Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Southwest Ontario Tornado Outbreak of 1984

Can someone actually finish the AFD nomination? Last time, the tag was removed because someone suspected sockpuppetry, but no actual evidence was given nor was an SPI filed. 47.19.209.229 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on edit history and the commentary here, along with the WHOIS location, this is another likely sock of User:Andrew5. The SPI process has proven useless, since the editor hops around on different IP addresses and each admin refuses to indef block each address. When one is unblocked in a few weeks, the user just jumps back to that one and continues the same editing behavior. United States Man (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Every single thing about that article violates Wikipedia policy, and deletion was actually recommended by 2 confirmed non-socks (Elijahandskip and Tails Wx). So it becomes clear you’re grasping at straws to engage in more WP:SQS. You do remember that your WikiProject is being tightly watched following the ANI incident, right? 172.85.249.214 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Nacelle (film producer)

Could someone please finish this nomination? Rationale: Company doesn't meet notability requirements.

Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops the link was missing before, sorry. Could someone please complete the remaining steps? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The version of the article with the AfD template is here. Unfortunately it keeps getting removed by people who don't understand this procedure, and I don't want to get in trouble for Edit Warring to reinstate it. Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I may have had a brain fart there. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for completing the nomination, much appreciated. Sometimes I could use WP:IMADUMMY too! All the best, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That'll Be the Day (musical)

This article about a UK theatre show has only two citations, one of which is a dead link and the other to its own programme 15 years ago. A web search returns only this page and its own website. Nobody notable appears in the show, or anybody with their own page. 86.1.92.136 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't do the AFD correctly, so I fixed it so it transcluded to the proper areas.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Manish Hathiramani

Rationale: Biography doesn't meet notability requirements.

Could someone finish the remaining steps please? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

180.150.37.213, I see that you added an AfD template. You need to be a registered user in order to nominate articles at AfD. Create an account and then nominate it. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It was done in accordance with the second paragraph of the AfD instructions. Therefore, could someone please complete the remaining steps? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Galobtter thank you so much! I hope it wasn't too much trouble. All the best, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I just used twinkle to do the nomination so it was no work. If you register you can do so too :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Jessica Pierce

Rationale: Subject does not meet notability requirements. No secondary resources discuss Pierce, her life, or explain why she warrants a biography. There are a few book reviews for a book she co-authored but these reviews focus solely on the book. Perhaps the book should receive an article? I have removed passages that refer to how Pierce feels about her associations to certain universities. These statements were not sourced to anything. This biography was clearly written by her friends, and I believe her friends are obstructing the deletion process. I believe this is a vanity project. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"The page "Jessica Pierce" does not exist." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

That works. Lol. Thanks for your time. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify for the record, the page was speedy deleted for WP:A7. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure A7 was technically correct; the article at the point it was deleted said "Pierce has authored or co-authored over 30 articles in peer reviewed journals and chapters in scholarly edited collections". DGG can you advise if A7 was correct here? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Persons with a doctorate submit their work to peer reviewed journals. That's just a function of their job. Just googling around, it looks like some doctorate students who work hard can have ten or more papers and have over 100 citations before they graduate (https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134555/how-do-some-phd-students-get-10-papers-is-that-what-i-need-for-landing-good-fa). Pierce with 30 articles authored and co-authored in 45 years is nothing particularly notable. Especially when there are no mentions of her in newspapers, no autobiographies, and no evidence that her work is cited extensively by her peers. Sagsbasel (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I also found this: "Materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, former president of Tohoku University in Japan and a member of multiple prestigious academies, holds the record. He met our definition of being hyperprolific for 12 calendar years between 2000 and 2016. Since 1976, his name appears on 2,566 full papers indexed in Scopus." Sagsbasel (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I did start a discussion about the A7 at User talk:Deb#Deletion of Jessica Pierce. I mean she doesn't look like the most notable academic out there and quite possibly isn't but the fact that we're discussing this clearly indicates that she deserves an WP:AFD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ridi Corporation

Rationale: Article sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH requirements.

Could someone finish the remaining steps please? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Orna Guralnik

Rationale: Lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of Couples Therapy (2019 TV series).

Could someone please complete this nomination? 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ambassadors

I'm new to the AfD pages so thought I'd ask a question here before messing up too many discussions.

A number of articles about ambassadors are currently in AfD as "Ambassadors are not inherently notable". However, each British ambassador I have looked up has had an article in Who's Who (UK) (I believe it's an editorial decision for that book to include all British ambassadors), which seems to make them notable under WP:ANYBIO #3. So I thought I'd get some thoughts here before going too far with the idea "Ambassadors are not notable but British ambassadors are notable because someone at A & C Black says so". Cheers, Mgp28 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:For what it's worth (I'm a AFD regular, disregarding no-consensus !votes, 76% of my !votes match consensus, I lean more towards keeping than deleting biographical articles) I think your logic is good and your argument is fair, I'd suggest framing it like:

• Keep, due passing WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary due to presence in Who's Who (UK) on page XX of the 20XX edition.

CT55555(talk) 13:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You would get pushback over this (but not from me) because many editors are more familiar with the US Who's Who publications and these folks will not believe that the UK version is any different, and (2) although the UK version is selective, the entries are written by the subject followed up by somewhat slight editorial oversight and so the independence can be questioned. On AFD generally, in my experience it is best to accept that it is an arbitrary process. Thincat (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. This source is also not "a country's standard national biographical dictionary", so it does not fit the WP:ANYBIO guideline. However, I encourage you to participate at AfD, including to offer sources and ask questions, because the format is a discussion. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is very good advice and nullifies mine! CT55555(talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you all for your responses. I had thought Who's Who's content might be questionable but that its main claim was that its entrants were notable.

  From WP:ANYBIO I thought I had followed a link for national biographical dictionary and found Who's Who as the first book referenced, but now I see that the link was only to biographical dictionary.

  Thanks again, Mgp28 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  PS Is there a list of countries' "standard national biographical dictionaries"? It sounds like the sort of title lots of publishers would like to claim. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia has decided that the content of WW should not be considered to be altogether reliable due to its autobiographical nature (although, in my experience, almost all entries are completely reliable and the waters have been muddied by a handful of over-exaggerated claims), that is an entirely different issue from its use to establish notability. People are selected by the WW staff to appear on the basis of their notability. They do not apply to be in it and they do not pay to be in it. I should also point out that, in the UK, WW is considered to be a standard and reliable reference work and in pre-internet times was held by almost all public and university libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is in my local library, and in general I thought most errors were of omission rather than outright false claims.

  Regarding notability, if the publishers have a policy to include all British ambassadors then their presence in Who's Who simply reflects that policy rather than being a comment on the individual's notability. (I tend to expect that many ambassadors would be notable but that's a separate discussion.) --Mgp28 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  And there's the rub. WP consensus has decided ambassadors are not inherently notable, WW has decided they are. Their editorial policy doesn't shape WP's, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Strict rules

This is an unnecessary redirect to Rules of golf that was clearly created only to match the name of a link on the Golf page, which could easily have used a link like this: strict rules. The page was clearly not meant to be linked to from any other page. (I can't nominate this article for deletion because I do not have an account.) 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to blank the page and fix the link but we should still remove this article. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)