Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 19

< November 18 November 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnyDecentMusic?

[edit]
AnyDecentMusic? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Sources on article appear to be all promo reviews, primary sources, or an interview. No significant coverage found in searches. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I found this source but couldn't find anything else to establish notability. I could be convinced to vote the other way if more people come forward with better sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The best source I could find was a descent passing mention in this scholarly book: [1] I personally would be sad to the lose the page as it is used as a source on wikipedia. I'm therefore abstaining from voting as I don't think there is enough sourcing to say keep; although that would be my preference.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2024 (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 23:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Willard

[edit]
Stephen Willard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 19 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. F. Campbell

[edit]
C. J. F. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable local politician Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Thomas (footballer)

[edit]
Adam Thomas (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (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. However, this is only the second time the page has been created, so create-protection would usually be considered premature. If it is re-created again it would be appropriate. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Winning

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lisa Winning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly recreated promotional bio of an Australian businesswoman; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I can't see the version deleted last year so don't know if it's sufficiently identical to warrant a speedy deletion, but the sources in this one do not support notability. They are WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews ([4], [5], [6], [7]), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Winning that do not constitute WP:SIGCOV of her ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), or WP:USERGENERATED sources ([13], [14]). I checked to see whether her book He Texted would qualify her under WP:NCREATIVE, but the only reviews I found were on user-generated sites and thus there's no pass there. The one source that might fit the bill is in a vaguely promotional platform and written by a non-staff contributor who is not a journalist. Nothing found in WP:BEFORE search that works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Graham (businessman)

[edit]
Adam Graham (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. Sources are primary and/or non-independent, and none of the sources offers significant coverage, so WP:BASIC is not met. bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this case and I believe that Mr. Graham meets the notability criteria outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly the General Notability Guideline (GNG), as he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources.
Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources:
  1. "Getting Locked Out Inspired Me to Start New App" Publication: [BBC] This article discusses how Mr. Graham's personal experience led to the creation of the JustFix app, showcasing his innovation in addressing common household issues.
  2. "How Startup Founders Are Trying to Rewrite the Investment Rules" Publication: [Forbes] This piece features Mr. Graham among other entrepreneurs who are pioneering new investment strategies in the startup ecosystem.
  3. "Top Strategies for Startup Leadership Success" Publication: [CXO] An exploration of effective leadership strategies where Mr. Graham's approaches and insights are highlighted.
  4. "The Comfort of Control: Unpacking the Success of On-Demand Services" Publication: [The Independent] An analysis of on-demand services featuring Mr. Graham's contributions through JustFix.
  5. "Valiant CEO: Top 20 Businesses to Watch in 2024" Publication: [Valiant CEO] JustFix, founded by Mr. Graham, is listed among the top businesses to watch, indicating significant industry impact.
  6. "Three Startup Success Tips from JustFix Founder Adam Graham" Publication: [Economic Insider] Mr. Graham offers advice to aspiring entrepreneurs, indicating his role as a thought leader.
  7. "Revolutionizing Investment Strategies: Startup Founders Leading the Way" Publication: [Funderlyst] Features Mr. Graham's innovative approaches to investment and business growth.
  8. "JustFix: Nationwide Launch of the App Redefining Home Maintenance with Speed and Convenience" Publication: [Yahoo Finance] The national launch of JustFix, highlighting how Mr. Graham's app is redefining home maintenance with a focus on speed and convenience.
  9. "New Business to Deliver Fastest Fixes in Urgent Home Repairs Market" Publication: [ABC MONEY] Discusses how JustFix, under Mr. Graham's leadership, is positioned to provide the quickest solutions in the urgent home repairs market.
Media Appearances:
The above sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of Mr. Graham's work and contributions to the industry. They demonstrate his notability as an entrepreneur and justify the retention of his Wikipedia page.
If we were to delete his page based on the current criteria, it would necessitate the deletion of numerous other pages of individuals with even less coverage or impact. Therefore, rather than removing the page, it would be more appropriate to update it with additional information and the sources provided above to improve its completeness and align it with Wikipedia's standards.
----
Stelios2121 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at those sources. Sources 1 and 2 in your list are already in the draft. I appreciate that source evaluation is tricky and that you have had a very long break from Wikipedia editing, so I'll to go into a bit of detail regarding all the sources you suggest. The table got rather large – click "show" to see it.
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
1 Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A brief piece based almost entirely on quotes from Graham, which "showcases" nothing and (more to the point) does not show notability.
2 Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Based entirely on an interview. Regarding reliability, see WP:FORBESCON.
3 ? Red XN ? Red XN Red XN No named author, interview on a website which to all appearences offers a marketing platform for businesspeople.
4 Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Graham is not the main focus of this article. In addition, it is clearly labelled as advertising, see this info.
5 Red XN Green tickY ? Green tickY Red XN A short review of the JustFix app, in a list of 20 reviews of different products, which only mentions Graham in passing.
6 Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Clearly labelled as "branded content", and based entirely on quotes from Graham.
7 Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN This is just a shortened version of the Forbes contributor piece, no 2 in this list.
8 Red XN Red XN ? Red XN Red XN Press release. May or may not be considered a reliable source, but is useless for all purposes except to show that the application JustFix exists.
9 Red XN Red XN ? ? Red XN Press release or similar, as its byline is "ABC Staff" rather than a named writer. I am not familiar with the website abcmoney.co.uk but I see that they welcome contributions in the form of "guest posts" or advertorials, and the tone of this article is clearly promotional rather than informational.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
The TV segment has the label "By: Impact Team (Sponsored Content)" so it is not independent, reliable, or secondary, and the podcast is him talking so also not secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise, only two your suggested sources are independent, none provides significant coverage, and most are not reliable. That there may be other articles about non-notable people isn't a factor when we discuss whether this person is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 15:50, 20 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alehouse dagger

[edit]
Alehouse dagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only 1 source and I have been unable to find any sources for this weapon. I left a message regarding this issue months ago and no new sources have been added. The bibliography is copied from the single source. I suspect the single source was made by the creator of this article due to the lack of other reliable sources and because both go by Paul. Possible WP:SELFCITE Urchincrawler (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2024 (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 13:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gelbis

[edit]
Gelbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only online source for this custom is a WordPress blog that published a piece on this one month before the Wikipedia page was created. I cannot find any other sources for this custom. Tooncool64 (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nomination. Could find no source that would indicate the article is justified.Spiralwidget (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of new sources brought up after most comments were made in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to a cookbook, I don't consider that any sort of acceptable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. Coeusin (talk) 11:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners

[edit]
Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Organizations and companies) as I can't find any good sources for the subject. I also believe that the user who created the page (User:Engineerconsultant) might have a conflict of interest due to their name. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 19 November 2024 (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 delete‎. Not only are there no sources, this was created by a sock account and, due to there not really being sources, never expanded beyond one sentence, and therefore G5 applies. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatzichristos

[edit]
Hatzichristos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Searching for refs is difficult because it appears that there have been people with this word as part of their name. I don't speak Greek, I would be interested to see if others can find anything relevant. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment well it seems it is a dance - a search brings up dancers doing it on YouTube clips so potentially sourceable, though the fact there’s no Greek article about it doesn’t bode well. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2024 (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 withdrawn by nominator(non-admin closure)‎

Holy Boy's Cave

[edit]
Holy Boy's Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a place that exists, but I don't see adequate independent coverage. Redirect to List of caves in Gibraltar Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-a search using Google has revealled a few including a listing by the government noting its importance. Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gov source links its info to a self published blog. It can't be trusted as a reliable source.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest caves in Gibraltar, believed to be archaeologically important and the fact that it is listed in the Heritage and Antiquities Act 2018 establishes notability, however sparse the coverage. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 20 November 2024 (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. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, the Tigress of Siberia

[edit]
Ilsa, the Tigress of Siberia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes the final installment in the *Ilsa* series, following its controversial exploitation themes. The use of common female names like "Ilsa" associates them with violent and degrading depictions, raising concerns about real-world stigmatization. The film holds no significant cultural or historical value and is unsuitable for a platform accessible to all audiences, including minors. I recommend deletion to prevent societal harm. Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. I strongly recommend the deletion of all related articles to prevent societal harm and uphold Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and appropriateness.

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. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks

[edit]
Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes a sequel to the controversial exploitation film *Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS*. Similar concerns apply, as the use of common female names associates them with violent and degrading depictions. The sequel lacks cultural or historical significance, and its graphic nature continues to make it unsuitable for an open platform accessible to all audiences, including teenagers and children. I recommend deletion as the societal harm outweighs any limited academic relevance.Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. I strongly recommend the deletion of all related articles to prevent societal harm and uphold Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and appropriateness.

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 Gibraltar Nature Reserve. I would add, however, that AFD is not for proposing redirects. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levant Cave

[edit]
Levant Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable. Should be to be redirected or merged to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2024 (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. Sources were found and the nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rjjiii (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Cave

[edit]
Mediterranean Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Can't access the book, but the name suggests that it likely has only passing coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is primary. Topic fails WP:GNG even if the book has significant coverage. Delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him) (poke • inspect) 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've only looked for ten minutes and I can see its notability by reference to the government, the illustrated London News, and a noted academic. There seems to be insufficient research before the nomination. Being an unreliable source isnt catching. Just because (for instance) The Times quotes a blog it doesnt then write off its long history or reputation for reliability. Victuallers (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown up in a bunch of these, say something like this, and then don't link your sources. I'm happy to withdraw noms if I think I'm wrong, but please provide sources and don't just tell people the exist. If I could have found them, I wouldn't have nominated! I also don't appreciate the bit about insufficient research. Also, if the Times lifted all its words nearly word for word from the blog, and then published as fact, I would never quote that, because its basically just the blog. A good source can still produce sloppy journalism.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only because there are a "bunch of these". The blog that gets quoted by the Times (say) becomes more notable. Sure mistakes happen but we AGF good sources. If the government expert websites are quoting someone then they think s/he is notable than we usually assume - and they may be right. The sources you requested are quoted in the article. Sorry if you "don't appreciate" but there are a "bunch of these". Victuallers (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point. Just because I can't find sources doesn't mean I didn't do enough research. It just mean that I only know so much about it. It's not shocking that someone with 165k edits has better research abilities than me, and it's not cool to assume that I didn't do a before. Just point something out without the attitude, that's all.
As a side note, those are excellent sources and I think I can get at least a B class article out of them. Changing to keep, per sources I couldn't find.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my delete. Thanks Victuallers. PrinceTortoise (he/him) (poke • inspect) 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think that I am allowed to withdraw. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fausta Shakiwa Mosha

[edit]
Fausta Shakiwa Mosha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, this person is a reasonably accomplished academic with some publications under her belt, and has held some medium-high level positions at the WHO, but that's it. She does not have any of the achievements laid out in the academic notability guideline and is the subject of almost no independent, significant coverage. Based on the article's promotional tone and the fact that the creator has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the creation of this article, I believe it was made by someone with a COI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello everyone,
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I want to address the concerns regarding notability and the perceived promotional tone of the article.
1. Notability and Independent Coverage: Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha, while indeed an academic and professional within the public health sector, has contributions that extend significantly beyond ordinary academic achievements. Her role as a Senior Laboratory Advisor at WHO, along with her previous positions at WHO AFRO and WHO EMRO, position her as a key player in international public health. Her work has directly impacted policies and practices in over a dozen countries across Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East.
a. Sources and Coverage: Dr. Mosha has been instrumental in significant projects such as the East Africa Public Health Laboratory Networking Project funded by the World Bank and has played a pivotal role in the implementation of cooperative agreements with the US CDC, which have had substantial public health implications globally. I will add citations from these projects and her 49 scholarly articles and a book chapter that contribute to her standing in the field.
2. Academic and Professional Achievements: Regarding WP, Dr. Mosha's career includes high-level advisory roles and directorial positions that have shaped laboratory practices and epidemiology training programs across continents. This involvement goes beyond medium-level academic positions and includes leadership that has effected measurable change in international public health strategies.
3. Promotional Tone: I acknowledge the concerns about the promotional tone. Changes have been made to ensure the language is neutral and factual, focusing on her contributions and roles without subjective embellishments. I urge the community to review the revised content, which adheres more closely to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality.
In conclusion, Dr. Mosha's contributions are not only notable but have a lasting impact on global public health infrastructures, making her a subject of encyclopedic interest and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Her extensive body of work and leadership roles provide significant independent coverage and recognition within her field, fulfilling the notability criteria.
Thank you for considering this response, and I look forward to further constructive discussion. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your input. Would you mind clarifying if you have any off-Wiki relationship to the subject of the article? --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your follow-up question. I would like to clarify that I do not have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha. My interest in contributing to this article is purely based on my recognition of her significant contributions to public health, particularly within the realms of global health security and epidemiology, which I believe warrant an encyclopedic entry due to their impact and scope.
    I am committed to ensuring that the content on Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and verifiable and have endeavored to present Dr. Mosha's career and achievements based on reliable sources and factual information. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (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. Solid arguments from both sides, but I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

[edit]
Kaoli Isshiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
    1. [17] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
    2. [18] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
    3. [19] recital
    4. [20] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Le Monde Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/ Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.
Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.
I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my close, and relisting for a clearer consensus, per the nom's request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:04, 19 November 2024 (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. No valid rationale provided and no reasonable chance of being deleted. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS

[edit]
Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes a controversial exploitation film released in 1975. However, its Wikipedia article was first created and edited in June 2022, decades after the film's release, raising concerns about the timing and motivation behind its creation. The film uses the common female name "Ilsa", "Anata, associating it with violent and degrading depictions, which could lead to real-world stigmatization and bullying. Furthermore, the film holds limited cultural or historical significance, and its explicit content makes it unsuitable for an open-access platform. I propose deletion as the societal harm outweighs any academic or cultural relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaimingmingde (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because most of the deletion rationale doesn't make sense. Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and no notability rationale has been provided. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. It is one of the best known films for the Nazi exploitation genre, and is notable in the grindhouse theatre circles. I've no idea what the nominator means about names? Are you saying because the character is called Isla? If so, that's not a rational reason for deletion. It might not be yours or mine cup of tea, but it's a well referenced article and easily passes notability guidelines. Knitsey (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion proposal should be evaluated based on the article's content, its societal impact, and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies, not on the identity or number of proposers. The focus should remain on whether the content is appropriate for a public platform. Plus, this series of articles describes exploitation films from the 1970s with explicit pornographic content, featuring a Nazi officer as a protagonist engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. These films not only glorify sexual violence and objectify women but also risk promoting unhealthy fantasies about Nazism among immature male audiences. Such content is deeply inappropriate for a public platform like Wikipedia, which is accessible to users of all ages. The timing of the articles' more languages' creation (2022–2023) further suggests potential misuse for malicious or inappropriate purposes. Zaimingmingde (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how Wikipedia works. Articles are created based on notability (links are in my comment above) which in turn require reliable sources. This film easily passes that criteria. The article was created in 2004. If you're saying it has recently been translated into other Wikipedia articles, this is the English language Wikipedia and it has no say in what happens in other language versions. Whatever you do, don't read the article for A Seribian Film. As others have pointed out, Wikipedia does not censor most material on this site. There are dozens of films in the exploitation genre. Wikipedia doesn't censor this. Knitsey (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most notorious exploitation films of all time. Deletion rationale feels like a case of WP:OZD. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Disruptive nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: It being about something gross dosen't mean we delete it. WP:SNOW close. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indisputably a notable film and the nomination is not policy based and amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2024 (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. We can't very well redirect it with no identified target to redirect to, but if one becomes obvious it can be recreated as a redirect. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Menadew

[edit]
Higher Menadew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definitely not notable enough to be included here; only search results lead to some tourist farm cottages. In short an irrelevant place that doesn’t exactly hold any value or significance, this small farm. KrystalInfernus (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2024 (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. Complex/Rational 20:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Linendoll

[edit]
Katie Linendoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable speaker-for-hire. Only claim to notability is an Emmy win; but the basis for that claim is not stated (is the Emmy actually hers, or is it for some show she was part of?), nor the nature of the Emmy (local or national), assuming there is one. The Emmy claim is also unsourced; searches all lead back to the subject's own website and social media pages, or pages populated with information she has provided (e.g. her blurbs on various speaker vendors, [22], [23]). Most significantly, a search for her surname name on the Emmy search tool turns up nothing; so the claim itself is somewhat dubious.

The article was created by Brookette1, almost all of whose edits have been to this article, and who has stated that she "work[s] at the PR agency that represents" the subject. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2024 (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 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roborock vacuums

[edit]
List of Roborock vacuums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every posssible list needs to be in Wikipedia. Trivial beyond belief. Fundamentally promotional. TheLongTone (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2024 (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 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hall (publisher)

[edit]
Daniel Hall (publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly all of the listed sources seem to be connected to the subject. No indication of notability, and additional searching found nothing. CutlassCiera 16:09, 19 November 2024 (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) Rjjiii (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nilsson

[edit]
Jessica Nilsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only has one (unreliable) source. No indication of importance besides directing one feature film, as all the rest of the credits are small projects. CutlassCiera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (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 HarmonyOS. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Engine

[edit]
Ark Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: N. I completed a WP: BEFORE and couldn't find any sources that would establish notability. I'm also comfortable with redirecting to HarmonyOS as an WP: ATD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2024 (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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

[edit]
Elizabeth Jeglic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (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 16:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Singer Malaysia (season 3)

[edit]
The Masked Singer Malaysia (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect. The article is technically too old to be draftified. A WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (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 Ritual de lo Habitual. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Days (Jane's Addiction song)

[edit]
Three Days (Jane's Addiction song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, virtually no significant coverage of the song in WP:RSMUSIC sources. Before I removed them, most of the sources were WP:USERG fansites and forums (additionally, I am unsure if the one source that remains qualifies as reliable, looks very dubious). A Google search turns up WP:REDDIT, WP:GENIUS, and other user-generated and self-published sources. No chart positions, no certifications, no evidence that it meets the criteria of WP:NSONG. Redirect to Ritual de lo Habitual. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Brown (American football)

[edit]
Keith Brown (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a partial hoax. It looks like there was a Keith Brown who played college football at Rhode Island but he never signed with an NFL team. He just had a tryout in 2006. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Lifting equipment. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working load limit

[edit]
Working load limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a guide and not a dictionary. While this term is clearly popular on Wikipedia evidenced by pageviews, I was unable to find two sources to establish WP:GNG.

Sources I could find:

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 13:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Ajja

[edit]
Jhala Ajja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL says that politician holding national or state/province wide office is presumed to be notable and being a hereditary ruler of a state is a state/province-wide political office. Wikipedia:Notability says that the article topic has to meet either GNG OR subject-specific notability guideline including WP:NPOL and it does not have to meet both. 70.95.40.63 (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here yet. But would editors arguing for a Keep, please point out which sources establish GNG or provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:42, 19 November 2024 (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 Party for Socialism and Liberation as a valid ATD. There's a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, but I saw no convincing argument against keeping it as a redirect, for which our retention standards are much lower. If any specific revision violates policy, it can be REVDELed, and if there are persistent, unjustified attempts to revert this close, please ping me or any admin to protect the page. The target already has a section about the subject, but this close is without prejudice against a selective, WP:DUE-compliant merge of sourced content. Owen× ☎ 14:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BreakThrough News

[edit]
BreakThrough News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.
The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.
إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).
On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.
I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).
Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.
In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.
--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no reason why this article should be kept at this time, it lacks enough information to meet notability per WP:GNG The article only contain information about the founders, what next? What's the significance? The creator should perhaps fill up these gaps to keep the article. I can't find none myself, There is also limited WP:RS. Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear that WP:GNG is satisfied by citations of BTN's reporting in The Guardian, Fortune, and Al Jazeera, among others. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I checked the social media handles, website, and sources of this news company, but I didn't find anything notable. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see any significant coverage. Mentions in publications would not be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of that policy do you think applies to this article? إيان (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added mentions in The Guardian, The Independent, and Al Jazeera. إيان (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And discussion in the following book published by Routledge:
    • Bergman, Tabe; Hearns-Branaman, Jesse Owen, eds. (2024). Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine. Routledge studies in media, communication and politics. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-032-55705-2.
    إيان (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking in WP:SIGCOV, a merge might be acceptable too, but I do not know where to. Andre🚐 20:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied by the two articles in The Daily Beast, as well as the book Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine. --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added yet another citation in Fortune, in addition to the previously mentioned discussion in the book Media, dissidence and the War in Ukraine, the articles specifically about it in The Daily Beast and Jerusalem Post, and citations in major publications such as The Guardian, The Independent, Al Jazeera, etc. Those ǃvoting to delete citing WP:SPAM or WP:SIGCOV have not offered any explanation why they think these apply in light of this substantial coverage. إيان (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT delete. The additional sources of Fortune and Al Jazeera do not actually provide any WP:SIGCOV of this group; they merely include an embedded tweet. Likewise, The Independent does not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have read the chapter of Media, Dissidence and the War in Ukraine, and the references to Breakthrough News appear to be passing mentions; it does not provide WP:SIGCOV of this group.
    As for The Daily Beast, one of the two sources is an opinion piece, which is not reliable nor suitable for establishing notability. The second piece clearly is WP:SIGCOV, but the JPost mention is a paragraph of independent coverage. What pushes this over the line for me to think that this might be notable is this Network Contagion Research Institute report, which does cover the group in some depth. But the article currently is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone. Rather than keeping it, I do think that blowing it up and starting from scratch would create a better article on this group. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have established that WP:SIGCOV is not an issue and that the topic indeed meets standards of notability. Why don't we simply improve the article? I can start integrating views in the Network Contagion Research Institute source. Could you identify the elements that you lead you to write that the article as it stands is extremely whitewashed compared to the reliable sourcing, and it's softly promotional in its current tone? إيان (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion going on here. We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect although the discussion is leaning Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:ORGCRIT per the source analysis by Red-tailed hawk. However, I find the suggestion that it would be too difficult to edit the work and therefore we should WP:TNT ridiculous. The article is currently less than 1500 characters, making it technically WP:STUB length. How hard is re-working such a tiny article? We can totally fix it without much effort.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Debnath

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reema Debnath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has not played a leading role in any film either. There's no significant coverage about her in the sources and in WP:BRFORE search. Google news also shows 0 coverage about this individual. Nxcrypto Message 12:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One supporting role in major(ish) film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR.
P.S. What is WP:BRFORE? I'm new in AfD, I mostly took part in counterpart project in Polish Wikipedia. OK, I think you meant WP:BEFORE :) Tupungato (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Basar

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Khairul Basar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article clearly fails WP:NACTOR. It was deleted last time too but was recreated without establishing any evidence of notability. Nxcrypto Message 09:55, 19 November 2024 (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. czar 14:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terence O'Reilly

[edit]
Terence O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not demonstrate a notable character. And the editor User:LINCOLN2024 who moved it to the main space has been blocked for WP:SOCK, where he has a string of articles moved to the main space without being checked. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Ranjan (actor)

[edit]
Shashi Ranjan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete – My WP:BEFORE turned up no substantive independent secondary sources – there are plenty of listings etc. - to support the subject's notability with respect to WP:NACTOR. His 250+ episodes in Tere Mere Sapne (TV series) plus other roles here and there do not, I suggest, constitute "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Moreover, the article has been largely unreferenced since its creation, with only an IMDb reference appearing here and there. (N.B. it seems that there are a number of actors called Shashi Ranjan, at least according to IMDb – I think, but am not sure, that these two may both refer to this article https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11523032/ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9556952/ and this one is a different person https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1662213/). As an alternative, maybe merge and redirect to Tere Mere Sapne (TV series)? SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2024 (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 delete via G5‎. UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaman Devgan

[edit]
Aaman Devgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV sources have been found. The available sources are passing mentions related to the new Azaad film and Ajay Devgn. As the Azaad film has not been released yet, WP:NACTOR is not met, and WP:GNG is also not met. GrabUp - Talk 07:59, 19 November 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azaad (2025 film)

[edit]
Azaad (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage (SIGCOV) has been found. The film is set to be released next year, so there are no reviews available, failing to meet the criteria of WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 07:55, 19 November 2024 (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 deleted‎ as a blatant hoax by Rsjaffe. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 03:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rmr. Ragulvarma

[edit]
Rmr. Ragulvarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any information about this individual through Google searches, which makes me inclined towards this being a hoax. None of the references cited in the article appear to mention the person, and the content seems to be copied from the article on R. S. Munirathinam. Since the article was accepted via AfC, initiating a deletion discussion might be the most appropriate action. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/RAGULVARMA PRABHU/Archive, Draft:RAGULVARMA PRABHU, DEEPA RAGULVARMA, Draft:DEEPA RAGULVARMA, PMK RAGULVARMA, Draft:RAGULVARMA PMK, User:RMR2004/sandbox and Draft:RAGULVARMA RMR. Falls well within CSD criteria of A7, G3 and A10, or G5 if anyone fancies reopening the SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A complete mess aside from the issues mentioned above. Procyon117 (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Hamberg Andersen

[edit]
Mads Hamberg Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Not even coverage in databases that could point to how he would be notable. Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of 1904 Summer Olympics medal winners#Football. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson (soccer)

[edit]
Johnson (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte (archer). Placements at the early Olympics depended on circumstance, it was not the serious global competition we see today. Specifically, soccer at the 1904 Olympics took place between three random clubs. When not even his name is known, the fact that he won a medal matters little. At best, redirect to either football or the US at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2024 (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, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheema Y

[edit]
Cheema Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC KH-1 (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

any reasons to delete it ?
i can show you wikipedia pages that have no reference at all that people are not even famous.
but rightnow in north india this singer trending on number one.
give reasons to delete it mr.editor.
thanks. 2001:56B:3FFA:2FFE:C955:65B4:E1FE:305F (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please list any pages that don't have sourcing or unfamous people, that's also meaning they should at least be tagged for notability, perhaps deleted. Thank you for your help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That response comes across as quite immature. Are you really suggesting using other articles as justification for keeping this one? That’s not how we determine whether an article should be deleted. This is Wikipedia, and popularity alone doesn’t equal notability. I suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before making such arguments. — MimsMENTOR talk 08:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
This musical artist is very popular in India. I have noticed a general trend over both wikipedia and wikidata, that artists who are popular in countries outside of the USA are often deleted due to not meeting "notability criteria" despite them often being in the top 10 of popular artists in their own country, especially for artists from India or Africa.
There are lots of articles on the internet showing his popularity from independent well respected sources e.g.
Please consider keeping this entry. Thank you. QWER9875 (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is dominated with references to music chat websites which I do not know their reliability status. Only three sources in the article are not music chat websites. This one here[33] is the only source that could count for notability but this unfortunately is not enough. The other two left, one is interview and the other advertorial. Mekomo (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Smells of promotion with the flowery language. I'm not sure he's gained much attention as there isn't much of anything in RS. He's briefly mentioned here [34], I can only find Times of India articles that are problematic for the usual reasons. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Floods in the United States (2000–present). ✗plicit 06:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

[edit]
August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to HarmonyOS. ✗plicit 06:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkUI

[edit]
ArkUI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HarmonyOS: I found this paper about testing applications that use ArkUI. ASE is a legitimate venue for software engineering papers, so this definitely counts for notability.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything else. I found some routine coverage on Huawei Central authored by people with unknown credentials, but nothing else. While I could be convinced to shift this to a Keep if more sources emerge, I think that this content is best placed on HarmonyOS, given that the notability of the subject is questionable and every source I could find about ArkUI (including the one linked above) at least mentions HarmonyOS too. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperAccelerated ArkUI-X is a cross-platform framework, and it has been mentioned in a report by China Daily. If a merge is to be considered, the entry should at least be merged into ArkTS, as there currently doesn't seem to be a way to develop ArkUI using other languages. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2024 (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 HarmonyOS. Star Mississippi 02:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkGraphics 3D

[edit]
ArkGraphics 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HarmonyOS: Couldn't find anything to support notability from a WP: BEFORE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (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 HarmonyOS. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArkGraphics 2D

[edit]
ArkGraphics 2D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social utility efficiency

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Social_utility_efficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The definition of SUE as appearing in this article appears to be only discussed by Samuel Merrill and no other authors (excepting SPS and other unreliable sources) in the past several decades. I do not think this meets the notability bar. Affinepplan (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
    • Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
      • Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
    • "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
      • Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
    • Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
      • "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
    • Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
      • "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
      • "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
    • Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
      • "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
    • Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
      • "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
    • "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
    • "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
      • "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
    • "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
      • "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
    • "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
      • "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
    • "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
      • "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
    • "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
      • "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
    • "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
      • "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
    • "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
      • "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
    • "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
      • "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
    • "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
    • "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
      • "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
    • "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
    • "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
    • "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
      • "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
    • "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
      • "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
    • "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
      • "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
    • "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
      • "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
    • Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
    mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret
    2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.
    I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE
    2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.
    3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric
    I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911
and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.
There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).
If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:

most work in economics assumes cardinal preferences and takes a utilitarian approach. This viewpoint dates to the work of Bentham at the end of the 18th century, who argued that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." [...] The utilitarian approach is prevalent, for example, in mechanism design, and perhaps even more so in algorithmic mechanism design [Nisan 2007].

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept

again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.
Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.
Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e. actual_utility / ideal_utility). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice).
But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,
it is not used in the literature.
> the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules
no it is not. it is about SUE.
can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this AfD does not qualify for "Speedy keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:09, 19 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

[edit]
2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was first brought up on a project-space talk page by someone, although I can't remember exactly where. Seems to fail WP:NWEATHER from a cursory glance, no significant, lasting impacts, wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which I know isn't a valid deletion reason), and over half of the references are to the NWS. EF5 20:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed Deletion Only 13/30 resources are from NWS, which makes up 43%, so you saying over half are from NWS is hyperbolic. This caused a lasting impact in the city of Wynne and the tornado is talked about through articles to this day. Just because it wasn't the deadliest doesn't mean it doesn't deserve and article, using that logic, the Greenfield Tornado shouldn't get an article because it wasn't the deadliest tornado of the outbreak sequence, so yeah, how l the amount of death the tornado caused is not a valid reason to delete the article. Hoguert (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair with the Greenfield tornado rationale, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. EF5 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay comparing articles is not really a good argument on my part but I still stand by everything else I've said Hoguert (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a bit early to gauge a "lasting" impact, only one year after the event? Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually (at least with tornadoes), discussion of a tornado six months-or-so after the event shows the tornado’s lasting impacts, which I don’t see here. EF5 22:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify – For stand-alone articles on individual tornadoes, I look for a couple of things. (1) Is there lasting impacts and lasting coverage, (2) if out of draftspace, does the article have the potential to pass GAN (since to me, that helps establish if it deserves to be split from the outbreak article), and (3) size of article vs outbreak section.
  1. Based on a quick Google search, I see lasting coverage, with several articles published related to the tornado and/or damage caused over a year later (examples: [35][36][37][38]) Two of those articles are related to the High School, so I see lasting impacts as well just based on those articles. In fact, searching "2023 Wynne tornado" and setting the news articles to start at the most recent shows an article within the last week related to the tornado/damage. So lasting coverage (WP:LASTING part of WP:Notability) is a checkmark.
  2. Does it have enough to pass GAN? In my opinion, yes. It 100% needs some work done, which is why I also mentioned possible draftification. However, as a writer of several stand-alone GA tornado articles, roughly 20k bytes is the minimum for GAN potential. I know size itself is not factored into GAN, but 20k bytes or more in size most likely will give enough detail-based length for a successful GAN. This article has over 25k bytes, so a checkmark there.
  3. Size comparison between 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado & the parent section Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Wynne–Parkin–Turrell, Arkansas/Drummonds–Burlison, Tennessee. The section in the outbreak article, which is specifically for the damage path, is 11.5k bytes. The stand-alone section for the track is 13.4k bytes. An aftermath section specific to the tornado adds 2.4k bytes. The meteorological synopsis section is not unique, so that size does not count and neither does the introduction. So in all, the stand-alone article has roughly only 4,300 bytes (aka characters) worth of additional unique-to-the-tornado content. The outbreak section cites 3 sources for the tornado track, while the article cites about 23 sources for the track + aftermath sections. To me, the additional byte length is probably the sources. Therefore, there is not much unique-to-the-tornado content in the article. For me, this is the main reason I would say draftify rather than delete. To me, this point is an X.
More unique info over the outbreak section would for sure make it notable for an article. I am ok with it remaining an article itself under the ideology of WP:FIXIT occurring. I do not believe this should be deleted, but at the present moment, I am leaning against it remaining in mainspace without additional information being added to the article/aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent analysis, I should probably use the “would it be a GA” test more often. I would also support draftification, as it’s clear a lot of work (kudos to Hoguert) was put into this article. EF5 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to verify notability. There's still news coming out this year to back up the claims for lasting coverage. Also, I believe it was ChessEric who stated this shouldn't have an article - it was under the discussion for retiring WP:TOOSOON deletions when sources unambiguously do exist, and it was in the context of the Little Rock tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The section fit in the article and doesn’t have to be split off. ChessEric 06:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per The Weather Event Writer.4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 19 November 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payaza

[edit]
Payaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Sources are either run of the mill or routine announcements that adds zero value to the subject's notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesleemah, Per the edit history, this is your supposed revamped version: here.
Let’s review the sources, shall we?

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://businessday.ng/companies/article/payaza-rebrands-to-improve-payment-solutions-empower-businesses-in-africa/ No Press releases about the company’s rebranding Yes per WP:NGRS Yes ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/business-services/payaza-revamps-system-enhances-financial-operations/ No another press release-like publication Yes Reliable per WP:NGRS Yes ✘ No
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/payaza-hackathon-targets-talent-development-payment-solutions-in-nigeria/ No According to the company, the hhackathon-themed leveraging generative AI. . . Yes The source is a major newspaper No The article does not discuss the subject directly and in details rather the hackathon ✘ No
https://nairametrics.com/2024/10/26/the-payaza-fintech-hackathon-3-0-is-set-to-change-the-game-for-small-businesses-across-africa-now-calling-for-participants/ No sponsored post published by https://nairametrics.com/author/nm-partners/ Yes ~ ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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 03:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Layton, Indiana

[edit]
Layton, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Baker, whom we do not cite, describes this as short-lived post office, with no other detail. That's consistent with the topos, which show a single farm across the road from the tracks. No evidence for a settlement beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2024 (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 03:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, Indiana

[edit]
Graham, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Baker doesn't cite his entries so I have no idea why he stated that this was a village. On the topos it looks like a rail spot, but there is just nothing there. If there ever was a village, it disappeared long ago. We need more than this. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Could ultimately end up as a redirect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is reason for doubt. We've been doing this for some years now, and we've gotten quite a bit of experience dealing with the various kinds of sources involved and reading the maps for verification. And what we found with GNIS also applies here: that some of these sources are being abused to some extent, because we are at cross-purposes with the authors. In the case of GNIS (and you need to read WP:GNIS if you haven't already) the issue was compounded by the mistakes the GNIS compilers made in looking at literally very label on every map in the country (plus other, far more dubious sources), but the issue in making articles here was that people made the default assumption that a name was a town, even though the purpose of GNIS was to standardize the names. Placenames origin books have the same issue: they are also about the names first of all and only secondarily about what they are attached to. And the rigor of these books varies. Durham out in California was meticulous about citing his sources, and the problems with him as a source were usually traced to misrepresentation of what he wrote. Baker, not as much. The general rule for the placename books is that if they say it was something other than a village, that generally fits with what we find on the maps and elsewhere; but if they say it was a village, that may or may not be borne out. If they or some other source says it was platted, that usually is borne out in the maps, because they will show a street grid; but we've had a couple of cases where a turn-of-the-century county history says "yeah, it was platted, but nothing ever came of it." These histories also have the tremendous advantage of being much closer in time to the origins of these places; in many cases the events are within living memory, whereas Baker was writing some sixty years later. So I'm disinclined to take Baker's villages at face value; we need something more. Unfortunately I have not found a county history in this case. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2024 (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. czar 03:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kids These Days (TV series)

[edit]
Kids These Days (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, passing mentions prove show existed, but nothing to prove notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:51, 19 November 2024 (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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1990s albums considered the best

[edit]
List of 1990s albums considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The criteria for inclusion on this list seems utterly arbitrary, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure if WP:CFORK applies here, but I certainly don't see enough evidence of notability to pass WP:NLIST here in addition to the INDISCRIMINATE concern noted previously. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of similar issues noted above. Not worthy of a standalone page, fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and most of the (reliably) sourced content is already present in the articles of the albums listed: :List of 1980s albums considered the best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike, withdrawing AFD JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee J. Slavutin

[edit]
Lee J. Slavutin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (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.

Developed by StudentB