons for delete the article, or change your mind? ChrisCalif (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore to the version from 27 June 2020‎ or similar. The claim of some editors above that allegedly there are only 2-3 secondary sources and that only McCulloch with collaborators and Renda published scientific papers on this is false. There are over 30 peer-reviewed papers on this theory.

List of potential sources ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Apart from Renda's paper there are also two different peer-reviewed papers by Taylor and Pickering listed here: https://quantizedinertia.com/researches/

And also there is a peer-reviewed paper by O Neunzig, Marcel Weikert and Martin Tajmar: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351099142_Thrust_measurements_and_evaluation_of_asymmetric_infrared_laser_resonators_for_space_propulsion
and a conference paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350108417_Thrust_Measurements_and_Evaluation_of_Asymmetric_Infrared_Laser_Resonators_for_Space_Propulsion

There are also many papers on this theory by George Soli:
https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=quantised+inertia
https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=quantized+inertia

and Espen Gaarder Haug: http://www.espenhaug.com/Physics.html

There is also a book on this theory: https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Edge-Cosmological-Model-Inertia/dp/9814596256

There are also plenty of popular science secondary articles and radio interviews mentioning this theory, for example:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/darpa-funds-developing-quantized-inertia-into-breakthrough-space-propulsion.html
https://www.wired.com/story/mach-effect-thrusters-interstellar-travel/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a24219132/darpa-emdrive/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a33917439/emdrive-wont-die/
https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/04/20/8558/the-curious-link-between-the-fly-by-anomaly-and-the-impossible-emdrive-thruster/
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-british-scientists-new-physics-theory-accidentally-proves-controversial-space-1556098
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-uk-scientist-claims-new-physics-explains-galaxy-rotation-theoretical-space-propulsion-1606367
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/what-emdrive-why-should-i-care-1579181
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-new-hypothesis-could-explain-why-the-controversial-em-drive-works https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/uop-sr091418.php
https://www.vice.com/en/article/7x3ed9/darpa-is-researching-quantized-inertia-a-theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience
http://mlodytechnik.pl/technika/28362-nowa-teoria-na-temat-dzialania-silnika-emdrive-silnik-mozliwy-inaczej
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/07/30/can-the-pioneer-anomaly-be-explained-by-inertia-modification/
https://www.wearefinn.com/topics/posts/plymouth-researchers-to-study-fuel-free-propulsion/
https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/DARPA_invests_in_propellant-free_rocket_theory_999.html
https://www.eteknix.com/nasas-impossible-emdrive-explained-new-theory-inertia/
https://www.thespaceshow.com/guest/dr.-m.e.mike-mcculloch
https://sciencetrends.com/quantised-inertia-gets-rid-dark-matter/
https://audioboom.com/posts/5378659-em-drive-confounds-newtonians-in-search-of-a-new-physics-mike-mcculloch-plymouth-university-david-livingston-spaceshow-com
http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/17-jun-2016/broadcast-2722-em-drive
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729002.000-sacrificing-einstein-relativitys-keystone-has-to-go.html?full=true

There was also a TEDx talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmY and many other videos on this theory or mentioning this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.199.104 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is unknown why some editors consider it pseudoscience, when there is no evidence (no peer-reviewed papers claiming that) and no sources (apart from the sole Brian Koberlein's blog-like article) claiming that. There are over 30 peer-reviewed papers on this theory. It is improbable that a theory published in so many peer-reviewed papers is pseudoscience.

Wikipedia is based on sources and not personal feelings or point of view of editors (see WP:NPOV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ). Unfortunately some of editors seem to forget that. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if the current sources cited are the best available, then I don't think there's enough material to write a full article on. It's nice that there are several papers on the topic, and also nice to see a grant has been awarded; but there simply aren't enough people working on the topic. After almost 15 years, something like 80% of papers on the topic are by Mcculloch, which is not a good sign. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

McCulloch tweeted recently that: "We have an opportunity to become a cheap-energy, interstellar species with #QI. Already $1.4M funding, 25 papers. 8 labs involved. One 0 thrust, but +ve thrusts from 4 labs so far. 10 theory groups collaborating. If we can confirm thrust then we get to Proxima Centauri in 20 yrs." https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1400475818158141441

To me that sounds like this theory is gaining a momentum. 8 labs involved in experiments right now to confirm this theory and 10 theory groups collaborating. 88.145.199.104 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which are these other labs & theory groups? Banedon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McCulloch posted a few weeks ago a tweet with a table listing the lab groups. Ask him directly for theory groups, if you are interested.88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link it, if you want to change my mind. Banedon (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"if the current sources cited are the best available" no these where additional references. See also for example http://quantizedinertia.com/researches/ where there are links to many of the peer reviewed published papers on the theory, click on them please one by one, check out the journals etc., and there are more published papers on this theory than this ! The pseudoscientific argument was bogus, the "Pathological Science" argument is totally bogus and backed with nothing. What is the button one desperately look for to delete (or redirect it to be one line on another page?) the page now? There is also another issue here, if people/editors are using years to build as objective pages as they can, and suddenly a handful of editors with personal views such as; this is pseudoscience, are deleting the page one are discouraging many from contributing to wikipedia. The "senior" editors, based on spending loads of time here can then become bullies and abuse their powers. Why on earth was the page not marked as non-qualified years ago? Sure the argument will be that happens all the time as so many new pages are created, but no this is not the case here. The page has much more reliable reference now than when people spent time building it. I have personally never contributed to it, before last few days, trying to remove unfair pseudoscience label in top of page. But hopefully someone can come up with a much more reliable type of wikipedia soon if wikipedia allow its editors to abuse its rules for personal views. ChrisCalif (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, everything after your first two sentences is irrelevant to what I wrote. Second, if you click that link, you'll find that the objection I wrote is correct, something like 80% of papers involve McCulloch. There're a grand total of three papers that don't involve him. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are 4 peer-reviewed papers where he is not a co-author (Renda, Taylor, Pickering and Tajmar et al). In total there are about 30 peer-reviewed papers on this theory. There are also a dozen or so published only on-line papers (in the researchgate, vixra and like) by George Soli and Espen Gaarder Haug. There are also over 25 popular science articles or other publications. There is also a book about this theory. DARPA grant is also very significant. All this confirms that this subject is notable, therefore it should have a Wikipedia article.88.145.199.104 (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so there are four (Pickering wrote two papers) - which is still too low. I originally quoted 80%. 26/30 is more than that. The objection remains. Banedon (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The papers by Neunzig, Weikert and Tajmar (only one of which is peer-reviewed) discuss quantized inertia in the context of the EmDrive, which supports the point raised above that quantized inertia isn't noteworthy as a stand-alone topic that needs its own article. Moreover, they show that the EmDrive doesn't work — in short, there's no need for quantized inertia to explain a phenomenon that doesn't exist. That's hardly evidence that Wikipedia needs a whole article on the subject. Rather the opposite, really. One of Pickering's papers is in Advances in Astrophysics, a "journal" from the very-obviously-predatory publisher "Isaac Scientific Publishing" whose most recent article is Chandra "COVID came from space!" Wickramasinghe writing about "Polonnaruwa Stones Revisited – Evidence for Non-Terrestrial Life" [10]. It is not a reliable source. And saying that a subject is on viXra like that's a good thing is particularly entertaining. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This theory was valid enough to recieve $2m in DARPA funding. While speculative, this alone justifies it's mention here. The theory proposes falsifiable tests and active experiments by accredited universities are ongoing. — 47.55.230.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete - This is very clearly a WP:FRINGE topic: it may have a number of publications associated with it, but they're almost all by one author and they have very few citations. There are a number of single-topic users who have focused on it recently, but that doesn't mean we should cover it here. - Parejkoj (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The links to some of the secondary sources that I copied above clearly prove that this theory is notable, so it does not matter if it is fringe or not when it is notable.88.145.199.104 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia has lots of pages on "fringe" theories " "For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality." This is is clearly not a good reason to delete, this is a reason to mention claims only backed by peer reviewed research and yes also to mention critics as has been done. One can easily add comments such as; the theory is still relatively new and several questions clearly not settled, but that has been clear from the page a very long time, if not please contribute constructively. ChrisCalif (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"but they're almost all by one author " this seems to be a false claim, I quickly counted about 10 (and I am sure there are more) peer reviewed published papers with 2 authors or other authors on the topic than the inventor Dr. McCulloch. Please at least use google search before just throwing out some false claims, seems very unprofessional. In addition natural loads of popular science articles by others. So false claim again it seems, just to try to come up with something sounding reasonable to delete, but we deserve better. We deserve that one do at least a minimum amount of research, like a google search, to check if the arguments one throw out have validity, and not are just reflecting personal feelings. If counter arguments please come with them! ChrisCalif (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From one on twitter "I was doing searches of "Wikipedia" on LinkedIn. The number of Wikipedia Editors offering their services for pay is huge." So then an important question is if any of the editors that want to ban this page has been paid by anyone that makes them biased? I was wondering how some editors have so much time to work on wikipedia, could be many, but if a series of wikipedia editors takes paid to edit for certain interest that seems to be reason for declaring conflict of interest. Little is written about this phenomena (paid wikipedia editors), perhaps worth a wikipedia page on its own, and something that the management could investigate, if it leads to biased editing. PS I am not accusing a single editor here for this, I am just kindly asking if any such conflict of interest. I just searched LinkedIn and got confirmed many people and even firms offering wikipedia editing for pay. May be nothing wrong with it, but it can clearly lead to possible conflict of interest also I think I can see. May be a topic for a own page, so I will not go further on with that here, but likely on other page, is there a page for this topic on wikipedia? ChrisCalif (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now warned that my account will possibly be closed/blocked for pointing out the fact that many wikipedia editors are listing themself to take paid for editing (they lost this on LinkedIn), even firms specializing in this. I am not s single purpose account as I am accused for, I am not a paid account. I am here to contribute to wikipedia pages and in particular for objectivity, that involves one perhaps also need to look into the dark corners of wikipedia? Should one be blocked for that? ChrisCalif (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Law of holes. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

' @ChrisCalif: You're absolutely right. Many (maybe most) paid editors do not disclose it..' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Likely_many_editors_taking_paid_that_not_disclose_it So is it then so bad for me to ask if someone has forgot to disclose here if they are paid editors? Because I find it strange that out of lots of positive popular science articles some editors on this page, that wants to delete, has used the very few popular science articles, by for example a journalist referring to anonymous physicists to declare the theory as pseudoscience. And used the pseudoscience argument as one of main arguments for deletion. Why no focus on the 20+ peer review papers and the very many positive popular science articles. I think one can indeed question the motives for such editing and deletion suggestions. And I am clearly not the only one suspecting that wikipedia has considerably numbers of paid editors working for special interest the do not disclose it. Again I do not claim anyone here are paid editors, I kindly asked to disclose it, if it was the case. I remind you all that this is a discussion page for arguments for and against the quantized inertia page, please explain how or what of my points are totally irrelevant? We are there to discuss relevant information, are we not? And if not relevant then please just point it out. I am not a person that must be right on everything. ChrisCalif (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did you just reply to yourself?~~ Nevermind, I'm dumb. That's from the link. Sorry. Carry on with your wall of text brigades, everyone! Also, you mentioning people here having an undisclosed paid COI, then claiming you're not trying to say they have one, then continuing to imply they do, is pretty much you saying they have one, is it not? If you want to bring every single person here that didn't follow you from Twitter to the admins, do so. AdoTang (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Also, you mentioning people here having an undisclosed paid COI, " I never did, stop put claims on that i mentioned this or that, you can simply quote what I said instead instead of twisting my words. I just asked if someone did to disclose it. What are the arguments now standing to delete the quantized inertia page? ChrisCalif (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is that "There is not enough coverage in the scientific literature from people independent of the proposers for an article on the topic" and "not enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG".

"Did you just reply to yourself? " No I did not, I have no prior knowledge of the editor that replied: "You're absolutely right. Many (maybe most) paid editors do not disclose it" .ChrisCalif (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is that EMDrive nonsense which has thus far failed to produce any experimental results which were distinguishable from background noise. The creator's Twitter account (even setting aside his childish claim that everyone !voting to delete this article is a paid shill) reads like the conversations I used to have with my nerdier friends over a bunch of bong hits in 1996. There's nothing resembling real science here, and the most mainstream coverage it's gotten directly has been from opinion pieces calling it pseudoscience. I can't find even the barest hint of any engagement with this theory in the wider scientific literature; everything that mentions it is either McCulloch or one of his students. It's not our job to amplify this particular pseudoscience into the spotlight. If it manages to get there on it's own, that's fine, but for us to be hosting this nonsense before that time is clearly a bad call. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Content ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

EMDrive predictions is just a small part of the theory and still a series of labs works on testing if anything in it or not, so why come with prejudice before most labs finished with their tests? The negative test was predicted negative by the inventor of the EMDrive, so it was not really a test, but every voice and result should be looked at, I am in no way a EMdrive expert, why we should hold us self to peer reviewed published research. Such discussions should be let go for some years, in particular when several labs work on tests, before making early conclusions. What about galaxy rotations, it is very good at predicting, something already tested and published by Dr. McCulloch. Certainly there could be issues with this theory also, read up on MOND on wikipedia that theory has lots of issues. MOND is older and has more cover, but should we really have to wait 40 years before any new theory deserves a page on wikipedia? Dark matter has zero observations that support the theory, but since many researchers work on that theory it is accepted as good fish. ChrisCalif (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion ain't gonna win you anything, except maybe a block if you get too annoying with it. But I can see on your talk that you've already been warned about this, so if you keep it up, I won't warn you anymore, I'll ask an admin to go ahead and block you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors" why do you try to stop me from discussion? Not only are you trying to censor a theory in science, you are also trying to censor me from discussing how many of the arguments here to delete that page seems incredible weak. I find the many treats about blocking me as pure harassment techniques to try to silence me. But I would not at all be surprised if one of you also abuse your editorial powers to block me from simply discuss arguments used to delete a wikipedia page. ChrisCalif (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are now working hard to block me from comment critically here. Just look this at this very false claim by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#requesting_an_admin_and_you_seem_to_be_active_at_the_moment And yes false claims to censor critical questions is serious! ChrisCalif (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the totally false claim by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants "and accusing others of paid editing for the past few hours" this is totally false claim, please read the page, where I simply and politely ask if anyone should be paid editors then it is a good time to disclose. I specifically mentioned "PS I am not accusing a single editor here for this, I am just kindly asking if any such conflict of interest. " Please read the whole page above you here! Stop with false claims to censor one of the voices here discussing the extreme weakness in the arguments for censoring the quantized inertia page. ChrisCalif (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Again, ~~Do Not Delete~~. To answer the response by 'Monomorphic' saying 'The inventor is editing the article himself or having his followers brigade edits', my name is not McCulloch and he has not 'had' me do anything. Yes, QI is an unproven hypothesis, but I share the opinion of DARPA and many others that it's of such potential importance that it must continue to be assessed. Is much of this unedifying deletion discussion a demonstration of the first of Clarke's three laws ? ( BTW, Monomorphic also deleted my edit stating that it was a link to McCulloch's personal blog : it was not, it could clearly be seen to be a link to a University of Plymouth official job posting for a QI Research Assistant post, see reference below ) Pteerr (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Second !vote bodly struck through by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Pteerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You cannot make your case twice! Please strike through your second "Do Not Delete". Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'm new to this. It seems you have done it for me, I hope it's OK now. Pteerr (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is fringe and likely pseudoscience but the grant given to explore it makes it notable as supported by references.Weburbia (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fringe and likely pseudoscience, and a grant does not change that or make it notable. This is not an encyclopedic topic. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim right back to a stub. It's a historically interesting minor idea that so far didn't pan out but hasn't been absolutely ruled out. There are certainly fringe aspects to its more excitable supporters, not least on this page, but the original idea is no sillier than many others in theoretical physics, such as fractal cosmology. Though I can see arguments that merging to another page might reduce the effort of preventing fringe inspired bloat. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is, I think, that any sufficiently selective merge would be indistinguishable from a redirect. By the time we'd be done cutting the prose down to something that secondary sources can actually support, it would be simpler to just write 2–3 sentences from scratch instead. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't tons of secondary sources, but there are a few: Forbes [11], Phys.Org [12], Popular Mechanics [13], Vice [14]. It's not great but it's not nothing. A stub would look much like the current lede with more appropriate references. The Unruh stuff would cut down to a single sentence. The criticism section just repeats the lede so isn't needed in a stub. The current experiments might or might not survive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the phys.org item while searching for coverage prior to the AfD. They're an aggregator site known for churnalism; their item on quantized inertia is basically a press release, with lengthy quotes from McCulloch and no apparent effort to get commentary from anyone else. If that were the best writeup I could get for my own research, I'd drink myself to sleep. The other sources add up to not-great-but-not-nothing, as you say. I considered the stub route (we debated this at WT:PHYS for a while before it came to AfD). What ultimately tipped me against that was that the not-great-but-not-nothing references pretty firmly situate it within the space-drive context. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's on the edge, but I tend towards inclusion where possible. Anyway I had a go at a quick stubification, so see what you think. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an improvement — thank you for putting in the effort! Seeing it so much shorter, though, just makes it seem more apt to blow away in the wind; or, more prosaically, cutting it down to stub size makes folding it into another article seem even more fitting. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If nothing else I wanted to identify the bits and sources that were arguably worth moving somewhere else. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have blocked ChrisCalif (talk · contribs) from editing this discussion for the remainder of the debate, following persistent disruption. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: You might want to give them a break from the related article and its talk page, too: their latest post over there also not particularly constructive... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic lacks persistent coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N. ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Miniapolis 23:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I mean I am used to having only one or to sources that I can use for articles I create on taxa (because taxa are inherently notable [See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES), that doesn't mean I am going to allow that same standard elsewhere. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Roxy . wooF 07:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or otherwise rename to include "Hypothesis" in the title. The general claim of "Quantised Inertia" has yet to be proven experimentally, but there have been a number of scientific papers written about it including at least one skeptical analysis. The theory makes testable predictions thus it is a testable hypothesis. There are other articles on Wikipedia that could more readily and easily be dismissed as pseudoscience such as those on "Simulated Reality" or "Simulation Hypothesis" as these are not testable in any conceivable form and are more akin to solipsism. Theories and papers going under the name Quantised Inertia are making claims relevant to physics using math and physics concepts and formulas, therefore, even though its not yet experimentally proven, its not proven to be pseudoscience. (An analogy can be made to theories about aether). Just because someone makes a pop-science blog article claiming it is pseudoscience doesnt prove that it is. At least one scientific paper (by Michele Renda, https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01589) has offered a skeptical analysis of Q.I, and does not conclude it is pseudoscience, but does claim it has flaws and suggests corrections. The paper concludes "such flaws, if they do not invalidate, at least will require a major rethinking of the whole theory". This doesnt claim Q.I is pseudoscience but does offer a skeptics criticism. Even if the theory is disproven, there is no need to delete, as other theories that are disproven (such as the aether) have historical value. My suggestion is that this article can be renamed to "Quantised Inertia Hypothesis". -Skywalker8 . talk 18:00, 12 June 2021 (EST)

The paper you mention is an ArXiv preprint which has not been published in a journal, and is therefore irrelevant for notability, see WP:PREPRINTS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia, as the arXiv entry shows the paper has been published in the Monthly Notices of the Astronomical Society and is just fine. Skywalker8, pseudoscience isn't the issue. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on topics which are pseudoscience. There just needs to be enough reliable independent coverage and this one doesn't yet have it. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, they should have directly linked to the journal article though to make that clear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal article is subscription only. Most physics and astronomy articles are posted at arXiv first - its been a tradition for a long time and gives a nice way of reading articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There simply isn't enough coverage here for a neutral scientific article. The fact that the creator of the theory is looking to Wikipedia for validation of his theory suggests to me that it isn't notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Ultimately it's too new of a theory with a couple of scientists exploring it, a a couple of skeptics publishing rebuttals. Once the body of literature expands, then we can create a neutral article.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content (incl. abuse) ——Serial 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After being blocked for over 70 hours for constructively pointing out my meanings I am back again. Here we have everything from people not knowing or bothering checking if articles on arXive are published in good journals or not, to professors and researchers. I really hope the final decision makers read the many comments on this page and the talk page rather than try to overrun the process based on own ego (I know better than peer reviewed published research etc. kind of view. should not be acceptable). Play with the thought for a moment that QI even is wrong in its perdition on EMDrive, something that is far from proven yet, but just assume so for a moment. Should one then delete the theory for such a reason? Not at all, many theories gives many predictions, they need also to be refined and possibly improved over time. Should we have rejected GR because it did not predict galaxy rotations, no instead one suggested the hypothesis of dark matter, that still only is a hypothesis and nothing more yet. So what is the point of deletion, to only have pages about facts? but then much of wikipedia need to go. For researchers it is naturally interesting to be able quickly look up summaries and key elements of theories that have been around for some time, no matter if they end up being wrong, correct, or correct on some points. Wikipedia is for me and many researcher a useful tool for initial research, here one can quickly get some short summary of many theories published in good journals in physics. The wikipedia editors that want to delete really need to think of why they want to delete. It is strange when editors that have focused on argument of pseudoscience which there is little or no reliable sources behind, suddenly have switched to argument about notability. So perhaps my arguments had some impact after all. There are many pages on wikipedia with less reason for notability I think. Block me or not again, call my view disruptive editing. Perhaps now that the page is almost destroyed should be deleted, but better is to re-build it. I will be Back!! (no matter if you like it or not). Adjos Amigos! ChrisCalif (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 and Star Mississippi: wasn't this guy supposed to be blocked until after the AfD closed? You know, so that they couldn't just come back and post walls of obstructive, bad faith text and cast aspersions?! Like they, actually, just have?! ——Serial 16:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was supposed to be closed by now; it's in the active queue for reviewing by an admin. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you Ritchie333. And for your most recent logged actions. ——Serial 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) firefly ( t · c ) 08:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CFCH-FM

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

WP:G4 declined but I can't see why; as far as I can tell, this is just a reposting of the previously deleted article with no coverage since the initial announcements back in May 2020.

User:Bearcat's previous rationale, which I will copy and paste below, still applies:

Premature article about a radio station that was granted a license in 2020 but has not yet commenced broadcasting as of today. Simply having been given a license is not grounds for an article in and of itself — there have been many, many instances in North American broadcasting of radio stations being granted licenses by the FCC or the CRTC but then failing to actually launch within the authorized period and thus having their licenses expire, so a radio station has to actually be on the air to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:BCAST, not just get a license.

In addition, I'm only seeing routine coverage and not enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The one thing here that's semi-different, compared to the first time, is that the infobox now has "June 2021 (testing)" in the infobox as a first airdate. But (a) the base notability requirement is officially launched, not just testing, and (b) the article doesn't contain any sources that verify that the station's actually in testing. And even on a Google search, no such sources exist elsewhere either — the topic has received no new coverage since May 2020 at all. If the claim is true, then that does mean it's closer to the notability bar than it was in February, so we should probably let it simmer in draftspace for a spell — but just testing doesn't pass the notability bar by itself (even stations that have gotten to the testing stage have still been known to fail to actually launch), so it still isn't an appropriate topic for a mainspace article yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged the new radio station 90.5 in North Bay and they should be launching soon when ready so there's absolutely no need to delete this article during test mode and when they are ready to launch which could be any week or month now!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8d80:566:34f9:eaaf:39f6:cf18:8317 (talk • contribs)

"Could be any week or month now" doesn't cut it. Not until we can reliably source an exact launch date in news reportage by at least one of CTV Northern Ontario, The North Bay Nugget or Bay Today. Not private personal correspondence with the station manager, and not Vista's own Facebook profile: article about the station actually having a hard launch, published in a real media outlet other than itself, or no dice.

Also, by the way, you do not have the right to remove the AFD template from the article while this discussion is still open, or the right to "close" this discussion yourself by erasing it. Try either of those stunts again, and there will be consequences. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Bearcat (talk), I'm sorry for what I've done by removing the article for deletion template on CFCH-FM and blanking this page! :-( It won't happen again! I was pretty disappointed and frustrated about an article of a new radio station signing on soon in North Bay, Ontario being on the deletion list. Hopefully once the new station at 90.5 FM in North Bay IS LAUNCHED, the CFCH-FM article on Wikipedia will be created once again! 2605:8d80:566:34f9:eaaf:39f6:cf18:8317 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and Redirect: Gotta go with Bearcat on this one. It was too soon then, it's toon soon now. It might be testing, but unless there is an official launch, then no article. Even the owner says it could take "14 months" but he doesn't think it will take the "full two years". That was published on May 27, 2020. The license was officially received from the CRTC on May 25, 2020. So, 14 months from that date is July 25, 2021. Two years, May 25, 2022. Let's check back in in late-July. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft there is a CRTC license and there is media coverage of that license. However, the key ingredient of all radio stations is missing: they're not transmitting any programs on a regular basis. Can you be notable for having won a license? Probably not. So, for the moment, it is just hot air. And it's not even hot electromagnetic air.--- Possibly (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no issue with draftify as an outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Technically the consensus is "weak keep" with most agreeing that though many of the sources are too poor to qualify, there is just sufficient to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haitai Nanafa

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

Subject is not notable; article is only one sentence and an Infobox. —ÐW^(T·C) 21:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST. Here are three reliable, independent sources that give the series in-depth coverage. Link20XX (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Found 2 more (1, 2), which are from AnimeNation and Ryūkyū Shimpō respectively, both of which are also reliable sources. Link20XX (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Link20XX, Those are sadly press releases or their rewrites, so they don't help much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Piotrus: They aren't press releases. They were in the news section. Anime News Network files press releases in a separate section. The Fandom Post also doesn't do press releases at all. They are covering a press release. The article from Anime Nation is also sourced to the ANN article, so even if you want to call the ANN Articles press releases (which they are not), that one would count. Link20XX (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Link20XX, They are rewrites of press release or otherwise coverage of routine business operations (DVD releases). No real difference. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: There is a difference, Anime News Network/The Fandom Post is choosing to cover the events. WP:ROUTINE also only applies to events since it is part of WP:NEVENT, which this is not. Link20XX (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree. I actually read ANN often and I find a lot of their coverage is just press release reprints. Rewording them slightly is not 'covering the events'. Well, if it is, it is still such lowest denomnation journalism as to be of little use to us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the entire point to covering a press release just to re-share the information presented in it? As far as I am aware, anyway. And anyway, I found the original source, and it doesn't appear to be a re-wording at all other than the main information. Link20XX (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not invalidate the coverage. Opinions of it aside, they are independent, in-depth, and reliable coverage. Link20XX (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2021 (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/2021 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has enough sources to weakly meet WP:GNG, some additional sources:

"『マブヤー』に続け！沖縄発ご当地アニメ『はいたい七葉』が全国制覇を狙う!?". 日刊サイゾー (in Japanese). 2012-09-30. Retrieved 2021-06-07.
Clements, Jonathan; McCarthy, Helen (2015-02-09). The Anime Encyclopedia, 3rd Revised Edition: A Century of Japanese Animation. Stone Bridge Press. ISBN978-1-61172-909-2.

Jumpytoo Talk 23:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an article being a stub is not a valid reason for a deletion, and as others have posted above, plenty of sources exist. matt91486 (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on sources by Jumpytoo, it's not great but seems to meet the bare minimum GNG requires (two independent sources noticed this and discussed it, if briefly). Ping me if those sources are challenged or better ones are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just squeaks by WP:SIGCOV per the sources cited by Jumpytoo.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: "Just squeaks by", I provided 5 sources that are independent, reliable, and in-depth. I explained to Piotrus above why they are such. Do I need to repeat it? Link20XX (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Juliano

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

This article has never had any inline sources since it was created fifteen years ago, in 2006. It has, however had a number of external links, which make this article ineligible for BLPPROD. The following is a comprehensive list of all URLs ever used in the article, with a brief summary:

[15] "is one of the best travel consultant in India", according to itself
[16] is a dead link
[17] is a dead link
[18] is a dead link
[19] is a dead link
[20] is a dead link
[21] is a dead link
[22] is a dead link
[23] the subject's own website
[24] does not mention the subject
[25] is a press release by the Heidi Russell gallery
[26] is an interview
[27] doesn't mention the subject
[28]" has this: "Juliano is responsible for curating shows, publicizing, providing graphics and posters, and stage management. He is also part of the talent lineup as his alter ego, Tony Baloney, transforms into the “Magic Moron (magician)” with a quirky sketch loaded with props and creative sight gags."

A WP:BEFORE shows no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject fails the WP:GNG and an extensive search of museum collections and art databases shows nothing that would confer notability under WP:NARTIST Note that the artist's own bio claim he has had an exhibition in the The Walker Museum (Liverpool, UK). A solo show at the Walker Art Gallery, if verifiable, would be make him almost instantly notable. I just can't find any evidence that such an exhibition ever took place. Vexations (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search finds nothing. This looks like personal promotion and inflation.--- Possibly (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A promotional article on a non-notable artist. During a BEFORE search I was unable to verify the claims to museum shows other than to see them listed on his website. No indication of a significant exhibition track record, press/reviews or collections history, thus does not pass GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that we can confirm that the subject was one of 37 who exhibited at The Stuckists Punk Victorian, but beyond those bare mentions I can find no hint of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this is a valid list - partially by belief that it's not falling afoul of policy and partly by IAR reasoning. There is a request that any editor with an interest trims out the non-notable ones Nosebagbear (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of preprint repositories

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

The insistence that this mostly-unsourced list of mostly non-notable websites include external links for each entry is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: To be clear, is your rationale for deletion WP:NOTDIR? It sounds like you're just making an objection to external links/the present condition of the page, which is outside the scope of AfD unless you're suggesting WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question. It doesn't appear that editors who maintain the article will allow it to be significantly changed so deletion appears to be the only option. I would love to be proven wrong; if editors will allow it, it is feasible that a much more focused list article with clear inclusion criteria, consistent sourcing, and adherence to policies such as WP:NOTDIR could be carved out the existing list or created anew. ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

will allow it I don't see where anyone has tried? The talk page is almost empty. This seems premature. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists such as this are off-mission for the encyclopedia. We're not a web directory. Per WP:DEL-REASON point #14 that is a valid reason for deletion and within the scope of Afd. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is obviously useful and of great encyclopedic value. This is no different than a List of health and fitness magazines. And if there's a policy against this, it's a stupid policy, and should be ignored, per policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To further drive the point home, WP:NOTDIR lists 7 examples.

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).
This is clearly not the case here. We have a list containing closely related entities with a well-defined scope related to an encyclopedic topic: preprint repositories.
Genealogical entries.
This is clearly not the case here.
The white or yellow pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic.
This is clearly not the case here.
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business.
This is clearly not the case here.
Sales catalogues
This is clearly not the case here.
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y".
This is clearly not the case here.
Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic merit.
This is clearly not the case here. We have information presented in context.

None of WP:NOTDIR applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I see with the list, as compared to the likes of the magazines list, is that it's indiscriminate. Or, I should say, it seeks to be exhaustive. It's pretty rare that Wikipedia should have lists that try to be exhaustive, including all extant members regardless of sourcing/notability. e.g. WP:CSC. A list of websites is certainly the sort that should be limited to notable examples rather than become a link farm for absolutely everything that exists. ...but these are editing decisions rather than reasons for deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list, don't link to all of them. The ones with articles, they should contain an external link in that article if it is compliant with WP:ELYES. The ones without, we don't need to include a link in a list article. A list article is supposed to be a list - not a directory. But the list should not be deleted - just the directory (i.e. web links) part of it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: There's no policy-based reason to remove the links, having external links doesn't suddenly turn a list into a directory. See WP:ELLIST. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ELLIST is inconclusive - it says that lists should not be embedded with links in them, but it also says appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within. Regardless, I agree with Rhododendrites that is an editing concern, not a reason for deletion, and will watch that talk page for any discussion in which I can provide that input. Still, keep the list as the list is obviously appropriate for Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELLIST says you shouldn't have a list where the items themselves are externally links, like

Person	Birth	Death
John	1925	1950
Mary	1982	—
Paul	1806	1901

or

John (1925–1950)
Mary (1982–)
Paul (1806–1901)

It has no issues at all with external links in their own columns (see the 2nd table in WP:ELLIST), which serve a dual purpose of being "as both official links and as inline citations to primary sources", like there is in this article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 25 of them have links to their own articles. Valid grouping for a list article. Dream Focus 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 'Name' and 'Link' columns avoid mixing wikilinks and external links. Though, to be honest, I'd prefer to see it dynamically generated by user:ListeriaBot some day, since the information in lists such as [29] is sufficiently structured. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is interesting and quite informative.ChrisCalif (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanse. Remove all the non notable list entries and all the external links to make this look more like a list and less like a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Headbomb. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(add to top of list)

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 08:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Kumar

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

The people in this article are not significant. Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1027400368 Chief Minister (Talk) 19:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 19:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't qualify for WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Forbes lists don't grant automatic notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank Kumar I think this person is a deception.I have recently noticed that some people are creating Wikipedia articles by publishing news(In exchange for money) in their own name in some newspapers, including national newspapers.I also did a Google search and research under the name of Shashank Kumar and realized that he is not a significant person.Chief Minister (Talk) 18:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that NACTOR (and by a slightly smaller majority, GNG) are met Nosebagbear (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Hublitz

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

Contested PROD, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG requirements, There are G-hits but most are just repeats of each other. SanAnMan (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments to votes: Yes, this person has hits on searches, but the large majority of them are from tabloid celebrity articles that have little significance or actually provide any significant coverage other than subjects like "who is this person dating" or "how tall is this person". Being a contestant on a reality show (MasterChef Junior in this case) is rarely ever significant enough to meet GNG; very few reality contestants meet GNG requirements. Her one main significance is on the one television series, Ozark. I'm not disputing that she has some level of fame, but to me the stringent requirements of GNG/NACTOR just don't seem to be met. NACTOR states: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This person has not meet that criteria.- SanAnMan (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR. VV 19:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems to be ample internet content to satisfy GNG, notably the Daiy Express articles, Washington Independent, Issue magazine, &c. It's not really credible to claim that GNG is not met. Her role in Ozark, and 2+ million hits on the article here nominated for deletion suggests she has a following, or, at least, many people interested in her, both going a very long way to fulfiling NACTOR. Bluntly, it makes no sense to delete articles for which we have evidence of great demand - https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Sofia_Hublitz --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I believe this article adds significant value to Wikipedia and should be protected, so as not to devalue Wikipedia's content.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tagishsimon. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see a case for WP:TOOSOON but being (what I'm assuming to be) the main character of a major studio television series and a prominent contestant on MasterChef Junior should be grounds for WP:NACTOR. I'm on the fence about WP:GNG because I see coverage but they're not coming from like *great* sources, so I will need to do more research there. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe show is a highly acclaimed sensation relative to most TV shows, and she's one of the main characters alongside multiple A-List actors. Secondary-source coverage is substantial to put it lightly. The show has been on for 4 years which I think undermines any Too Soon claims. I think some of the other roles count as significant (multiple-episode speaking parts in major series), though not to the level of Ozark. I'd say the extreme notability of the Ozark role counterbalances (and then some) the relatively low notability of other roles. I also think there should be some consideration of a person's age. If she were 40 and had had one major role at 20, that'd be one thing, but it seems likely there will be continued career notability. I don't think this one is on the fence, but let's see what others say. JWilliams835 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)JWilliams835 (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Ambassador

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

Article is primarily autobiography, created by the article's subject (see WP:AUTO & WP:CONFLICT) and appears primarily to be for self-promotion (WP:PROMO WP:NPOV), e.g. first paragraph is mostly copy-paste from a non-neutral source of subject talking about himself. None of the listed sources are reliable neutral sources (WP:RS) and most are dead links. Given all that, and since I couldn't find non-trivial reliable sources for establishing notability, subject doesn't appear to meet criteria for WP:GNG & WP:BAND. Goffman82 18:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Goffman82 19:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article and its talk page were created by User:Sugalski (the musician's real surname) and he did both in a rush back in 2010 and has not contributed to WP since. On the talk page he listed 12 then-recent sources. Ten of those are now dead, one points to something else, and the sole survivor from a publication called Tunequest [30] is possibly reliable. Of the citations used in the current article, seven could be considered independent of the musician and all of them are dead too. I also found this: [31], which is possibly reliable but it's a friendly and non-critical media introduction that may be a copied PR release. I can find nothing else beyond the usual self-created social media and streaming sites. He's done a lot but with minimal notice from the reliable music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second source [32] is an artist management & booking agency, listing the musician as a current client elsewhere on the site. Confirms your suspicion this is simply a (paid) PR release. Goffman82 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising, especially with the evidence provided by Doomsdayer520. AdoTang (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gobus

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

An extremely detailed, very promotional biography that is primarily concerned with touting the merits of a crank theory on evolution (seriously - it's built on perceived differences in "emotional attachment" between, say, insects and monotremes). No independent reviews of said work, no indication of personal notability sufficient for any of WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF, and 95% unsourced. As this was apparently created complete with tags from 2011, it must be a recreation of some kind and could probably be speedied, but I can't find the original, so putting this here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a PROMO article, subject and his "theory" have basically no independent recognition. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. An article that starts by saying the subject is "the only person who besides Charles Darwin has provided a complete and extensive process of evolution" needs to provide something to back up such a claim. Instead, much of the article is taken up with blow-by-blow descriptions of arguments he had with subject experts.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editor Gavroslo probably should have used some citations to make their case. Possibly Henry Gobus is notable, but this wall of text lacking citations with grandiose statements in the lead and charts isn't doing it for me. I'm not keen on salting this but until someone neutral starts from the beginning, this has to go. So sad - there is such a nice photo. Sgerbic (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. clearly PROMO and fails WP:NPROF. --hroest 01:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Henry Gobus, Psychologist and author of the book Human Ascent. The book was published in Australia in 2009, ISBN [978-0-646-51316-4]. The Copyright is to Henry Gobus and the illustrations in the article are illustrations in the book. The book is fully referenced. I understand that I have to update the article but please work with me. The book has two independent reviews. One from Mark Ruge, editor for Connect Magazine and one from Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Daniel Gileppa. The book explains evolution on a step by step basis. Many Darwinists really don't like a publication because they oppose anything that does not conform to Darwin's ideas. The book Human Ascent challenges Darwin's ideas in every aspect. In short, the process of evolution is not too difficult to comprehend. Human Ascent argues that instinct reduces over the entire course of evolution and emotional attachment increases. The book also argues that we do not have to look at bones from a hundred million years ago to understand the process of evolution because all the descendants of the different species are alive today. The book in simple terms states that single-cell organisms arrived on earth 3.5 billion years ago. Insects were the first animals 450 million years ago, reptiles followed the animals, Birds followed the reptiles, monotremes followed the birds, marsupials followed the monotremes, then the mammals and finally humans. Insects have the highest level of instinct and the least emotional attachment. Insects do not pair up and they abandon their eggs and offspring. The reptiles followed the insects and reptiles do pair up. For instance, the blue tongued lizard mates for life. For instance, crocodiles bury and protect their eggs and care for their offspring for a short time after birth. A significant increase in emotional attachment to their offspring compared to the insects. But the reptiles do not feed their young. The birds follow the reptiles. Instead of becoming better at surviving animals actually become more vulnerable as evolution progresses. The bird's body changed to warm-blooded. Birds use the warmth of their body to brood their eggs. In addition, birds feed their young. That the birds use their body to brood their eggs and share nourishment with their offspring is an increase of emotional attachment to their young. Instinct has reduced in the birds because unlike the reptiles and the insects who are independent from birth, the birds follow the parents and copy and model of the parents to find food. Birds learn how to find food. The Monotremes follow the birds. The monotreme is also an egg layer but the monotreme does not have to find food lake the birds. The monotreme's body changed to produce milk for its offspring. The milk the monotreme produces oozes through her belly skin and is all the nourishment her young requires. Offspring feeding of the parental body is an increase in emotional attachment. The body of the parents for the offspring is food. The marsupials follow the monotremes. The marsupial is not an egg layer. It has a pouch and instead of milk oozing through the belly skin the marsupial has developed nipples. Egg layers lay eggs not because it is advantageous or beneficial. Egg layers lay eggs because by laying eggs they are not burdened by the weight of an internally developing embryo. This means that egg layers can flee the nest and save themselves in time of danger. The marsupial is not an egg layer. But the marsupial gives birth to underdeveloped offspring only a few grams in weight. This means that the marsupial can still flee, without being burdened by the weight of an embryo developing to an advanced state. The mammals follow the marsupials. (I know that monotremes and marsupials are also classified as mammals). Young mammals develop in utero to an advanced level. Mammals are severely burdened by the weight of an internally developing embryo and active mammary glands. This is a simple continuous process of development. We do not have to be einstein to follow this progression. Many criticisms levelled against me are the numerous DNA and genetics that support Drwin. I argue that is only because they align all their arguments with Darwinism because there is not one other model of evolution to compare it too. We emerged from the primates because the primates have the greatest emotional attachment of any animal. The primates developed hands and arms. The primates were able to explore the body of their offspring with their hands foreign to any other animals. From this high level of emotional attachment, we emerged and we developed psychological intelligence. We walk upright and most significantly our thumbs oppose the four fingers. That our thumbs oppose the four fingers is because we have psychological intelligence. Animals have biological intelligence food and safety. Their intelligence can be satisfied. Psychological intelligence is affection for inanimate objects things. Because inanimate objects can not be consumed, they are only parts of our minds. We love them. This not only resulted in the numerous laws we have today to outline ownership of property, it delivers us with an intelligence that can never be satisfied. Therefore the knowledge gap between us and the animals forever widens. The primates are in the trees and we have the industrial revolution. The primates are in the trees and we global air travel. The primates are in the trees and we interplanetary travel. The primates are in the trees and we have computers. The primates are in the trees and we have the internet. The primates are in the trees and we have smartphones. The primates are in the trees because animals are prisoners to their instinct. In us instinct ( the will to live is at its possible lowest level). hence our suicides. Or suicide bombers. We are free to decide.I respectfully request that my article remains. Please help me to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I submit that it is important to have people contemplate another view on evolution. It can only enhance us. I have a webpage with videos at henrygobus.com It may help get a better understanding of what I am saying. In the end Darwinism is division and a struggle for survival fitness. My model is we become more loving creatures. Insects are independent at birth. Mammals are born with their eyes closed. Completely dependent on the parents for survival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:f0f9:a700:c5af:a057:1088:82b6 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much wrong with that I'd have trouble figuring out where to start - I can come up with counter-examples for virtually every sentence in the above without even trying. So I'll just stick to the top level by noting that teleological arguments in biology need better, not worse, theoretical backing than procedurals ones, and leave it at that. Please convince the outside world first that this is a theory to be taken seriously, then Wikipedia can follow suit. It doesn't work the other way round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Besides the lack of academic notability (WP:PROF), this is also problematic with respect to WP:FRINGE, which demands mainstream coverage of non-mainstream views. Without that coverage, we cannot have a sufficiently neutral article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - All raised issues of for instance insects have less emotional attachment and monotremes have more and marsupials and mammals are easily referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:F0F9:A700:C5AF:A057:1088:82B6 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Gobus - The book Human Ascent does describe an entirely new concept of evolution. To place a new model of evolution in the public eye is always difficult. Darwin was ridiculed for his idea that we evolved from the primates. For Human Ascent now to claim that Darwin's ideas are flawed. Or that Human Ascent completely provides a different perpsective on evolution. We are 150 years on. We will always see more. New perspectives. Help get this article up to date. Please!

Delete. Promotional, not remotely notable. My nose also smells a G12, but I was unable to find where this was all copied from (I did poke around at https://www.henrygobus.com/).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - remember that this article is about the person, not the book or the theory. So we need to apply the notability criteria to the person, not to evaluate the merits of the theory.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree, but the article still utterly fails Wikipedia's biographical notability guidelines (WP:BIO). Deus et lex (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT the article is terrible and they don't meet any kind of notability guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, promotional guidelines, the five issue templates the article has has (and I've seen more issues there, too) and common sense. The fact that this is extremely long and extremely detailed (including events and personal things that wouldn't be known unless Gobus either has an autobiography with this much detail or he wrote this himself) to the point that it transcribes a conversation between Gobus and Professor "Strawman" Prescott, and that this AfD got edited by the man himself (using this opportunity to plug his website and his theories in a massive wall of text) has to be, hands down, the funniest shit I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Funnier than that time a professor made an article on his own theory about math or something, and the entire thing was written and sourced by himself under his name. Bravo. AdoTang (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While documenting this for historical purposes, I noticed that this article contains several first-person words from Gobus' perspective. It looks like this was either written by Gobus on a separate account (note the account that made this copy-pasted it and previously edited articles relating to Queensland, where Gobus is stated to live), copied from an unknown autobiographical source, or both. Just take this into consideration. AdoTang (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - completely fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF and it is clearly promotional. The claim of being equal to Darwin in terms of putting forward evolutionary theories, a claim that is sourced only by the book itself that claims to say that very thing, really takes the cake. Deus et lex (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with AdoTang's summary. For the absence of doubt, I undertook a search via the ProQuest database of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than google) and found a single citation to a 300 word article about the subject's book in The Cairns Post from 2010, which could arguably pass WP:CITE but fails the multiple requirement. So I tried to help but alas no dice. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Oberman

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

Run-of-the-mill government employee and unsuccessful state-level political candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Reads like an outdated extension of a LinkedIn page. KidAd • SPEAK 18:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – failed candidates fail WP:NPOL; the available sourcing consists solely of routine campaign coverage, which has long been considered insufficient to establish notability. (Even if he were notable, the overtly promotional language would likely necessitate deletion per TNT.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but nothing here constitutes strong or well-sourced evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides unsuccessful candidacies for office. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional data present, article doesn't appear notable to me.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VPM SNDP Higher Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, nothing notable about it. Kolma8 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AdoTang (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails NSCHOOLS. The single reference regarding the principal is passing. The other sources are primary. VV 19:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. (Ashique2020 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. 1друг (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete This clearly isn't notable due to the lack of usable sources. Nor is there likely any chance that the consensus is going to change to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note that being behind a paywall dos not invalidate a source, see WP:PAYWALL. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Conn

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

There is no significant coverage in independent published sources. I fail to see how he meets WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV.- TheWikiholic (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look into the references. The topic has been covered by Telegraph^[2], The mirror^[3], Borehamwood times^[4], Harrow Times^[5], to name a few.

In my opinion the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sushant1432 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the Telegraph source possibly offers in-depth coverage, but is behind a paywall. Other sources are either primary (such as the Mirror source mentioned above) or minor/local, and so the sources overall don't constitute WP:SIGCOV. I'd argue that what we have here is a person who does great work at a local level and I'm sure his book is gripping, but unless and until independent sources write about him beyond what he says himself, he is not notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph is a clear WP:GNG point, I can say that much (if you're on a laptop, try to quickly stop the page from loading, that sometimes work). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An archive of the Telegraph article is available[33]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are some of more sources:

1. Daily Mail. Health fears as lockdown leads to unprecedented surge in alcohol problems.^[1]

2. Uggs Canada. “Taking it on the Chin” is Killing Men. ^[2]

3. Sky News. The drink is not somebody's problem, it's somebody's solution https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=385295489100866

4. Gumroad. Help for Addicts is Out There ^[3]

6. Sky News. Audio version of Interview with Nick Conn. Benzos and the dark web – how lockdown fuelled the online drugs market^[4]

Sushant1432 (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily mail and Facebook are NEVER reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FB=Skynews [34] in this particular case. It doesn't help for this particular discussion, but it's probably RS[35]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Telegraph, Ham & High [36], Borehamwood & Elstree Times [37], and Watford Observer [38]. These 3 last ones are local but in-depth, and local is not nothing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Butterfield

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

non-notable actor, the whole article is one claim for a guy whose roles are largely unnamed characters. Unless of course we consider "caterer" to be a super important role.... BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his scenes are notable talking scenes in the movies, I'd give it a second consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alb5222 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's an unnamed character in a bunch of non-notable films with virtually no screen time, so no. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have other editors weigh in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alb5222 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The projects are in fact "notable", with distribution on platforms including HBO and Netflix, and premieres at major festivals. The studios have uploaded pictures of Adam's scenes on the internet movie database proving that they are in fact important scenes. Looking forward to continuing the discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alb5222 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The article is an WP:ADMASQ created with a lot of unnecessary blue links, for what? I can’t tell, but what I can tell is neither WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG is met/satisfied. Obviously there’s almost little chance of AGF when an article is created by what seems to be a ”NANE”. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely no coverage and if you are most known for non-specified job roles on IMDB, you're not a notable actor. Per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR — BriefEdits (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article do not covers the desired information and contains a lot of unnecessary stuff. Does'nt appear notable to me.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero roles of note so far in his career. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in Slovakia

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

Largely unsourced, and possible a POV fork of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings where some of this was removed form. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRIND and WP:COPYVIO. "www.cez-okno.net" contains credulous UFOlogy POV, not an independent reliable source. Translation of the source shows that the article text is cut and paste from [39]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above. Additionally, of the four total sources: the apparent subject of the first source, one Miroslav Karlik, is described therein as a "ufologist [who] works in the ufo club in Trnava," which makes his reliability more than a little suspect; the second and third source, Cez Okno, is an ezine that explicitly promotes ufology, mysticism, and spirituality. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... I'd like to see the article rewritten and republished someday. English has been a mandatory language taught in Slovakian schools for over a decade. UFO sightings in the United States has just a brief one-sentence lead, no sections, and is basically a table of information. The English speakers in Slovakia should be allowed an article, per WP:WORLDVIEW, as long as it complies with Wikipedia standards, which the current version of the article does not for the reasons LuckyLouie gives. 5Q5|^✉ 12:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Calgary Transit bus routes

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

AN IP user 24.64.238.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) PRODded this article for being extremely outdated with references dating to 2011 or earlier, which is not a valid reason for deletion. However, the references are few, and I'd like to ask if this list of bus routes is encyclopedic per WP:NOTTRAVEL. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of COTA bus routes, I do not believe these bus route articles violate WP:NOTTRAVEL any more than railway line articles do. There are no prices, hours, service frequencies, or attractions on this page. I do however agree the page needs work, and should probably be tagged as outdated for the time being. I think people will be more keen to improve it after a keep consensus is found, as the frequent deletion nominations for bus related articles may be discouraging potential editors. NemesisAT (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BUSOUTCOMES. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BUSOUTCOMES is an essay. It states Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common.. That doesn't automatically translate to... because it's common to keep bus route articles, we keep all of them. Transit Authority of River City, Community Transit, DART First State New Castle County, Lynx bus (Orlando), Milwaukee County, Denver RTD, Cleveland RTA, Utah Transit Authority, DART, MBTA South Boston, MCTS and C-TRAN (Washington) are all recent examples of bus route list articles that have not survived AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for large operators like Calgary Transit, where reliable information is readily available, lists of bus routes are valid and encyclopediac. I may be able to do some cleanup in the coming days. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:LISTN. List isn't at all a travel guide so NOTTRAVEL doesn't apply here. This is an encyclopedic collection of bus routes in a very large city. We have lists already for bus routes in each of New York's five boroughs, as well as cities such as Hong Kong, London, Boston, Toronto, and even Suffolk County, New York. All of those lists are considered acceptable, so why not this one?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The lists for London, New York, Hong Kong and some other cities are notable because they are well sourced and a high number of the individual routes in those cities are notable in their own right. Notability is not inherited. Every list article must have evidence of notability to support its inclusion into Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. Djflem (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At present this list of bus routes does not have any evidence of notability. It is mostly supported by primary sources and there are no notable routes. In fact six of the eight sources present reference the auxiliary community services rather than all the key bus routes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Pmoney

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. The award also doesn't seem significant enough to contribute to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN as no reliable coverage available. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dmitri. Sounds very promotional, too. AdoTang (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails WP:NMUSIC, the awards he won appear to be non-prestigious. -Xclusivzik (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per rationale by nom and of Xclusivzik. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rautaruukki

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

Non-notable construction company. BEFORE turns up nothing but routine business news, press releases, and non-responsive articles (string: rautaruukki) and the article itself is solely cited to the company website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rautaruukki is a large, well-established publicly-listed company, I would be very surprised indeed if there wasn't plenty of RS coverage of it. It may be that the sources are mostly in Finnish, and may be found better under its trading name Ruukki; either way, I'm happy to have a looksee. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Google News search returns 5,200 hits, mostly but not only in Finnish. Books search also brings a large number of results, of which a good proportion are in English. The Finnish wiki article seems pretty well sourced, even if the English one isn't. Whether any single source provides sigcov, I don't yet know, but collectively they should at least establish notability. One thing, though: the company was apparently acquired by the Swedish SSAB a few years ago, so the article clearly needs updating, including changing much of it to past tense. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did also attempt "ruukki", but I got a lot of non-responsive articles about unrelated entities. That said, I stuck with en.Google search as opposed to fi.Google. If the article is updated with these good sources, I'll happily withdraw the AfD. My point with AfDs like this is to light a fire under asses to get articles improved if it's possible as opposed to deleting them outright. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jéské Couriano: Check out WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP: "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - A work in progress, yes, but if an article has had horrible, non-RS-compliant sourcing for almost a decade, how much longer do you have to wait for someone to fix it? Clearly nobody is going to address the rather serious sourcing issue without something more pressing than a maintenance tag. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jéské Couriano: Well, you stated above that you found good sources, so have you considered improving the article yourself? Wikipedia encourages users to be bold, and if you believe an article needs improvement, you are allowed to improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I never made such a claim - DoubleGrazing did. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 17:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but update). Rautaruukki or Ruukki was a state owned company in Finland, later a stock company. It is now part of SSAB as stated above. So the article could either be updated to a past sense or to be partly combined with SSAB article. The company is/was wiki-notable and as there are a lot of historical companies on Wikipedia I do not see a reason why this could not be kept here too. Jjanhone (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was notified about this discussion by a bot. As far as I know, the originator has not been notified nor the other editors of the article. Jjanhone (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this article exists on 12 languages according to Wikidata. Jjanhone (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is another source from 2017 published by Yle, which states that "Afarak Group, formerly known as Ruukki Group, is listed on the Helsinki and London stock exchanges" and that it is a mining company. This seems likely to be about the company, although I could be incorrect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above sources presented. It passes WP:GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources exist and can be added, and article also needs updating. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient references that contain in-depth information and independent content, for example the Finnish Trade Review as well as analyst commentary. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

33m2

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

The page is scarce on reliable independent sources. It's also is being deleted through XfD on UA wikipedia. The company isn't notable as an organization according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Sharky tale (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage seems to just be routine news coverage of supermarket openings. That is, all the coverage I can find (the citations already in the article), since using a measurement of size to name your supermarket chain only brings real estate listings for apartments that happen to be that size. AdoTang (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jojar S Dhinsa

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

Too much of the information in this article is unverifiable due to contradictory sources. While it is verifiable (through primary sources) that Dhinsa is the CEO and Chair of an organization called the Athlone Group, it is not clear that this is a notable organization. Many sources claim that Dhinsa is a billionaire, but these claims appear largely based on Dhinsa's own claim to that fortune; reliable sources that list UK billionaires (see List of British billionaires by net worth omit Dhinsa's name. Facts in the article that are verifiable:

Dhinsa did initiate an effort to purchase Coventry City F.C. in 2004, but the effort apparently faltered when the parties could not agree on who should reveal their financials first.
Dhinsa did begin a venture capital firm with Brian Morrissey, an Irish musician, in 2017, but there is no evidence that the VC firm ever actually invested any VC funds in any company, and the firm was dissolved in 2020.

Neither of these verifiable facts appear to bring Dhinsa to the point of notability, and the prevalence of conflicting sources makes it impossible to build a reliable biography of this subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The supposed $23 Billion/year turnover company controled by Dhinsa has a wordpress website with stock images ^[5] and the LinkedIn profile has 1 employee listed ^[6]. This puts more doubt on the notability and raises serious questions. BobBobster1 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The validity of Athlone's website shouldn't be a focus, it has little bearing on Dhinsa's notability. Either way, there are a number of news sources detailing Athlone's business activity in recent years ^[7]. Dhinsa has not been claimed to be a billionaire in any original edits of his biography, several prominent news sources refer to him as a 'multi-millionaire'. His reputation as a prominent UK businessman can be evidenced by referring to various articles and sources referenced in previous article editions. Suggest keeping the page with agreement on edits, viable sources and clarifications. Wellport12 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't notable if it never actually invested in a single company though is it!, no mention of the partnership here ^[8]. If you look through the revision history of the page, all it is is stuff being posted and then removed because it's not properly (or poorly) referenced. Claiming things and actually doing them are two different things entirely; Approaching Coventry FC for a buyout is not notable, actually buying the club would be. Announcing a Venture Capital fund is not notable, investing in companies with the fund would be. Claiming to divert 90% of profits to humanitarian projects is not notable, proof of those projects would be notable.

As a primary source for the Athlone Group, having a website that claims these seemingly notable things about a company/person with those claims backed up by news articles; I would say it has a huge bearing on his notability if the Athlone Group isn't what it appears to be!. BobBobster1 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UKTech.news appears to allow anyone to submit a story (https://uktechnews.co.uk/submit-your-news-to-uk-tech-news/) so I'm skeptical that it's a very reliable source. pburka (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cited UK Tech News indicates that Athlone Ventures raised $300m, but this appears to be the only news source about this VC firm. My argument for deletion is less rooted in the number of news sources about Dhinsa and more rooted in the fact that they seem to be contradictory, and largely based on information Dhinsa himself has provided. There is not enough strongly verifiable information about Dhinsa for us to maintain a reliable biography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no doubt that this person exists, but I'm very suspicious that his business success is somewhat exaggerated. All of the sources presented are weak and one can't help but wonder if the subject planted the stories himself. He's gotten some coverage in obscure tech news sites, obscure Asian sites, and a handful of local newspapers doing human interest stories. If he were truly one of the most successful business people in the UK, surely we'd expect to see some coverage in The Times, The Guardian, The Financial Times, or The Wall Street Journal. But the best source we've seen is the Coventry Telegraph, a local tabloid with a circulation of 8,434. pburka (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources present appear to be reliable, lacks notability.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about rain

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

This list was previously deleted after an AfD on 1 June 2014.

Song lyrics extensively use Simile, Metaphor, Allegory, Alliteration (sometimes words are added just because they sound nice), and every other literary and poetic device known. Sometimes a song’s meaning could be as plain as day, sometimes it is so obscure that it is possible not even the songwriter understood what the meaning is!

This list (as was the previously deleted list) ignores all that and just lists songs with the word ‘rain’ in it. I can see a few that have are as much about rain as my big toe. Therefore WP:SHAREDNAME, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT all apply and probably half-a-dozen other guidelines. Richhoncho (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have little to add to the nominator's well-reasoned rationale. Unless this article's title was changed to "List of songs that are not actually about rain but simply have rain in their titles and use rain as a metaphor for sadness or melancholy which poets have been doing for thousands of years" it makes no sense on its own terms or as a Wikipedia article that teaches the reader anything. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. There's really no need for lists for songs "about" every single topic ever. AdoTang (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Makes about as much sense as List of songs about love and List of songs about people. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we're in for a bout of frozen rain. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 12:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baseless trivia. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 00:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the close of the original AfD said, the list is unmanageable in its ability to appropriately discern between songs truly about rain, songs with rain in the title, songs with rain as a simile, and on top of that songs about storms of the rain variety but don't include the word rain predominantly. Therefore, as a wholly undefinable and unmanageable list, it cannot meet WP:LISTN. This simply doesn't work as a list article; I don't see any way we could construct proper WP:LISTCRITERIA that would allow us to make a list that is even remotely comprehensible and possible to maintain. Maybe it would be possible to create a prose article about the use of rain metaphors in music—provided that sources discussing that are found—but that would be a completely different article. There's nothing here that would be useful for that hypothetical article, so there's no point in trying to repurpose the existing one. Better to delete this one and create the other one from scratch (if it can be written at all, that is). TompaDompa (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad of a list criteria. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too indiscriminate, trivial. Interested editors may want to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about the environment (4th nomination). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleni Chatzi

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG Kieem trra (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kieem trra (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NSCHOLAR-1 based on citation record.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To me the case for WP:PROF#C1 is borderline enough to make only a weak keep, but I think the Walter L. Huber Civil Engineering Research Prize is significant enough to also give her a pass of #C2. And as chair for structural mechanics and monitoring at ETHZ, there is also a case for #C5. With all that, she doesn't need WP:GNG-type coverage, but I think it is also present, with a chapter about her in the book Inspiring Conversations with Women Professors [40] and a couple of news pieces about her research [41] [42]. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein I dont think that C5 applies here but I agree with the rest of your assessment. In Europe often the professorships are fixed and have a historic name (eg group for organic chemistry, for analytical chemistry etc) but that does not mean its a distinguished chair as in the US. If you look at the institute website you will see that each research group has a "name" but that just indicates what they call themselves, it is not a distinction per se (becoming an ETH prof is of course a distinction of sorts, but having a "name" is not a distinction). --hroest 18:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep C1 is pretty borderline but ok, together with the awards she passes the bar. --hroest 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Here are the Scopus citation metrics for the 111 coauthors of hers with 30+ papers (which is the median number of papers of all 233 of her coauthors -- average was 70):

Total citations: avg: 2640, med: 1657, Chatzi: 2706.

Total papers: avg: 129, med: 97, C: 238.

h-index: avg: 29, med: 21, C: 27.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 297, med: 173, C: 264. 2nd: avg: 178, med: 119, C: 264. 3rd: avg: 137, med: 98, C: 109. 4th: avg: 109, med: 77, C: 70. 5th: avg: 94, med: 67, C: 70.

Top first-author: avg: 177, med: 102, C: 264.

Her C1 profile is indeed borderline, and I'm not fully convinced a mid-career award is prestigious enough for C2. But it's likely she will accrue more citations/recognition in the near future, so a pass for me. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, from substantial start on WP:NPROF notability via citations + a couple of substantial awards, combined with GNG notability (particularly the book). The long list of early career awards and grants in the Awards section should surely be trimmed severely, and good portions of the Work section are unsourced. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to cites and awards, either of which on their own probably wouldn't be enough, but together push over the line for WP:NPROF, plus some other coverage which has been mentioned already. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jivrajpark

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Fairly smaller neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Unreferenced. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Jivrahpark is not in them. It falls under Vasna ward in West zone. See Zone/Ward list here or on Amdavad Municipal Corporation. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabirchowk. Nizil (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND unless anyone can show that the place has a legal recognition. Ab207 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Santosh L (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.1друг (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Nagar (Ahmedabad)

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Fairly smaller neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad has 48 Wards (which denotes large neighbourhoods) in 7 Zones and Anand Nagar is not in them. See Zone/Ward list here or on Amdavad Municipal Corporation. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabirchowk. -Nizil (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GEOLAND unless anyone can show that the place has a legal recognition. Ab207 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NPLACE . 1друг (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Trollet

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks news coverage Kieem trra (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kieem trra (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources, let alone sigcov; fails GNG. Tellingly, there isn't even an article in the French wiki on him. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digvijay Suryavanshi

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

BLP of a mayor that does not meet WP:NPOL and has no other indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sangli is certainly large enough that a substantive and well referenced article about its mayor could be kept, but the notability of a mayor is established by writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact, not just by offering technical verification of his election victory in and of itself. But the latter is all this is: following one sentence stating that he exists as a mayor, the rest of the content is just bulletpointing his electoral history without offering one word about anything he did in the job. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the golden wisdom by Bearcat. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can smile at the word delete in your comment 😂😂😂😂... The best example of this is the Wikipedia page 👉https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kishori_Pednekar Nomadicghumakkad Bearcat

Please read WP:WAX. Sangli is not even remotely equivalent in international importance to Mumbai, so just because you can find a mayor of Mumbai with a bad, virtually worthless article that desperately needs improvement doesn't mean a mayor of Sangli automatically gets to keep an article modelled on it — Kishori Pednekar also needs to be either improved or deleted, and is not the baseline standard for making a keepable article about a mayor. If you want to see the kind of article a mayor is supposed to have, look at someone like John Tory, Bill de Blasio or Sadiq Khan — you don't get to look for the worst article about another mayor you can find and say that yours has to be kept because it isn't any worse than that, you have to try to make this article the best article possible by modelling it on our best articles about other mayors. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Maharashtra, most of the news is in local Marathi newspapers However, you can't read Marathi, so this is the main problem To review such Wikipedia pages, you should ask senior Wikipedia Marathi people in Maharashtra to do the same

Everything else you said is true

Bearcat

There is another Wikipedia page 😂😂 👉https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murlidhar_Mohol. The source of the news article in this page is only the mayor who has been elected and no other source of news paper. Bearcat

Right now I had given you an example. so let me reply about that example... Did not get the answer then I will understand that you people discriminate with many people Bearcat

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 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ogive of Luxembourg

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

The subject is not notable. The article serves as a genealogical entry, linking her father (also of dubious notability) to her husband, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. The cited source, as well as all sources I could find, are genealogy publications. Being mentioned in a family tree does not translate to significant coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure for this historical figure from Luxembourg. Other language wiki articles have a bit more info it:Ogiva di Lussemburgo. Need attention from Luxembourg native editors. VocalIndia (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She seem like a important historical figure from the time of Middle Ages. However, source of Luxembourg is extremely weak, and the number of Luxembourg language editors is very tiny. We should be slow to delete any of it. VocalIndia (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it:Ogiva di Lussemburgo gives a long list of who she was related to and what those people did. There is nothing about her specifically. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources indicates that she is really not an important historical figure. Surtsicna (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While searching for sources I ran across another figure who does appear to be notable, Ogive, receiver of the lardarium of Kortrijk, but she appears to have lived somewhat later: 1187. pburka (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done quite a bit of searching, but I still can find nothing but trivial (mostly genealogical) mentions in the context of some other more important figure. Wikipedia is not genealogy, and this person can't inherit notability from her notable relatives. Unless we're all missing something, there is no substantial coverage of her specifically, and so she fails the GNG. I'm glad to reëvaluate if more sources are found. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shaikh

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

Non notable actor with no indication of satisfying WP:NACTOR. He hasn't played any major roles in notable films or television shows. The references provided in the article and the ones available online do not actually establish his notability as per WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L. Price

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google to establish notability. Most sources simply mention that he was mentioned "In memoriam" in the credits for a couple of films. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2021 (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/2021 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Unless somebody can find us coverage in some 1990s visual effects trade magazines, I doubt potential notability. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perl package manager

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

Product has not been supported for over 2 years, replaced by ActiveState Platform. This was a utility for just one distribution of Perl, not a significant tool IMHO. Teraplane (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lack of support for over two years has no bearing on notability, because notability is not temporary: "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG, per the added sources. SailingInABathTub (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:GNG per news coverage in reliable sources such as [43] [44][45][46][47]. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per sources presented above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ok, accept that article notability is maintained. I have used PPM extensivley as a programmer, as well as other equivalents. Suggest this content be merged with ActivePerl, the parent programming environment this now obsolete utility belongs to. And that page be updated to record that ActiveState Platform is the replacement package manager. If you look at the much more widely used opensource CPAN, it's module installer, CPANPLUS, is described within this page and not allocated to a separate page. Teraplane (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masterplan (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and Gone

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

Unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another unnotable album by the band Masterplan. Tagged for sources since 2009 (since the article is unsourced) and for notability since 2015. There are three interwikis, but they aren't any better either - the Polish article only contains the cover as an external link, the Hungarian article doesn't contain any sources whatsoever, and on the Portuguese wiki, the title is a redirect to the band. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. As I said before, the band and their studio albums are notable, but these EPs aren't. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masterplan (band), for the same reasons noted by both me and the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back for My Life/ ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Shop Corner, Virginia

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been looking at this one for awhile now, but am just now getting around to nominating this. Topos show a few buildings at an isolated road junction, nothing of significance on newspapers.com, and searching in other sources didn't bring up any significant coverage. While Carlton Corner, Virginia in the same county appears to have been the location of an old store of some historical significance, I couldn't confirm anything of that sort for this location. Previous AFD was a large bundled nomination that was closed procedurally. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The prior closure was a mistake, with no evidence-based arguments to keep whatsoever. People shouldn't be able to make thousands of junk "articles" just to be procedurally kept without evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom and above. Lacks strong reliable sources to pass GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. However, note that this article does not fall under any of the WP:CSD criteria so speedy delete would not apply here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no cause for a speedy deletion. Its 13 years old, we can wait seven days to delete it if necessary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on merits: It is a real location and on GNIS, but doesn't stand up to the normal scrutiny of our policies for a separate article. I have a good idea who Allen was, but I can find no sources that verify it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Miletski

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

This person got their doctorate from what our article on it describes as "an unaccredited, for-profit, degree-granting institution and resource center in the field of sexology" and self-published a book of her research. She's managed to get a few publications to accept her as an expert on sexual research but does not seem to be recognized, at all, by her peers as an expert. She simply does not appear to be particularly notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commentI found this review [48] in The Journal of Sex Research so her work is at least discussed in reputable sources. Whether she has a reputable degree or not will not affect WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. The review is quite strong, it reads "This is the best overall survey of bestiality that I have read." but a single review is generally not enough for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Also all media coverage I could find about her related to her dissertation, so it sounds like a WP:BLP1E. --hroest 15:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, there's also some popular press which consults/quotes/interviews her, e.g. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (though I don't have access to the fulltext of this last one). If this is all there is, I'm not so sure we're meeting WP:ANYBIO, but perhaps there's more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the source provided above and also this scholarly source. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources presented above. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above and a casual review of online sources, appears to pass WP:GNG. The article history gives the impression of sources being removed for being "fringe", etc., rather than attempting to improve the article. If the one remaining is adequate to be cited in an authoritative manner by an official government review that is notable in its own right. I also (02c) get the impression that the contentious nature of the topics covered by the author may be underlying a general ongoing desire to have them delisted from Wikipedia rather than improve what is a long-lasting biographical article. Harami2000 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Holmes

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

Old unrefferenced BLP (tagged Sept 2017). I could find no reliable sources via Google. There is an external link to IMDB so this in not eligible for sticky PROD. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:34, 30 May 2021 (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/2021 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to Holmes's extensive Broadway credits (see his IBDB entry), some sources are here, which gives a roundup of his career, here, here, and numerous others here.. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above sources presented by Ssilvers, it should pass for GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://hrservices.plymouth.ac.uk/tlive_webrecruitment/wrd/run/ETREC107GF.open?VACANCY_ID=750798JGY2&WVID=1602750fTZ&LANG=USA

[2] "There's a pandemic of addiction happening right now".

[3] "Policeman".

[4] "The clinic in Elstree helping turn around the lives of addicts".

[5] "Former officer and coke addict teaches police officers about addiction".

[6] "Health fears as lockdown leads to unprecedented surge in alcohol problems".

[7] ""Taking it on the Chin" is Killing Men".

[8] "Help for Addicts is Out There". Gumroad.

[9] "Benzos and the dark web – how lockdown fuelled the online drugs market". Sky News.

[10] ttp://www.athlonegroup.com/

[11] ttps://www.linkedin.com/company/athlone-group/

[12] ttps://www.uktech.news/news/athlone-ventures-raises-300m-invest-early-stage-tech-startups-20171020/

[13] ttps://brendanmorrissey.com/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]