Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

24 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 23	January 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Thambiranpatty

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

Unreferenced village article with lack of reliable sources to be found to prove the place meets WP:NPLACE. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Tamil Nadu. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Sault Ste. Marie municipal election

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

Article about a city council election in a midsized city, "referenced" exclusively to a single primary source listing of the election results on the self-published website of the city government rather than any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it.
We long ago abandoned the notion that we should maintain an exhaustive set of articles about every city council election in every city across the board -- we can keep articles about city council elections that have substantive content about the issues in play and are supported by GNG-worthy coverage, but we do not keep articles about city council elections that are just replicating a primary source list of the results without any added context. But this is the latter, not the former, because there's absolutely no meaningful context here over and above the results tables.
Further, when it comes to municipal election results in the Canadian province of Ontario, a consensus was long ago established to handle municipal elections through one merged article per census division, with only the "independent cities" (the ones that aren't part of any county or regional municipality to be merged to) handled in standalone city-level articles -- but in this case, there's no 2006 Algoma District municipal elections article in place yet to merge this content to, and as it stands this is the only year for which Sault Ste. Marie has its own Sault-level article instead of a subsection in an Algoma-level article.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find sufficient sourcing to create a full Algoma-level article, but we would need a lot more than just a single primary source to demonstrate that this was uniquely important enough to need special treatment compared to most other city council elections. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete municipal elections are generally not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Ying (producer)

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42. Fails WP:GNG. Rosentad (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JayDaGRT

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their music exists, and have to show passage of certain specific achievement-based criteria -- but the attempted notability claim here is that he "gained exposure" with a single from his debut EP just last year, which isn't enough in and of itself: since absolutely any song that exists at all can be claimed to have "gained exposure" for its creator, NMUSIC requires actual quantifiable markers of how much "exposure" was gained, such as verifiable chart positions on an IFPI-certified chart, verifiable playlisting on a national radio network, verifiable music award wins or nominations, etc.
But no such achievements are present here at all, and the article just talks about what he hopes to achieve in the future instead of documenting any markers of achievement he's already attained -- and given the longstanding WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA problem, we can't extend him passage of WP:GNG on number of footnotes alone, if the footnotes aren't documenting anything that would clearly satisfy NMUSIC.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim, but the existence of one EP isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Echoing Bearcat; nothing from here makes the subject a notable musician per WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:COMPOSER. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Ferenčič

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

He only played six minutes of professional level before disappearing for over one decade. Regarding secondary sources, I only found Netky and AktualitySK, both of which are passing mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ocient (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely promotional and does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wokingham Today

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

Rationale: Non-notable news media outlet per WP:GNG. I'm not familiar with WP:NME and WP:NEWSNOTE, but applying their rules, the newspaper seems to lack WP:SIGCOV to suggest broader significance beyond local publication.

Source analysis and online search: Currently links to a broken URL for a fairly brief annual report and a sister publication, both WP:PRIMARY and irrelevant to notability. All I can find in terms of WP:SIGCOV is:

the article's cited source from Hold The Front Page, a UK regional press website, about its initial syndication [1] and
a brief article from the same site about a touted "world first" that the paper had exclusively featured women's sport coverage on its back pages - the article concedes this was a coincidence, suggesting the apparent global significance is grossly overstated: [2].

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 10 January 2025 (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 11:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prob delete small circulation local media outlet. Not much independent third party coverage found, limited significance. JMWt (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Corn (group)

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

Fails WP:REFERENCE. Completely unsourced. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 10:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a reference in the article but more reliable sources coverage is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep. Per WP:MUSICBIO#1 there's a number of reliable sources with coverage of this group now cited in the article. The subject appears to be a part of hip-hop history, that effectively launched the careers of several notable artists. As such, the subject also meets WP:MUSICBIO#6. ResonantDis_tortion 10:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But is it reliable enough? Think about it. It only relies on one member. That's it. We're referring to the group itself. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DBrown SPS The article, as it currently stands, is fully cited to a number of reliable secondary sources which also remark upon the impact of COC ("celebrities of the underground rap scene, COC ran Harlem streets and cypher circles in the mid-1990s"). The premise of your original nomination was incorrect, as highlighted above. If you want this article removed you need to provide a much clearer deletion rationale, preferably with WP:BEFORE evidence and reference to WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 06:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see it is improving now. Thanks anyways. Crisis averted. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 07:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources presently in the article look sufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added to the article. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like it meets GNG now Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut-politician

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Astronaut-politician

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

While this pages features a number of people who have been astronauts and later politicians, there's a distinct lack of sources that discuss the term "astronaut-politician". I couldn't find that term at all in the sources, though I may have missed it in some of sources written in a language I'm not proficient in. Likewise, a general BEFORE search for sources using this term brought up nothing useful. In any case, applying a term like this to a number of people isn't sufficient for an article - we need sources that discuss the term specifically, both for an article like this or a list article. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mickies Dairy Bar

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

Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Business, and Wisconsin. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confucian fascism

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

Article is mostly WP:SYNTH it was originally built around two sources - a single-sentence mention in a textbook: "A second major effort of the Blue Shirts involved Chiang's New Life Movement, a campaign that began in 1934 in order to spread the fascist spirit and challenge the antitraditionalism of the May Fourth period," and a single paper Frederic Wakeman wrote in the 1990s and that was significantly misinterpreted by the article since Wakeman is ambivalent about whether the New Life Movement was in fact fascist, noting that the "fascism" accusations mostly arose from missionaries, that the nationalism of the Blue Shirts was not dissimilar to Maoist revivalist nationalism and to prior nationalist movements in China and that Chiang was known not to want to associate his movements with European fascism. Neither of these two sources mention Japan at all which makes the inclusion of the third source (only three were used by the article) entirely synthetic qua the other two. A single sentence in a single textbook and a failure to properly read a second source are insufficient grounds for an article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the Wakeman source makes mention to the Japanese occupation of parts of China in the context of motivations for Chinese nationalism but makes no connections between Japanese nationalist movements and Chinese nationalist movements. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, China, and Japan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michéal Castaldo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michéal Castaldo (2nd nomination)

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable singer. Lack independent coverage in reliable sources, see talk page for an earlier discussion adding that 4meter4's three sources were in order a dead what's on announcement, a PR reproduction for an album release and a short feel good fluff. Nothing good for GNG. Claimed charting is not for him and not on the countries main chart. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Italy, Canada, and United States of America. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lobanov-Rostovsky

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Lobanov-Rostovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Yes, there was this noble family, but it seems there is no in-depth coverage besides genealogy lists. They do have rurikid origin, but I am not sure it counts to claim for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The family is listed in principal families in the European book with clear description of its coat of arms [3] and of course in the Russian Velvet Book by the author Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky, a familiy member himself, hence passes GNG. The family has a museum dedicated to them [[4]] and the palace in St. Petersburg underlines the notability. Of course the article needs some cleanup to have proper references.

Moreover the Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement gives the family name quite some name recognition. Axisstroke (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, (a) listing does not count for WP:GNG, which requires in-depth coverage. (b) Notability not inherited and Yamagata–Lobanov Agreement is irrelevant for an article about noble family. --Altenmann >talk 21:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The family is a principal family hence by definition notable as declared both on the Velvet book and other listings. Axisstroke (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in Wikipedia we have our own criteria for notability. Nobility listings contain thousands of petty noble families. In Poland 20% of population used to be szlachta. In Russian Empire every petty warlord on a hill in Caucasus Mountains was given a title of knyaz during "appeasement" of the area. And so on. Merely listing is insufficient to establish notability in en-wiki. --Altenmann >talk 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - as noted many times at AfD and other fora, you need to take a look at the sources on other languages' Wikipedia articles on the topic. You also can't take one isolated fact that needs citation as a reason to delete. I'd recommend advocates of keeping the article substantially to add the sources, in context, so that it passes [WP:HEY]]. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your vote violates WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN not to say WP:AGF (suggesting lack of due diligence). If one looks at the ruwiki article, nothing there indicates in-depth coverage beyond genealogy books (Russian: . Родословный сборник, родословная книга. Родословная роспись, Генеалогическое древо. Even "Лобановы-Ростовские" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906. is little beyond name-throwing. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This has been tagged for GNG since 2017 by someone else. It's not just me saying this now.
  And als Altenmann points out, the articles in other languages are essentially just as bad:
  - lv:Lobanovi–Rostovski is WP:UNSOURCED
  - et:Lobanov-Rostovski is 2 WP:SPSes and 1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - de:Lobanow-Rostowski has 1 WP:FAIL, because the claim Die Familie, eine Seitenlinie der Rurikiden, soll auf Juri Dolgoruki (1090–1157), Fürst von Rostow, Großfürst der Kiewer Rus und Gründer von Moskau, ein Sohn des Kiewer Großfürsten Wladimir Monomachs (1053–1125), zurückgehen. Sein Nachkomme war Fürst Wasilko Konstantinowitsch von Rostow (1208–1238). is not supported by this website where you can buy a painting (!) of 'Der Heilige Fürst Wassili Konstantinowitsch von Rostow'; plus 1 book from 1894 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
  - ru:Лобановы-Ростовские has
    1 collection of manuscripts from somewhere in the 17th century ru:Родословные росписи конца XVII века, which is just plain WP:PRIMARY
    
    1 book from 1776 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1787 (! WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1810 (! WP:AGEMATTERS) ru:Родословная книга М. Г. Спиридова
    
    1 book from 1854 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1886 ru:Родословный сборник русских дворянских фамилий (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    1 book from 1890 (WP:AGEMATTERS)
    
    A museum deadlink
    
    A worldportrait.org deadlink
    
    An archived press release / advertisment for visiting a museum
    
    1 book from 1991 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 book from 2011 that is not actually used (no in-line citations), and appears to be a reprint of WP:PRIMARY ru:Родословная книга М.А. Оболенского from c. 1600 (!)
    
    1 entry in the Russian Biographical Dictionary of 1905 that is not actually used (no in-line citations)
    
    1 1906 Brockhaus and Efron passing mention which Altenmann already assessed as little beyond name-throwing; and finally
    
    4 unreliable WP:SELFPUB genealogy websites, including the notoriously unreliable WP:ANCESTRY.COM.
  In short, it's a lot of hot air. The few relatively modern sources that might be reliable are not even used, are reprints of WP:PRIMARY sources that are not critically examined, or provide so little information that they do not constitute WP:SIGCOV. NLeeuw (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if reformatted as a surname page, which it virtually is already, + rename to Lobanov-Rostovsky. Ingratis (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Ingratis. Can be easily kept as an WP:APOENTRIES page. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pointed out by Altenmann and some others, there's just not enough here. If there are enough notable facts to write about, where it could at least somewhat be expanded and properly sourced, then it would be a keep. As it stands right now though, it's hard to see why it should remain. It might be appropriate to merge the current content into the next most relevant article. Laurelius (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The procedural keep suggestion above does not address the core issue of notability and verifiability raised by the nominator. There's clearly insufficient reliable sources and a lack of in-depth coverage to justify WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bio7

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

Fails WP: GNG. A PROD was removed without sourcing improvements. If voting keep, please make sure that the sources you've found are not affiliated with M. Austenfeld, who is the author that original proposed Bio7. That is, make sure they're not primary sources. I found some trivial mentions in books, but nothing more. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naiot Venture Accelerator

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

I was unable to identify the reliable sources required by WP NCORP Cinder painter (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Technology, and Israel. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimesh Gupta

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

The article fails to demonstrate notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that highlight his achievements or impact, the article risks being promotional and not meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Loewstisch (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Medicine, and India. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyKey

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

The article appears promotional and reads like an advertisement, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If the content lacks balanced, independent sourcing and focuses on product promotion rather than encyclopedic information, it fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standard Loewstisch (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Computing. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The extant sources look entirely promotional. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Sources either promotional or unreliable. Procyon117 (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeadDesk

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

The article on LeadDesk may warrant deletion if it does not provide sufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Loewstisch (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Europe, and Finland. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Lal Commodity Management

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

may warrant deletion due to insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. If reliable, independent sources do not provide significant coverage of the company's activities or impact, the article fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Loewstisch (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

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

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Europe, and United Kingdom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.

They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddsworld: but really not opposed to Keep as this seems to be a WP:CREATIVE pass. -Mushy Yank. 23:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several primary references and the sourcing can improve, but the subject meets WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddsworld. Not sure about sourcing individually but I think merging together would be good. Procyon117 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no substantial or notable coverage about the twitter account itself. All the sources talk about the twitter account glacially in passing from a group of posters, or goes into marginal coverage about a phrase they used. None of the cited references are substantially covering the page itself. Scuba 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not commenting on the deletion, but should be noted that a semi-popular twitter account has called for the page’s deletion. Any new user voting on this, make sure to review previous discussions and infer an opinion from there. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, talk about bad timing on my behalf, I guess that's what I get for not having twitter myself. Scuba 03:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment OP Here (i’m the semi popular account), i added a notice down below saying this, I should’ve of phrased my reply better. apologies for any trouble i’ve caused, i have no idea how wikipedia works so i hope you get this message) 2001:56B:9FE0:99A2:40DD:52BA:8C87:9EA3 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this Wikipedia article. The account in question seems to lack the notability and significance required for inclusion in Wikipedia. While it may have been a fixture in a niche online community for a time, its impact appears to have been fleeting and unsubstantiated. The claim to have coined a couple of popular internet jokes, even if true, doesn’t seem sufficient to justify a dedicated Wikipedia article, especially when there’s no credible evidence cited which supports the claim. This sort of anecdotal notoriety is better suited to discussions in forums or social media threads than a permanent spot on Wikipedia.

Moreover, Wikipedia’s purpose is to document subjects that are verifiably notable and have enduring relevance, supported by reliable secondary sources. This inactive Twitter account's history of trolling and "shitposting" is far from unique or influential in the broader context of internet culture. Keeping this page sets a precedent for hosting articles about countless similar accounts, which would dilute the quality and purpose of the Wikipedia. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nomination and vote to Delete this page. Like others said the Goblin mode and Snickers dick vein articles already exist(their notability I personally also find questionable), otherwise this person is not notable aside from having a few rabid fans(and haters) that poison any discussion pertaining to them. Immensedata (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Frankly, I agree with reasoning behind this nomination (and the last three nominations), but Patar knight convincingly made the case for keeping it last AfD--I can't really put up an argument against what was laid out there, and I would encourage would-be deleters take a look at it. I would support pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself, though. Theodore Christopher (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patar Knight's response is not convincing when referring to BLP1E and certainly doesn't hold up in 2025. I still believe the article should be deleted because the Patar's argument overstates the junlper’s significance. The so-called "in-depth" coverage from sources like Rolling Stone or BuzzFeed News is more about the viral moments—"goblin mode" or the Snickers dickvein controversy—than Junlper. Junlper is not the focus of these pop news articles; the viral posts that junlper claims to have originated are. This doesn’t meet the standard of notability required for a biography, where the subject needs to be covered in a sustained, significant way as a person, not just as the source of a fleeting internet joke.

Patar's argument also leans heavily on the idea that being central to multiple viral moments negates BLP1E, but not every viral event has lasting cultural weight. These moments might have been funny or memorable in the moment, but that doesn’t mean they are significant enough to stand out against other internet jokes and be immortalized on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we’re opening the door to articles about every niche internet figure who happens to trend for a day or two.

This feels like an attempt to stretch the guidelines to justify Junlper's inclusion. The coverage cited, even if there’s a fair amount of it, doesn’t make Junlper notable in a way that fits the purpose of Wikipedia. Viral internet content thrives in forums and social media, but Wikipedia is meant to document subjects with enduring cultural, historical, or encyclopedic value. This article doesn’t meet that bar. Delete. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not require someone to participate in multiple notable events, only that they are discussed in the context of more than one event, which is clearly met here. Goblin mode is not the same as the Snickers Dick Vein hoax, nor was she banned for either of those things. In respect to the other two prongs, the article subject still runs an active podcast and posts on both Twitter/X and Bluesky, and was central to the three aforementioned events, so it's 0/3 on the criteria.

The proper frame of reference to analyze this is though the normal notability policies and the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and for people, WP:BASIC explicitly allows repeated insubstantial, but non-trivial coverage to meet the notability threshold (though I would argue the article contains multiple instances of substantial indepth coverage especially around the aforementioned big three events). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself" would probably leave this article even more barren than it already is. Doombruddah (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is incredibly unlikely that she has been editing the article. The one account that plausibly seems to be hers has never edited the article. In fact, it has never edited Wikipedia at all, only the Commons. Also, as I understand it, she regards this whole thing with a mixture of amusement and embarrassment. (I mean, that's fair.) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes for an interesting thought experiment. If one were to prune all the promotional/non-notable material, as you say, I think it would illustrate visually the lack of notability, and just how frankly silly the article is.

Jeb1075 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that's a rationale to Delete Jeb1075 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict) It's close for me, but the repeated coverage addressing the individual behind the account and reference to their interactions with other notable people getting picked up in RS media/scholarship leads me to believe that, against all odds, this person is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your mention of RS scholarship made me check google scholar, and funnily enough there do appear to be scholarly articles based off this person's writing 1, 2. Having trouble accessing the full text of the second one, but the first one, which is a scholarly account based off one of her tweets, is interesting from a notability perspective. Arguable this and other coverage pushes toward notability per WP:AUTHOR #2, though that requires diving into whether "posting" can count as a body of work and I don't think that's necessary as the subject already meets GNG. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The academic commentary from July 2024 in the second link is cited in the article in the suspension section. It's accessible via the Wikipedia Library! [5]. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've already said my peace, but to reinstate:

If you are to keep this, it should absolutely be re-worded, it reads like parody. "American shitposter"? Really? Catturd is the only other article on this website (and i don't like it there either) that uses this word to describe a person. I would argue she isn't really known for much outside of just another leftist twitter account, and this article is probably the only place that defines this user as being known for "goblin mode", a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else. Even that isn't very notable, it was chosen from weak competition such as "metaverse" and an irrelevant hashtag. It was also chosen from an online poll, which are usually not trustworthy. This leaves the titular "snickers dick vein", the shortest section of the article, as their second claim to fame. I don't think this is notable; people lie all the time on the internet. The "backlash" lasted less than a week before being fact-checked by Snopes and clarified by Snickers themselves the next day. That leaves us with a few viral tweets that some journalists thought were worthy of using. Not really notable.

Not to make a "give into bullying" argument but if an article has been nominated for deletion so many times with so many close votes, you should probably just delete it already. Doombruddah (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else is not as strong an argument as you appear to think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it is when that "award" is only selected by public poll, and hasn't been relevant in over 2 years. It has exactly zero cultural significance FullMetalKaiju (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selected from a shortlist prepared by lexicographers from Oxford University Press [6] It's not purely a public vote. One of the other choices was "metaverse", which was such a big thing that one of the biggest companies in the world renamed themselves to get on that (poorly thought out) hype train. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "metaverse" was not strong competition, and I don't think it's any surprise that people chose a meme word over a marketing term. Doombruddah (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strong competition with the benefit of hindsight now that the metaverse hype has died down. Back in 2022 though? Not as clear. That was the peak of metaverse hype. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh I personally disagree. I remember it as a "facebook is doing some stupid shit, let's all make fun of them!" kind of deal. Doombruddah (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't live up to the hype. If the tech was actually better, accessible, and useful (yes, lots of counterfactuals), and we were regularly doing stuff on the metaverse, we would probably be looking at this like "how did a random meme beat out metaverse for WOTY? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously this is not a typical encyclopedic article, but I stand by my (extensive) arguments made in the previous AfD. BLP1E does not apply and the sources show continued and in-depth coverage over several years that meet our notability standards. Also, after the last AfD (which was only four months ago!), I found an academic commentary, not a peer-reviewed article, but still subject to some editorial oversight, analyzing her suspension through a critical theory lenses from July 2024. [7] (accessible via Wikipedia Library. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my comment from the prevous AFD for convenience. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.

With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet ~~WP:SIGCOV~~WP:BASIC.

As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that any of the sources cited provide in depth coverage about the account itself. Scuba 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why The Business Insider [8], Rolling Stone [9], or The Messenger [10] would not be in-depth coverage about the account's activities? If you're talking about the person behind the account, there is some coverage as seen in the Personal life section, but that isn't the basis of notability, which is the posting. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Paywall

2) article about snickers bar post, not the account itself

3) minor/unnoteworthy source not listed on WP:RSP

Not a very strong argument. Scuba 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba, You know that having a paywall (see WP:PAYWALL) or not being listed at WP:RSP (see WP:RSPMISSING) are (quite explicitly) not reasons why an article is considered unreliable/not contributing to notability. Not that I'm saying these are/do, but can we please not use such seemingly fallacious arguments without more explanation. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Well I can’t read the article. So I’m not sure how exactly I can prove it offers significant coverage. Scuba 23:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways and means of reading paywalled articles. Here's a link to an archive of the article in question. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Insider is not hard paywalled, so it's accessible through normal means of bypassing soft paywalls. Cakelot1 has provided an archive link above. It's a full article about the article subject in a generally reliable source per RSP.

2. It goes beyond just the post itself such as motivations and inspirations as well as some account details. Even if it didn't, an article about a post made by an account is like an article about a book written by an author. It goes towards the notability of both.

3. RSP isn't meant to be comprehensive, only frequently discussed sources. For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Chicago Tribune are both not on the list but are generally reliable (see: WP:RSPMISSING). I've discussed why the Messenger source is likely okay in other posts. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia needs to have some standards for who gets an article. A random person with an extremely small internet following should not automatically get a Wikipedia page. Also, putting something in the "Chicago rat hole"? That's noteworthy of putting on an online encyclopedia? Please delete this page.--JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass notability guidelines, the only thing she is known for would be Goblin mode, and that part of her article can be merged into the other article. Everything else is unnoteworthy and is only suitible of a fandom wiki, not Wikipedia. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is not known for only one thing - in addition to Goblin mode she has been in the news for being banned from Twitter. This was covered in the news, in reliable sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That alone does not prove notibility. Per WP:GNG the subject of the article needs significant covarge to meet notability guidelines. This article does not meet those guidelines. Jenkowelten (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have seen far more notable people have pages deleted for lack of notability. It is additionally fairly transparent that large portions of this article were written by its subject. O5225 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@O5225, we already know which account she has previously edited under.^[a] I'm wondering, therefore, which of the major authors of the article (viewable here) you are accusing here of being a WP:SOCK (which would get them blocked). And if you have no actual evidence, perhaps try to Assume good faith and make some actual arguments grounded in policy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear WP:SIGCOV from Insider, Rolling Stone, and Buzzfeed News. The articles are all about different topics so it doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E. Note: I saw the viral tweet calling for the article's deletion, but did not see the AFD until coming to the page to read the article out of curiosity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Anything potentially relevant about this person should be merged to Goblin mode, clearly not relevant by themselves and does not meet notability guidelines outside of a very small niche. News articles will take any viral tweet and write headlines for a week, doesn't automatically make the twitter account notable. Too many primary sources too. Also, what on Earth is that part about the Chicago rat hole? jolielover♥talk 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also like to add, small mentions in articles do not warrant a page. Some sources mention her as a footnote, like the Vox article about the Hogwarts video game, saying "this person on twitter thought this" how on earth is this remotely relevant or notable? jolielover♥talk 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misunderstanding of out notability guidelines. WP:BIO says at WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Some sources do indeed only trivially mention the topic in passing, but for the things that she actually derives the bulk of her notability from, that is markedly not true since they are in-depth articles focused on her specifically (e.g. Goblin Mode/Insider [11]; Snickers/Rolling Stone [12]; Ban/Messenger [13]) -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article clearly does not meet any kind of encyclopaedic standard, there is an already-existing goblin mode article and beyond their involvement in that phenomenon the person covered is not worth an article. SelketCadmium (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains multiple reliable sources, and is well-cited. Most of the news items have been archived in order to allow easy access to the articles. The best three articles are Messenger [14], Insider [15], and Rolling Stone [16]. In addition there are (minor) mentions from additional reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources does not automatically mean an article is warranted; most sources in the article only mention the user in a fleeting footnote, even simply linking a tweet. An alarming amount of sources are also primary ones from the user themselves (See their tweets and the Chicago rathole bit). People can have dozens upon dozens of sources and still not have an article, like Errol Musk. This particular Twitter user is often just mentioned as "oh, X topic is trending on Twitter today, let's link some popular tweet relating to the topic", like this source which literally just links the tweet, provides no additional commentary (and you can't even see the tweet), yet is linked as a source to the "In March 2023..." sentence. The source literally does not support that sentence at all. Though at face value it looks like a well cited article, it really is not. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three news sources I highlighted are not fleeting footnotes, but are news stories entirely centered on Junlper. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a core of good, in-depth sources around the main sources of notability that you have consistently refused to address. Not everything in a biography is going to be about notable events. It is perfectly fine and normal for some biographical content to come from cases where the coverage is more minimal (and therefore contribute minimally to notability).

The primary sources are used to cite statements that meet WP:BLPPRIMARY (i.e. post is supplementing an RS story) or are WP:BLPSELFPUB statements. They aren't factored into the notability calculus and don't need to in order to meet WP:BASIC.

The Errol Musk analogue doesn't work because if the Musk family was not famous, but Errol had the same amount coverage, he would probably have his own page. But per WP:NOPAGE, even though he's notable, the level of coverage can fit into the parent page without issue, which isn't the case here.

The reason why you can't see the tweet, is because the original account was permanently banned later that year, which the articles explains quite well and with in-depth commentary for news and academic sources. In any case, the tweet is visible in the archived version. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:BLP1E doesn't apply and the subject meets the criteria for notability. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this person is notable. She has a large account and made a few viral posts but so have thousands of other people — do they all deserve articles? SelketCadmium (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they get the same amount of coverage in reliable sources, then yes, same as anyone else (assuming there's not another article that can hold the content per WP:NOPAGE). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, there is another article to hold the relevant content in this article (goblin mode) SelketCadmium (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability goes beyond just goblin mode as demonstrated by our article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is a keep or no consensus, can we have a moratorium? This is the fourth time it's been nominated, the second time in the last six months. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads closer to a fandom page than an Encyclopedic article. A majority of sources are either junk, fluff, or primary tweets themselves (most secondary sources simply mention a single tweet by the person and do not focus on them), and the ones that are by reputable sources barely make the standard for notability. Goblin mode is its own page, and a single tweet about a "dick vein" does not notability make, regardless of coverage (if anything, it should simply be on the Snickers page.) DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many of the topics in this article are not relevant to anything important and anything relevant about Junlper should just be merged with the Goblin Mode article. Some sources in this article are also unreliable (such as X (formerly twitter) and Bluesky. Other references are articles in news outlets such as Vox and The Washington Post with only minor mentions of Junlper. 156.57.118.166 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources focus on fleeting viral moments rather than providing substantial coverage of the individual. Any relevant content could be merged into related topics (which in this case may also not meet notability standards), but this standalone page lacks the enduring significance required for inclusion. Dynamokankaku (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keeping this article sets a precedent for every single person who makes a viral twitter post to deserve their own Wikipedia article. minecrafter523 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true - each article gets weighed on its own merit. The guidelines for deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) specifically warns against that argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how on earth can you argue that this twitter account is notable on its own. Only 1 singular citation even talks in depth about the account at all. Scuba 04:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page has already survived several deletion requests and no new arguments or Wikipedia page policy violations have been made. The page has already met notability guidelines and nothing has changed since last deletion request other than the passage of time. Slippery slope arguments are also not particularly relevant when determining the proper application of Wikipedia policy. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the page has not met notability guidelines, hence why it keeps getting proposed for deletion. Not sure how on earth it keeps surviving, especially since the last deletion attempt had more delete votes than keep votes. Scuba 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion is not a vote. The guidelines for discussion clear say: "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please detail how you believe the article fails to meet any specific provision of WP:NOTABILITY? Thank you. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
because only one (at best) of the citations are talking about the account. The others are talking about some meme they posted. the account is not notable, but making a joke that a sinckers bar looks like a penis might be. Can you provide any detail to how this article passes WP:NOTABILITY?? Scuba 04:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, while trying to avoid WP:NOTAGAIN and understanding that WP:CCC, I'm failing to see what has changed from the keep of just three months ago. I'll repeat my position from the last AFD that on balance there seems to be just enough sources to scrape past GNG in my view. Obviously this passes WP:BLP1E as well. The closer should also be aware (and probably already is) of a lot of canavasing on both sides of this. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with the last part there. I wasn't canvassed but I did see this first off-project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How? A passing mention isn't substantial coverage on the account. Scuba 04:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I stand by the above I'm adding to my !vote: Keep or Redirect to Goblin mode as a prefered WP:ATD. I personaly don't think enough thought in this discusion has been given to options beyond keep and delete. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does having 100,000 followers on twitter for posting memes really qualify you for a wikipedia article? If we keep this, we lower the bar so much that you could justify making an article for basically any niche internet micro-celebrity. If we really need to put a biography of this random shitposter on Wikipedia it can be a little blurb under the "goblin mode" article. Gore2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gore2000, it may surprise you to learn that our Notability guidlines have basically nothing to-do with follower/viewer/subscriber statics (see WP:ARBITRARY), but instead on whether or not somebody has been covered by reliable sources. It is quite possible for somebody with 100 followers to pass WP:GNG while somebody with Millions doesn't; we simply don't care about these metrics. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So breifly being mentioned in a few news articles years ago justifies giving someone a Wikipedia page? Because that seems to be the logic here. What exactly is the person notable for? JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, WP:GNG says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reasonable minds can differ on the Significant coverage question (and indeed I think it just about scrapes by), but new editors need to keep in mind that AFDs aren't votes, and their contribution is liable to be weighted lower by the closer if they don't refer to existing policies and Guidelines (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions may be worth a skim for common pitfalls). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd argue that there is no significant coverage. More importantly, there's no sustained coverage. This person's Twitter account was briefly mentioned a handful of times in 2022/23 from mainstream sources, and they haven't been discussed since. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have references going into 2024. That's at least a two year period. I don't see how that's not sustained. And those are not mere mentions. There's a lot of those out there but I'm talking about the more substantial stuff. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not surprising and I never assumed so. If we want to talk about reliable sources, almost none of the articles are solely about this twitter user, they only mention her in passing when talking about other subjects. I'd be willing to bet that this is a vanity article, especially considering how meticulously it documents her various accounts and when they were banned from twitter, using her own tweets as sources. Gore2000 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above it's probably best not to cast aspersions about the authors of this article (list) of being sockpuppets, without any evidence. Focus on content.

Failing WP:SIGCOV is an argument that can be had, although as I also said above I think there's an adequate amount across multiple events to add up to scraping by that requirement. Quite a lot of these articles give more than a passing mention, and are actually about June (e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) although the amount of WP:INTERVIEW content mediates that slightly. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think so. Firstly, Making memes about a snickers "dick vein" doesn't constitute notability. Neither does creating the viral "goblin mode" meme, or posting funny clapbacks on twitter and then getting banned, even if they do get brief moments of coverage in media. Secondly, even if memes on twitter were enough to be considered notable with adequate sources, there are a total of six sources that directly concern Junlper instead of briefly mentioning one of her tweets. Among these articles are posts from a tech blog and a BuzzFeed interview. Meanwhile, other sources are just her own tweets. Thirdly, the article is full of irrelevant information and random trivia. Why does there need to be an image on the article of her placing coins in a pothole in Chicago in reference to a viral internet meme? Why does it list what accounts she used and when they were banned? Why does it have a list of memes she tweeted that got even the slightest amount of media attention? Why does it have her profile picture? She's not notable, but even if she were, none of that is remotely relevant. This article reads like a post on a fandom wiki. Gore2000 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't that any specific meme etc. constitute notability, it's the collected coverage in sources of the twitter account/owner which makes it notable (in the estimation of quite a few people here). Just to be clear, it doesn't really matter if the coverage is for something that we think is stupid or trivial, the fact of coverage (and it's nature and depth) is what will decide the fate of the article. I and others think there is enough coverage, you don't. As I said this is on the line, but I'm yet to really see an adequate WP:ATA for any content not related the goblin mode, which might help me side with a WP:MERGE/WP:RDR/WP:DEL.

As to your last point, they're really clean-up issues, which per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, really shouldn't come in to it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – most of the references are about internet trends and only mention the user in passing as opposed to actually demonstrating notability DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- How many people with 15 minutes of fame on the internet deserve a wikipedia page? Junlper doesn't fit into any of the Notability Guidelines. There was only one event that garnered her attention, a spat with libsoftiktok, so why not just include her name on the wikipedia page for Libs of TikTok? Meme scholar0 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't one of her "events" have a whole article about it! Why wouldn't that be where it's redirected? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There is currently an off-wiki canvassing campaign to WP:BLUDGEON this thread into getting the page deleted. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with 1, 2, 3. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed before, this article being nominated for deletion again around the same time a (relatively not viral) post was made about it was just coincidence. Doombruddah (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not alleging bad faith on the part of the nominator by any means, I don't think Scuba intended this. However, the huge number of votes on this thread from IP users and users with few or no contribs are indicative of the canvassing, and that's the only real difference between this thread and the three previous AFDs for this article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are an awful lot of WP:SPAs here, which is normally a sign of some sort of off site coordination. The post I've seen seems to have quite enough engagement that the WP:CANVASSING concern is serious, and looking at the replies and quote re-tweets should give some understanding of the extremes of feeling this person has stirred up in certain corners of the internet. Junlper herself also bluesky-ed [?] about this article which is why I warned about canvasing from all-sides here.

None of this justifies a speedy keep (imo) but it's laughable to suggest it won't have some effect. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all the canvassing my thought is it's a bad idea to be having this discussion now. If there really needs to be another AFD for this article (which is already on it's fourth AFD, a bit ridiculous IMO), we should at least be waiting for all the off-wiki attention to die down. This thread has already become incredibly clogged with WP:ATA arguments from inexperience users and is borderline unusable. The combination of the inability to have a productive discussion mid-canvassing and the three previous AFDs was the basis for my speedy keep vote. Apologies that I could've explained that better in my original comment. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can trust the closer to be able appropriately weight the obvious non-policy based WP:SPA !votes. And we still have a week (possibly weeks with relists) of time for more experienced editors to way in. If the canvasing at MKuCR4 didn't cause that one to be voided I think we're not going to here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any voiding will be done at closing. For example, the second AfD was basically a non-consensus result because of the canvassing. Looks like the post is over 150k views now, which is crazy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no. It doesn't pass WP:GNG, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. As seen in the chart provided below, only ONE source goes into any depth on the account, how on earth can you argue that passes notability? Scuba 04:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a little confused by the focus on “account” here. The article states the subject is a “shitposter on twitter” not “the name of a shitposting account”. It uses she/her pronouns to refer to the subject, not it/it’s. It has Category:Living people. It has a BLP tag on the talk page. Etc, etc. The sources clearly allocate sigcov to the subject, i.e., the person who's making these posts. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out a post made on January 16th. "when can we take this shit down from wikipedia"[23]. This keeps happening. You guys are on twitter too much. I've seen too many times on Wikipedia where an article goes viral on social media and someone takes action. Think for yourselves, don't take cues from Godfrey G. Golden. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Honestly given the amount of information on the page deleting it would need it moved back onto other pages such as Snickers dick vein being added back to the main snickers or merging half this page into the goblin mode article that itself seems to give it notability since this articles existence is the reason that information isn't curently on those articles. If that's done there's a likely chance we just end up recreating this page because some people would rather have an Internet troll/shitposter/"influencer" activities on their own page instead of being littered across a handful of other articles.

2A01:4B00:AD37:D300:5949:8C12:412:23D9 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

. Keep I'd say Catturd and Junlper and a similar level of cultural relevancy. Both have pages, so if this one goes, the other should, too. This isn't a political statement, I have an unfavourable view of both individuals, I'm just attempting to be fair. NesserWiki (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jun1per had 3 seconds of fame, Catturd is still relevant to some point. I am not discussing this in a partisan manner but if Jun1per had remained relevant until now, this discussion wouldn't exist. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here

~~Keep~~ Strong keep. The nomination is very unclear but it seems to fundamentally misunderstand the article. This is not just about a Twitter account or a "page". (I am not even sure what the nomination means by "page".) This is about a person and we have adequate Reliable Sources to show that she is notable for multiple reasons and that, taken together, those add up to sufficient notability. These are not all passing mentions, as some have claimed. She does get a lot of passing mentions but there is sufficient substantial coverage too. There is the 2022 dedicated interviews by Buzzfeed News and Business Insider and the Rolling Stone article. That's three very solid sources where the coverage is substantial and primarily about her or her activities. OK, but is it sustained? It's not as intense as 2022, but we have The Messenger and The Advocate covering her in 2023 and NBC News in 2024. It's not the highest level of notability but I think this is more than enough for an article. Notability is not temporary so it is not like she could have become any less notable since we last had an AfD on this and came to that conclusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing my !vote to change to a strong keep. Even though I think that she is not over the line for Notability by much I am 100% convinced that she is over the line. Even ignoring the bad faith interventions, this discussion has been characterised by people claiming that there is no valid significant coverage, being shown significant coverage, most of it from good sources, and then continuing to claim that there is no valid significant coverage. Some other people are voting delete because they draw the line for "significant coverage" in different places, and that's fair, within reason, although they are not making a convincing argument for where the line should be drawn instead or why. I think that some people are, in good faith, unable to see how a shitposter can possibly be notable. The thing is that anybody can be notable if they meet the criteria, irrespective of what they are notable for. People have become genuinely notable for far dumber things than "The Snickers Dick Vein". Some people are just refusing to acknowledge the significance of the coverage we have in front of us. Starting from the confusing nomination, which never articulated a coherent argument for deletion, this whole thing has become a trainwreck and I think it is time to end this fiasco. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not seeing any real sustained coverage. The sources that do exist are mostly pop culture esq articles that don't really cover the individual. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ this is my source assessment per the sources given above:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.businessinsider.com/goblin-mode-julia-fake-headline-creator-2022-2		~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	Two paragraph	~ Partial
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/juniper-twitter-troll-meme-interview	WP:INTERVIEW	WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS	Obviously, It's an interview	✘ No
https://www.vox.com/culture/23775516/antoni-bumba-blizzy-mcguire-uniekue-selyna-brillare-junlper-kay-poyer-trans-it-girls	WP:INTERVIEW	WP:VOX		✘ No
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/snickers-dick-vein-dont-let-this-flop-podcast-1343163/				✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20231010020600/https://themessenger.com/tech/elon-musk-bans-popular-poster-who-skewered-him-for-eliminating-headlines-on-x				? Unknown
https://www.advocate.com/news/elon-musk-alejandra-caraballo-raichik				? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's the source assessment for the article itself:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/12/06/goblin-mode-meaning-oxford/			No mention, just a link to (Redacted) tweet	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/arts/goblin-mode-oxford-word.html			Same with the Washington Post one	✘ No
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/26/viral-image/no-isnt-real-fox-news-chyron-about-snickers/			No mention	✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23599799/hogwarts-legacy-review-rowling-trans	Feels like an inteview	WP:VOX	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming/hogwarts-legacy-game-jk-rowling-transphobia-1234676730/			Brief Mention	✘ No
https://www.themarysue.com/the-right-wants-to-stop-trans-adults-from-transitioning-because-kids-werent-enough/			One sentence that discussing the subject (Redacted)	✘ No
https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/mrbeast-under-fire-after-fans-mess-with-feastables-competitors-at-supermarkets-across-u-s			just the tweet	✘ No
https://kotaku.com/youtube-mr-beast-titan-titanic-submarine-disaster-1850575265			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-26/mrbeast-decline-titan-submersible-invitation-youtube			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-body-bag/			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			No mention	✘ 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}}.

I'm leaning towards Weak Delete per assessment above Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to The Advocate, while I don't see any specific WP:RSN discussion that gave a definitive conclusion, the times it is discussed seem to show it is generally thought of as reliable. The Messenger (going of the wiki page) less so. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None the less 2 sources seems to not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, well at least for me Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:SIGCOV says is: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The Advocate devotes the last half of its article (several paragraphs) to the situation around her ban, how various figures reacted to it, and how Musk reacted in turn. Junlper is directly mentioned in a non-trivial way, even if the main topic is Alejandra Caraballo. It just isn't the most detailed article about Junlper, so it hasn't been bandied around as much.

The Messenger devotes an entire article to Junlper's ban. The concerns around The Messenger in general don't seem to apply to this article in particular (see my post below), which appears to be original reporting. Both of these sources would meet SIGCOV. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission, half of its article revolves around the ban but not the account itself. Scuba 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate article [24] describes the actions that Junlper took to get banned, the details and timelines around the ban, as well as other the reactions of other public figures to the ban. The ban is of both the account (as technically implemented) and of the person behind the account (you are technically not allowed to evade the ban and start a new account). Coverage of an account's ban is coverage of the account and it's ridiculous to try and separate the two unless you are trying to argue that a Twitter ban of Junlper article would be notable and ought to be created, which you're not. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Looking at the first table, I'm not sure where the red Xs in the GNG column come from. They are not automatically supported by WP:INTERVIEW. The two main points of WP:INTERVIEW are to be aware that interviews repeat claims made by the interviewee without fact checking, making such claims primary sources, and also that PR pieces are very often disguised as interviews. It says "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography." I think the interviews here are more of the good sort than the bad and can't be anything less than a "Partial", maybe more. I'd also point out that The Advocate (magazine) is a print magazine and, to quote the article, "the oldest and largest LGBTQ publication in the United States and the only surviving one of its kind that was founded before the 1969 Stonewall riots". It may not be listed on WP:RSPS but there is a good reason to assume it Reliable. I think that's a green tick in the GNG column. The Messenger (website) was a troubled publication but it was a genuine attempt at a news site written by real journalists. I think that's a "Partial" in the GNG column. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Messenger hired a ton of respectable journalists and editors. The specific journalist in question [25] has multiple years as a journalist in radio and local television. The specific article in question looks like original reporting, whereas some of the concerns about the The Messenger was content farming other publications in its earlier days, which doesn't seem to apply here. I would put it as counting towards GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the second table and I see a whole column of red. I'll just make the general point that not all sources are there for GNG purposes. Some, most even, are there to verify specific content in the article. Junlper gets a lot of brief coverage and passing mentions. Some of them get used in the article for specific valid purposes. Passing mentions may not add to Notability but they can never subtract from it! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution and input since it is perhaps the only argument for deletion here that makes specific references to Wikipedia guidelines and avoids using any WP:ATA. However, I think you make a mistake in seperately assessing biographical sources covering the subject and other sources covering events involving the subject. I believe you will agree that the sources in the "source assessment for the article itself" you've created do indeed provide significant coverage for the events that the subject is a specifically named participant in. Of course, being involved in notable events in and of itself does not make one worthy of their own Wikipedia page, but that's exactly where the sources in your "source assessment per the sources given above" come in. Interviews are not automatically disqualifying and have already been used to cite information about online personalities who would otherwise be anonymous (e.g. Dril). The breadth of her (the subject's) involvement in events covered by reliable sources combined with her own personal significant coverage is exactly why she has a page in the first place, and I believe it makes more sense for it to be that way rather than scatter mentions of her across a number of separate pages. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider piece, which is entirely about Junlper, should fully count towards GNG, since the source is considered generally reliable at RSP for cultural topics, which this would fall into. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Buzzfeed News interview isn't just a straight up interview, it includes a three paragraph blurb about the article subject at the top, so that arguably meets WP:SIGCOV, and woud definitely qualify as non-trivial coverage that meets BIO's WP:BASIC. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like some sources from the article (e.g. the academic commentary) are missing from this. Maybe a script issue? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Jenkowelten (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As someone who regularly uses Twitter, there are far more notable twitter accounts than her who don't have pages. Millions of people know who right wing troll End Wokeness is, but we have no article for them, likewise notorious account Kirawontmiss is infamous on the app and yet again-no wikipedia page. I really do not think this person is notable, Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. If we cover her, there's countless other twitter accounts with similar or greater reach who should be considered for articles. Claire 26 (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the notability criteria you will find that there are very few such people who meet it. For reference, there are only 4 people in Category:Shitposters. There are also articles for far-right social media based entities like Libs of Tiktok and Gays Against Groomers, so it is not like we never cover them. If they become notable then we do. If you know of any others that are notable then you could start an article but please take care to make sure that they really are notable otherwise you could waste a lot of time on an article that gets deleted. Btw, End Wokeness is a redirect to Springfield pet-eating hoax, where they are mentioned, so they get their 1.5 seconds of fame too. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And since Junlper is mentioned in Goblin mode, that should also be her 1.5 seconds of fame. But neither deserves their own article. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We likely do have an article on End Wokeness, since there's very good reason to believe it's just Jack Posobiec, [26], but there's no RSs making that connection. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per the provided sources, not likely to become notable. Jtrainor (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't like how accounts that have been here 10-20 years keep defending the existence of this article just because they share common views with this creator. Trusting seniority is a good thing in my opinion but it can have consequences and cause misunderstandings in websites like this. This person was notable 3-4 years ago, they've lost thier notability ever since and its like keeping a corpse outside for everyone to see. You can trust me that more than 80% of people on Twitter do not know who she is nowdays. There are people who are notable that keep getting nominated for deletion, but this article SHOULD be deleted. One or two senior wikipedians liking what this person did 3-4 years ago does not mean we can keep this practically deceased person in terms of popularity around. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the invective, this argument is explicitly contrary to policy: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. DanielRigal (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LexigtonMisiENG, you can plausibly argue that the subject of the article is not notable. However claiming that the subject was notable but has since lost thier notability isn't really a viable position per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If we say something was notable (per Wikipedia's definition) at some point, we're saying it is notable now. Perhaps you were thinking of the common heuristic WP:10YEAR, but when we invoke that we are still saying the thing was never really deserving of an article at the time (and Consensus has just caught up with that reality). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I !voted keep and think that dropping pills in the concrete impression of an unfortunate squirrel is insanely lame. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned... ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Ashleyisvegan and Patar knight's comments above.--Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking at the arguments from a very policy-based perspective (and not at all from !votes count), the consensus is leaning towards deletion, mainly due to the perceived lack of sustained, substantial coverage focused specifically on the Twitter account itself, rather than the viral moments associated with it. The suggestion to merge relevant content into related articles like Goblin mode appears to be gaining consensus too. Discussions are still ongoing, so a relist would do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After reading some of the sources listed here, I feel like while the sources individually don't really add up to much in my opinion, I also do feel like there's enough reporting on her and the shitposts that it makes it over the line into notability. Procyon117 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comprised of

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

Violates WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ill-formed AfD, but allow me: This article is a WP:DICTDEF padded out with examples and long digressions about what style guides have to say about this phrase. The only significant, secondary coverage in the sources are a few articles about one WP user's crusade against the phrase, and those articles aren't really about the phrase at all (and are fluffy slow-news-day pap IMO). If we really want, we can have an article about that little tiff, but the phrase is as non-notable as it gets. All kinds of word pairings are inappropriate or sound awkward in certain situations; to give them articles violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Giraffedata: I like giraffes. Polygnotus (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's appropriately sourced. They aren't passing references and not fluff pieces. If you have any issue about the sources, those should be tagged first or a discussion on the talk page. Also note that User:Giraffedata/comprised of exists for any alternatives to deletion. – The Grid (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently haven't read the talk page, where the discussion was already started last year, and this is its outcome. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Literature. – The Grid (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with @WeirdNAnnoyed:. There could maybe a case to be made that User:Giraffedata is notable but I really don't agree with the idea that something which a) an editor obsesses about on en.wiki which is b) then covered in the media c) makes the thing notable on en.wiki. That seems perverse. JMWt (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, the solution to that is to take all of the navel-gazing stuff about Wikipedia out, and leave the linguistics. The article was started in 2015 and clearly originated because of that editor. But all of that obscures the reality that there is a linguistic discussion to be had, which many books on English language usage have had going back to at least the 1940s, about the usage of "comprise" and "compose". In retrospect, titling this (say) comprise and compose from the start would have made it less skewed, because the overall linguistic discussion is about a more general confusion, and shift in usage. A yet more general subject is hinted at by the 1906 The King's English where the Fowlers listed this in their section on the "give and take forms" subset of malapropisms; although I am not aware that many people ran with that typology. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Blue (Brian Tarquin album)

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

The reliability of the sources in the article is questionable. I'm unable to locate additional sources about this album, likely doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Frost 21:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, including reviews in Jazz Weekly and Roots Music Review, are included. Popcornfan (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources from legitimate media including Jazz Weekly, Roots Music Report, All Music Guide. Let's make the page live. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcornfan (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using WordArt for album covers should be mandatory. Polygnotus (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's World Chess Championship 1934 (non-FIDE)

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

This was not a world championship match. It was an informal casual match played in Amsterdam (rather than Rotterdam as suggested in the article). I've taken a look at some news sources from the time, and nothing suggests that the world title was at stake (plus, a title match of just four games is absolutely unheard of). I can't find any evidence that suggests that this was actually a match for the world championship, or one of any significance for that matter. [27] 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAU Ventures

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

The venture firm lacks reliable sources; most of the of the coverage focused on launching or some comments. I read them all - only minor mentions, commets, press-release like coverage. no sigcov. The firm is covered most cases like this:

The startup participated in the first cycle of a unique accelerator launched Israel’s Internal Security Agency (ISA, also known as the Shin Bet in Hebrew) and TAU Ventures, the investment arm of Tel Aviv University. [28] Linkusyr (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eloops

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

The article lacks reliable sources with much of the coverage focusing primarily on fundraising events. I did wp before however, it did not help. I also read the current sources and they are only minor mentions, commets, press-release like coverage. no sigcov Linkusyr (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meeting NCORP; poor media coverage. --Cinder painter (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GiantLeap

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

The article lacks reliable sources with much of the coverage focusing primarily on fundraising events. I read them all - only minor mentions, commets, press-release like coverage. no sigcov Linkusyr (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EquityBee

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

The article lacks reliable sources beyond trade press, with much of the coverage focusing primarily on fundraising events. I read them all - only minor mentions, commets, press-release like coverage. no sigcov Linkusyr (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete - does not really pass WP:NCORP, mostly routine tech business coverage Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

The article appears to lack reliable sources beyond trade press, with much of the coverage focusing primarily on fundraising events. the previous discussion was not good and some media outlets which are not reliable were marked as reliable, e.g. this one: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/2021-10-04/ty-article/.premium/an-israeli-startup-wants-to-keep-you-and-your-customers-safe-from-cyberattacks/0000017f-e17b-d804-ad7f-f1fb4bbd0000 it has only passing mentions and comments from the company Linkusyr (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find much else other than passing and/or routine coverage. Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Procyon117 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp

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

Not notable person; trivial mentions, not notable awards (resembling more paid-for lists) no sigcov. Linkusyr (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Turkey. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Muthomi

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

Not notable person; trivial mentions in media, no sigcov. Linkusyr (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Football, Golf, and Kenya. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 per author request. ✗plicit 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCırcle Tech

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

This article's sources show that it is not yet notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not pass WP:NCORP. Taabii (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2025 (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.

Slow Dance (poem)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept in 2013 on the assumption that it could be expanded. Well, it technically could be: A few more sentences could be added from the one reliable source to cover it. But I cannot find any other RS that discuss the poem. The other source currently cited is a now-defunct blog without editorial review, so not reliable. The only other thing I've found is that it is quoted in The 4-Hour Workweek, a self-help book, but I cannot find any secondary sources discussing that, so this does not confer any notability either. Furthermore, even the Snopes article isn't really about the poem: It's about a hoax based on the poem. An article on the hoax would have a slightly better chance at passing GNG, but I think would still fail. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irman Smajić

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

Subject fails GNG and NMMA for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. WP:RS sources whereby the sources talk above the subject in length and depth for WP:V. Also, the subject is not a UFC fighter, as indicated in the article. Cassiopeia talk 06:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Sweden. Cassiopeia talk 06:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete misinformation. non-notable fighter with a 4-1 record and no top tier promotion experience. Greenflipper (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

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

Article relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be expanded further rather than deleted.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

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

It looks like he was involved in a bunch of notable court cases as a deputy DA but none of the refs are about him as an individual, it's all about the cases. The only exceptions are personal bios and this interview about his practice. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, just an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
**Keep**: The article demonstrates notability through the extensive legal career, including high-profile cases, academic roles at UCLA and Pepperdine University, and public impact in the legal field. His involvement in cases with significant media coverage and his contributions as an educator meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and warrant retention of the article. Thefunwithwords (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with the nominator. However, after looking more closely, it’s clear this isn’t just any average lawyer we’re talking about - on the opposite. I also disagree with calling it “just another promo page” because every case is backed by independent sources, and the article itself is relatively well-written compared to similar lawyer pages on Wikipedia. Anyways, here is a breakdown of what I found:
- 1) Senior Deputy District Attorney Experience and Lecturer at UCLA - the individual served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County for many years—one of the largest districts in the United States. This role indicates they managed high-profile public cases over an extended period. He has also been a lecturer at UCLA, teaching two law courses since 2003 (as noted on the UCLA website).

2) Notable Cases - Lawyers can establish notability through the cases they handle. The “Notable cases” section of Gorin includes several high-profile matters, a few of them with their own Wikipedia pages. This list is already significant and it is not even complete.

For instance, the attorney recently defended a Los Angeles Deputy Mayor, as reported here but doesn't appear on his Wikipedia page:

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/

Moreover, there’s substantial, ongoing coverage of this lawyer’s activities across the internet: https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=opera&hs=yp4&sca_esv=2e9d584eca4b7171&sxsrf=ADLYWIJkODkpzSutiQ9Fstquqdk8FeYYWQ:1737252893598&q=Dmitry+Gorin+lawyer&tbm=nws&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0Aa4sjWe7Rqy32pFwRj0UkWd8nbOJfsBGGB5IQQO6L3JzWreY9LW7LdGrLDAFqYDH2Z7s7jqgHIAW8PVnwe_sR_e-RCOLF8PNV6cgrvTe9W1QlY3sOMCnrD6DpPmucUF3Q4DWCnbUQ16OCFEw0bA3f-zorCYPCwItkuWVcknbOv4-nN1bzai1VYTk7zJThGO9aVJKR1TUIesAdeoQ7gAi3QfFsX3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicou6s24CLAxUcJzQIHRecNVsQ0pQJegQIDhAB&biw=1226&bih=552&dpr=1.5

The best sources on his page are from the Daily Journal and UCLA (both appear to be independent with in-depth coverage), but I doubt the editor who created the page has fully captured the breadth of available information or conducted thorough research.

3) Professional Directories - Several nationwide lawyer directories — independent to the best of my industry knowledge — rank him among the top attorneys in the country:

https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/dmitry-gorin/157188/ https://profiles.superlawyers.com/california/los-angeles/lawyer/dmitry-gorin/29d97483-1d6e-4a02-b50d-9a4a91ac68e1.html

My point is that this individual is certainly not a “run-of-the-mill” lawyer; they have played a significant public role, handled numerous notable cases, and also teach at a prominent university (UCLA). 50.39.138.50 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, the article meets WP:GNG. What coverage of a lawyer's activities do we need? To the sources already cited in the article, I can add this one: Gorin Selected to the 2021 Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California [29]. Moreover, in media outlets such as the NY Times [30], CBS [31], and TMZ [32], he provides commentary on high-profile cases he handled at the time. In articles from The Guardian [33] and the Daily Journal [34], he comments on other significant cases. It’s clear that articles about cases he worked on won’t necessarily detail his personal life. The notable cases are what defines the lawyer. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of this person's roles contribute whatsoever to notability. Lawyers can only achieve notability through either significant coverage of them in independent secondary RS, or through academic impact as established by C1. Quotations from the subject never count toward GNG, and that is the entirety of the coverage linked above with the exception of the "best lawyers" press release, which obviously fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to have the lasting notability and is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this article's inclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson, Soft Deletion is not possible for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There's an essay WP:NBEAUTY which states that winners of national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. There is a caveat on the page that it's an essay and not a policy or guideline. I think this should be clarified as if this is not a well-established guideline by consensus, I'd vote to delete this article because while there is coverage of the subject winning the pageant, it is a one event situation as noted by the previous two editors. If notability is conferred by winning a national level beauty pageant that qualifies the subject for one of the Big Four international beauty pageants, then I'd vote to keep. Nnev66 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rodriguez (photographer)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The New York magazine piece is a great feature of his photographs but there isn't much prose about the subject accompanying the photos. The other source is the subject's website. There's not enough indepth coverage here to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant standard here is WP:CREATIVE, which doesn't require secondary biographical SIGCOV. Here is a full journal article about Rodriguez's work, here are two articles about his work in photography publications that I think give very strong evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE criteria 1, and here are reviews/features of his photography books in The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, the American Historical Association and Vice (that last one being largely an interview) that show a pass on criteria 3. The fact that his work has been the sole subject of a large number of exhibitions in galleries and feature pieces in major newspapers is probably also a pass on criteria 4. I think he easily passes WP:CREATIVE. MCE89 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identiv

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

The sources in the articles are mostly routine coverage on industry websites or the company's profile pages on other sites. I couldn't find much besides press releases and passing mentions on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to mention here that, as discussed on Talk:Identiv#Issues identified during AFC, there are sources from most of the largest German media houses that contribute to notability, and which are currently not included in the article. /Urbourbo (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still on the fence about this (note the talk page which includes more discussion about notability than just the additional German references). There is this which is a good source but the only other one I find that could meet WP:ORGCRIT (possibly) is this from Fast Company. The potential issue with that reference is the article was generated for an award that the company paid to be a part of. Not sure how independent it would be since Fast Company has an interest in promoting them based on the award being given from Fast Company. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channels (film)

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

Not sure this meets WP:NFILM, I couldn't find any film reviews but someone else might have more luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Christian: a standard solution when the director has a page, for released films with mildly notable cast. -Mushy Yank. 08:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not meet WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 10:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing out there for this movie. As far as a redirect goes, I want to note that Channels (2008 film) already redirects to the director's page. I would more recommend that this redirect to Channel#Arts,_entertainment,_and_media. There's another film with a generally similar name (The Channel), so it would make more sense to redirect to the disambiguation page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, as far as why I don't want it to redirect with history, it's to avoid people getting confused and trying to redirect it to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is clearly to get rid of the page. I would have redirected it as the less destructive outcome, but objections against redirect have been raised, so this needs a little more policy-based discussion. Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemies (podcast)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Since Frenemies was only a series of episodes of the H3 Podcast, there is no reason for there to be a standalone article about it. This page could be redirected to H3 Podcast#Frenemies and Families, which was the consensus on the previous AfD. The discussion at Talk:Frenemies (podcast)#This was never a standalone podcast also provides some useful information. Badbluebus (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Badbluebus (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H3 Podcast#Frenemies and Families

Never heard of this podcast, but seeing off of what OP says, and doing some research myself, it does fail REDUNDANTFORK in my eyes. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, previous AFD closed as a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (Spain)

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

Minor political organisation with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I found a few mentions of a "Maoist Communist Party" in Spain in books and journal articles, but they were describing organisations of the 1970s, not the topic of this article, an organisation founded in 2019. Yue🌙 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 04:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any WP:RS discussing them. But if someone finds some, I am happy to change my vote. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with/to International Communist League (Maoist). It was covered by the Argentinian site Infobae in 2022 [35], listed here as a communist party in Spain. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage isn't in-depth though. Doesn't make sense to me to convert articles of organisations into redirects to international organisations they are a part of (and thus setting a precedent to create similar redirects). There is no significant coverage of the topic in the international's Wikipedia article and the scope wouldn't necessarily be appropriate either, as this party isn't merely a national branch of the international. I'm not sure International Communist League (Maoist) meets notability guidelines either. Yue🌙 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Half the Infobae article is devoted to the MCP. Precedent has nothing to do with this; there are numerous political party redirects to lists of political parties. The point of a retaining a redirect in this case is because the subject is not an implausible search term however there is not enough material at this point on the subject to justify a stand alone page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Barker

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

This TikTok commentator bio doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. There is a little bit of routine coverage of her viral TikTok video in sources that are not considered reliable, like WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST and WP:FOXNEWS. Nothing here seems to meet SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable because of her TikTok, she's notable for her political commentary which she both publishes with news outlets and other news outlets publish about her commentary. She's actually been a commentator on Fox News itself on TV a bunch of times. I think it's legitimate to say that Fox News is not a reliable source (I think it's rated as yellow) but I think it is notable when somebody is on Fox News regularly because a lot of people see that. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked through all of the citations again and none of them are "routine coverage of her viral TikTok video" -- they are actually covering her writing from The Free Press and Newsweek. I didn't cite her own writing in the article because I figured that would be a primary source rather than a secondary source, but here it is for your reference:

September 18, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-raised-millions-democrats-dnc-i-realized-theyre-party-rich-opinion-1955377

October 7, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-worked-democrats-years-billionaires-have-unfettered-influence-opinion-1961471

October 28, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-party-most-racist-organization-america-opinion-1976128

November 9, 2024 - https://www.thefp.com/p/democrat-fundraiser-evan-barker-i-voted-trump

Fox News appearances:

September 20, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362232260112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362202718112

November 11, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-party-consultant-who-voted-trump-says-liberal-friends-turned-back-her

November 12, 2024 - https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364601436112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364625064112

For the article itself I've cited other people talking about her writing or her TV commentary as secondary sources. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ruthgrace: her own articles don't help to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Appearing on Fox News or Fox & Friends also doesn't create notability either, although a lot of people watch it. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a lot of people seeing a subject on the news wouldn't make that subject notable. It's true that left-leaning news outlets are more likely to be considered reliable on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that subjects covered regularly by right-leaning outlets not notable. Ruthgrace (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources in this article to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirement. Fox News is classified as generally unreliable in the perennial sources list for politics and science. Newsweek since 2013 is classified as marginally reliable. The New York Post is also generally unreliable. I'm not clear about the reliablility of Public News, but the article is paid so it doesn't count. Discussion about The Free Press concluded that it's a self published source, at least as of now, and thus can't count towards notability. At the moment the subject is notable for one event (WP:BIO1E), that she was a democratic fundraiser who voted for Donald Trump. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and if the subject has additional coverage over time in generally reliable sources it should be revisited. Nnev66 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aimsey

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

only notability is being a part/member of a minecraft server. the only reliable sources that are used are dotesports and ign, and they are mostly mentioned in passing, no in depth coverage. Http iosue (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV and relies on primary sources too much jolielover♥talk 16:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia has a wealth of less-than-notable streamer articles with no WP:SIGCOV merely because they have a whole lot of subs on YouTube and/or followers on Twitch, this is definitely one of them. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Swanepoel

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

Not notable. Promo for a business exec. PzizzleD (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Kenya, South Africa, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Khalaf

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

Declined prod that was redirected. Another editor and myself opposed redirect here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_9#Nancy_Khalaf LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar you restored the article and took it to afd before the rfd closed, and did so as the rfd's nom. try to not do that. i know from experience that closing rfds as nom for any reason besides withdrawing is a pretty bad idea lol

in the meantime, delete as a stub with no reliable sources and more external links than article text consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a very uncommon to non-existent discipline. It has been tagged for notability for many years, and just left. No attempt has been made to keep it current and encyclopedic, the main page cloud computing is far more current and useful. Best to remove, there is no useful information here we should be providing readers. This topic is really part of computer science & engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ligaturama (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloud computing: I agree that this standalone article should not exist, as there is no need to maintain the same information in two separate places. However, a redirect seems like a pretty straightforward WP: ATD to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify while the content is related to Cloud computing from the title alone I first suspected that this would about Cloud seeding. MKFI (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @MKFI that a disambiguation is needed, as I too thought of cloud seeding at first. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

AfDs for this article:

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

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Russia, and New Zealand. Kline • talk • contribs 01:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several times national champion and national representative. Several non-trivial articles can be found in NZ chess publications, especially New Zealand Chess magazine. Occasional mentions in international chess books and periodicals, many of them unavailable on-line. Multiple mentions in "The Week In Chess", the standard weekly tournament chess report on the internet since the Usenet days and a trusted source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval for the sources presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santuḷā

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

An unsourced page about a regional Indian dish. It fails WP:GNG for lack of sourcing (in WP:BEFORE search, all I found were blogs, some YouTube videos and other WP:USERGENERATED sources). It also fails WP:NOTHOWTO; Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Draftified a few days ago and then returned to mainspace by the creator with no improvements, so draftification is not an option. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Odisha. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cuisine of Odisha#Curries, where this dish is mentioned and sources are provided, in lieu of this unsourced article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982)

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

This AfD might be the same issue as Juan Alberto Ramírez that was nominated back in November. Even by searching for his name in combination of clubs he played for, I did not find any significant coverage of Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982) to meet WP:GNG. He only played one match for Torino in 2001/02 season, one of the professional football clubs in Italy, before moving to amateur leagues then disappeared for over two decades. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The fact that he is a homonym hinders the search, but it is still possible to confirm the athlete's career at the first levels of Italian football. [36], [37], [38]. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above from Svartner are 2 x database and 1 x profile from the league he played in. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilcalcio provides detailed information, but I agree that more informative sources are missing. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Those are database sources which do not count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read the source, or are you confused with Tutto Calciatore. There is a good coverage of the athlete's career and not just statistical data. The problem is that as I explained, the player is a homonym, so additional sources to ensure WP:SIGCOV are harmed/difficult to search. It's a more complex case than usual. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Il Calcio is AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete—Although I agree that the sources listed above are "not nothing," they are not WP:SIGCOV in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have the bare minimum of sourcing. I did find some passing mentions in an Italian source search which are definitely him from his Serie B days. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the exact references? Passing mentions obviously don't count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Il Calcio is clearly an AI-generated summary of his stats (as are all profiles on that site; GPTzero gave all the ones I tested 100% probability of being AI-generated). LegaPro is a blog network, and anyway it's a routine transfer announcement of mostly quotes. Tutto Calciatori is a database. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Svartner and SportingFlyer. Played 100+ pro games in Italian Serie C. Deifnityl has offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Playing 100+ matches in lower leagues might be a weak claim to notability at best, but there must be WP:SIRS to establish the person's notability, which we can't unfortunately find. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (academic)

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

Please click the blue button that says "show" to reveal my rationale.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/_samllogin/mdx-intranet?url=https%3A//www.s.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/profile?name=smith-emily	~ Former employer but there is probably some editorial oversight on their website	Has a press in good standing I think?	404 error and I couldn't retrieve it from the Internet Archive	✘ No
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts.htm	Website of the organisation that he was the leader of	Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live	Website 404 error	✘ No
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts/people-Smith.htm	Website of the organisation that he was the leader of	Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live	Website 404 error	✘ No
https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/k?id=k#editorial-team	The source doesn't mention the subject so it's independent in that regard .	Emerald Group Publishing appears to be in good standing	Doesn't mention the subject	✘ No
https://wosc.co/board-of-directors/	Website of an organisation whose board he sat on.	No discussion at WP:RS that I am aware of	Just a mention in a primary source	✘ 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}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Academics and educators~~, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Engineering, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He could pass GNG if we consider a combination of awards: the Freedom of the City and the Public Awareness of Physics Award by the Institute of Physics. What do other people think? Bearian (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-notable awards are definitely not enough for ANYBIO and obviously don't count whatsoever toward GNG, which is strictly about coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe awards could potentially support C2 of WP:NACADEMIC/C1 WP:ANY. However, as far as I can see there aren't any reliable independent sources to verify that he actually received those awards so including them is effectively original research.

His TV appearances may support C1 of WP:ENT although the sources used don't verify these appearances and the text implies that he only had supporting roles or guest appearances in these productions.

There may also be C5 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC and his editorships could potentially support C8.

But, as far as I can see there simply aren't any reliable sources to support any of the above. Also, if these subject-specific criteria were present then one would assume that there would be some secondary-source coverage and therefore GNG. Relying on primary sources alone to establish notability usually results in pages that read like lists or CVs and the end result is effectively a secondary source when we're aiming to create a tertiary source here.

Plus, any future expansions may very well lead us down the OR route.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralI am going to abstain from voting for now with a recommendation to allow the discussion to continue for another week to see if any ATDs are possible and reach a broader consensus on what to do with this page. Thank you Bearian and JoelleJay for your insights and contributions thus far.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the discussion of the actual sources. I thank you for the discussion. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noted UK cybernetics and robotics scholar. His presidency of the UK's Cybernetics Society would seem enough to me : with the public engagement stuff and awards and fellowships building to clear notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I would not consider the Cybernetics Society a major institution for the purposes of C6... If he meets GNG from his media participation then those sources should be presented. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather perplexed that this person has just two works (with one citation each) on Scopus? Neither the award nor the society presidency is significant enough for C1, C2, or C6 in my opinion, and for the purposes of C7 I would point to the requirement the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert, which doesn't appear satisfied. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks to me like he meets WP:NACADEMIC C7. The note about being "widely regarded inside academia" is mentioned in relation to having "authored widely popular general audience books", which is not being claimed here, but it does appear that he "is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the source assessment and discussion above, I don't think he meets WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship disclaimer: In the past I was the webmaster for the International Discworld Convention. The website is hosted on my servers so I still have an indirect connection to them.

Primary sources for the convention are:

https://2018.dwcon.org/
https://2020.dwcon.org/ redirects to - https://2022.dwcon.org/ because the convention had to be skipped that year because of COVID
https://2022.dwcon.org/
https://2024.dwcon.org/

Of course these aren't independent sources, so I understand they don't count :)

It's quite an important convention for fans of the Discworld series of books and other things related to Terry Pratchett. Terry used to attend the conventions until because of his illness the travel became too much for him. And of course the conventions are organised in agreement with the Pratchett estate.

What kind of secondary sources would be appropriate for an event like this? Sjmsteffann (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a story published in The Guardian like this one from Ian Stewart (mathematician) or this letter from Elizabeth Alway be helpful? Or a Reddit discussion? Are things like Fancyclopedia or Fanlore useful?

Willing to help make the article better, but careful because I used to be involved and I don't want to mess up or break rules :) Sjmsteffann (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjmsteffann: WP:Self-published sources are usually not used in Wikipedia, because there is no supervising authority which ensures reliability. So Reddit and wikis (which I think Fancyclopedia and Fanlore are) are not helpful. The Guardian on the other hand is an accepted reliable source according to WP:Perennial sources. There is some qualification there for opinion pieces. So I assume these still contribute to notability, as a reliable source has decided to spend space on the topic, and such pieces just have to be used in accordance with WP:RSOPINION, but additional input would be welcome. Daranios (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really count Ian Stewart as an independent source for Discworld, as he's one of the coauthors of the Science of Discworld subseries (with Terry Pratchett and Jack Cohen). Adam Sampson (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Discworld, or possibly keep, depending on the discussion of sources above. The Hollywood Reporter article only briefly mentions the convention, but can have the same use in the Discworld article than it has in the web article: the convention verifies the importance of the fandom for this fictional universe. More importantly, Fans and Fandom, p. 186-187, which as far as I can tell is a personal overview over such things by a reporter and editor in just that field, has a page on the convention. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Discworld convention is still a premier event in the UK (which attracts attendants from across the Anglosphere), even though Terry passed away ten years ago. It is one...I think of five...current Discworld conventions (not including the North American one, which may or may not return). Terry Pratchett was once the best selling author in the UK (and routinely hit number one spot in the main North American charts) for a time. TP's works routinely pops up in The Best Lists. The legacy of the works is being continued with the production company Narrativia, which is currently adapting Terry's works to screen and telly, Good Omens being a recent large scale production, of this sort, and with books being released with the blessing of Narrativia. The Convention actually grew in the years after Terry’s passing and currently shows no sign of diminishing, it's the opposite, as such it is one of the largest, if not the largest (I don't know for sure) UK conventions of it's type based on a sole author's works.Halbared (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Halbared That would be sufficient to keep the article - if you could find RS saying so... (about the convention, because much of your post is about TP, and nobody is suggesting we delete his biography...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as written. It is plausible this could be rescued, but right now I don't see the sources in my BEFORE. Redirect is problematic; this is mentioned in Discworld and Terry Pratchett, but the mentions are trivial. All that said, I think Discworld fandom might warrant an article, and this could be mentioned there, but sadly, this does not exist. And what we have here is, currently, an entry on a likely non-notable fan organization that did not attract any serious, independent attention. Sorry, folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, which can become a merge target for other NN topics. Even if GNG was met, it'd have to be a Gen Con or Origins level convention to escape NOPAGE considerations. Individual conventions are great... but they're better covered in fandom-appropriate articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gen con means a general convention? What is 'origins' level con?Halbared (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gen Con and Origins Game Fair. Sorry, not trying to be cryptic, those are long running, annual, named national/international-scope conventions. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St David's Holy Faith Secondary School, Greystones

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

I can't see any evidence of this subject matter meeting the criteria in WP:GNG. Noting in a Google search that you wouldn't expect for any school. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In my own BEFORE, I found and have added a number of pieces of coverage that are slightly more than the usual ROTM stuff we might expect for any/all secondary schools. Like the F1 in Schools world championship coverage ([39][40]). While things like coverage of the presidential and Taoiseach visits ([41][42]) are mostly in local/regional papers (and don't really add much), that the school building was in receipt of a national architecture award (from the RIAI [43]) is at least partially contributory to a claim under WP:NBUILDING. While I'm not exactly bowled over by the coverage, I don't think that outright deletion is the right thing to do here... Guliolopez (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nataliia Greshchuk

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Deleted in Estonian and Ukrainian Wiki. Mitte27 (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Health and fitness, Medicine, Hungary, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meets WP Basics, enough media coverage on public activities. --Loewstisch (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Nizamuddin

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Punjab. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mahmud Agha

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Universities Consortium

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

Per WP:Verifiability, all content on Wikpedia needs to verifiable. The only source that this article uses is no longer accessible. I cannot find any source about this Consortium's existence that doesn't just copy the Wikipedia article. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Fazlullah Agha

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. Furthermore, the article may have factual inaccuracies because the content contained within it is not corroborated by reliable sources. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Afghanistan. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Women's T20 World Cup

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

This page should be redirected to the Women's T20 World Cup page, as it was previously, until an editor removed the redirect and added content ([44], [45]). No WP:SIGCOV and it is WP:TOOSOON.

The same editor also created another page with a slightly different title (2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup), which is currently under AfD ([46]). Once more sources and information become available for the 2028 event, this page could be developed and maintained as a standalone article. QEnigma talk 05:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. QEnigma talk 05:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Women's T20 World Cup, also noting there's already Draft:2028 Women's T20 World Cup exists. Vestrian24Bio 06:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Osborne (businessman)

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

Insufficient coverage within the references to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANNO: X

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

None of the sources appear to be reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rodrigo Rossi as an alternative to deletion. ✗plicit 14:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for the ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everyone. I am the one who created the article. I did use sources in Brazilian Portuguese, because, well, he's a Brazilian singer and only Brazilian outlets published about it. I chose sources that are considered reliable in the Portuguese Wikipedia, and the article is there as well. They are sites that cover Japanese pop culture news down here. I hope that makes it enough for the article to be kept.Macacaosapao (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide proof that these sources are reliable on Portuguese Wikipedia? These are just blogs. Skyshiftertalk 00:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter Hmmm... I am not sure what kind of proof that would be... can you shine a light? I can tell you that they are not blogs, but news portals. ANMTV, for example, even expanded to ANMTVLA and publishes articles in Spanish for Latin America (https://www.anmtvla.com/). JBox is also a portal, active for more than 20 years. Cavzodíaco is a site specialized in the anime/manga Saint Seiya (which is HUGE in Brazil), and they also have been around for more than 20 years, they have even been mentioned in the official publication of the manga down here. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of articles on Portuguese Wikipedia that use these as sources. The last source, SonicHits, granted, is not one for providing notability, but just for information on track lists.Macacaosapao (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for the discussion on sources given and for consensus for ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Ross

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

I'm not sure this article meets WP:GNG. Ross is only mentioned in passing in a small number of secondary sources and none of those secondary sources are explicitly about him. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass, but there might be a WP:NPROF pass for his research work. His citation count is decent, and his work on things like consulting on COVID-19 modelling and creating some very widely used R packages might get him close to C4/C7. I'm not sure the case is strong enough, but am interested to hear what others think. MCE89 (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, COVID-19, Medicine, California, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups

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

Fails WP:NFILM. After multiple draftifications of the name variations this has been created under, an attempt at a redirect, now here we are. Nothing notable about the production and film still has no release date. Was scheduled for April and now nothing is confirmed. Would suggest a redirect or draftify but again, those WP:ATD have been explored. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous deletion discussion here under one of the alternative names. Also see Draft:Toxic (2025 Film) (declined in November), Toxic (Indian film), Draft:Toxic (film) and Draft:Toxic (2025 Indian film). Other drafts have been merged or deleted under other names and I cannot find the history of those at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main difference from the past AfD is that the film has commenced and completed filming. The big question though is if the coverage is in-depth enough to pass NFF. Unfortunately a lot of pre-release coverage (unless it's some majorly huge blockbuster) tends to be based on a couple of press releases. India related films seem to be particularly prone to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will say in this version's defense, this is better sourced than the one declined at AfC and the one that was previously deleted at AfD. It's all going to depend on whether the sourcing gives a good depth of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% better referenced. The issue, which you talked about, is the quality of the press. A lot of this is churnalism, pre-release promotion, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't see significant coverage about the production and since it has not yet been released (and as of now we don't know if it will - the best clue is "possibly" December 2025) so there isn't even a review for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously an upcoming film from any industry won't have reviews and production details will be limited to avoid spoilers. Release date changes are common, even for Hollywood films such as Mickey 17, which had it's release date changed thrice (no "significant" production details are available for that film as well, and yet, that article has existed since principal photography began 3 years ago in 2022). Coming to Toxic, it has similar coverage beyond press-releases, including in the American media such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, to name a few. Not that Indian cinema needs validation from the West, but that sadly seems to be the case with Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Indian cinema shouldn't need validation from the West. However, it must still have significant coverage that shows how it is notable. Mickey 17 is an WP:OSE argument. Looking at the press for this film which you cited above, they are all based on press releases and are simple churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing even the American media houses like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter of paid "churnalism" when it comes to reporting on Indian cinema? Also, OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that accusation. But, keep in mind that churnalism doesn't need to be "paid." I think you are making an accusation that I am pulling things out of my rear with the IDONTLIKEIT comment. If so, please remember WP:CIVIL. If I read that wrong, then my apologies in advance. As far as OSE, one cannot dismiss it just for being an essay. It is widely cited and applies regularly in deletion discussions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT is as "widely cited" as OSE and is not a CIVIL violation. Even so, my statement was "OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as IDONTLIKEIT", which in no way was directed *at* you. I have been perfectly civil with you, so please do not accuse me of doing things that I'm not doing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinterpret what I said. I never accused you of being uncivil. I merely explained how I interpreted what you said and actually apologized in advance if I read it wrong (written words are hard to interpret at times). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a look at the sourcing and offhand, I have to say that I'm going to say that I'm kind of undecided on whether or not this passes NFF. The basic question we need to answer here is this: if the film were to never release, is the current sourcing enough to pass NFF?

The film industry in India is particularly prone to churnalism. That's kind of a fact of life, so when it comes to sourcing we can't just look at the quantity and publications - we have to look at the content as well. Offhand, I can't help but notice that the coverage is predominantly pre-filming. There's a decent variety of coverage here, as it's not too overly repetitive (ie, not all based on the same handful of press releases). However I'd like to see more coverage of the filming process, as it's not really resolving that basic question/concern. The Variety source is OK, however coverage of trailers tends to be seen as routine unless we have some sort of reaction to the trailer - like a review of sorts. That's missing in this Variety source, however I will note that I found it in this Collider source.

Offhand I'd like to look for more here. It's heartening to see that coverage for this is still rolling in, even with the absence of a set release date. It's not a situation where filming ended and there's just almost complete silence - the current coverage does give off the impression that it will release eventually. The question here is whether or not any of that coverage contains sourcing that could help show this passes NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for films (NFF), thanks to the wide range of independent and credible sources covering it. Outlets like Variety and Collider are reputable and provide detailed information about the film's production and promotion. Yes, a lot of the coverage so far focuses on pre-filming, but that's completely normal for any film, especially one that's building buzz. Early coverage is part of how films establish their presence in the public eye. And here's the thing, as mentioned by ReaderofthePack, the coverage is still coming in, even without a set release date. There are no signs or credible reports indicating that the film won't release, so assuming otherwise would be speculative and just assumptions. On the contrary, the ongoing and consistent media attention suggests strong interest and momentum behind the project. The argument about 'churnalism' in the Indian film industry also feels overly broad. Sure, some media outlets might lean promotional, but you can't paint all coverage with the same brush. Notable global names like Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Collider have written about this film. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't focus on predicting the future and focus documenting what's notable right now. And based on the sourcing and interest this film has already generated, it's clearly notable. Shecose (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is painted with the same brush. However, it is not an overly broad assertion since the community has come to a consensus and created an information section about it called WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is also concerning that you have bludgeoned the process in order to help promote the film. Wikipedia is not here as a promotional tool for film studios. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both edit warred to maintain our views regarding this article. Repeatedly re-draftifying the article after objections from others and redirecting it thrice despite being edited by multiple editors without any discussion, is also a significant concern, also shared by others in the 3RR. You have also acted in a hostile manner towards me by reporting me in various places for questioning your actions while preaching cooperation and civility to others (as above). Now that we are here, let's focus on discussing the article and its notability. The article clearly meets the notability criteria based on the provided references. Also, I'm not sure how much you understand about films and fandom culture in India. Fans often get excited about their stars and their films, leading them to search and edit in this space. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are promoting the film. Shecose (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't wish to write a wall of text to explain how WP:CIR. I understand where you are coming from as with only 77 edits it is hard to understand all of the guidelines that relate to notability and AfD discussions. I will just say if you feel I have acted in a hostile manner, take the issue to WP:ANI where it can be handled properly. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two Keep !votes may not have taken into account the following restrictive sentence in the film notability guideline:
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
. The sources establish that there is significant coverage that the film is upcoming. They don't talk about the production itself, of a film that appears to be in post-production limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify- There was very little question about whether this was the rare exception of an unrelease film that satisfies notability before I viewed the references. There is no doubt. The references are almost entirely press releases and advance publicity about the film. Wikipedia is not a medium for advance publicity about films. An unreleased film is notable only if production itself has been notable, and that is not the case. The references are not about production, but about the upcoming film, and as such they have aspects of advertising and of crystal balling. Very few of the references are independent, and very few of them are secondary. None of them are significant coverage of production. The Variety reference is the closest, but none of the references satisfy general notability for an unreleased film.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Counts toward GNG about production itself.
1	www.indiatoday.in	A long blurb about the upcoming film.	No. A press release.	Yes, but not about production	?	No	No
2	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	An announcement about plans for the film.	No. A press release.	Not really.	No	No	No
3	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	A teaser about various films.	No. Reads like a series of press releases.	No.	No	No	No
4	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	A teaser that isn't really about much	No.	No.	No.	No.	No
5	timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment	A teaser about the cast.	No.	No.	No	No.	No
6	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Announcement of the film.	No	No	No	No	No
7	www.newindianexpress.com	A puff piece praising the technology being used for production.	Clearly not.	No, because the praise overwhelms the description.	?	Yes	No
8	www.cinemaexpress.com	Description of a birthday party	No.	Not about the film.	?	No	No
9	www.pinkvilla.com	Announcement of delay of release of film.	Probably not.	Not really.	?	No	No
10	www.ndtv.com	A press release about a cast selection	No.	Not about production of the film.	?	No	No
11	www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment	A promotional account of the upcoming film.	No	About the film, but not about production of the film.	?	No	No
12	www.telegraphindia.com	States that production has started.	No	Yes	?	No	No
13	deadline.com	Announcement that filming has started and about the cast.	No. Another press release.	Not about production.	Yes	No	No
14	www.livemint.com	Announcement tha the teaser has been released.	No. A press release.	No	?	No	No
15	www.pinkvilla.com	A refutation of rumors that the film is being shelved.	No. Information from the director.	Yes, but not about production.	Yes	No	No
16	www.news18.com	Announcement of the delay of the release of the film.	No.	Not really.	No	No	No
17	www.pinkvilla.com	States that the release will be in December, and about international showing.	No Information from the director.	Not really.	Yes	No	No
18	www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/kannada/the-toxic-journey-begins-rocking-star-yash-article-112363174	A puff piece about the film and the star-director.	No. Reads like a press release.	No	?	No	No
19	Variety	A discussion of the upcoming film.	Yes.	No.	Yes	Yes	No
20	collider.com	A discussion of the teaser.	Yes.	No.	Yes.	No	No

This film seems to be in post-production limbo and will probably be released sometime. If this article is moved to draft space, when the film is released, reception information can be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for draftify as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk

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

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep or soft redirect to wikt:Brazilian phonk. Phonk editors rejected it within the subgenre section. It will probably never be there. Maybe in Funk carioca. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. This whole thing just discouraged me from further involvement in being a wikipedia editor altogether. Kind of has me feeling like I'm offending people without meaning to, so forgive me for not seeing your comment. And thank you for being willing to see more about this. So with case law, they're not actually lawsuits. What happens is that when lawsuits are filed in district courts, and somebody gets a ruling they don't like, they appeal to the circuit courts. If the circuit court issues an opinion on the case, and that opinion gets published, it becomes a law, and it is binding. Roe v. Wade started out as a lawsuit, Brady was a lawsuit, Gideon was a lawsuit, but those cases became law after either a circuit court or the Supreme Court published a written opinion to resolve it. I thought that the fact that it was a law made it noteworthy enough. If I didn't include the relevant citations in the article, that's my fault, but here are a few for you to consider. The Human Rights Defense Center issues a publication called Prison Legal News that circulates information about new case law that promotes human rights. In its 26th Edition, they touched on Dimanche v. Brown: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/publications/volume-1-detention-and-corrections-caselaw-catalog-26th-ed-2016/. They spoke about the First Amendment and the use of chemical agents in retaliation against inmates. The citations used in the article demonstrate how prominent organizations cited Dimanche v. Brown to protect their interests, from the ACLU, to the Institute for Justice, Dimanche v. Brown is helpful in arguing what is precedential when it comes to protecting human rights. Columbia University did a piece on improvements to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that can be found here: https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2021/02/21.-Chapter-14.pdf. They state:

"Suppose you follow the grievance rules, but get a grievance decision rejecting your grievance and claiming wrongly that you didn’t follow the rules. Courts have generally been willing to examine incarcerated people’s compliance with the rules independently rather than being bound by what grievance officials say about it."

Here, they cited to Dimanche v. Brown to encourage students and litigants that courts look at the totality of the circumstances instead of taking grievance officials at their word. Additionally, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, a partner of the Department of Justice, published its monthly law journal on retaliation case law, found here: https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailretaliation.html. Dimanche v. Brown was, again, listed as a case where the courts opt to not take prison officials at their word when grievance mechanisms are in question. These are just publications who find helpful laws that can help their readers, but where you will find the true value in the law is here: https://casetext.com/case/dimanche-v-brown-2/how-cited?citingPage=1&sort=relevance. It is primarily for use by attorneys, but as you can see, the law was cited 178 times by courts in the United States as a foundational point to settle law, and its 18 pages of new laws being set with Dimanche v. Brown giving the courts guidance. As you can see, in 2023 the 11th Circuit published another law, Sims v. FDOC (https://casetext.com/case/sims-v-secy-fla-dept-of-corr-1?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=), and the entire section 4 of that law was founded on Dimanche. v. Brown. Keep in mind, Dimanche v. Brown became law 10 years ago, and it was used as a founding point of reason to resolve an entirely new 11th Circuit opinion in 2023. It is a very important case to people who litigate prison civil rights cases. Finally, in its articles on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, & Government and Administrative Law, Justia published a synopsis on Dimanche v. Brown: https://us11thcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2015/04/18/dimanche-v-brown/. It has its place in civil rights, human rights and prisoner rights litigation, and many litigants rely on it to get justice in their cases because a lot of inmates face retaliation for filing inmate grievances, and when they see that somebody prevailed under the same circumstances, they tell the courts that the 11th Circuit has already recognized how bad the retaliation is in the prisons. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to compile all the sources. I am sorry for the late response; The notification system didn't seem have worked for some reason. My knowledge in law is very limited, so I can't judge how important the case is. Still, many legal publications have included the case in their, I am guessing, list of precedences, so I would definitely support a section in the Moe Dimanche article. However, most of the above sources are a simple synopsis of case, which one could get simply by reading the court filings. There are not much in terms of secondary analysis in the cited sources. Wikipedia is not a mere compendium of legal cases, so I'd support a merge to its parent article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think ordinarily we might agree on !delete for this kind of thing, on the basis of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and a lack of secondary sources. We are not a legal dictionary. On the other hand.. it feels like laws which affect people are a special case, and there could be a lot of things to assess and !delete on this precedence. There are sources, in particular I think this one shows that the case has been cited many times in other cases. I don't know how to parse this stuff, I'm hoping others with better knowledge and legal nouce can give us direction. JMWt (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am open to changing my vote with the opinion of a legal expert, but I believe this should be kept. The case has been cited 178 times in 10 years. The article does have some issues with original research and puffery, but I believe the article can be improved with someone knowledgeable of law who is not related to the subject. Of possible relevance, I separately voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche in part on the basis that the plaintiff is not notable, but the case is notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to allow more input for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Smith

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Not clear that the incident itself has longterm significance.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Katrina Leung, for now. Honestly, we should probably cover them all in one scandal article, but he is notable for being her handler and for the fallout. The event is very notable [47] [48] [49] PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA I think that is a good idea on all points. Just a note, this page will need to be turned into a disambiguation page and not just a redirect because of the Murder of James J. Smith article. We will need to have a page pointing to Katrina Leung and Murder of James J. Smith if we go with this WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Villanueva

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

Subject is only mentioned in passing in the one source. Could find no sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ANYBIO/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is evidence that he produced a certified gold album, Tell All Your Friends. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on production of a hit album, plus his membership in Murphy's Law (band). Bearian (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I... wouldn't take membership in Murphy's Law as indicating much. See Murphy's Law (band)#Past_members. Similar to The Fall (band), the singer is the only consistent member of the band. Great band, but membership is a revolving door. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the rest of the comment for context, I was NOT prepared for the result of clicking that link. wow. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed logarithmic timeline

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

Besides the unique format in which events are presented, neither this article nor its simple counterpart (which I am also nominating here) appear to offer much else of encyclopedic value that wouldn't be possible to find in any of the pages listed within Timelines of world history. They could arguably be analogous to the graphical timelines for the Big Bang and the heat death.

This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. My goal isn't to get these articles deleted, but to see how they would fare when held up against the scrutiny of an AfD discussion such as this one. If this discussion ends in favor of retention, the Keep arguments should be able to give curious onlookers a better understanding of why either article ought to be kept around. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to delete. This timeline is a reflection of a combination of historical topics that can be covered by other articles. We already have Human history, History of Earth, and Chronology of the universe, so this article is redundant. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my favorite wikipedia article! The logarithmic timescale vs. linear scale(s) provides a focus on things and events, in sequence, rather than time or topics. this amalgamates the different aspects that make up humanity, nature and the universe, regardless of categorization. My vote is keep. 178.197.219.230 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this one. I like the combination of information that allows laypeople to make sense, which is a valid reason to keep. On the other hand, every article now needs significant coverage, which might be difficult to find. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page logarithmic timeline. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [50]. I think the "detailed timeline" is also a legitimate page, but it must be a lot less detailed by focusing only on the most important events. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very unusual article, it should be deleted along all the other graphical and non graphical timelines articles that have been erased recently.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is this my favorite Wikipedia page as well, it also is easy to understand and goes through just about everything important. It's not too excessive or too short. Yeah there's a few grammatical errors and spelling errors but those can be fixed! Not only that but if you delete this page, it will mean that we would have to go and hunt and search around for a lot of separate pages for a complete and continuous timeline, if you know what I mean. With this page you have it all right here and you don't have to go to multiple pages. CreatureDominic (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !keep votes, kindly provide proper rationale per P&Gs and sources indicating the relevance of keeping this article as a standalone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Back Magazine

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

This promotional article for a local lifestyle magazine is a WP:REFBOMB that despite 31 citations has not a single source that qualifies for WP:GNG. Consider:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the magazine in coverage, mostly non-independent, or official bios of its founders: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]
Brief mentions of the magazine's coverage of organizations featured in it in blog posts by those own organizations (self-referential and not secondary) [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]
WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs such as the magazine's trademark, gov docs and its own webpages: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]
WP:USERGENERATED business directories: [75], [76], [77], [78]
Pure advertising for Giving Back magazine: [79]

A BEFORE search turns up nothing else. A note on page history: I draftified an earlier version of this page to give the creator time to make improvements, but the page creator requested deletion of the draft and posted a mostly identical version to mainspace again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Mexico, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tollywood Focus

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Deprodding user suggested redirecting this page to List of Bengali films of 2008, but I don't think that it would make sense to do so. GTrang (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and West Bengal. GTrang (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would not that make sense? Is it not a Bengali film of 2008 and listed there? Redirect, as I suggested when I DeproDded (same nominator). -Mushy Yank. 23:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to Keep if DareshMohan and other users think recently-added coverage is sufficient.Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 08:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A Google search with site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com and site:telegraphindia.com "Tollywood Focus" yields several sources. @GTrang: Did you do a WP:BEFORE. @Mushy Yank: consider revoting. DareshMohan (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those sources be supplied for editors to weigh in on?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been a lot of editing and improvements since this went up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangirnagar University Swimming pool

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

Fails every notability guideline meant for man made features (Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Artificial_features), this is just a random swimming pool in a random university, there is nothing special or significant about it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. no sources found + yeah that is completely random brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 02:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Brachy0008 No source found! What are those three ref given at the end of article. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable,". This pool is one of oldest abandoned pool or early made artificial geographical feature. Local sources mentioned already. Though it is a stub, but notable. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement only applies to current or former human settlements, not to a swimming pool! - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not a random swimming pool. Swimming pools in Bangladeshi universities are rare and this is the only swimming pool of JNU. JNU is not some random university, it is the only full-residential university of Bangladesh, it is also one of the public universities. For its inactivity, students from the university had to go ponds for bath and many of them actually died while bathing because the ponds were deep and not safe. It was also named "dead pool" because of it was closed for people. I believe it has social importance according to the notability criteria. I guess Brachy0008 said they didn’t find source because they searched online in English. But you will find several sources in Bengali. The important sources are:

Mehedi Abedin 02:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Dimitri

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious notablity. The previous Afd claimed "good sources" which were subsequently refbombed to the article. I reviewed them (and some others) and see nothing but short blurbs in run-off-the-mill reviews of some circus performances and no significant coverage of the person in depth. --Altenmann >talk 23:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Full quotes from sources cited, for your convenience

One-Ring Circus That Breathes Fellini

Of varying length, they involve the men and women of Les Colporteurs, notably David Dimitri with some nimble, acrobatic tightrope work, in feats of balance, swinging and twirling on ropes, being manipulated like a marionette, flying on a trapeze, clowning and juggling.

The Two-Ring Circus

During celebratory cocktails, they turned their gaze to the Zurich-based tightrope walker David Dimitri (son of the Swiss national treasure Dimitri the Clown) as he traversed a nearly invisible wire a perilous 20 feet above the backyard pond.

Daffiness and Daring In Every Last Ring

Among the daredevils are David Dimitri, the Big Apple's Juilliard-trained Lord of the Wire, who dances to Celtic strains and skips rope on the high wire;

THE FEEL OF A ONE-RING CIRCUS NYT Nov. 22, 1985

Stylistic sympathy notwithstanding, Dimitri had another reason for performing with the Big Apple this year: his 22-year-old son, David, is a member of the troupe. David Dimitri has been performing with circuses since he was 7 years old, when his partner was a llama. Now in his fourth season with the Big Apple Circus, he is thrilled to be on the same bill with his father - but as a name in his own right. I grew up with this image of my dad being very well known in Europe, David Dimitri says. It makes me very happy to be a known, solo performer here, but in the same show with him. It's my own achievement.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know a lot about this kind of thing, but there are a lot of hits on Swiss newspaper archives [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] some more significant than others. A few look pretty OK, but some are reviews of his performances. If not notable, ATD merge to his father, Dimitri (clown), who is notable. There are more but searching Scriptorium is a nightmare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are plenty of hits, because he did plenty of performances. But we need in-depth coverage and the article was not at all improved since its first nomination, hence it exhausted its "presumption of notability" and must go. --Altenmann >talk 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well if the sourcing isn't good enough that's one thing but as far as I'm aware there isn't a set number of AfDs that make WP:NEXIST not apply. There are a lot of listings but there are some sources that seem to be sigcov on the man. So I am unsure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by PARAKANYAA show WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV of him and his performances. I would say he meets WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. He is a performer, so reviews of his performances are what we want. I don't think "the article was not at all improved since its first nomination, hence it exhausted its "presumption of notability" and must go" is a valid deletion argument - as WP:GNG states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." There clearly are sources, it's not that no one has been able to produce any. This is one of many, many WP articles which could be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Meko

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. The subject lacks significant independent sources to establish notability, as most sources are primary, local, or promotional. The achievements mentioned (e.g., DJ performances, single releases) are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The article's promotional tone further detracts from its encyclopedic value. Deletion is recommended unless substantial, reliable sources are provided. Jaypung (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user Injusticegod edited the same article on Simple English Wikipedia Marko Meko and subsequently recreated the article here on Standard English Wikipedia. This raises concerns about a COI or UPE. Please consider this context during the discussion. Jaypung (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reliable source that talked about the subject from reliable sources such as [[92]], [[93]], [[94]] and [[95]]. The nominator of the article is a block user accused for UPE. 102.91.71.93 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. I was unable to find any additional news about this. The available references are limited and primarily interviews or primary sources. Maxcreator (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled al-Ayoubi

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

Article lacks notability. Only citation is a passing mention; found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Was prod July 30, 2012, two days after created. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. --AgusTates (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Syria, and England. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdul Karim

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. AgusTates (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Syria. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Rives

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, Morocco, and France. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator's reasoning, the lack of WP:RS is especially concerning as it is also a BLP. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep: significant coverage in a reliable and independent media outlet, addressing the subject in depth and directly (3 articles) https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/jean-marc-rives-expose-a-leveil-normand_54969366.html https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/sur-murs-leveil-paysages-jean-marc-rives_9291390.html https://actu.fr/normandie/ferrieres-saint-hilaire_27239/eure-ce-peintre-international-sort-un-livre-pour-apprendre-a-dessiner_60960106.html + (not really independent nor in depth) https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id521597/article/2024-05-11/dedicace-de-jean-marc-rives-la-fabrique-de-la-risle-de-beaumont-le-roger A drastic cleanup is due, though. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2031 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Could be redirected to 2031 AFC Asian Cup as an WP:ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are the AFC itself (except about 2027 not 2031) and Wikipedia. This is an event 6 years into the future with a preceding event to come before it. Given all the information is simply about the 2027 event with the belief it will be the same in 2031 it is just pure speculation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 06:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Svartner (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yehezkel Raz

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

BLPPROD and CSD both declined but no additional and reliable sources have been added to the article as a result. Article only links to IMDB and to a primary source. Search for new sources brings no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not finding any better sources from a Google search. ToThAc (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Yusufzai

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

Not notable per WP:SPORTBASIC. Played in one match in an Olympic bracket as part of a team who did not win a medal. Tuscan Ant (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Tuscan Ant (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here

[a]