Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 20	July 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berle Sanford Rosenberg

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, as well as lacking significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination and multiple issues TAG on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 June 2023 (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 14:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A basic internet search present his notability in Hungary, the .Hu sites, as well as in Japan and Korea. He is an adjunct professor at Ersta Sköndal University College in Stockholm^[1] according the German Wikibrief. In terms of international citations, he meets WP:GNG with the academic professorship adding WP:PROF.1IceCloudStation (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2023

References

^ "Berle Sanford Rosenberg". de.wikibrief.org. Retrieved 2023-07-11.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could find nothing of note upon a Google search on him other than passing mentions. Does not have significant coverage, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Heart ^(talk) 03:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per HeartGlow30797. I'm surprised there isn't more coverage from classical critics like in this column, but I'm not seeing it. -- Visviva (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumqayıt (album)

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

Non-notable album. Found no RS discussing the album, the corresponding page in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia also has no sources. ULPS (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Azerbaijan. ULPS (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Charsaddian (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to suggest redirecting to the band's article as is common procedure, but that might be a problem because Sumqayıt is also the name of a city in their country. The album itself has no reliable notice from the media, at least under the two different spellings given in the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and relevant SNGs. Unlikely that significant offline coverage exists. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of the Spirit Ministries

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

Non-notable religious congregation, largely relying on primary sourcing. Seems to be a functioning church, nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While sources establish its existence, they do not establish its notability. Chamaemelum (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Par nomination. Platemashh (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" argument doesn't make much sense...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the delete I suppose? Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Keep it has the likelihood to improve and it's a notable organization in Nigeria, I feel it should kept. Whinehardy (talk) 8:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whinyharedy (talk • contribs)
Keep This church is discussed in academic sources on Nigerian Christianity, including Steve Brouwer, Paul Gifford, Susan D. Rose, "Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism" (Psychology Press / Routledge, 1996), p. 174–175, which discusses its October 1990 "Operation GAIN" five-day religious crusade in Sokoto, Nigeria, and the harm which the anti-Islamic rhetoric of that crusade did to Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria. I can't explain the contradiction between that book's claim that this happened in October 1990, with the article's claim that the church was founded in 1993, but the book is from a respectable academic publisher, so I'm inclined to think it is more likely to be accurate. Anyway, I think this church is definitely notable, and the impression that it isn't is due to the WP:BIAS problem of the difficulty of finding reliable sources (especially online) on events and institutions in African countries, even when those reliable sources actually exist. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, as well as being covered in the academic literature, this church is also regularly covered in the Nigerian media. See for example https://tribuneonlineng.com/nigeria-needs-restructuring-to-avert-retrogression-bishop-wale-oke/ – and consider also that the Guardian Newspaper (by which I mean the Nigerian one not the UK one) covers their leader (Bishop) frequently enough it has a whole tag for articles featuring him – https://guardian.ng/tag/bishop-francis-wale-oke/ – I'm sure if someone looked at offline archives of Nigerian newspapers there would be heaps more coverage. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Leaning keep; I do expect there are probably good offline sources given the large number of passing mentions elsewhere. I don't see any really excellent sources directly on the subject of this organization. Most of the academic sources look like passing mentions to me. Here's the full extent of the relevant material from the book mentioned above about Operation GAIN, which consists of a few substantive sentences: Brouwer, Steve (1996). Exporting the American gospel: global Christian fundamentalism. Internet Archive. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-91711-7. In October 1990, Sword of the Spirit Ministries of Ibadan, with preachers from London's Kensington Temple and Elm Pentecostal Churches of Scotland, launched their Operation GAIN with a five-day crusade in Sokoto, the historic seat of Nigeria's caliphate. … The operation was "directed at destroying the enemy's strongholds and deceits in Sokoto"; the preaching "unveiled the enemy's oppressive weapon of deceit in the lives of the people"; and by the end "well over 4, 500 adults had been delivered from the devil's clutch". Suriname0 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SomethingForDeletion and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Campaign vs. Free Speech (1836-38)

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

I'm not quite sure what the subject is to be honest, but this seems not so much an encyclopedia article, rather an instance of original research. I can't find other reliable sources connecting the murder of Lovejoy with ending free speech in general. ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure OR; there isn't any source I can find that refers to the mob killing of Elijah Lovejoy as the "Alton Campaign vs. Free Speech" except the self-published book that is cited in the article. The article itself just strings together a bunch of disconnected events where a public figure mentioned the Lovejoy killing, without making any effort to link them; these events are covered better in other articles and thus the Alton Campaign article duplicates other WP content (badly). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was good critique that the issue of orphan article should be addressed. As that issue was in the process of being addressed, it appears that WeirdNAnnoyed destroyed the capacity to make those links – rather non-constructive. Does WeirdNAnnoyed run Wikipedia? This antagonistic behavior discourages those who are not "insiders" from taking the trouble to contribute to Wikipedia. Ark2 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I documented some of my objections to the article on its talk page. Were the contributor more amenable to taking constructive criticism, I'd suggest draftify while working through the POV issues and unsupported claims. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an attempt to respond to good critique. Maybe Wikipedia experts can do this better. Ark2 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum address. There is good info here, but it's not an article. The title seems like complete WP:OR, it reads like an essay, and the crucial points are either covered in the Lincoln article or belong as background in the Lyceum Address. I don't see draftify fixing this. Last1in (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Elijah Parish Lovejoy already covers the events that this article attempts to be about. Since this title is very clearly not a viable search term, as this name is not used outside a single obscure self-published book, there is no reason to redirect or merge anything. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~but double-check two articles~~, I am really confused by the title and how Lovejoy's murder links up to events 1950 and after. That is a stretch without out any connective events and a reason why they are said to be connected. I am guessing that the real impact would be something like Hate speech in the United States, Hate crimes in the United States, or Racism in the United States (not that I'm advocating for edits there, just trying to say that there are articles that cover this kind of content). I will double-check two articles Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War and Elijah Parish Lovejoy to see if there is anything that could be added there. (There's also Origins of the Civil War, but the article focuses on events closer to the beginning of the war.)

Also, there is some content added to Abraham Lincoln's article at Abraham Lincoln#Education and move to Illinois, but that's the wrong section. Some editing is needed and some is uncited. So, I will check that out, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln article - Removed content from the wrong section - and summarized into in a section of that timeline (1836 to 1838) here.

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War added 1836 Lynching of Francis McIntosh here.

Added Jon Meacham's opinion to Elijah Parish Lovejoy here. There's already mention of Francis McIntosh and Abraham Lincoln in the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out the part that is done in my vote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Bluff Catcher

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

Non-notable poker hand? I'm not even finding what to classify this under in the bot, nothing for notability regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Brand new article that clearly needs some work. It's touching on notable concepts that are not present in Bluff (poker) right now. There's a possible redirect target at Garrett Adelstein#Adelstein-Lew Controversy, but that's very specific and can't cover the broad concept here. —siro χ o 23:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't understan your comment about the "non-notable poker hand". the article is providing information about the "Pure Bluff catcher". Could you specify what excatly should be imrpved in the article? NicoleBaker37 (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some cruft from the article but A) the term is commonly used (I'm not a player but I know it quite well) and B) there is sourcing out there. Sources for bluff catcher/pure bluff catcher:
- [1] A definition of a bluff catcher
- [2] Definition of a "pure" bluff catcher.

I'd say redirect to Glossary of poker terms#B is probably the best outcome. Or merge with a one-liner at #P. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support either of these redirect options as well, as they preserve the history. We could even draftify alongside this redirect (though then a move to mainspace requires an admin). —siro χ o 23:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or redirect since it's a new article; the author needs to work more on showing how this meets GNG. No footnotes, general bibliography, this is not up to modern standards for articles we accept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Notability is not adequately demonstrated in the article. It‘s also largely written like a guide or manual, which is inappropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to S. Radha Krishna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haarika and Hassine Creations

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

Bringing this here for discussion. The main factor that sets this apart from the 2017 and 2020 deletions that led to the SALTing of Haarika & Hassine Creations is the release of Ala Vaikunthapurramuloo which is unquestionably notable. The award, and a lot of the coverage speaks to the film and I'm not sure whether that rolls up to the production company and or S. Radha Krishna, which is why I'm not necessarily advocating for a merger to the founder. SInce they have been involved with other films, merger to the notable one doesn't quite work either. Thoughts? Tips on N:ORG level coverage for the production company? If this is deemed notable, I think the other title should be unSALTed and this moved as it is the DBA. Star Mississippi 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, Companies, India, and Telangana. Star Mississippi 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This production company is highly notable production company in Telugu film industry. NaanReady (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject does not meet WP:NORG. Only 10 of the article's references mention the subject. Eight of them just mention that it is the production company for a film. The other two just seem to list the films that it has produced in prose. This is all trivial coverage. The awards are for the films not the production company. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to S. Radha Krishna as a new L2 section, otherwise delete per SailingInABathTub. We are in that odd liminal space where the same facts lead to opposite results as applied to an individual vs. a company, so merging to the individual who is deeply (and apparently exclusively?) linked to the company seems like the best way to preserve encyclopedic content. This can seem like an oddly bureaucratic result but there are reasons for it. I am not sure if any of the tables should be merged, but at least the content of the lead and Production sections can be (and therefore should be). -- Visviva (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge appropriate content to S. Radha Krishna, the company on its own fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Visviva. We have an almost identical "liminal" situation (personal vs. corporate) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoND - also relisted 3 times.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn with no dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Volpicelli

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

~~Not notable under WP:NPROF, is an emeritus associate professor.~~ Mason (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACADEMIC with one article cited over 2300 times, and others cited > 500 times. Lamona (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure that that meets the criteria for highly impactful, as my impression was that they were a ~~middle author on those highly cited papers~~. facepalm, I clearly missed this one Mason (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to withdraw a nomination? (I'm still new to new page reviewing)Mason (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Forum for Architecture and Urban Design

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

This seems to be a real organization, but unsure of notability. Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and California. Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Architecture. Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Oliver (record executive)

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

Only source is WP:ABOUTSELF. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Music. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pet nom and WP:TNT. Creator and primary writer's talk page is troubling. They were indeffed after a checkuser block discovered all sorts of socks colluding in promotional editing. We don't write WP:BLP's to a single first party source. A lot of their other creations have been since deleted for similar issues as well. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can't find any in-depth coverage that meets WP:BLPRS online. article reads like a promo/resume. ARandomName123 (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCV. Some passing mentions in Billboard and books but not nearly enough for WP:BASIC [3][4][5], etc. —siro χ o 19:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only one or two brief mentions in a Billboard newspaper, and nothing else reliable. I've also noticed that the article follows a very similar structure to the LinkedIn profile for this executive, so I have a feeling that there might be a COI with the creator. Either way, article fails WP:GNG due to improper sourcing, and also fails WP:NBIO. The Night Watch (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I've never stated this in a closure before but I'm basing this decision in part due to majority views because there are conflicting interpretations of WP:JUDGE. The other option is No consensus but there seems to be a majority of editors seeing this as a Keep situation.

It's disconcerting as a regular closer of AFD discussions to have such a wide variety of closure results for indviduals in the same occupation. Maybe it's time to amend WP:JUDGE to be more definitive? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J. Maddox

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

does not meet notability under WP:NPOL and is WP:TOOSOON since nominee has not been confirmed as a federal district court judge. There are also no secondary sources Let'srun (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench & announced on the White House official home page are notable for that reason alone. Most nominees have numerous other reasons they are notable without the announcement, otherwise they wouldn't make it to that point. Even if the nomination fails it receives numerous headlines & therefore the person is still notable.MIAJudges (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges, "Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable." Let'srun (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:USCJN section on U.S. District Court judges directive states a nomination doesn't mean they are inherently notable but that does not mean the nominees aren't notable. A person is never nominated to an equal branch of government for a lifetime appointment by the leader of the executive branch without having a lengthy career & background. All of the nominees have references to their careers in the press. The president's own announcement details each of their bios. MIAJudges (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There simply are no independent, third-party, reliable sources that give the subject the "significant coverage" in multiple sources the GNG requires in order to meet notability standards. By contrast, being nominated to the federal bench or appearing on the White House website meet no notability standards on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 06:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every single previous nominee to be a federal judge in the history of Wikipedia has never had their page taken down or moved because they were not notable except for Tiffany Cartwright. And her page has been reinstated but she hasn’t been confirmed yet. So respectfully, what your advocating is actually going against standards on Wikipedia. MIAJudges (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, notability is determined through meeting one or more of several notability guidelines: in this case, for instance, by meeting WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV or WP:POLITICIAN. SIGCOV is the key here: it is not sufficient for a source (however reliable) to say "President Biden sent Soandso's name to the Senate for nomination." SIGCOV goes into some detail about what's needed, but the gist is that a source needs to discuss the subject -- not the nominating process, not President Biden, not the Senate Judiciary Committee, the subject -- in "significant detail," so that an article could be credibly made from that source alone.
And that is it. I've told you a couple of times over that there are no other pertinent, explicit criteria. I have challenged you a couple times over to demonstrate that there is pertinent, explicit criteria such as you describe. We do not make determinations based on the standards you think should be in place were you the one making the rules here. We make them based on the notability criteria already in place. Period.
A couple more corrections: you state, without the slightest shred of evidence, that every single previous nominee had an article prior to their confirmation. You also state, erroneously, that the Cartwright article has been reinstated to articlespace. It has not. It is in draft space right now. Ravenswing 10:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing

You know very well that the Tiffany Cartwright page was back up when I wrote that. The page was taken down AFTER I wrote that & you know it was. To write I "state, erroneously, that the Cartwright article has been reinstated to article space" is misleading when you know it has since been moved back after I wrote that. I will assume your acting in good faith (Although your comments on the Janet Hall deletion page is making that harder for me to do) & perhaps you made an error in your false assertion.

MIAJudges (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, I did not know one way or another, since I was not responding to your statement at the moment you wrote it. I checked to see if it was indeed up and found that it was not. As to acting in good faith, it would be good faith to strike your erroneous statement. You have not yet done so. Ravenswing 04:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were not responding to my statement??? I did not see a separate paragraph for your statement. It was right under my statement & contradicting what I wrote in my statement. I wrote mine at 06:19, 1 July 2023 according to the time stamp & you wrote your statement (Once again directly under mine) at 10:28, 1 July 2023 a full 4 hours later. But I will assume good faith & perhaps it was all a coincidence.

MIAJudges (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agree with Ravenswing in full. This is getting tiresome; I'd encourage certain commenters to cite policy. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 14:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per GNG, nominated doe to nom's political views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken How does it meet WP:GNG? I have no political agenda, I am simply tired of seeing articles created WP:TOOSOON due to WP:CRYSTAL. Let'srun (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For pity's sake, I'm a liberal. I've voted straight ticket Democrat since 1980. And I don't care if Biden, or Trump, or Emperor Joshua Norton nominated this string of hopefuls, the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Claiming that the nom is on an anti-Biden crusade is a charge requiring some very stern evidence. What's your evidence? Ravenswing 13:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence, feel free to share at [[6]]. I'll just note that I also nominated [[7]] for deletion, and he is a Republican. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom (and per WP:NOTBURO, I guess). I have not been able to find more than incidental mentions in news media, related to cases over which he presided as magistrate judge or in which he argued as AUSA. But given the reasonable likelihood that NPOL will be met soon, I don't see any particular reason to make extra work for future editors by deleting the article. -- Visviva (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Draftify Draftify per this discussion Snickers2686 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there could be a consensus to Draftify this article, as the later participants suggest.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy Andre🚐 03:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep It is difficult to understand what the debate is about. He is a current judge who is a pending nominee for Senate confirmation to the federal bench. He is notable now for that reason alone; should he be confirmed, that will make him notable by all WP:BLP criteria in perpetuity. This is a keep. Go4thProsper (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maddox does not pass WP:JUDGE as of now since he is only a magistrate judge. Let'srun (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh: The coverage looks pretty marginal for meeting WP:GNG. And yet, his confirmation as a federal judge is imminent. So if people want to draftify this just to move it back to main space when he's confirmed, go ahead I guess. Marquardtika (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Setting aside this strange crusade taking place to delete pages of federal judicial nominees currently pending before the U.S. Senate, he is a current U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Maryland. I fundamentally disagree with any reading of WP:JUDGE that discounts that service. Valadius (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a current judge who is a pending nominee for Senate confirmation to the federal bench. I don't think that him being "just" a magistrate judge discounts him per WP:JUDGE Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist given recent keep arguments that magistrate judges should meet WP:NJUDGE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they're already a judge with a pending nomination, and the coverage is at least trending beyond marginal. Mason (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the best argument against considering United States magistrate judges to meet NJUDGE is found in footnote 13 to the guideline: People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion (i.e. WP:NBASIC). That's not really true of magistrate judges in my experience. And the reason why Article III judges "almost always satisfy" NBASIC is, I would venture, precisely the confirmation process and associated politicking. (Plenty of judges happily vanish into obscurity as soon as they join the bench.) OTOH, it might be reasonable to give magistrate judgeship some weight in borderline cases, even if we don't give it conclusive weight. -- Visviva (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think WP:BASIC due to:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-pol-biden-baltimore-judges-20230320-amucz5rwsnhx3d343qcke4nopm-story.html. (that's behind a paywall, but you can read the content here)

Other significant coverage, but I'm not sure of their reliability:

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

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

The result was delete‎. The standard is NCORP and the keep side has not overcome the source analysis. Assertive policy lite votes were given limited weight. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valnet Inc.

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

'Investment company' and/or 'content farm', article has barely any content - not enough to differentiate between these two characterisations - and certainly nothing to assert notability - sourcing is similarly patchy, with the usual routine funding announcements, press releases, acquisitions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; WP:CORPDEPTH. I would refer interested parties to WP:SERIESA. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Websites, and Canada. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've worked on the article. In my opinion, relevant are WP:NCORP § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations and WP:NOT. Sufficient reliable sources discuss the significant and demonstrable effect that this media conglomerate has had on culture and entertainment. I'm referring particularly to the major structural changes it makes to its acquired websites, with a recent example being CBR.^[1]^[2]^[3] The article barely having any content makes it a stub, not a candidate for deletion. It is an investment company that runs content farms; if this is unclear, it does not make it a candidate for deletion, but for copy editing. But, yes, there's definitely room for improvement.

References

--2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. A few weeks ago this might have been a delete as Valnet has stayed under the radar with routine coverage. But the timing here put us in an interesting place. We have in-depth, direct significant coverage from the who's who of reliable genre publications, independent of the company (if we consider whistleblowers as independent), the only issue is whether they qualify as secondary sources. I think its fair to say most of the articles are a hybrid with a good amount of synthesis of information and background. —siro χ o 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable per 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A's comments and refs. These refs definitely meet our standards for reliability - I checked.

--User:A. B. 20:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Private Equity--21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All three sources introduced by SPA 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:BCB1:BFE1:C37F:5C6A (~~whose sole contribution to WP is to this AfD~~) refer to layoffs at CBD following its acquisition by Valnet. Again, the stuff of WP:SERIESA - routine company events reported in specialist vertical/trade media. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Alexander, there's nothing wrong with specialist vertical/trade media. Our notability rules don't rule them out. They just need to be reliable.
2. As for "routine events", this articles refs above actually refer to drastic problems developing - hardly routine. Not only that, but CBD's problems are directly attributed to new Valnet management and policies.
3. WP:SERIESA ("Wikipedia is not Crunchbase") is an essay, not a policy or guideline. It has a boxed caveat at the top:
  "This is an essay on notability."
  
  "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
  The essay was written by just 2 people -- there was no RfC or broader community input that I'm aware of.
  
  I'll note that some of the things the essay cites as "routine" are anything but -- indicating a flawed understanding of business. Bankruptcy, for instance; corporate death is a major "life event". Mergers and acquisitions for another; a company gets bought or sold and that's another major life event.
4. IP editors are valid contributors under our rules. Some of my best edits were made as an IP.
A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, in response to your statement, "whose sole contribution to WP is to this AfD". My provider appears to have given me the whole 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:* IPv6 subnet. As I wrote, "I've worked on the article." I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, from various IP addresses. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:38A1:AC8A:19C1:5D08 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, with thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit history, this article was created by a 2001:1c06:19ca:d600 IP [8]. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if 2001:1C06:19CA:D600:38A1:AC8A:19C1:5D08 has a comment on that? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT. Reads like a brochure advertising article. Currently fails WP:NCORP, after looking at the first two blocks of references. Can't see how it is notable though as they're is currently no definition of what it actually is. Its been put up as a brochure advertising article with little thought, (meaning contemptous of wikipedia) by paid editors. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable accusations aimed at me, the primary editor of the article. To state that payment made me attempt to, contemptuously and thoughtlessly - no less, advertise the company. The listing of brands, and the sentence about their pay-per-view system, must have really ticked you off, huh? The sentence about the company being a "content farm business" isn't exactly a compliment, and the subsequent sentence about it motivating its freelancers to get pageviews further emphasizes the company's clickbait priority. Something I reiterated in my contribution to this AfD above; and you actually think I'm attempting to promote the company? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references, in the first two blocks:

Ref 1 [9] Non-rs.
Ref 2 [10] "We cannot be more thrilled that Little Angel has found the right home with Moonbug,” commented Hassan Youssef, CEO of Valnet, the Quebec, Canada-based company that operates Little Angel." Fails WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND. Comes from a press-release
Ref 3 [11] Paid for company profile.Not independent Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 4 [12] Company profile and listing of press-releases.Not independent Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [13] Company profile. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 6 [14] Looks like a secondary source until you realise it fails WP:ORGIND as company interview used to gather info. Not independent.
Ref 7 [15] Passing mention. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 8 [16] Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Info taken from press-release and company employees. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 9 [17] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [18] Company sale. Routine coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Info from a press-release. Not independent.
Ref 11 [19] Content taken from a company press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 12 [20] More routine coverage of sale. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Not independent.

There is not a single secondary source in the whole two blocks and I have a severe doubts there is anything of note in the third. As a private company there is no coverage that hasn't been generated by the company itself. It completely non-notable as it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 19:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing here is pointless. Context is completely missing, both for references individually (i.e. what they are used for), and for the references in general. For example, you start off with "Non-rs", about an official department of the Government of Canada giving us the date of incorporation. It is a stub article. Many of these references are merely used to back up claims about brand ownership. I urge you to look at the bigger picture. Perhaps you are willing to first read the other contributions on this AfD page, and give your views on the alternate criteria in relation to the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is company incorporation documents. They are WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and are effectively non-rs and not independent, meaning they they fails WP:SIRS, by long established consensus. If you were an actual Wikipedian you would know that, but since you seem to have a clear COI, I will trust my own judgement and ignore you. The three references are above, which are included in the list I created above, all fails WP:SIRS. They are so woefully bad that I can barely comment on them. scope_creep^Talk 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that your trying to do your job but your comments are fundamentally flawed because you don't understand notability policy. Everybody must work and get paid to keep there head dry. scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, you wrote

"If you were an actual Wikipedian you would know that, but since you seem to have a clear COI, I will trust my own judgement and ignore you."

I'm requesting you focus on the AfD discussion and skip this sort of stuff. Making comments like this is not the Wikipedia way.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: The editor came in three ago as an IP editor and clearly dont understand notability policy. They are here to defend this company article, so they probably have some kind of coi. What part of the comment is not accurate exactly? scope_creep^Talk 07:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: The IP address above, is a different address to the one below. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the message above about the whole IP address. scope_creep^Talk 07:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've taken a bit of an edit pass on the article, updated some references, attempted to improve NPOV by focusing the article more on the aspects that provide notability, and started to provide a bit more context in the "brands" section. Still needs work, but I've updated my !vote above from "weak keep" to "keep" based on further examination of the SIRS sources related to the recent CBR news. —siro χ o 21:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also edited the article, including to remove press releases, WP:CRUNCHBASE, repetitive excess company listings, etc. The quality and depth of sources remaining do not appear to support notability for a commercial organization:

The Comics World: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Their Publics (University Press of Mississippi, p. 103 - a one sentence with a mention of Valnet related to its purchase of CBR, used to support the description of the corporation as a "media holding company" in the article)
Previously on Comics: Selective Memory (WomenWriteAboutComics website, June 2023, 2.5 grafs and churnalism of Popverse content not focused on Valnet, used to support referring to the corporation as a "content farm"; the source uses the term "content farm monster")
CBR layoffs: What led to the firing of three-quarters of their editors (and what happens next) (Popverse, June 2023) - in-depth reporting about CBR, as well as Valnet pay structure and a range of allegations)
Inside the CBR layoffs and bad week (The Beat, June 2023) - PopVerse churnalism, more allegations against Valnet re: CBR via a named source on Twitter and anonymous sources, and general commentary on the industry.
How Comic Book Resources Employees Learned Their Site Had Been Sold To Valnet (Bleeding Cool, 2016) This post reprints the letter to employees, quotes the Valnet CEO, and a press release.

I excluded sources from this list that announce or mention acquisitions by Valnet and are trivial coverage. From my view, one of the notability problems for this article includes the WP:UNDUE focus on recent events at Comic Book Resources that have been reported on in-depth by one source. This is not significant coverage of the company itself in multiple sources. Based on the available sources, it does not seem possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about this corporation, unless a large amount of promotional, low-quality content and sources are added. Delete therefore seems most appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr and anyone else who is worried about the press release links, I've added a talk page message about the non-reliable sources Talk:Valnet Inc.#Still need more reliable sources, but until then, this is better than nothing. Suffice it to say, they are not meant for notability, more details in the talk page. —siro χ o 12:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valnet. On aforementioned disambiguation page, include a handful of internal links to their notable websites as second-level bullets. Move the section about the CBR layoffs into Comic Book Resources. As Arin Victoria wrote on Medium.com, "There’s a massive content farm hiding right under our noses." If that ever changes, we will have plentiful reliable sources to (re)create the article. This suggestion was brought to you by not an "actual Wikipedian" but a "paid editor" who is "contemptuous of Wikipedia" and created a "brochure advertising article with little thought". The great, welcoming atmosphere of Wikipedia. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:C6E9:7235:C998:B485 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)][reply]

I don't think you redirect to disamg article when the subject of the article is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could feasibly add a disambig line like

• Valnet, Inc, owner of Comic Book Resources and other media outlets.

and do the IP user's suggestion of moving the CBR-related information into the destination article. Disambiguation pages frequently point to articles about notable subjects that are not under the title of the disambiguation page itself. If the disambiguation entry grows too large, we'd know it's time to revive this article. I'm happy with this redirect + merge into Comic Book Resources plan. —siro χ o 01:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not process. Its not how its down. Redirects are mechanism's used here. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing as how there isn't an obvious redirect target as per below. The NCORP/GNG debate about the word "or" is tired and generally used by editors to duck meeting NCORP (which is really a guidelines on *how* to interpret GNG). It is certainly WP:OR to suggest that this "media conglomerate" has had such effects on society - show me the references. Redirect to Comic Book Resources. None of the sources mentioned here provide sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company and most of the resources are in fact talking about CBR (thanks to a decision made by the topic company) and not the topic company itself. I acknowledge we have broad descriptions of the topic company included in some references but this still falls short of establishing the notability of this company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This, similar to the suggestion above, is WP:RECENTISM. Their most well-known brand is likely Screen Rant; not CBR. And the article started off as a redirect to MovieWeb, another well-known brand - as is their film website Collider. This is the reason I included a Brands section in the article. It feels like we are now back to square one. In my experience, one or two editors briefly recognized that WP:NCORP contains content relevant to what are called "primary criteria", and content relevant to "alternate criteria", with WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, etc. only being relevant to the former. (Note the italic "or" at WP:NCORP § Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations.) I pointed out the effect that this media conglomerate has had on culture and entertainment, particularly the structural changes it makes to its acquired websites. That is how it got noticed by people outside of the organization, as demonstrated by independent sources. As an example, I included three references about CBR. Other editors then ran with these sources to demonstrate the company meets the primary criteria - which it does not. Next, editors stripped all references from the article that were merely used to back up claims about brand ownership. (The majority of those sources were sufficiently reliable and non-primary, but had no in-depth coverage, which made meeting the primary criteria a hurdle.) This then allowed editors to completely remove the brands overview, including all websites that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Even though the brands are quite relevant when it comes to establishing the subject meeting the alternate criteria. On this page, to no avail - as far as I can tell, I've requested "Perhaps you are willing to [...] give your views on the alternate criteria in relation to the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites." --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F2E5:A219:C144:2B70 (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the primary WP:NCORP criteria apply because this is a commericial organization, but I mentioned on the article Talk page [21], the WP:NCORP guideline [...] offers guidance on reviewing articles based not only on GNG, but also the second prong of WP:N, i.e. WP:NOT. For example, WP:ORGCRIT includes, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, with a wikilink to WP:PROMO. But whether we refer to this assessment as GNG plus NOT or just NCORP with its particularly applicable guidance, the analysis is similar. The alternate criteria WP:COMMERCIAL appears to echo this with its reference to WP:NOTADVERTISING.

From my view, it also appears to potentially be original research to assert that this commerical organization has had an effect "on culture and entertainment, particularly the structural changes it makes to its acquired websites." At minimum, the use of an example with sources mostly already included in the Comic Book Resources article does not appear sufficient to support notability for Valnet under any guideline.

Also, I did not remove the brands overview, because this appears to verifiable content; I removed press release sources, as further discussed on the article Talk page; there appear to be promo and NPOV concerns related to the removal of the listing by another editor, and this may undermine the notability of Valnet according to WP:PRODUCTS; all of this turns on whether reliable secondary sources exist, which should also be independent. The sources that supported the removed content [22] are:

2015 Variety announcement - "This year, three widely read blogs — Collider, Screen Rant and Latino Review — sold to deep-pocketed buyers Complex Media, Valnet, and former Chrysler and Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, respectively."
2016 Comicsbeat announcement - "site founder Jonah Weiland announced that he had sold the site to Valnet, a Canadian-based company that specializes in developing media-focused websites such as Screen Rant, which it also owns."
2020 The Wrap announcement - "Popular entertainment news site Collider was acquired by online media publisher Valnet, the company announced on Tuesday. Valnet is also the owner of Game Rant and Screen Rant."
TheGamer Ownership, Funding, and Advertising Policy - "TheGamer has been owned and operated by online publisher Valnet Inc in Montreal, Canada since February 2015. Valnet (a subsidiary of the Valsef) investment group) oversees operation of TheGamer across all platforms across on which the brand appears"
There is also a CNET download link that is not working for me, used as a cite for the 2014 BabyGaga acquisition and ownership of TheRichest.

Wikipedia is not a directory, and it does not appear that independent, reliable, secondary sources are currently available to broadly show "the impact that the company's management and policies have had on several notable websites." I would also add that from my view, concerns within the policies and guidelines about promo and advertising are not necessarily related to the motives of any particular editor; I think we should examine the content and sources and objectively assess whether the content is encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the brands section. It's not meant to be permanently gone. However, without verifiable acquisition dates, it read a bit too PROMO to me. Contextualizing the brands as acquired over time turns it from a promotional list to the first step towards a company history. I don't want to take an "all or nothing" stance, but if we only have a small fraction of the brands verified with acquisition dates I'm not sure we're doing article readers any favors and might even mislead them. I guess my rough line would be at least 50% should be easily verifiable for a CORP article about a holding company, so if the secondary sources you have can verify acquisition dates to roughly that level, I would support restoring it. —siro χ o 08:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm aware that the company does not fall in one of the categories listed under WP:COMMERCIAL, but it still meets WP:COMMERCIAL itself. Unless the suspicion exists that the article was created for WP:PROMOTION. At least one editor has stated, without hesitation, that it was. It was not. I suspect that some editors are so afraid of giving companies free advertising that their fear alone is sufficient to oppose including a Brands section. Even though, as a reader, it is informative to learn which brands a company owns, particularly given this company's pageviews/clickbait priorities. Which was pointed out in the article from the start. (The stub, with very few sentences, called it a "content farm business" and pointed out how it tries to get more pageviews.) I truly don't understand how anyone can think I've tried to promote the company, let alone got paid to do so. It must have been the Brands overview, right? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:F2E5:A219:C144:2B70 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would, honestly, just leave it there. Enough for now, let others contribute (if any) before this closes (God help the closer)... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I was using the Reply function, which for whatever reason, did not let me see these additional comments before I added my comment above. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not be merged or redirected just to Comic Book Resources because per their website they are the parent company of multiple brands which have their own articles on Wikipedia including XDA Developers and Screen Rant so redirecting to just 1 franchise of their portfolio would be incorrect and misleading in my opinion. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG but inheritability should be treated differently between parent to child versus child to parent and in my opinion the parent organization should inherit notability in many cases. Like in this case the article is clearly deficient and yet probably should exist with summary coverage of each subsidiary which can be partially taken from their respective articles. - Indefensible (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In addition to keep and delete arguments, two different redirect targets have been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to CBR. The only substantive material I'm seeing here is better covered at that article; and even together with the other fragments, does not add up to SIGCOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted‎. A10 was applied. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 06:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft (diabolic)

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

This article is a virtual duplicate of the article Witchcraft, and should therefore be deleted. Treybien2, 21:57 21 July 2023 (talk) (UTC)

Oppose - This article was made from material copied from witchcraft, so it makes sense that there would be significant duplication in a page that's existed for less than 24 hours. Discussion in an ongoing move request for the Witchcraft page indicates that page is or should be a perfectly good WP:BROADCONCEPT and is not WP:UNBALANCED or biased. If that's true there should be space for these two articles to develop clear differences. Darker Dreams (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For a greater appreciation of the context of this article's creation, please read Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic bias. This is not an endorsement of either side of ongoing arguments. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: It's not a virtual duplicate; it is a duplicate, seemingly aimed at avoiding/circumventing actual discussion and community consensus on the home page, making it plain old disruptive editing and a candidate for WP:A10. Also this page was created without the proper AfD template, so it isn't currently an actually properly functioning AfD, just a page with an AfD title. Just a mess really. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it a plausible redirect to Witchcraft? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have contested the speedy delete. Despite that, I do hope that the AfD is repaired. I can only guess why you're making accusations that I'm "avoiding/circumventing actual discussion and community consensus on the home page" and "plain old disruptive editing." But, what I am doing is moving forward based on the direction it appears consensus is evolving. The discussion indicates an opinion that the existing page as an unbiased, broad concept - which would mean there's additional information to cover in a separate article. If there's not additional information and that page is unduly focused on this subject, this page should absolutely be deleted and the other moved to an appropriate name. Darker Dreams (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not have been sensible to discuss the scope prior to creating a duplicate page? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The AfD template was fixed at 13:29 22 July by NinjaRobotPirate here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apply A10.—Alalch E. 19:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While the !vote count is close, there hasn't been a serious rebuttal to the delete !voters' arguments criticizing the quality of the cited sources. The consensus for salting is less clear, and in my personal discretion as an administrator I don't see enough repeated recreation of the article to warrant it at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Vasinova

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article. Not meeting ACTOR or really GNG. I've reviewed the sources used, not much in RS, nor does this individual have anything beyond one-offs or bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the newest article I could find and it's very PROMO [23] and almost a year old at this point. No new sources turned up since our last time at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 new sources found and added to the article. Check my comments below. Naomijeans (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Connecticut. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this article has a long, complicated history, but it seems like the subject now also has a long history of bit parts and is not really notable by ACTOR guidelines. The Courant source is OK, though, like many of the other references is promo'ish. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP Editor with no prior edits until today: what does it mean that the article had "Complicated history??" Do not make things up just to fill up space. The deletion history shows the subject once deleted in 2008, presumably when she didn't have as much credits or citations. Then it was nominated a few months ago but withdrawn, because the article was not yet completed. In what way is this a "long complicated history??" I also wonder if you have enough expertise to be voting here. Naomijeans (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I am the anon IP you're addressing.) I've been editing WP since its early days and, by the looks of your homepage, since you were 4 or 5 years old. I retired from account-based editing because of the growing problems of bullying, accusations of bad faith, ad hominems, etc...of the kind somewhat similar to the way you just addressed me. Now, I just stop-by from time-to-time to weigh-in here and there. In older, more decorous days, this is the point where you would tender an apology for your grossly off-base assumption, especially since you yourself seem only to have been here at WP for a few months. Now, as to your concern: the article's history is ipso facto complicated because of its 3 AfDs and the fact that there still aren't enough acceptable sources that are not promotional, web cruft, etc., as well as the fact that she very obviously does not pass in the primary notability space of ACTOR. I don't know how this AfD will end, but I would urge you in the future to dial-down the snark and try to avoid making assumptions. Best. 128.252.154.1 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The person who replied to you is the creator and primary maintainer of the article, if that's any hint as to where the snark is coming from. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 03:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP Editor: The fact that you are doing this without an account is very suspicious, although you are probably not breaking any policy, I suspect you are a paid editor by profession and just voting delete on notable people so then you can contact these people and offer them your service. Back to the argument of notability, your reasoning again does not make any sense. it is besides the point if the page was nominated for AFD before, because the first was in 2008 when the person did not have much news and the 2nd was when I was not yet done with the page content completely and this same nominator nominated it for deletion, so I asked him to cancel so I could improve the page. It does not count as a real AFD. So that there is no complicated history and you are just making up nonsense words and reasons for deleting this page. The person is notable based on being a notable MODEL, not actor, but her acting ads to her notability. She has been on cover of at least 3-4 magazines, which makes her a notable model and meet WP:NMODEL. Naomijeans (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (I am the anon IP you're addressing.) Congratulations. You've now graduated from making ill-advised assumptions to accusing me of bad faith. FWIW, I am a professor at a major private research university who has started numerous important WP articles in scientific areas and science bios and has made thousands of other edits before I semi-retired to anon editing, partially because of smug, newbie eds such as yourself making WP an increasingly unwelcome place to work. Good job. 128.252.154.8 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject meets WP:GNG. In addition to the existing citations, a search shows that TMZ[24] and People[25] cover the subject. desmay (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ isn't a reliable source, People is about the Shark Tank guy suing her as his girlfriend, not really about her either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To the nominator: Firstly, it not accurate that there are no new news sources since a year ago, and that is not a valid reason for deletion. There is no such policy. Here are 2 recent articles I was able to find and she was also on cover of both these magazines: Grazia and DMH Magazine. She was also on the cover of Glamour, so based on WP:NMODEL she would qualify. These articles here will also mean she meets WP:BASIC: MAXIM, OK Magazine, Flaunt, Hardford Courant, Variaties.Naomijeans (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't make any significant contribution to a field of entertainment, being on the cover of a magazine is what models get paid to do. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grazia is an interview and DHM is a bunch of photos with captions; first is a primary source, second isn't extensive coverage. Rest are about the same level of minimal coverage. Hartford Courant is also an interview, Variety is just her photo with a paragraph. She doesn't have a long article about her; she gives interviews and poses for photos, that's what models do. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were no substantial sources at the last AfD, if some have been created since then, they would help her notability. No new substantial articles have been published since the last AfD, most of the ones you've listed existed as of the last AfD and didn't help notability there. She didn't meet it then with the existing sources (including these ones), nothing has changed since then that would change her notability is what I'm saying. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a cover of a magazine, whether paid or not, would not make a difference. In fact, if paid that is even better, that means they are a popular model to get paid for it. In this case however, all the 3-4 magazines that have her on the cover did an editorial on her, so that would mean she was not paid. Here is another Magazine she was on the cover of L'Officiel.Naomijeans (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we could use a few more editors to review sourcing which the nominator argues are totally inadequate for a Wikipedia article. I should note that I closed the last AFD with a decision to Draftify this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has enough coverage.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted in the article and verified by referenced sources, the subject has appeared on the covers of at least three major magazines in the past year alone. I concur with the comment made by another editor regarding her work as actor contributing to her notability. CaseArmitage (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more discussion on the sources that have been added that the nominator is disputing as inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The majority of the references are gossip sites and non-mainstream entertainment publications. This is a resume of the person. Not an article of any real encyclopedic information. The only major result that comes in is the lawsuit and allegations against her ex-boyfriend Robert Herjavec who is far more notable than her. And his article actually covers this and it is not even mentioned on this one. But on the other hand, none of the keep votes actually say why this meets the notability requirements other than saying they found some articles or make a blanket statement about coverage without explaining why the current information helps with notability. She was never on the cover of any "major magazines." Being on the cover doesn't mean anything. Her acting credits are just bare at best in terms of actually knowing who she is. I refer back to the first AFD in 2008 which had the same issues. We should consider preventing another creation of this same subject to avoid another AFD which will have the same concerns about notability merits. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt interviews and gossipy churnalistic sources are not what we should be basing a BLP on. Once we start discussing such with any degree of seriousness, then it's a good indication that the necessary sourcing is absent. There has been some disgraceful badgering and ad Homs at the IP. I'm telling the offenders now that this isn't acceptable and I don't want to see it again from them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much Promo type content and gossip coverage here, with not enough to support GNG. I also think a salt is in order here as well. User:Let'srun 03:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moving to Draft‎. There is a tending consensus to delete and certainly a clear one that the information as it stands is unsuited to mainspace. There is also a clear strand that it's possible to reorganise this content into something manageable and useful. With that in mind it's better to just shift to draft to allow further discussion and agreement to arise without the sword of Damocles hanging over the conversation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of proteins in the human body

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

No list with potentially 10k entries can effectively be curated (or even displayed) in this format. We have Category:Human proteins, which should serve for navigation purposes. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: please see comment by Boghog, added after most other comments. This points to the existence of List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4, which I was not aware of. I suggest the concern about effective duplication is justified. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list may not need 10K entries; the category has 914 pages, but I think it would be difficult to maintain such a large, indiscriminate list of proteins. Perhaps a redirect could be considered. Enervation (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify Brand new article (less than 1 day old at time of nom, WP:BEFORE.C.2). Meets WP:NLIST. Lets allow the creator and other editors time to work to refine it and let the inclusion criteria and organization firm up before bringing it here. —siro χ o 07:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better as a category, a list would be simply unmanageable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A category just seems harder to export to SQL or a format which can easily be compared with other online databases no? it makes the automization of the maintaince work a lot harder. Or maybe there is a good way to export categories which I have not seen yet? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but modify: this seems like a very useful list. However, there will be too many proteins, so the article's lede should say "notable" proteins and the list should only contain proteins which are somewhat notable, i.e., they have been frequently discussed in science or news, or they have a substantial or interesting effect on a notable and relevant phenotype. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a solution could also just be to make the table collapsable?(if you go to the Statistics section of COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory or List of skeletal muscles of the human body you can see examples of this )so that it does not take up so much space, and then make a column makring if proteins are notable, then define a criteria for when they are notable, in that way the list could quickly be sorted. and one could easily and quickly get the proteins that one need and export them to excel or whatever other format one might need? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the list be divided either alphabetically or functionally to make it more manageable? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed precedent for dividing lists alphabetically / lexicographically. List of lists of lists is my favorite starting point for finding examples of good lists. —siro χ o 08:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it is a sortable table, so if you clock the two arrows next to the name in the table you will have it sorted alphabetically. But you could also do the same with the Cell cloumn or any of the other column in this way there is flexibility on how you sort the proteins. You can sort them according to any parameter which have been entered for all proteins: Is this helpful? or did I misunderstand the question? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is fundamentally misconceived. There's an old and longstanding consensus that in all cases where we can have a category, we can and should have a navigational list; it's all set out with reasons at WP:CLN (and more specifically at WP:NOTDUP).—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I am sure that it feels mighty satisfying to make these stentorian pronouncements, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species described in 2022 for a directly parallel case that, yes, was based on the problem of excessive number of entires. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't always remember our guidelines, or follow them. But that doesn't mean the guidelines don't count.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to point out to a long-term contributor that desirables must be balanced against others (such as, having list-form material to parallel category-form, vs not throwing thousands of entries into an uncuratable list)? Would be nice if one could just throw references to The Only Applicable Rule into all these AfDs, eh... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isen't the point of having an online encyplopedia that you can have lists longer then you can in a physical one? it is just a question of how we can make it easy enough for everyone to navigate no? what can we do to make the table more intuative to use for people who don't work with large datasets on a daily basis - I think this is the exciting thing about these sortable tables it can let the common man see all the concerete emperical data which is way to often hidden behind abstraction, and it allows him to answer a lot of questions that other may not have asked. In this way it is not only people who can Code SQL who can ask the questions or understand what is already known - or am I getting of the discourse? - I feel like if categories are as easy for everyone to sort and export to homemade code which be used to check and compare. We could just as well use a category. But when I see a category I do not have the overview over which instances in it is lacking what information nor how I would sort it according to anything which is not just alabeth sort of its name? but maybe there is a good way to do this? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important medical topic. Okoslavia (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<3 Agreed, I feel like List of skeletal muscles of the human body it makes a lot easier to visualize just how many elements there is to it, and how much of the statements that people come with about the number of proteins are estimates vs. actual observation. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a medical topic, it's biochemistry. With this level of understanding, it's baffling how you even are able to assess its importance. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category for easier navigation. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that makes categories easier to navitage? Maybe we can implement something simmilar here, so that it becomes just as easy? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify and advise author to produce a curated list of notable human proteins (per Siroxo and Chamaemelum). This will be a useful list with care and attention, and can improve the Category:Human proteins with the removal of obvious errors (like the inclusion of Acalabrutinib) or adding omitted proteins. ― Synpath 17:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is some great idear, do you have the time and energy to help me do it? where can one find a good description of 'per Siroxo and Chamaemelum' I think a key lacking eliment of the category is also the naming convention for each entry. I made one here, but it is not very good yet. It still need a lot of work before it makes sense to implement it regitly on all the proteins. But I think it is still better to have a page where it is clear that no clear naming convention have been implemented yet. Then one that implies it, without having it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being too long is never a valid reason to delete it. List that do get long are broken into sublist. This list only shows entries that have their own Wikipedia article. The list offers more information than a category could, thus aids in navigation, helping find what they are looking for easier. A valid information list as well. Dream Focus 18:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also what I have tried to formulate with concrete examples as replies to the others. If there is something which categories have which we lack here, I am sure we can find a good way to implement it :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per S Marshall's take on CLN. If it becomes too long, we can make it a list of lists, but this is precisely the sort of navigational list Wikipedia should have and organize and update in a manner a dead tree encyclopedia cannot. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. While all 10,000 human proteins are probably not notable, the scope of this list as currently scoped will run to several thousand items, which is not practical for a list article, as the nominator observed. (See, e.g., WP:SALAT.) It's not immediately obvious to me how to subdivide it into manageably-sized lists, but we should deal with that now rather than years later. To add to the precedential example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species described in 2022, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blast furnaces for another recent deletion of an over-broadly scoped list. Choess (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the people who first sad down to make a list of all human muscles on paper felt the same? could we try and take inspiration from how they solved it here? and would the list even have to be subdivided if everyone just sort the list according to what they are looking for? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples are not valid in this case. There was nothing that made blast furnaces notable, there no articles for just them, but instead things on that list linked to businesses that had them among their holdings, without mentioning anything about the blast furnaces themselves. The proteins in the human body are notable, mentioned in textbooks and other scholarly publications, any new one discovered covered in science news sources, and some have their own articles dedicated to them. Dream Focus 14:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I follow, isen't there: List of skeletal muscles of the human body Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and Do not categorify. The list length is unmanageable, and it serves no navigational purpose. No one is going to want to browse some list of 2000 entries, most with obscure names. Converting to a category is probably worse in this case. Many (if not most) of these are also present in other animals besides humans, and thus this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It also opens the floodgates for thousands of similar categories of proteins in other animals and plants. Additionally, having this as a category requires keeping track of the categories on every such article, rather than simply keeping a central list (which, just to be clear, I still think is useless). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we also have a list of List of skeletal muscles of the human body , List of bones of the human skeleton, List of distinct cell types in the adult human body , List of human microbiota. Even though there is animals out there with the same bacteria, simmilar muscles and bones and very simmilar cells. There is still a very strong criteria for when one cannot add something to the list, when it is not in humans. So it is still a very exclusive definition. the argument ' having this as a category requires keeping track of the categories on every such article, rather than simply keeping a central list' I find good. I think the use is also visualising all the building blocks of a human and all the places where something can break, and how to detect when something is broken based on how it looks in most other human. A lot of databases exist on this matter(see the list of databases in the end of the article). So clearly it have priority to a lot of people with resources. But all of them or hard to access, and thereby also hard to scrutinize and update. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the list of proteins in the human body would be very similar to proteins in mammals, and most on the list will be common to all animals. It would be nice to have, but the list will be too long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How long? List of minor planets has 700,000 entries.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I was not aware of that monster. Well, at least those should be pretty stable entries... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to help make these entries more stable? :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the list would be useful and if it gets too large, it can always be split. If we can list the hundreds of thousands of minor planets, surely we can list 10,000 (most likely fewer) proteins. Persent101 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge A part of this to me is also veryfying that there is actuelly 10 000 proteins, I see the claim a lot of places the wiki page on proteins also at some point claim 20 000. I also found other claims online, all of these however seems to estimates. I think it is very healthy that people can very quickly and easily verify just by looking at the lenth of the list how many proteins are well described and have documentation available to the broad public? I know wiki should not be seen as containing some kind of final truth. But woulden't it be nice if wiki would at least be used to some degree to verify other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claes Lindhardt (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is a lot of people with very good idear here, if you have the time and energy please help start implementing them on the article!!! <3 Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I update my vote to Merge? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to strike your original bolded vote and replace it with your new one (i.e., replace your '''Keep''' vote in the source code with <s>'''Keep'''</s> '''Merge''' ). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Claes Lindhardt: meant to ping before. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Score (if I did not miss anybody - please corret me if I did) Keep or draftify: 9 People, Delete: 2 people. How many people typically cast thier vote before it is deterimed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claes Lindhardt (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to this discussion! Please note that these aren't votes (hence the term WP:!VOTE), and as such we tend to avoid putting tallys per WP:AFDEQ as they can encourage distraction from the substance of the discussion itself (which indeed you have contributed to in your other comments!). These discussions run for 7 days minimum, except in rare cases that don't affect this one. —siro χ o 18:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh allright thank you Claes Lindhardt (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making the article it feels like it is just as much a quest to list all the proteins on wiki in a way that makes all the already existing articles navigatable.(as a quest to list all proteins in the human body). So far I have not added a single protein not already on wiki, and there is still a good few left before I have all the onces on wiki so far listed. It seems more like a question of how we should make all this proteins navigable and usable then if or? I also could not find another wiki list with proteins as estensive nor which talks about all the other lists on the talk page? - If I missed it please let me know. I think this list might be worth keeping just as an attempt at merging all the great input from the other attempts at makign a central navigable spot for proteins on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claes Lindhardt (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, dosen't it seem usefull for such a page just for comparing different articles on the same protein but with different names? and for assuring consistency in how the articles on proteins are structred? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ People will keep making articles about thier favorite human proteins, and there is some dublicate work and low levels of consistency across the articles. A list like this is the ideal chance to get more organcizes, coordinate efforts and establish conventions that makes later data estraction and analysis easier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claes Lindhardt (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that if we do not start this effort now, we just push the problem of organizing it all so that it is accesible to everyone, ahead of us. Thereby possibly creating a lot of unnecessary issues, as well as allowing exsiting issues to grow. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Please only !vote once, and please also see WP:BLUDGEON. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment Duplicates Lists of human genes. Note that a Gene Wiki article is not only about the gene, but also the proteins encoded by those genes (it makes no sense to split up two such interrelated topics). There are ~20,000 protein coding genes in the human genome, of which 12,733 (Infobox gene's transclusion count) already have Wikipedia articles (the Gene Wiki) about them. Including splice variants, there could be as many as 500,000 unique human proteins (see Pray L (2008). "Eukaryotic genome complexity". Nature Education. 1 (1): 96. ). So it is impractical to have a single list, it must be split up into sublists as is done with Lists of human genes. Boghog (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much this is a lot of very usefull links. None of these seems to list the end-product? nor account for the way that proteins fold? or am I missing something? How would I go from Lists of human genes to haveing an overview of all the pages on finished types of proteins? and how would I be able to see what groups of proteins there is? or like how it makes the most sense to group proteins? Does the Infobox gene's transclusion count also remove dublicates when for example someone named one user mande a protein article called Zinc Finger Protein and another ZNF but both refering to the same? Is there a way where I can easily see all of these infobox templates usages listed in one place and where I can sort them to extract data to answer new questions? Lists of human genes does really have a very nice format, but it feels like there is a lot of jumping between pages to extract the data that one need? It also seems to link to List of proteins which is a less extensive version of this list. What is the purpose of this list and having it on the Lists of human genes article? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
43S preinitiation complex, Acid hydrolase, Actibind, seems to also miss templates/infoboxes. Is there a good way to decide when an article should have one and when it should have both infoboxes? so that we can give all the articles consitent infoboxes? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha-2 adrenergic receptor, Angiopoietin-like proteins, ANKS4B, Actin nucleation core , ASIC5, ASTE1, Coronin also seems to be missing infoboxes. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As well as: Adhesion G protein-coupled receptor, Adipokine, Adiponectin receptor, Albondin, Alpha collagen, Amyloid, Anchoring fibrils,

Is Albinterferon using a different kind of infobox? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keratin also maybe? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

Thanks for your questions. It is important to keep in mind that articles that contain the {{Infobox gene}} are about both the gene and the protein encoded by that gene. In List of human protein-coding genes 1, contains columns about the gene (HUGO gene symbol & HGNC ID) as well a the protein (UniProt ID). So this list definitely contains information about the end product. Additional columns such as the recommended UniProt protein name could be added if there is consensus. But because of the size of these lists, I think one has be very selective in what to add. {{Infobox gene}} draws it data from WikiData. In WikiData, each human gene can be entered only once and can only link to a single page in the Enlgish Wikipedia, hence guaranteeing that there a no duplicate articles. {{Infobox protein}} which is independent of WikiData preceeded {{Infobox gene}}. The vast majority of the former has been replaced by the later, but there still might be a few out there that have not been replaced and these could be duplicate articles. Every time I run across one of these duplicates, I merge the articles. (Please note that {{Infobox protein}} has other uses in for example about articles about protein families or protein complex. These are not duplicates.)

I am a little confused myself about the purpose of Lists of human genes. It seems to have drawn its data from the Genetics Home Reference database which has been superseded by MedLine Plus genetics. It also links to disease pages which makes is doubly confusing.

For reference, here is a list of MCB Infoboxes. There a number of NavBoxes like {{G protein-coupled receptors}}, {{Ion channels}}, {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}}, and {{Enzymes}} which are organized by structure/function.

Becasue of Wikipedia page size limits, there is no way around jumping between articles when you are querying human coding genes. If you continue to grow your list, you will sooner or later have to divide into sublists. Boghog (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A minor thing, but going trough a good this list so far, there is often one that seems to not be ussing the Infobox gene's transclusion count template despite beeing a protein article? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which protein article? Please provide me with a direct link to the specific Wikipedia article. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that 2',3'-Cyclic-nucleotide 3'-phosphodiesterase uses two different templates, Tau protein, Zuotin uses just one and Β-Thromboglobulin, ZP1, ZNF837, ZNF831 have none?(these are the first that I could think of on top of my head, but there are more troughout the list). Sorry for not providing them in the inital reply. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2',3'-Cyclic-nucleotide 3'-phosphodiesterase contains both {{infobox gene}} and {{infobox enzyme}} which is a bit ackward. Ideally {{infobox gene}} should display enzyme information, but it does not, and that is why there are two templates. Please note that strictly speaking, and Enzyme Commission number refers to the reaction catalyzed by an enzyme, not the enzyme protein itself. Often there is more than one human gene that corresponds to a given EC number. It these cases, it is appropirate to have a seperate enyzme article. In this particular case, there is only one human gene (CNP) that encodes this enzyme (see EC 3.1.4.37), therefore it is appropriate that the gene and enzyme articles are merged.

According to UniProt P02775, β-Thromboglobulin is a peptide that is cleaved from CXCL7. It is debateable if β-Thromboglobulin should be a free standing article or should be merged into CXCL7. If free standing, β-Thromboglobulin should have a {{infobox protein}}. I have added the infobox in this edit.

Zuotin is not found in humans, it is produced by yeast. That is why it contains a {{Infobox nonhuman protein}} template.

ZNF837, ZNF831 were missing {{infobox gene}} templates. I have now added them. Tau protein has a single {{infobox gene}} template as it should. Boghog (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply :) So there is no well established relationship between {{Infobox protein}} and {{Infobox gene}} and the list Lists of human genes takes {{Infobox gene}} into account but not {{Infobox protein}}. sorry I read your reply a good few times now, but I still do not quite understand the relationship of these to infoboxes nor how wide they are implemented. Nor how Lists of human genes incorporates them, I feel like it should be obvious at this point. But somehow it is still not to me - I really appriciate you taking the time to explain things.
The relationship between {{infobox protein}} and {{infobox gene}} is historical. {{infobox protein}} came first. {{infobox gene}} is more modern (draws its data from wikidata) and is intended to replace {{infobox protein}}. However {{infobox protein}} is more compact and for this reason, is still used in special cases (articles about protein families or protein complexes.). The purpose of these infoboxes is summarized here. Boghog (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could a temporary conclusion be that we might need to give List of biological databases a closer look and an update to be sure, that everything is using the most purposefull database with the widest coverage, or is this more of a discourse?.

These navboxes are added to the individual page and then the tree structure on the overview articles adaptes and updates automatticaly?

Maybe we could take some inspiration from the way that List of minor planets is structured? somehow that feels easier to keep an overview of then the current Lists of human genes. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is another set of gene/protein lists that are maintained by User:Seppi333Bot: Boghog (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmanageably large and duplicative of other lists per Boghog. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this add a new argument or angle different from the one posted by Graeme Bartlett or would the List of minor planets with 700 000 entries also here suggest that it could make sense to do? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Mr Lindhardt, replying to everyone is rude. The closer will know whether this is a point that's been dealt with earlier in the debate. They don't need to see the same replies repeated.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am terribly sorry if I have approched it wrong. How can I be polite and still make everyone feel like the have been heard and thier arguments addressed? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't; it's not needful. At the end of the debate, a closer will come along and summarise the points that everyone's made, the rebuttals to them, and how these interact with policy. It's the closer's job to make sure everyone feels heard. We have a whole separate place for analysing how deletion debates are closed, if the details interest you?—S Marshall T/C 14:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly on categories: many of our readers do not use or understand categories, so they are not a golden-bullet alternative to difficult, long lists. Secondly on size: we can't just abandon having information on anything "big", we just need to find ways to handle big lists, for example by subdividing, which is definitely possible, see the human proteome ref below. Thirdly on duplication: genes are not proteins. There is a subtle difference! Fourthly on databasing and relevance of this list: there are online databases of proteins, e.g. the human protein atlas [26], but these do not provide navigation to Wikipedia articles on proteins. Such sites indicate that it is possible to subdivide and present information in a public-friendly way, despite the sheer size of the problem. We are here to help readers find out about stuff. Learning about human proteins is a very obvious encyclopaedic need for kids, teenagers, and interested adults. It's what we're here to do. Why on earth wouldn't we attempt to provide a list, no matter how incomplete, to help our readers appreciate the range of proteins that exist, and find our individual articles on those that are most notable? Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... a post-script: this list does not overlap with the numbered lists of human protein-encoding genes; those lists give only the gene's symbol and ID, which are as useful as a chocolate teapot to a schoolkid searching for the proteins that are found in the human heart (a reasonable question to bring to an encyclopaedia). Elemimele (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The target articles in both lists are about the gene and the protein encoded by that gene. Hence the scope of both lists include both topics and hence the two lists are in fact duplicates. (There are a few genes that have seperate protein protein articles, but these are rare. The vast majority of protein articles also cover the gene.) In addition, It is impractical to manually create and maintain a list of 12,000 Gene Wiki articles. The list of human protein-coding gene series was created and maintained by a bot (User:Seppi333Bot written by User:Seppi333) and is currently up-to-date. Why reinvent the wheel? In the List of human protein-coding genes 1 series, there is a UniProt column, so it already includes explicit information about the protein. Perhaps what should be done is to selectively merge columns from the List of proteins in the human body into the List of human protein-coding genes 1 series. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I wanted to include more data in those tables, but I didn't really have much support at the time I submitted my bot request. The current list uses like 10% of the available column data from the source data file. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give one simple example. So I'm a school-kid and interested in what human proteins handle alcohol. With the current list of proteins, I can open the article in my browser, click "find on page" and type alcohol, and I immediately find the NAD- and NADP-linked alcohol dehydrogenases, and can navigate to the articles on both enzymes. No offence to the list of human protein-coding genes 1 etc. series, but I can't for the life of me work out how to search that for enzymes that use alcohol. We are here to serve real information to normal people with rational questions, not to debate whether the inclusion of a uniprot id technically means that our school-kid ought to be find alcohol dehydrogenase; I'd be interested to see how many real school kids manage that feat. Elemimele (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A school kid is going to go to a list of proteins to find out what protein metabolizes ethanol? Highly unlikely. Far more likely the student would first search for Alcohol_(drug) and then find links to alcohol dehydrogenase. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if 'A school kid is going to go to a list of proteins to find out what protein metabolizes ethanol' is unlikely right now, don't we want to live in a future where it is likely and doable? I also don't think your avg. western 7-8 grader(sorry but I am mostly fammiliar with western school systems) would use the term metabolizes but he might be able to get the same understanding with the words handles or uses. I could also well imagine someone in the start of gymnasium, secondary school or high school had such questions before reaching university. Or simply youngsters interested in the STEM subject Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good video on how to get started with wikibots somewhere? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Claes Lindhardt: I think most Wikipedia bots are programmed with WP:Pywikibot; it's the bot library I use at least. It's fairly easy to figure out how to use this library provided that you are somewhat familiar with programming in Python. You don't need to be an expert programmer to write a Wikipedia bot. Frankly, I used a few python libraries I'd never used before in my python script that creates the bot-generated lists, one of which was Pywikibot. So, I learned as I went (NB: it was the first data pipeline I ever programmed), but it wasn't terribly difficult to figure out based on my previous experience with programming in Python. If you take a course on Python programming that teaches you the basics of the language and perhaps gives you some hands-on experience programming stuff (e.g., applied coursework), you should know enough to start programming Pywikibot scripts that perform basic tasks. With a little more hands-on experience (i.e., maybe a few months of programming stuff in Python), it probably wouldn't be difficult for you to read and understand the Python script I wrote that generates the lists of human protein-coding genes, and potentially modify it for your own purposes (NB: if you can read and understand source code in a programming language, repeatedly modifying it and comparing the output you receive to what you intend is a decent way of learning on the fly; at least, it's what I do anyway: build stuff and learn as I go). Hope that helps. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thank you :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"List of proteins in the human body" was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2023. On 19 July 2023 (DURING THIS ONGOING DELETION DISCUSSION), User:Claes Lindhardt created 229 links to it (in hatnotes incorrectly formatted without the {See also} template). (I don't know how that figures into the merits of the article.) -A876 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry my bad, I am new to creating and linking articles. But I will do my best to use the {See also} when I link to it in the future. thank you for the input. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a clear cut consensus here, and the discussion seems to still be going. Relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, or List of human protein-coding genes 4. Both sets of lists concern the gene and the protein encoded by the gene. Maintaining these two sets of lists is redundant. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your second !vote in this debate, Boghog. Do you retract your first one? We normally allow some redundancy in navigational lists, because they're there to help people find content. For example we have a List of dinosaurs and a List of African dinosaurs. All the species in the African list are also in the main list, but the African list isn't useless. Can you see why?—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your right about the double vote. Sorry about that. I changed my first vote to a comment. As with List of dinosaurs, there are numerous categories, lists, and navoboxes of specific gene/protein families and I agree with you that these subdivisions are useful. But each of these lists point to articles (with relatively few execeptions) whose scope is the gene and the protein encoded by that gene. Proteins and genes are of course distinct topics. However when discussing an individual protein, it is so highly interelated with the gene that encodes it, it makes sense to have a single article that discusses both. Furthermore the infoboxes that are contained in these articles almost always contain information about the gene and protein (see {{infobox gene}}, {{infobox protein}}, note that the names of these infoboxes is somewhat missleading, both infoboxes include information about the gene and the protein). Boghog (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way in which we could make the names of these infoboxes less missleading? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: After looking through the headers/data in the source data file my bot uses and comparing it to the List of proteins in the human body page, I could fairly easily incorporate all the information on protein name(s)/alias(s) [2 options] and EC numbers (for proteins that are enzymes) that are in the current list. I could also add the gene location as well as an IUPHAR link and orphanet link(s) to any associated gene/protein pages in those databases for pharmacology data and clinical information on associated rare diseases for each gene/protein. I can't merge in protein classification or function information without performing some computational gymnastics: I'd need to download a dataset from a protein database, match the identifiers for all entries in the HGNC database, and pull protein classification & function data from the second file. It's entirely within my skillset to do that, and it's probably feasible to merge in protein classification data (provided that I can find a suitable database for this); however, adding protein function information would likely significantly increase the lists' page sizes due to the amount of text that I expect will be added to each entry. Protein function information is seldom concise (e.g., pick an arbitrary UNIPROT page on a human protein and read the function field). On the other hand, the lists' page sizes don't seem like a particularly notable issue now compared to when my bot was approved since they're not even listed on Special:LongPages anymore. That being said, I think I'd need to raise this issue with User:Primefac (please correct me if I'm wrong) before making significant changes like this to my bot's source code, per the original approval discussion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seppi333: Thanks for your willingness to modify your bot to include additional columns in your gene/protein lists. It would be desirable to also include function. In princple, this could be extracted from WikiData with a Python API. There is a WikiData property for molecular function (P680) which has already been populated for all human proteins. For example, one can search for human proteins with nuclear receptor activity
molecular function (P680) = nuclear receptor activity (Q14872989)

found in taxon (P703) = nuclear receptor activity (Q14872989)

To get a list of human nuclear receptors: query

I am not sure how much work this would be to write a subrouitine to return a list of Gene Wiki articles and their associated molecular function(s), but I am willing to help. Boghog (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikidata by itself is sufficient for filling in the missing gene data from the HGNC dataset, then it should be easy enough to match the identifiers between the dataset and Wikidata since they should both have assigned gene symbols and HGNC IDs. Haven't looked at the wikidata API, but so long as there's a means to batch-download all the data - or just specific statements - from thousands of WD entries simultaneously, then everything else should be pretty straightforward to program. Would just merge the datasets on unique identifiers present in both (HGNC ID would probably be the safest option if those numbers are static) by appending the wikidata column data to the end of the HGNC data file. This modified bot script would still work normally and generate the same wikitables as the current bot script from this merged dataset as it does from the current HGNC dataset. So, all I'd need to do to add the 2 wikidata columns is add 2 more wikitable columns for that data in the function that generates the wikitables. That's simple enough to do, so I'd just need to make sure the wikidata API has the functionality to give me what I need; might be prudent to wait to see if the consensus leans toward a merger before ironing out the rest of the software design, though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would then also merge the articles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteins_produced_and_secreted_by_the_liver , (Category:Human proteins, List of proteins, List of enzymes, Transporter Classification Database and Index of protein-related articles I feel like a lot of these articles hinges on some of the same questions? Maybe we could even have column of which cells produces the proteins link to: List of distinct cell types in the adult human body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) database already contains a list of ALL confirmed human genes and through its UniProt link, all confirmed human proteins. UniProt also keeps track of cleavage products from the original transcribed protein (see for example P02775). The HGNC/UniProt list is complete so there is no reason to merge various protein family lists. The issue of cell types/tissue distribution gets messy. One can infere this by message (mRNA expression) or protein product (immunohistochemistry). UniProt has links to expression databases. The Human Protein Atlas is another possibility. However the more I think about this, the less feasible I think this would be to incorporate in a concise way. Boghog (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also if we merge the articles it is important that we have a heading like 'Naming Convention for the list', because I think if you do not have a wiki profile and don't go to the talk page, and you are trying to navigate what article is about what. Or if you are new and trying to figure out where you can add what information or if something seems off, it is just impossible. Non of the above mentioned lists, categories or articles really have that(if I missed it please let me know), and it makes the job of comparing them much greater. The job of validating weather the lists are consistant with thier own defintions is also much bigger when it is unclear excatly what the defintions that have been agreed upon so far is.

If they are merged I would also really like to keep 'List of databases containing Human Proteins', to clarify where the data is coming from and maintain a high level of transparrency. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boghog or Delete - assuming it would eventually become a complete list, it doesn't seem feasible to manually maintain up-to-date information on 20,000-100,000 proteins. Even the names of genes/proteins change more frequently than one might expect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But would it have to happen manually? isen't there ways in which we could automate bits and piaces of it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333 I think the work you have done already is amazing, and it would make sense to put in efforts to build on top of that.

We should however not remove this page, before the columns and so have been added on your original article. There is still a bit of way before the average person can really benefit fully from it. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Claes Lindhardt: See below for my justification. I also described a few issues you'll encounter based on my experience, provided the consensus is keep and you decide to expand it manually. In the event a merge is the consensus, it shouldn't take more than a few hours (days, if I'm busy off-wiki) to update the source code to include data on all the protein names, ec numbers, protein classifications, and protein functions from the databases Boghog and I discussed. I would assume this list page would continue to exist until those updates are published.

Seppi's justification

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the existence of both List of proteins in the human body (if complete, >100000 list entries on proteins) and the List of human protein-coding genes (~ 20000 entries on genes and the canonical encoded protein(s)) pages based on duplication given that the scope of the former is significantly broader than the latter. Every functional human protein is inherently notable for the same reason that canonical proteins are (i.e., the proteins covered by my list page's smaller scope), although the current convention is to just cover information on protein variants under the article about the gene and canonical protein. The function, stability, and clinical significance of protein variants can differ significantly from canonical proteins; for example, the FosB truncated splice variants and post-translationally modified ΔFosB isoform: FosB vs ΔFosB vs phospho-ΔFosB vs Δ2ΔFosB all differ in one or more of those respects from each other. That might make most protein variants seem like they're not necessarily notable in their own right, but it's just more practical and poses less of a navigational challenge to cover variants of a canonical protein on the canonical protein page. Hence why the MCB project recommends this. In any event, the notability of all potential entries in your list isn't an issue either.

The primary area where you will run into problems if you attempt to manually complete this list is your source data is constantly changing, and the only way to avoid including erroneous, outdated, and incomplete information in your lists relative to your source data is to automate the generation of the data in your lists from your source databases. In other words, you need to build a data pipeline, then program a bot to convert it to wikitext markup and publish your list page. If you actually finished adding every potential known entry in this list via manual edits, you'd encounter several problems that will arise due to the fact that your source data (i.e., every database you pulled protein information from) is not static: (1) a few approved gene symbols will change roughly every month, (2) more than a few approved protein names will change every month, (3) new human protein-coding genes will be approved and the corresponding protein variants along with the gene will need to be added from the source databases on a regular basis, (4) a nontrivial fraction of the table's contextual data [protein function/classification/location] will change or be added/expanded in your database sources on a regular basis. All of these problems reduce the utility of your list since incomplete, incorrect, and outdated data will be perpetually present in your list due to the sheer size. If not for the fact that we are talking about a list of 100000 entries, manually updating a list to include updates in a database on a regular basis is not an issue; but, the size of this page and the source databases makes it infeasible to manually update changes from a database even once - and this would still be true if this page were only contained 10000 proteins entries - much less on a regular basis. The only way to effectively address all of these problems is automation, hence my vote.
The second area where you'll run into problems is your list will contain thousands of incorrectly-targeted links (targeted to irrelevant non-bio pages that share the same name, target DAB pages, target gene pages that should be DABs, and target redlinked pagenames about a topic that exist at a different page title without a redirect at your link target). To address these issues in the protein-coding gene list for the ~20000 gene symbols (NB: you'll have ~100000 protein links to address), I wrote another pair of scripts to locate mistargeted links ([27]), collaborated with a wikidata editor who pursued the same approach using SPARQL scripts to locate these pages, and worked with basically every active editor at WikiProject Disambiguation for about a week to actively disambiguate every target link on the list page, which was a pretty massive undertaking given that they checked around 12000 link targets and fixed hundreds of DAB issues that all 3 groups identified.
The last issue you will face with this list is page size constraints. If this list is ever complete and never split, it will easily contain millions of bytes of page content, in turn securing you the top spot in Special:LongPages. You might consider achieving that rank to be a good thing, but you'll quickly earn yourself the ire of pagesize warriors who will constantly badger you about breaking up the article.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be two main categories of ATD right now.

There's the human curated list option, which would seem to require a tighter inclusion criteria (not necessarily as part of this discussion)
There's a bot option, which right now hinges on a merge.

One thought: why not both? Doing both takes the pressure off the curated list to be large, meaning we can have a very restrictive inclusion criteria. And we take the pressure of the large bot list to be in-depth, and it can act mostly as a navigational aid with whatever extra data it can easily include.

—siro χ o 04:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo: Yes, completely! Having a manual list also gives us a way to deal with problems like Calcitonin, which is one of the two different peptides encoded via alternative splicing by the gene CALCA. At the moment we cover the other product in Calcitonin gene-related peptide which also deals with the product of a second gene CALCB. The point is that there isn't a 1:1:1 relationship between genes, proteins, and wikipedia articles, so while I applaud Seppi333's excellent efforts and want those lists kept, it's great to have both a manually-curated, selective navigational list, and a complete, bot-generated database-list of genes. Elemimele (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a silly question, but when a list is bot currates can no manual changes be made to it? or is it also possible to make manual changes to a bot curated list? in my head an ideal case senario would be that I could start at List of organs of the human body and then see all the proteins required to build each organ as well as what they do, and how they interplay. Or I could start at the bottom Composition of the human body and then see each protein is build from those basic building blocks. The list of proteins is kind of that middle step which could bind all the different levels of building blocks in the human body togehter Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Claes Lindhardt: The manual changes remain in effect until the next time the bot is run. A bot-updated list generally obviates the need for anyone to edit the list except to retarget dablinks. I don't know if any other bot-generated lists exist, but the way I handle list edits outside of dablink retargets is to ask people to propose them on the talk page via editnotices and - for those who ignore the editnotices - incorporate manual edits that were introduced since my bot's last edit into its source code, provided that it was a useful edit.

@Siroxo and Elemimele: May be worth reading my response to Claes in the collapse tab above as to why I think a manually-updated list on this topic is a bad idea. If you want an idea of how frequently changes are made to the underlying data in the list I maintain, look at how regularly the list navbox indices change across the page revisions. The bot script doesn't change; it's removals/additions/renamings of genes in the underlying dataset that causes that. It'll be much worse with a list 5x longer than mine.

Also, @Elemimele: I'm just responding to what you said below here: merging the data from the current list page into mine is entirely feasible. I wouldn't be merging the actual data in this list - most of it is actually empty cells anyway; we're just merging in the column headers and populating the corresponding data for each list entry from the primary and a secondary database. As described in my discussion with Boghog, we'd use some of the existing data in the source file I currently use and merge in some of the missing column data from a second database with complete information for all human protein-coding gene list entries. It should be fairly simple to revise my bot's source code to include complete information on the protein name, ec numbers (if applicable), protein classification, and protein function for all ~20000 genes in the list my bot maintains.
Lastly, I welcome any hardcore deletionists to try to get my bot's lists deleted; I wouldn't have had a chance of getting my bot approved if I didn't know the relevant MOS and content guideline pages pertaining to my lists backward and forwards; in fact, I cited them at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Seppi333Bot & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of human protein-coding genes 1. I thanked the first guy who nominated my list for deletion in the request for approval since he unwittingly helped me quickly generate consensus by doing so. I'd laugh at the futility if someone wants to go round 2, though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There is so much wrong with this article it is hard to know where to begin, other than by noting that the objections to it already made above by other editors are mostly valid. The best one can say of it is that it is a rough draft of something that could be made useful with a huge amount of work. First all, it is misnamed: it is not a list of proteins, but mainly a list of genes with the sort of meaningless names that geneticists seem to like. As the first of a huge number of examples, ACAD10 is not a protein; it is a gene coding for Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase family, member 10. If you want to continue pretending this is a list of proteins you need to replace all of these gene names with names of proteins. It's as if the List of presidents of the United States didn't bother to give their names but expected you to click on the number in the left-hand column: that will tell you, so what more do you want? Then, for A4GALT (Lactosylceramide 4-α-galactosyltransferase) we find enzyme(EC number?). However, the EC number is right there in the linked article (2.4.1.228), so does (EC number?) just mean "I suppose this enzyme has an EC number, but if you want to know what it is you need to look it up, because I can't be bothered"? For ACOT6 we don't even get that snippet of information. The order is sort of alphabetical, but the article creator didn't bother to apply a system consistently. Thus we have Tubulin before B3GALNT2. Collagen, the most abundant protein in the body, rolls in at No. 253, with no indication of what it is and what it does. Phosphofructokinase, a protein everyone has heard of, is No. 1731. Just above it there is Hexokinase, with no indication that humans have four isoenzymes with different genes. Then at 1805 we find Cooperativity, which is neither a protein nor a gene. Athel cb (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you that is some very good input. Do you think these problems apply to all of: Category:Human proteins, List of proteins, List of enzymes, Transporter Classification Database and Index of protein-related articles ? and is thus symptomatic of the wiki community as a whole around this topic or do you think it is just this list/article? I am very open to trying to replace all of the gene name with protein names. How can we try to assure that we do not make the same mistake again before we try to replace all the names?

The reason that the EC number is there is so that you can sort the list according to EC number if you wish. Most of the information in the different columns of the list can also be found in the article. But it is hard to compare so many articles and porteins if not on a table form somehow. (Here I think it is important to remeber that the point of the column is not just an EC number, but a type of protein so it could also be a TC number.)

I am not sure what you mean by snippet of information in ' For ACOT6 we don't even get that snippet of information.' please elaborate?
For the earlier examples you at least tell us that you think EC numbers may exist (though you don't say what they are). For ACOT6 (and others) all we get is a link to a general article about enzymes, though one can probably assume that anyone perusing the list is already familiar with the idea of an enzyme. Adding enzyme serves no purpose. Athel cb (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And no nothing is really consistent yet, I can make it clear in the beginning of the article text if you want. But if you click the arrows on the top of the table in the name column you get it sorted in alphabetical order. The whole idear with a sortable table is that you can choose what column you sort based on. I wanted to add all the things already on wikipedia before I started implementing the things from the naming convention strictly(and Ideally also settle on a universially applicable naming convention) before doing that.

About Collagen, I thought about this myself, and considered adding a column that somehow indicates how present it is in the human body either % of bodyweight or % in number of proteins present in the human body. But I failed to find any databases with extensive accessible data on this for a large number of proteins if you know any, please link it. Then we can add a such column :)

When you say that Phosphofructokinase is a protein that everyone have heard of, why is it that everyone have heard of it? is it because of its function? Maybe it pops out on a certain parameter from which one could resort the list so that it would pop out in the top rows?
Why do you think that everyone has heard of phosphofructokinase whereas only a tiny minority of people have heard of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1? Athel cb (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a good way to make an indication that Hexokinase have four isoenzymes, linking it to 4 EC numbers?
It's not the only one that exists as isoenzymes. You need to check for all the others. It doesn't have four EC numbers, they're all the same, but there are four different proteins. Athel cb (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove Cooperativity
So you should, and you should search for other similar examples, such as Base excision repair, Bump and hole Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regular insulin is not a protein in the human body (unless it's been injected). There are probably other similar examples. Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major histocompatibility complex is a locus, not a protein. Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Histones clumps together several different important proteins that are different from one another. Athel cb (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of work to do, no doubt. But I feel it could be worth doing and that a lot of these issues does not only apply to this article/list but to how we go about Proteins(especially in the Human body) on wikipedia in general, and an article/list. Might be a part of the solution.
There is a tremendous amount of work to do, and you seem to have posted the article without doing more than about 5% of it. Unfortunately there is little reason to think you have the knowledge of proteins and biochemistry in general to do this. Athel cb (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these issues are onces that everyone will face trying to answer protein questions with wiki, yet it is unclear how apperend they are to us as a community?

I highly appriciate that you took the time to look at the list, and hope to get more good feedback :) Claes Lindhardt (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Woulden't it make sense to have a column for all the non human speices that each protein occurs in. So that researchers looking for animal models could use it to find potential matches?
Comment is there a more intuitive way to make clear or visualize how much have been mapped vs. How much there is left to map? Like how many proteins are listed here vs. how many we think there is vs. how many have been observed and described
Comment I am highly concerned that the creator of this page is now going on a crusade to add "See also: List of proteins in the human body to the beginning of every single entry in the list, which I think is highly inappropriate. GraziePrego (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I've mass reverted them now. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same thing List of distinct cell types in the adult human body, did I break some guidline here as well? and what guideline is it that this is against? and how does it contribute negativly to this discussion or the state of proteins on wiki? Would it be better if I digged out the creater of each article on the list and wrote on thier talk page? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion discussion, it would be helpful for everyone if you did not reply under every comment here, especially with matters unrelated to this deletion discussion. Feel free to ask at Talk of the said article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I started to do the same thing, but I decided that there were more urgent things to do, so I left it for later. Athel cb (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned this whole debate is going off the rails, and it would certainly be useful to sort out the fate of this list before adding more links to it. On the subject of the current list being in a bad state, Athel cb, are you in favour of a terminal-for-ever delete on the grounds that the subject is non-encyclopaedic? Or a TNT delete on the grounds that it might be possible to handle the subject but the current article is so bad a starting point that one might as well start over?
The present article is in such poor shape that I can't see how it could be salvaged without scrapping it and starting again. If someone who understands the difference between genes and proteins, and in general has a good knowledge of biochemistry (qualifications that are not evident at the moment), wants to create a new article that does it properly, then OK. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, I think the concept of a list of proteins in the human body for which we have Wikipedia articles is a very valid subject for a navigational list article. I am not wedded to the current list.

@GraziePrego:, I don't think extra columns for non-human species would work, because there are too many species.

A comment on the various suggestions to merge to Seppi333's list, this is probably technically completely impossible. If a list is maintained by a bot, how is it going to handle introduction of human-written material? Also the bot-maintained list is a blatant (but in my view useful!) violation of WP:NOTDATABASE so it's on thin ice itself. If we merge the material there, it might well get deleted as soon as a hard-core deletionist notices the whole thing doesn't fit WP's policies. Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how would one go about creating a list that does not run into the problems that this one have run into? is there a way of creating a template or a framework for a such list? I am very open to the idear of starting over, but if we do not come up with a concrete framework for how, I fear we might just have this dicussion all over on the new article/list once again? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be really nice if someone could make a list of all the problems with this list which seems unsolvable and one with the ones that seems solvable. So that we could starty by trying to address the solvable onces, before we started over. and then could have a discussion on how making a new list solves the problem that seems unsolvable here Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, would you kindly stop hijacking every single comment in this discussion? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
kashmiri, I hope you weren't referring to me, as I've written quite a bit here too. If so, I apologise. I don't want to do a take-over of this discussion. But I do think Claes Lindhardt's question is worth an answer. (1) The current table is a mess because it contains a hotch-potch mix of genes and proteins. The two are different. If this is to be truly a list of proteins, it should contain only proteins (2) It's got a rather arbitrary collection of extra columns, some of which is going to be hard to reference; the first row illustrates the problem, where an enzyme is described as a fibrous protein, and we have a "function" column that can't say anything because if you go to the article about this protein, it starts by saying the physiological function is unclear; (3) the associated introductory text clearly implies that the ideal here would be a complete, database-like list, but since it's manually compiled, it's not likely to become complete. Those who want a database will be disappointed because it doesn't compare well to seppi's gene database; those who want an encyclopaedia-style navigational list with some introductory text will also be disappointed because it's not a great navigational aid in its current form. Elemimele (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elemimele, apologies for not tagging the editor – I meant Claes Lindhardt, not you, as your comments here have obviously been very helpful. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draftify. The article in its current shape is absolutely unsuitable for mainspace (vide the issues brought up by others above), even as I see a potential for such a topic to be useful when developed properly, both content- and presentation-wise. Currently, neither content nor presentation is to a minimum acceptable quality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for several reasons. First, it does not do anything better than a category does, and should remain a category. Second, the lists List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4 already exist, and this list as it currently exists is treading the same ground over again. Third, this page is contaminated with entries that are not from humans, not proteins, and some neither human nor proteins. Fourth, it is not useful to navigate- to find a particular protein of interest, someone has to search the giant list. That's what Wikipedia is for- they can just type the protein name into the search bar at the top instead of looking at a list that just contains much less information. Overall this page would be need an absolutely staggering amount of work to contain what it intends to contain, and I believe even that will not serve any significant purpose. GraziePrego (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm becoming concerned that this AfD discussion is a the tip of an iceberg. Our current handling of proteins at a high level is awful. We have nice individual articles on individual proteins, and we have a handful of rather good navigational articles dealing with very small categories, such as Peptide hormone. This is a superb little article, exactly what any non-expert will need if they suddenly see the term in a book or newspaper and want to know more. But please take a look at List of types of proteins. If you feel that the current article has problems, the list of types of proteins is atrocious beyond wildest imagination, a collection of random unassigned quotes often on things that are just general cell biology with little special relevance to proteins (the cytosol is in the list of types of protein). It links to the marginally better List of proteins and List of enzymes but these are also both in a very sorry state. I wonder if we need a much broader delete-and-rethink on this. I will nominate list of types of proteins as it's a TNT case. Seppi's list is at least professional and in good condition. Is there anything that can be done to make the subject of human (and other) proteins accessible to the non-expert who isn't already familiar with the various gene database ID's etc.? Can we give the non-expert reader some sort of meaningful overview? How do we go about doing so? Elemimele (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the use case for finding proteins by searching through giantic lists? I think GraziePrego point above is worth repeating Fourth, it [a list] is not useful to navigate- to find a particular protein of interest. Far more practical is to use the Wikipedia search bar or Google that frequently places a link to the relevant Wikipeida article at the top of the search results. The list examples given above I think are illustrative. Small lists tend to work much better than long lists. The problem with List of types of proteins is there are many ways to classify proteins. By structure, by function, by cellular location, by tissue expression, by organism, etc. I do think that List of types of proteins is overly complex and could be signficantly simplified to focus on the big picture. Also {{Protein topics}} that is at the bottom of List of types of proteins needs to be cleaned up. Finally there is partial overlap with List of proteins. I will work on these as I find time. Boghog (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boghog: Good question. I think a list is useful in navigation when it has a definite scope, and when the reader will not necessarily know the name of the protein for which they are searching. A perfect example is the Peptide hormone list that I mentioned above. It is quite likely that someone will be looking for human hormones, and will know that some are peptides, maybe know the names of one or two, and be wondering what others exist. Yes, categories are another way to do the job, but since a lot of readers don't really understand how categories work, these targeted list articles have value.

I personally favour a two-pronged approach: (1) Seppi-style all-inclusive lists for the "pro" reader; (2) A hierarchy of (incomplete) navigational lists to help the general reader. List of types of proteins would work better if it were simply a list of other lists-and-articles. For example, it could point the reader at Enzyme (as an article on a major class of proteins), and also at List of enzymes and any other useful list articles we have that are confined to enzymes. In a separate section, it could point to any useful articles on protein/petide hormones, or at structural proteins, etc.; in this way, it would provide an overview of the sorts of things proteins do, and access to all our articles that describe protein functions, and list specific proteins. It can, of course, also have links to useful categories, thereby drawing readers into the category system. The general-reader list articles don't need to be complete because they are only providing a "bigger-picture" overview of the subject for the general reader - they are not a substitute for a database or detailed seppi-style list, which will fill in the detail.

I don't think very fact-filled lists on proteins work well; they overlap with the actual articles, they're harder to maintain, and they become enormous because of the sheer number of proteins in any organism. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I had in mind. A big-picture list-of-lists which starts out with an with a description the various ways protiens are classfied that in turn links to more detailed sublists. Boghog (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) This list of lists will not mention individual proteins, hence the size should be manageable. Boghog (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Give basic facts as a service to our readers. Save having to manually update the list by transclusion: ideally WP:LST so the list is updated automatically whenever a linked article's updated.—S Marshall T/C 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into separate sublists - definitely a useful topic, problem was that execution was wrong. I don't see the problem of a list with this length - if needed, non-notable proteins can be filtered out. Karnataka (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of such proteins can be retrieved by search in databases like Uniprot. But having it as a WP page is hardly helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) delete. I don't know sh*t about proteins. From what I read here, it is a vast subject, and one that may get quite specialized very fast (I mean, beyond the scope of even a regular college educated person). It looks like someone is trying to create the "Protein Wiki" and I don't think we should aim at being the encyclopaedia of everything at every detail, we are general encyclopaedia. Of "everything" but leave the specialised work for the specialists. I think Elemimele's question is a pertinent one: we probably need a better organization of the subject. Is this a good start (then keep), or something that will hinder a better solution (then delete)? In doubt, I'd delete to foment creation of a better solution. Say, we don't have a List of people (at the tiome of writting) it is a redirect to a section on lists about people at "List of Lists". Maybe this article should be that? A list of lists about proteins? - Nabla (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WJES (FM)

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

Per WP:NRADIO, radio stations must meet WP:GNG. With a WP:BEFORE, I am seeing no evidence to suggest this station is notable. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Georgia (U.S. state). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list. I asked the contributor, who reverted my move to redirect this page to the Georgia state radio list, to please justify why this station met the GNG. That sourcing has not come and frankly is highly unlikely to be out there. List of radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state) can and should have this as a line item and nothing more. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Our notability standards for broadcast stations have tightened considerably in the last five years or so, if not since the two years following this RfC. (Which was a correction — this topic area in general has not exactly been the gold standard for compliance with certain policies and guidelines.) There may still be people who think having a license is enough to give a station "notability", based on past versions of the NMEDIA essay (not guideline) and BCASTOUTCOMES — but notability actually requires reliable sources, just as it does anywhere else on Wikipedia. (I'm always wary of proposing any redirects as an alternative to deletion because of how easy it is — even for editors who don't have the ability to actually create articles yet — to revert against consensus.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any refs that would prove notability. I also searched for "Nelson Rodriguez"+radio+christian with no luck (Rodriguez is the station owner). There is one lengthy reliable source - a dispute involving the FCC and interference from another radio station, but I don't think it establishes notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BCAST per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BCAST and WP:GNG per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bardowell

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

Unsourced WP:BLP from 2006. Most of the article seems to have been added by a WP:COI in this edit. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jamaica and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find much other than an interview and some mention. There is no indication of notability. Hkkingg (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the article's text was copied directly from this page at his personal website. If that page can be believed, he knows some famous people and has worked with them in temporary projects/sessions, but he does not inherit notability from them. His own musical career was purely local gigs and did not get noticed by the reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established here. Okoslavia (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forge (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely irrelevant organization. Literally no secondary sources exist covering this, and it seems to fail both GNG and SIGCOV. Not sure on a good redirect target as it's reappeared multiple times, but I doubt this displays enough notability to be a separate article. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTPLOT. This page is basically all plot and neither significance nor sources. Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works. This page does none of that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional organization that only appeared in Doctor Who spinoff material. There are no valid sources currently in the article that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG and searches do not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per WP:NOTPLOT. This page's material would be good for a Doctor Who Wiki, but it isn't notable here.TH1980 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, nothing has been found to prove notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PLOT only, without enough WP:SIGCOV to verify meaningful reception or analysis. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOTPLOT and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Righ Knight

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing Wikipedia notability criteria for journalists. As always, the notability of a journalist is not established by footnoting the article to sources in which he's the author of content about other things, it's established by footnoting the article to sources in which he's the subject of coverage and analysis written by other people -- but this is referenced almost entirely to sources where he's the author, and the sole reference where he's the "subject" is a Twitter tweet rather than a reliable or notability-building source. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:GNG per a source review and Bearcat's argument above. SportingFlyer T·C 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to give the right references, it's hard finding third-person articles on an active journalist.

How is ABC, Global News and Jpost not good enough? What has a higher threshold of proof?

Legit question Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, there is no ABC News source in the article. The source you've labelled as "ABC" comes from an individual television station, not from the national news division of the ABC network — those are two different things, and one does not automatically equal the other: KAKE is owned by a company called Lockwood Broadcast Group, not by ABC, and the fact that it's an ABC affiliate doesn't turn ABC into the creator of content on KAKE's website. As well, it is not journalistic content written by a professional journalist who works for that television station, and instead is explicitly labelled right under the headline as "Sponsored: Advertising Content", meaning it's not coverage being given to a podcast but a press release purchased by the podcaster to seek publicity. People do not get over our notability rules by distributing their own press releases, people get over our notability rules by having professional journalists write proper journalism about them.
The problem with the Global News hits is that they don't represent coverage about Righ Knight; they're coverage of car accidents where Righ Knight is simply credited as the taker of a photograph of the accident. But again, what we're looking for is not "sources in which he's credited with taking a photograph of an incident that he wasn't personally involved in", what we're looking for is sources in which he is the subject of the article.
And the Jerusalem Post footnote is, again, not coverage about Righ Knight — it is simply a directory of pieces where Righ Knight was the bylined author of coverage about other things, whereas I repeat yet again, we are looking for sources in which Righ Knight is the subject of coverage and analysis written by other people.
You're simply not providing the kind of sourcing that is required to establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please get help writting it to better suit the guidelines please?

I'd hate to see all this work get flushed Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here, no sourcing found for this person. Having an idea for a political party is fine, but no one has discussed it in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not finding anything notable when searching. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm mostly finding hits on really marginal news sites about the facebook groups he created. Nothing useful for notability purposes. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think ABC is marginal?

https://www.kake.com/story/49204897/new-podcast-completely-destroys-narrative-around-modern-men Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being a self-proclaimed "mogul" and "business magnate" at a couple of links provided in the article, Mr. Knight's left very light footprints on the internet, none of them reliable sources. According to this Commons file history he is likely the primary editor of this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the author of all the articles, see this one is some guy names chris on ABC

https://www.kake.com/story/49204897/new-podcast-completely-destroys-narrative-around-modern-men Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the criteria, isn't publication and talking about said publication in and of itself deem-able of noteworthiness? Johnnyfappleseed (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, that isn't ABC, and is a press release rather than GNG-building coverage. And again, we're not looking for verification that his work exists, we're looking for evidence that his work has been the subject of third-party coverage and analysis by other people to externally validate its significance. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Production Air Charter

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on third-party coverage and analysis about their work in media -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources, such as the company's own self-published press releases about itself, a Q&A interview in which the company's CEO is answering questions in the first person and IMDb, that are not support for notability, with not even one GNG-worthy independent source shown at all. Also likely conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the name of the interviewee. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearcat,

Simply trying to improve listings alongside similar companies such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Charter_Service

&

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Partner

If I may edit anything to better get your approval please just let me know. MichaelPm92 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources talking about them in widely distributed media, such as the New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b - if you compare with Air Charter Service page it is the same / more appropriately linked sourcing. These pages will be relevant for specific industry when they search online of course. 185.251.190.226 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WAX. "This article isn't any different than that other article" is rarely a compelling argument in an AFD discussion — it's at least as liable to get that other article listed for its own deletion discussion as it is to change any minds about the quality of this article. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedy deleted it, PROMO. Non-notable company with unreliable sourcing, I can't find anything about them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Oaktree,

Feedback and your time really appreciated - still very much learning with hope to contribute much more to wiki over the next few years and beyond.

The sourcing I found seems to be reliable when you compare like to like to the other listings in the same industry - more niche so mainstream media coverage so very unlikely unless for a catastrophic event. With this precedent already set does it not help with approvals on this article? AviationUK92 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Helpful page to see, thanks GPL93. 185.251.190.226 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed as stub article. 31.4.206.79 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are valid rationales to keep an article, and the first IP's doesn't even make sense given that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a reason not to keep an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaryAnne Sapio

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lacks in depth secondary sources needed to establish notability . Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, California, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable lobbyist. This is the only source [28], she exercises at the gym. Nothing for notability. Her husband being a marine isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that would result in this person being notable. I can find various "profiles" (linkedin, professional sites, etc.) but no other info about her. Oddly, the first resource links to a news story about her husband being killed in a car accident, which isn't mentioned in the article. All rather odd. Lamona (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources required to satisfy Wikipedia requirements for "notability". Of the 141 hits found on ProQuest, most were bylines by her as VP of Fed Govt Affairs for the AANP, particularly a recurring column in The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, plus public commentary issued as press releases by the AANP where she is listed as the main media contact. There was surprisingly little about her as Miss California, except for a couple of brief quotes as a Miss America contestant – she lost $20 her first time in a casino, "Teachers are important". (Not every contestant gets quoted though, so good for her.) The best piece of coverage about her was a paragraph in Politico (2013) about her heading up the new lobbying effort by the AANP coming from the American Health Care Association; but that's all it says. Other than that, she gets two passing mentions in The Washington Post: mentioned once as one of three women who made a "beeline" for buying used pilates equipment when a fitness guru decided to downsize (link per Oaktree b above), and how much she and her spouse hold their house for. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Newspapers.com yields a total of 9 hits, 8 of which were Miss California-related mentions connected to the Miss America pageant: in addition to the two topics mentioned above, we find out she danced to the swing tune "Go Daddy O" and craves carvel ice cream and cannolis. But as it turns out, she also managed to get several paragraphs in other pieces, including a humorous anecdote about her and Miss Nebraska doing an impromptu comedy routine in the casino in Atlantic City for a reporter (Asbury Park Press) – and, most impressive, recognition for her decision to invest the scholarship money she was paid as Miss California in the stock market to pay for law school (Press of Atlantic City). Finally, there's a photo of her at a society fundraiser in South Florida Sun Sentinel. In any case, while the Miss America-related coverage does give us a better sense of her as a person, it still isn't enough for a standalone article about her as a lobbyist. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghilene Joseph

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Former college soccer player who earned at least one cap with the Guyana women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, South America, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Surio

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Former college soccer player who earned at least one cap with the El Salvador women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, El Salvador, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK to redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. I've updated the other page with her team name (Cal State Los Angeles Golden Eagles) and added the footnote to the single piece of significant coverage which exists about her, which is a university publication and doesn't count toward notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Giant Snowman 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Ravindran

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

Is Innovators Under 35 sufficient for biographic notability? I'm bringing this here for discussion since I"m not sure and otherwise with the promotion and blackhat stripped, I'm not sure he's a notable businessman. NB: I suspect this was created by an untagged sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 given timing and visible & deleted history, but it's not a G5 so we're looking at this on merits only. Star Mississippi 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Star Mississippi 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, he's not notable. The Wired article referenced is a one line quote he gave while speaking at a conference. The rest is fluffy promotional coverage, Bizcrfut we'll call it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIZCRFUT. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not established here. Okoslavia (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Sayedur Rahman

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

Non-notable physician, can only find confirmation of various jobs the person has had. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no pass of WP:PROF evident, nor any other notability criterion. In particular the Google Scholar citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1. This one caught me by surprise, because at first I thought it was about Md. Saidur Rahman, who is notable. But it's a different person, with I guess a common name. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage fail WP:CNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EngrShakamal (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SNG, No GNG, why to Keep? Okoslavia (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esteban Aracama

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Olympics database entry which fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Speedy deleted as the creation of an already-blocked user. RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastfield (film)

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

Fails to meet WP:NFILM. None of the sources seem to work, and I couldn't find anything online that would meet WP:NFSOURCES ARandomName123 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant hoax by a suspected sock of Cody Taylor. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiliya

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

Little indication of notability or WP:SIGCOV. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Texas. PepperBeast (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching, found only news releases, a few passing mentions, social media, etc. Nothing in-depth to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find anything to establish notability either. Persent101 (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Merry Christmas (Mariah Carey album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You Most (At Christmas Time)

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

Disputed WP:BLAR: doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. A WP:BEFORE search recognises this, as the only coverage appears to be in passing mentions regarding its relation to "All I Want for Christmas Is You" (WP:INHERIT). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect to Merry Christmas (Mariah Carey album). Heartfox (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merry Christmas (Mariah Carey album) as there does not appear to be enough coverage to support a separate article, but a viable redirect target exists, which in my opinion is always better for readers than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zuckerberg book club

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

Random thing that Zuckerberg did, without any lasting impact. Doesn't need its own article, and could just be a two-line mention in his biography. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think a lack of lasting impact is particularly relevant in determining the notability of this, especially when it's WP:OR and not analysis from reliable sources. The extensive coverage in reliable independent sources that are already cited in the article is far more than enough to support notability under WP:GNG, and there is plenty more that's easily found through a Google search. I don't really see any good reason this article should be deleted. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG notable topic. If it was merely a random thing why did so many sources cover it? When famous people make book clubs they get a lot of people reading and talking about those books and it influences culture. See also Oprah Book Club. -- GreenC 16:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May not be as notable as the Oprah Book Club, but still is WP:GNG notable. ParadaJulio (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually agree with nom's reasoning, but it does appear to pass the WP:GNG easily, and is eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Mark Zuckerberg Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 23:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Alopecia Areata Foundation

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

Fails WP:ORG. I thought of redirecting it to alopecia areata, but that article doesn't even mention the foundation. Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is significant coverage in [29] and a large number of Google Books hits that aren't freely accessible. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ULPS (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kramp

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

Fails WP:NBIO: WP:BEFORE showed no materials about Kramp that were indepentent and had significant coverage. Most likely an autobiography (creating user "Jkramp"). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Thames Television. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Video

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

Non-notable: during WP:BEFORE I found nothing that would show that the company passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Would also support a redirect to Thames Television. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thames Television seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thames Television, as wary as I am about the potential ease of that being reverted against consensus. Still, a brief mention there is probably the most that can ever be said about this not-independently-notable subsidiary. (Not to mention that sourcing entirely to a YouTube posting of the logo is questionable at best, and that's being generous — it might be "sourced" on paper, but it may as well still be unsourced in spirit.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thames Television: Seems a valid WP:ATD-R. There is nothing of substance that is sourced that can be merged. 2pou (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thames Television as per WP:ATD. Unable to locate any references that meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thames Television per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner (actor)

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:NBASIC or WP:ENT. I have removed some poorly sourced personal information, but the article is still a BLP-violating pseudobiography. gnu 57 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender. gnu 57 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Known only by a pseudonym and took a photo with someone famous. No, that's not at GNG me thinks. No sourcing for this fellow found either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely ridiculous and non-notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR, or any other notability guidelines because of lack of news coverage.Naomijeans (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universality and quantum systems

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Universality and quantum systems

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

After reading the article I am not sure what it is about. It seems to be vague but articulate enough to seem to introduce a topic without using any important keywords. For a "universality" article it is not clear how general this notion is. It can be seen from this talk, that this article should have never been considered to be moved into the mainspace. The article also has been an WP:Orphan since 2015.

Let me discuss the sources:

Stanley 1999, refers to "universality" to talk about universality class, which already has an article.

J. Avery's book, has no entry on universality on its index.

S. Gupta beamer is not a valid source, and its calculation seems to be the base for the second section of the article.

P. Lepage arxiv is also not a valid source, or at least not enough to prove notability. Additionally, It seems to be related to effective theories and never uses the word "universality".

I have not been able to verify the notability of this article, thus I propose deletion. A Universality (physics) article could be considered given things like lepton universality, universality principle, universal conductance fluctuations, universality (dynamical systems), universality class but I have never seen such an inclusive treatment. If somebody can clarify what it is about then maybe it can be merged somewhere else. ReyHahn (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2023 (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} 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. This is probably an WP:ESSAY if what the currently-cited sources contain are any indication. However, I did find some papers from significant academic journals, "Universality in Quantum Computation" and "Thermodynamic universality of quantum Carnot engines", just from a Google search with the phrase being specifically the title of the Wikipedia article. A Google Scholar article also finds several academic articles primarily about the connection between universality and various quantum concepts, so... maybe an article like this could exist? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Universality" is a technical term in statistical physics, referring to how sometimes the behavior of a large aggregate can be independent of the details about individual pieces. We see the same bell-shaped kind of curve all over the place, for example. "Universality" has a different technical meaning in quantum computation. There, it's basically the quantum counterpart of the idea that you can implement any truth table you want by combining AND, OR, and NOT gates. The "thermodynamic universality of quantum Carnot engines" paper linked above is using the word in yet a third sense, referring to how all Carnot engines have the same efficiency. Throwing the title into a search engine will inevitably bring back a horrible mix of all these meanings, which is pretty much useless for determining whether we need an article with this title and if the present text is anywhere near what it should be. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Man, if it were not for this darn brain fog I have had for several months, I might get some of those technical terms. "Gates", "truth tables", "third sense". User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a solid introduction to logic gates and truth tables in Larry Gonick's Cartoon Guide to the Computer. I don't know of a comparably straightforward introduction to the quantum version; the idea is covered in Mike and Ike, but nobody really picks up that book without at least a couple years of a physics degree first. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, I've read it, gone away, and read it again. I don't think there's an encyclopedia topic here, nor any material worth trying to salvage. This reads like someone trying to write a textbook, which we aren't... while being too confused about the actual ideas to do that. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The introduction discusses Kadanoff's definition of universality, but then says that it not quite the kind of universality this article is about. We are left with a very vague notion of what the topic of the article actually is. To me, the selection of topics seems very much inspired by the last reference (https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.nucl-th/9706029) which, however, does not mention universality, but is about effective low-energy models (effective field theories). One could interpret effective field theory as being the topic of this article, but since the author avoids the that term, and instead replaces it with that vague notion of universality, this article falls into the category of original research. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per ReyHahn. An article could be written on this, but it's not this article. TNT is the only option. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above plus the discussion at Talk:Universality and quantum systems.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Said discussion has been copy-pasted to this AfD's talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to E Street Band. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of E Street Band members

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

WP:NLIST. Highly repetitive list of band members already covered in E Street Band. The number of band members does not justify listing them outside that article. History section makes it look like a fork of the E Street Band Article. Kleuske (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and United States of America. Kleuske (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a bit of precedent of having articles like this for long-running bands with lots of lineup changes. List of Nine Inch Nails members and List of the Smashing Pumpkins band members come to mind. Certainly some would be silly - like one for ZZ Top - but this seems like the sort of band it's appropriate for. Band membership is an essential thing to track, and lists make it so band articles aren't massive or bogged down on talking about comings and goings of members all the time. I also find it rather unlikely that a band of this caliber hasn't mustered up a few NLIST satisfying sources over the course of ...40 years? I'll look further but I'm probably leaning keep. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking further, my stance is a combination of what I said above, and what's pointed out below. A split like this is conceptually possible, but it was not properly executed. I support redirecting for now, (surprised no one BOLDly tried that first) but with no prejudice towards recreation if someone decides to do it right in the future. Sergecross73 msg me 11:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Every word in the history section is at E Street Band, the timeline is duplicative, and the line-ups are duplicative. If you're going to WP:SPLIT the main article, you need to actually complete the job and remove the content from the main article and use appropriate sumamry style rather than just copy-paste and do nothing else. This was a bold split that skipped the first four steps, but I do not believe it's necessary in the first place and the table of members should instead be in the main article. The main article is not "bogged down" with this content at all. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Look, it's a potentially valid article split, but Reywas92 is correct - it's just duplicative at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barney & Friends. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen White (television writer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find independent significant coverage. Imcdc Contact 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Imcdc Contact 14:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and doesn't otherwise credibly establish notability. Note that there was a different person of the same name who was covered here and here. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect option described below looks good to me too. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly marginally notable under his assumed name since there appears to be a published book under that name, but I couldn't find any sources which would make this a definitive keep. I don't mind if it's recreated with better sourcing I might have missed, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barney & Friends, since this is the sole and only thing he is seemingly known for working on. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Copyvio. Rewrite from sources please.b Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Department of Commerce

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

Entirely promotional puff piece. Sources do not establish independent notability, being all press releases or primary sources from the organisation itself. Could possibly be stubbified, but totally inappropriate in its current form. Folly Mox (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Folly Mox (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Every U.S. state has a department like this, and the claim about it being a "promotional puff piece" is extremely speculative. This article does have problems with uncited statements and not enough independent sources, but AFD is not cleanup. It is not take much more than a GNews search to show that actions taken by this department get coverage on Maryland sources independent of the department. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my word on what to do? Do not keep going with nomination until a valid rationale is made. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 16:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify post haste to remove copyvio [30] and generally shit writing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup to improve prose quality, though the Copyvio is serious. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this has been a copyvio since 2009. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio school

AfDs for this article:

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

Last time this ended up as a no-consensus. There was talk about how this article should be merged but in the end no action was performed so I am opening up discussion again for further review. I personally feel this article doesn't have enough proper references to support WP:GNG. Feels a bit promotional too. Also keep in mind WP:NOTDICTIONARY Imcdc Contact 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 15:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Once again, this is not promotional. This is a category of schools. Any amount of research - any amount - will show you that this is a legitimate category of schools in existence, like a finishing school or a trade school. Should it be pruned? Maybe - but I would love to hear an actual argument on how this warrants deleting this article instead of, say, editing out the parts you object to. Do you deny the existence of portfolio schools? LocusXovier (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - of the four sources in the article, the first is a blog and so not reliable. I do not have access to ‘’Breaking into advertising and staying there’’ but it is sourcing a quote from someone from The One Club which offers an ‘online portfolio program’ and launched the One School (a ‘portfolio school’) in 2020. The Working not Working magazine article is a promotional piece for the One Club / One School. The Adweek article is paywalled, but what is visible is written like a blog and Adweek’s mission is to promote ‘brand marketing’ content, so it is difficult to see that this could be a reliable source for a legitimate type of educational institution.

In summary I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of The One Club, and so I believe that this subject does not pass WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for PROMO. NO sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My main concern is that repeated attempts to actually find good sources have failed. I'm not sure the AdWeek "article" is particularly reliable, but even if it is, the volume of reliabe and independent coverage just doesn't cut it for WP:GNG. Genuine attempts to find good sources by multiple editors have failed, which is by itself enough for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON. Standalone notability (as required by DEL-REASON 8), probably a higher sourcing threshold DEL-REASON 7, is certainly not supported by the sources currently available. Since it has been proposed before: I'm not sure what a merge to Advertising industry would look like, and a redirect without merging seems unhelpful too. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Dewasi

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

Non-notable actor with only one role and no discussion of it or of him. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources available on web per WP:ICTFSOURCES apart from the three listed in article C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article already deleted 4 times (3 for lack of notability, one for sockpuppet creation) Draft version also deleted 4 times under this title, and 6 more times under 5 other titles (details here). Appears to have done nothing in the last 4 years to alter the lack of notability.
Draft was "Extended Confirmed create protected 16/12/2022"- request "Extended Confirmed create protection" of article as well - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator User:Malwarevoc has been globally locked for "Undisclosed paid editing" - Arjayay (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR.—Alalch E. 17:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(non-admin closure) The result was speedy delete‎. Bbb23 has deleted the page with "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion" rationale. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olybet

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

Non-notable business, appears PROMO. Nothing found in RS that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Estonia. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline (note-taking software)

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

This article was deleted via PROD process and restored via WP:REFUND at the request of a single purpose editor. It isn't notable, though. Aside from the software's own website, all the cited sources are unreliable affiliate marketing blogs. I've searched and I can't find anything but more blogs and indiscriminate download portals. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software [31] and [32] don't even mention it. Likely a PROMO attempt. Delete for lack of sourcing. Don't pay to have wikipedia articles made, if they get deleted, you've wasted your money. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked for sources, not notable. Funny, got embarrassed this slipped through WP:APPLE, then I noticed it was me who had prodded it. Cool. DFlhb (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explosions in Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War

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

I don't think this article should exist. Its scope is way too large. We cannot cover all the explosions that have taken place in Ukraine because of the war. Such a list would never even be comprehensive because it is clear not 100% of all explosions have been reported or covered by public sources, much less by reliable outlets that Wikipedia requires for adding information here. I also wonder what could be the benefit of having such an article. Has anybody here ever thought we should have an article on Explosions during World War II? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article is inappropriate, possibly open to bias, and inherently incomplete as noted. Though *Air raid warnings in Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War and *Buildings damaged in Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War would form a neat series. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this scope requires trawling frequently badly-sourced reports to fill a subcategory of no clear benefit. Bloody peculiar scope too - apparently if a Russian tank met a mine that wouldn't be eligible for inclusion...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Explosions happen, it's war. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Learn

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

Moved by conflicted editor from AFC to main space, fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and California. Kpg jhp jm 09:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and clearly blatant advertising . Kpg jhp jm 09:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure adware, zero evidence of notability of any flavour; should never have been moved into the main space. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: possibly notable for its DOMA and DORA diagnostic tests used in many school system. Searching on "Let's Go Learn" + software, I came up with some possible refs that bear further examination [33][34]. I'm traveling with sketchy internet access and have not had time to search for "Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment" and "Diagnostic Online Math Assessment". Can someone else here take a look at those? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about all I can find in scholarly journals [35]. Thesis? Delete for lack of sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Online reading assessments" seem to be a thing, but not this particular product's offering. I find many hits on the term, hardly anything for this product. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a BEFORE, found no SIGCOV. Also feels self promotional in style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I looked earlier, too. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per poor sourcing and not meeting WP:GNG BoraVoro (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The result of this discussion don't have any effect on the drafts, though they should probably be merged into a single draft page. Salting is only appropriate if this title is repeatedly recreated. ✗plicit 10:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Kline

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

Artist subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - existing citations appear to be primary or near-primary sources. Also several significant assertions are unsupported by reliable, independent sources. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am pretty sure this is the work of a PR agent or marketing strategist who is trying a little too hard to publish a WP article on this artist. There are also drafts by the same creator and another WP:SPA waiting in the wings for Draft:Cheryl Kline, Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline, and Draft:Cheryl Ann Kline (Figurative Painter) if this one gets deleted. Therefore: WP:PROMO. While the artist has some technical ability and started her own "school" and self-published her own book, an online BEFORE search does not reveal the type of independent coverage in reliable sources that we would normally find for a notable artist. What I do find are press releases, gallery listings and other primary sources, Amazon and ThriftBooks selling her self-published book, adverts for her "school", and user-submitted content, native advertising "magazines" like Artist Portfolio Magazine where an artist can buy space to have an article, etc. I am not finding WP:SIGCOV such as in-depth reviews in notable art magazines, entries in art history books nor a a track record of important exhibitions or works in notable museum collections. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and its three redundant drafts. Some gallery shows and two articles in the same local newspaper that both read like retreaded press releases do not constitute a pass of WP:ARTIST. And you do not get to keep backup drafts waiting in the wings in case your main article gets shot down. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Netherzone and David Eppstein have said all that needs to be said about notability. The creators of the drafts (Samism1, Shaunsmith12) should probably be investigated for UPE/socking. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: if this is deleted, what would be the best method for deleting the duplicate drafts? Would salting be appropriate? Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If better source material becomes available in the future and someone is interested in having this draftified, please let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audel Laville

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found one good piece of coverage here, which I added, but unfortunately this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Other sources like this and this are not independent. It might be a good idea to Draftify. JTtheOG (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are also these sources [36][37][38]. Perhaps not perfect, but with a healthy dose of WP:WORLDVIEW? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per SailingInABathTub. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Article doesn't pass WP:GNG yet as the only thing approaching SIGCOV is the eMAGE DM article linked by the nominator. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GiantSnowman no evidence of notability. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wragg

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

A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lucknow#Economy. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Lucknow

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

Although this article was created in good faith years ago, it is poorly sourced and I think can be covered in the main Lucknow article. Lucknow#Economy on the other hand is well sourced. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the article creator User:25 Cents FC as they are still active. - Indefensible (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article at Lucknow#Economy with any useful information not covered there . Kpg jhp jm 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lucknow#Economy: the main concern here would be readability and ease of navigation at the merge target. Although Lucknow is a relatively long article, it's well-structured and the Economy section is quite small; I see no reason to oppose a merge. I'd recommend Template:R with possibilities, though. It's plausible that someone will come along and write a significantly better article about the economy of Lucknow. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as described. If more in-depth sources come along later, we can redo the fork. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucknow#Economy to preserve article history for potential expansion again in the future. - Indefensible (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MICIVIH

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. At least one source looks to not be independent, which leads me to see this as not passing WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Haiti. UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of United Nations peacekeeping missions. Deserves a mention but likely not a standalone article. - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be broad significant coverage in academia. (not exhaustive, just a part of the first page of google scholar results)
- (not independent, per below) sigcov in a book, 9 citations
- (not independent) note on relation to truth commission, 11 citations
- (appears independent) sigcov in a conference report, 9 citations
- (appears independent) seems to be sigcov, with a citation

—siro χ o 21:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Siroxo, I think some of those sources might be WP:PRIMARY. For example the 1st link is by a Colin Granderson, but he appears to have been the director of the subject according to https://sta.uwi.edu/iir/sites/default/files/iir/images/Flyer%20Tribute%20to%20Amb%20Colin%20Granderson%2C%20Monday%20June%2027%2C%202022.pdf. - Indefensible (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Indefensible! You are correct about that, and it seems the second one is by the deputy director. However as far as I can tell, the other two are independent. I think my !vote stays the same, as we have two sources and my BEFORE was not very exhaustive. I hadn't even looked into newspapers before and already found this: [39][40]. I am confident more journals and newspapers will turn up if needed. —siro χ o 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I think your 4th link might be primary too since the author was a UN observer. Since the subject is a UN mission, I think sources from the UN might all be primary so we need non-UN coverage to support this. - Indefensible (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident enough in understanding the UN to know for sure, it's such a big organization. So I suppose we might rule out an "independent expert" from the UN as well [41]. Either way, here's some somewhat arcane coverage of applying statistical models to missions, this subject being a focus [42]. And these two articles seem on the face to be independent [43][44]. —siro χ o 07:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Good discussion so far, but we need more opinions here. Anyone else want to weigh in?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we have enough sources here in the discussion to satisfy GNG requirements. Personally, I think the best way forward would be an article on the multiple UN Peacekeeping missions in Haiti, since there is significant operational overlap, and separating the missions completely seems somewhat arbitrary. See, for example, this UN report and this report by the US Institute of Peace. Even though expanding the article's scope in the future might be good, the notability of the subject is well-established for now. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Actualcpscm and sources provided by Siroxo above. The article isn't in great shape but it would be pretty extraordinary if such a high-profile mission didn't meet the GNG. Further on possible rescoping, I note that the article itself seems confused about whether this mission ended in 1994 or 2000, which does suggest some difficulty figuring out which mission is which. (The latter date seems more likely based on this 1999 Miami Herald article, which also mentions two other contemporaneous missions.) -- Visviva (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the lead re. the suspension in 1994, but a lot of this is still unclear. Hopefully someone will take the time to research a decent timeline of events and missions. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep, but clean up, this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hall (musician) compositions

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

Article cites no sources, and does not elaborate on the compositions. There is not enough sourced information on Jim Hall’s compositions, especially as compared to Thelonious Monk and Bill Evans, the only other Modern Jazz composers with a comparable article, to warrant an article Mach61 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're saying about lack of sourced information. But if this article is simply deleted, there will be nothing left to add the sourced information to. Maybe merge it into the Jim Hall article if it is deleted, though I can see objections to that. What is here is information that does not exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, so it adds value. Merge it, tag it in some way to invite more citations, or whatever. But I do not agree that this article should be deleted outright. --Alan W (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article which is notable.. The AllMusic link in the external links verifies a number of the entries in the discogrography section, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so an individual artist being notable does not necessarily mean their compositions deserve their own list. Note that the aforementioned Monk and Evans had collected books about their compositions, implying nobility on their own, and that no such work exists for Hall. Mach61 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a very common way to split articles, beyond that, it certainly meets WP:NLIST. It's technically not even unsourced, it just doesn't have inline citations, and its sources are buried in the External links section. —siro χ o 11:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I helped with organization and cleanup of this article a while back when it was created. But I am getting less hopeful about any justification for keeping it in any form. I too thought, well, someone can dig into those External Links and come up with the inline citations. I just looked at those External Sources. Alas, not even this one, "Jim Hall (musician) compositions", really points to any compositions that I can see. If you click on the link, it ends up on an IMDb page with general information about Jim Hall. The other links are even more hopeless. This is very sad. Why do I say that? Because I just found out that the originator and main author of the article is deceased, as of about five and a half years ago. Now that I see the situation, I wouldn't even know where to begin rescuing this article. Maybe someone else has a better idea. --Alan W (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is sad. I'll start pointing inline references at AllMusic by album. It may not be comprehensive but we can get a start at least. —siro χ o 10:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic listings do not establish notability, which was my concern in nominating the article, not that the compositions couldn't be verified. Considering the previously mentioned lack of writing on Hall's compositions in relative to comparable Jazz artists, it's difficult to argue that they've been "as a group or set by independent reliable sources," the relevant criterion for NLIST. Mach61 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. It's probably worth quoting the full relevant sentence in NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. So an expressly non-exclusive criterion. The widespread practice of creating such lists suggests that, if they indeed do not qualify under the "discussed as a group" criterion, there is at least a working editorial consensus that such lists represent another accepted reason. But I don't think we need to go that far in this case. The Jim Hall (musician) article cites sources that discuss Hall's composing style, which is necessarily a discussion of his compositions as a group or set, meeting NLIST. (Might be nice to import some of that material to this currently leadless list.) If an individual X is verifiably notable for creating works of type Y, then it would IMO be fairly exceptional if a "List of Ys by X" did not meet the discussed-as-a-group criterion of NLIST, and I don't see any reason to consider this to be such an exception. -- Visviva (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence, given the sketchiness of the few sources given, only External Links, and not much there about the compositions. But I looked back at the Jim Hall article again, and this sentence did it for me: "In 1997, Hall received the New York Jazz Critics Award for Best Jazz Composer/Arranger." To me his notability as a composer, which is now clearer to me (I always loved Hall as a guitarist but, frankly, had no idea he was so respected as a composer), justifies keeping the material in this article. Maybe merge it into the Jim Hall article, maybe, if enough can be fleshed out with more sources, keep it as is. But let's not throw this material away. Hall was a notable jazz composer. --Alan W (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Happy to userfy this for a restart but the majority of the keep votes underline the paucity of strong sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmud

AfDs for this article:

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

Very poorly sourced. Fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Somalia, Pakistan, and Czech Republic. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poland and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or draftify. My source query only confirmed this is not a hoax (there was such an ambassador in Pakistani service, according to some snippets in Google Books). What I see are however mentions in passing or press release or equivalents. Prior AfD 10 years ago ended as keep b/c he reached the rank of air commodore, which was said to be equivalent of general and passing the now-depreciated WP:SOLDIER. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable." So we have two aspects of "close but no banana". The article is also mostly unrerferenced, and the refs cited are poor. Maybe there are some sources we haven't found, but what we have is poor - and poorly written (one of the sources is youtube, poorly described and even mispelled as "vido tribute"). The creator is not very active; maybe they can ask for WP:REFUND when they come back and learn of this deletion and improve it in their userspace; I also wouldn't be opposed to moving it there instead of deletion --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winston Churchill was in the same rank I also added some references.WhyWeAll (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. US-Verified (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person seems to just cross the line into relevance because of an interesting (and verifiable) history, including being one of the few Indian pilots that took part in the second world war (verified by the Indian Air Force) and also for his role in a couple of fairly significant events, namely, the defense of Zia ul Haq in a court martial (he later became the President of Pakistan) and his participation in the creation of the Hamood-ur-Rehman report which had extremely significant consequences for the Pakistani Military after their 1971 war. Sourcing is weak, but NOT non-existent...and allowances need to be made for the time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.234.200 (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we should trust what sources are there in my opinion and give the benefit of the doubt given the historical background and context for the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played a role in notable historical events. I found two articles about him in local U.S. newspapers in the 1950s and added them to the article. While there are citation gaps, this article needs improvement, not deletion. CT55555(talk) 13:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify, otherwise I guess delete. I really appreciate the work that CT55555 has put in, both here and in the article. But I'm not really thrilled with those sources, especially the dinner party one, and it doesn't seem like they really furnish much to build an article out of. Nor do they really verify the encyclopedic significance of the subject, which would be helpful in a borderline case. I would acknowledge that the Robins article with its two paragraphs of biographical information meets the SIGCOV requirement that no original research is needed to extract the content. But I think we're still a little short of the NBASIC threshold of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The mid-to-late 20th century is a difficult period to research in general, and the best material here might be in sources that are either offline or in nonpublic databases, and also possibly in Urdu. But I would say that I'm not really seeing the kind of signature in the search results that would make me think "there must be more out there", which leaves me unpersuaded that we really have encyclopedia material here. So I find myself leaning toward either slow deletion (draftification) or the fast kind. (I am saddened to see that the former SOLDIER essay seems to have been deprecated based on an RFC close by an involved and now CU-blocked user who ignored multiple reasoned dissents. But I guess it is what it is at this point.) -- Visviva (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The beauty of the net is that the cost of maintaining marginal information is fairly low now. While the cited references may not be that significant, some of events this person participated in were very significant, particularly for the country it impacted. These include the Hamood-ur-Rehman commission, the defense of the future President of Pakistan in a court martial and being a key player in circumventing a US arms embargo on Pakistan via Turkey when Pakistan was in a war with India. Once deleted these will, given the time period they relate to, just vanish, much like tears in the rain (shout out to Rutger Hauer). Yes this may be marginal, but just the fact it is attracting this much attention in the deletion discussion may indicate that it may be better to err on the side of preservation rather than on the side of deletion...one action always rectifiable, one, permanent. 100.36.234.200 (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old LA (Highland Park) Farmers Market

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

Article tagged as unsourced since 2020 and I found no WP:SIGCOV online. No indication it meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG ARandomName123 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and California. ARandomName123 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources or indication of notability. Kpg jhp jm 07:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My city has well over a dozen weekly farmers markets in different neighborhoods, and it would take a lot to show this is more than a run-of-the-mill one. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This borders on WP:SPEEDY since the only source is the marketing material for the article's subject. Last1in (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Melindy

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:BIO, with all sources being statistics. A BLPPROD was removed after sources were added. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Ice hockey, and Canada. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Biography fails to meet WP:GNG. The only sources are to statistical databases with do not contribute to notability. Flibirigit (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this but that is not enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourced only to databases, plays in the low minors, fails the GNG. Beyond that, at the very least that edit summary in the article creation is pure attack, ought to be revdel'd, and the article creator ought to get a trout slap over it. Ravenswing 18:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please bring up copyright concerns in the appropriate forum as that is an important concern. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dred

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

Poorly sourced BLP about a musician who doesn't appear notable per general or music-specific guidelines. I wasn't able to find online references to the artist beyond primary sources, a single album review on Medium, and a number of blurbs in aggregators and concert announcements which appear directly plagiarized from Wikipedia (one of which was, unfortunately, added as a citation to the article after I mentioned it on Teahouse). Was unable to verify the other citations. Box of wolves (feed) 04:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Box of wolves (feed) 04:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets WP:BASIC. I was able to verify the source for one claim in the article and it has a couple pages of solid SIGCOV [45]. If we consider that in tandem with the AllMusic bio [46] attributed to a staff author, which is largely focused on musical style/label details, and not "riskier" biographical details we have a clear meeting of BASIC. There's a fair amount of other nontrivial-but-short coverage about this performer that is not dependent on Wikipedia, as well. Note this subject appears to be held as a very important figure in Acid Techno, and may also meet WP:NMUSICBIO#7. —siro χ o 06:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jeez, no idea how I missed the AllMusic one. I haven't been able to find a copy of the Rough Guide, but if it supports the claim that he's important to acid techno I'd agree on WP:NMUSICBIO#7 and either way WP:BASIC seems unavoidable. Prepared to withdraw this and start looking at cleanup if nobody says any different. Box of wolves (feed) 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While doing some more research and cleanup planning, I discovered that the original revision is likely to be copy-pasted from Dred's autobiography on his own website (archived: [47]). The dates check out (archive scrape before article creation), and the text is character-for-character identical. Large parts of that page are still present in the article's Acclaim section — i.e. all revisions will have copyright problems. Going to bring that up at WP:CPN but figured it's probably worth mentioning here as well. Box of wolves (feed) 23:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. In addition to Box of wolves said above, he possibly meets WP:MUSICBIO for being on 2 major labels. 2 of the labels he was on have a Wiki page, which could indicate that they are notable labels. Hkkingg (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimíra Krčková

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

fails WP:SINGER, also has very few sources covering her work. I found 3. One of them is good and can be used (but one source is not enough for notability - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself")(https://www.idnes.cz/zpravy/archiv/vladimira-krckova-je-veru-renesancni-umelkyne-proc-se-nikdo-neujal-jejiho-alba.A120807_123120_kavarna_chu), one is an interview and therefore cannot be used to establish her notability (https://english.radio.cz/vladimira-krckova-a-young-jazz-singer-who-lives-prague-8576387), and one barely covers her at all (https://jazz.rozhlas.cz/jazzova-zpevacka-vladimira-krckova-pokrti-album-5178528?mob=1&print=1). The page has no other sources, and is just written like an advertisement. I tried working on the article myself but I don't believe it can be saved. It's also strange to me that she is a Czech singer and yet has no Czech Wikipedia page. Jaguarnik (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Barely any references, stuff like
decided to travel around the world and release all the memories and conditioning that were preventing her from creating as well as living her life
is not written in encyclopaedia language, in general the article feels promotional. Especially with its undue focus on her personal life or health, which is also completely unsourced. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Czech Republic. Kpg jhp jm 07:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for PROMO with flowery language and not much of anything in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing reliable beyond what the nominator found. Note that those articles are not only promotional but they're all from 2012, meaning that the singer and her management did a little promotional rush at that time and then nothing much happened. The article's prose is clearly a repeat of a self-written biography that was meant for potential fans and it is not encyclopedic. And forgive me, but recovering from depression doesn't make someone notable or even interesting when millions of other humble people have done the same. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and agree with the reasons provided by DOOMSDAYER. Hkkingg (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV. I removed the entirely unsourced "health" section as a serious BLP violation. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Tower of Druaga (TV series). Consensus that much of the content is not usable, but whatever editors deem relevant can be merged. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Tower of Druaga characters

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

Previously deleted article that was randomly brought back less than a week ago. Has no sources whatsoever, fails pretty much all notability guidelines. WP:BEFORE and searching for any coverage on this subject from reliable sources turns up nothing. NegativeMP1 3:45 (UTC) 21 July 2023

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing the deletion log for the article. Regardless, no reason why this can't be merged into the game article rather than deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merges seem good, to both the game and anime pages. It also provides something of a list of voice actors as well, which benefits the anime article. —siro χ o 23:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge to The Tower of Druaga (TV series) - At the very least, the main characters and voice cast of the anime should be moved over to the article on the show, as that is a pretty standard bit of information to include, and is not currently in that article. Rorshacma (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge (no sources) and redirect as above. No sources makes this a painful case of WP:FANCRUFT, but some plot summary is useful to have around - but generally, we don't need articles that are unreferenced plot summary and nothing but. Wikipedia =/= fandom/wikia --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as the evolving consensus. Not enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV and merge is a reasonable WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to IKM–Manning Community School District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Community School District

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

Has only four sources as a 1 paragraph section, Been cited since July 2018. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and Iowa. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox found in the article is full of redlinks. That suggests a topic area needing expansion, not scaling back. The nominator's rationale is misleading in that the article is orange-tagged for needing expansion, not for lacking sources. Anyway, Merge to IKM–Manning Community School District. The article on the other pre-merger component of that district is also light on third-party sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will check Newspapers.com to see how many sources I can find about the pre-merger district. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found several newspaper article sources about how the creation of the district was legally disputed in court by another school district (the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately upheld the creation of this district). Additionally there was a legal dispute in regards to two areas being moved into this districgt. This is certainly not routine coverage by any stretch of the definition, and so this should secure notability of this topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to IKM–Manning Community School District. Historic predecessor districts should be covered in the current district's article unless WP:FORK becomes a concern. Even with additional content, size is not a concern here. The other predecessor district's articles should likewise be merged, possibly dividing the history section at the target article into subsections to do so. By all means, this title should remain as a redirect. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - However if WP:WEIGHT becomes too much for a particular section (for example, the weight of the information about the former Manning district, which operated from 1959 to 2011), then that former district should have its own article. I'm still finding content about the 1959-2011 period, and I think that there may be enough for this district to have its own article. Also there is notability by being a populated, legally recognized place (as per Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Settlements_and_administrative_regions). Various former municipalities in Japan, which have since merged into larger ones, would count as being legally recognized places. Former school districts are also legally recognized places. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Merge - Based on everyone elses statements, I think a merge would be a better idea PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Redwood

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

This article is about (wait for it...) a website on a fictitious institution that cloned Reed College's website in 2011, possibly as a scam to collect application fees. Reed fought to have it taken down, generating some news coverage at the time, but there has been no enduring coverage post-2011, and this fundamentally fails WP:NOTNEWS/WP:TYT. The only ATD would be redirecting to Reed, but I don't think it'd be due for a mention in the history section there, so I'd lean toward straight deletion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Websites. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seem inherrently lacking in notability (only notability is inherited from a real institution taking action against it) - and fundamentally it would be a terrible precedence if faked websites were considered notable. JMWt (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few lines into Reed College, the notable aspect of this story. —siro χ o 09:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reed has a 115 years of (rather colorful) history to cover in summary style in its history section, so there's a high bar for inclusion. The section is currently heavily weighted toward early history, but even if it were balanced out to featured-quality weighting, I think a mention of this would stick out. When I was writing FA Pomona College § History, which has a comparably old history, the sort of news event that warranted a one-line mention was a campus building getting bombed. If this had gone to the Supreme Court or something, that'd be one thing. But this? The college sent out a copyright infringement notice, and the media picked it up as an (at-that-time) novel use of the internet, but without any enduring coverage I don't see how it rises to the level of being due for that section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will defer to your evaluation of the article in terms of merging. I don't have any particular attachment to the content per se, but it's one of those small things that could be folded into an article at some point, so I'd like to preserve history with an ATD. If you think it would be misleading to redirect to Reed College, we could possibly redirect to phishing or internet fraud, or redirect to Redwood (disambiguation) as a pointer to any of those? —siro χ o 21:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also against a merge to Reed College as this is essentially just WP:NOTNEWS - a barely notable event. I'd be convinced to sway my vote if there's any continuing coverage, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see anything worth merging. It might have a possible home if anyone ever decides to create an article like List of education-related hoaxes. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a rought consensus to Keep. I recommend an policy talk page discussion on WP:AUD about regional vs. local coverage as it seems to be an issue that has come up repeatedly in recent AFD discussions. It seems like the guidelines could be a bit clearer since well-intetioned editors are interpreting this policy differently. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rubinstein Bagels

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

Coverage seems entirely local as per WP:AUD. Does not meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Yet again, this is another nomination I must assume was initiated without even attempting to assess available coverage. A simple Google search shows Food & Wine said Rubinstein has some the nation's best bagels. Many sources are easily found, some of which I've already added to the article. I've asked this editor many times to share concerns on Talk pages before tagging articles and jumping to AfD unnecessarily. If the hounding could stop, that'd be great. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hounding. I have also nominated food places from Australia. Simply having "some of the nation's best bagels" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to take articles you've created personally when they've been nominated for deletion. Remember you don't WP:OWN any articles on WP. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly targeting me. Please leave me alone. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I'm not targeting you. Stop acting as if you WP:OWN articles you've created. We know you don't like articles being deleted, but if you're not willing to have articles placed under the scrutiny of deletion then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. So stop telling me to tell leave you alone and concentrate on actual deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone. Stop hounding me, stop tagging my entries, stop jumping to AfD, stop talking to me. I do not have ownership issues and very much welcome collaboration with editors who are actually here to build the encyclopedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone and stop your WP:ADHOM. Stop acting if you own these articles. You cannot ask another editor to stop nominating an article just because you own it. You even asked an administrator and she said she wouldn't follow your request. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing I wasn't allowed to nominate this restaurant? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SkyHigh Mount Dandenong? LibStar (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar, Skyhigh has no sources, arbuable or otherwise, while, as you know, all of Another Believer's pages that you are, ah, not targeting, have good and at-length sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this has good at length sourcing why have others !voted delete? I'm sure someone will just complain "I'm being targeted." LibStar (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not being targeted LibStar. The delete comments do not take regional coverage into consideration (see WP:AUD). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like very local and very routine coverage of a food outlet which we would not normally considered sufficient notability for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC) I am striking this !vote because I have no wish to be involved in a personal battle between other editors. Do not use me or my comments or !votes as ammunition. JMWt (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP. Most of the coverage is indiscriminate coverage any local restaurant would receive, and the ones that aren't are local restaurant reviews. Nothing showing this was a long-term notable restaurant. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced and GNG compliant. Local restaurants are notable when sourced, and the only thing that should be considered as unusual here is that a Wikipedian took the time to write and source it. Nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD clearly states that more than local coverage is required. It could have a 1000 sources but that's not enough to establish notability, otherwise every local shop and restaurant that got a local review would have an article. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

? Regional coverage is sourced on the page. WP:AUD does not apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I could get you to point me at the three sources you believe support a claim to notability? Valereee (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources found are in the Seattle Times or Seattle Eater, I'm not showing anything beyond confirmation they make good bagels. [48] is probably the best of them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (despite my disappointment that this is a different Rubinstein Bagels from the otherwise-forgotten one featured in various administrative law casebooks). It's hard to imagine a more straightforward example of significant coverage in regional media than Oaktree b's Pacific NW Magazine link above. Helpfully, WP:AUD addresses precisely this situation: significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. Just to eliminate any doubt as to whether a single regional source can suffice, the guideline goes on the specify that at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary (emphasis in original). So we seem to be solidly in, even under an inflexibly literal reading of the guideline. There also seems to be no question that the CORPDEPTH requirement that it is possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization is met, based not only on subjective analysis of the sources but also the objectively well-cited state of the article. -- Visviva (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage by national sources such Salon.com, Vox media, & Food & Wine contradicts the statement Coverage seems entirely local. There are also regional sources from Portland, OR & Vancouver, BC. This definitely meets the WP:AUD test. Peaceray (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more, calm consideration, realizing that AFD discussions can get heated but to not take things personally. Focus on content, sourcing and policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on regional sources, the Seattle and Tacoma newspapers and other sourced media outlets (notice that this article is very well sourced) are sold and cover a wide international regional area in the NW United States and into Canada, thus meeting WP:AUD. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact a local paper has a large catchment area still makes the coverage local. SportingFlyer T·C 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUD seems to be the bone of contention here, and it is met, as Seattle Times meets the criteria for regional coverage: (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) satisfying AUD. There also seems to be Tacoma coverage, which despites sharing an airport, is a different city. —siro χ o 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article, and obviously broad coverage from RS. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Looks ok to me. Nice job. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebury-Monterey Language Academy

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

Does not reach the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gnews reveals little coverage. There's a NY times article but we need more than that. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Vermont. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps merge some content to either Middlebury College or Middlebury College Language Schools? The "academy" is but a summer program. I didn't find the required "multiple reliable secondary sources" for this article to be notable. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Polly (Doctor Who). There is an approximate consensus here that any coverage in reliable sources relates to the character duo, and covering that material in a single article is appropriate. As the target article has survived AfD, the concerns about merging there seem moot. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jackson (Doctor Who)

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

While he is a companion, his article, as well as Polly's, rely on primary sources, and I can't find any other sources on either him. Thus, he doesn't seem to meet the GNG nor SIGCOV. As he is a classic series companion, there may be reception scattered about here and there, but I'm not sure if there's enough to constitute a whole article. Worst comes to worst, Ben and Polly's articles should be merged given that they come as a duo, but as it stands right now, he should probably just be merged into the Companions article. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) I'm reluctant, but there's limited opportunity for improved secondary coverage given Michael Craze died before Doctor Who home media gathered momentum. Polly (Doctor Who), who Ben never appears without, is there for any minor material. U-Mos (talk) 08:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm not entirely sure each companion needs an article, I see no value in deleting the article on a single companion when all the others have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, really? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp has started doing this semi-obsessively on fictional character articles. From an experienced user it’d be bad, from an admin it’s borderline trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF and WP:NPA. You are skating on thin ice here, my friend. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So are you Dronebogus (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that this sort of personal attack on any editor who expresses principled dissent has become so commonplace on AFD. Whatever one's opinion on this particular article, the harm done to the encyclopedia by haphazardly deleting arbitrary members of a set is readily apparent. -- Visviva (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who). Fairly minor early character with the slight novelty of being a rare reappearance of a classic companion in the revival. Only one surviving complete story featuring him exists, so I highly doubt any sources exist discussing him in detail. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless someone rescues this by adding reception/analysis so that it meets GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Polly (Doctor Who) or keep: Ben Jackson is discussed in a number of secondary sources, like [49], [50], and [51], even if not at great length. Commentary on him is often in relation to or pairing with Polly. Daranios (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think merging is a good solution. WP:GNG would now apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm reluctant to Redirect or Merge to Polly (Doctor Who) as this article is also at AFD and it's unclear what the outcome of that discussion will be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Daranios's comment above, secondary sources exist, satisfies, WP:GNG.Frond Dishlock (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Sources exist and he has coverage which can be expanded. If the article is not kept then it should be at the very least Merged with Polly's article (as in they have an article together with a change in the page title). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We could use a review of recently presented sources in this discussion. It would help to hear some policy-based opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator. I've been mostly silent in the discussion thus far (Partially due to being away from my computer for a long time) but I feel now would be a good time to give some thoughts on the discussion.

Taking a look at the sources @Daranios provided, as much as I'd like to keep Ben's article, only the first source seems to be adequate for providing information. Source three really only briefly discusses Ben in terms of plot summary. Source two mostly seems to be plot summary, and focuses on Polly much more than Ben. Maybe I missed something there, as the book is partially paywalled? Still, I don't think it's enough to justify SIGCOV, in this case. I have changed my mind on GNG, but I feel SIGCOV is the real kicker in this conversation. I did another search for sources in case I missed anything, but outside of what Daranios has provided, I can't really find anything that isn't trivial mentions.

As nominator, I will say that I now think it's unwise to merge with Polly's article, as I'm just not sure how Ben would factor into the article, and I'm concerned it would become an example of coatracking. This is especially true as it seems Polly's discussion is leaning towards keep right now, which I very much agree with given the sources presented there. I'm afraid I don't think Ben's article is able to be kept, or able to be merged with Polly, as of right now. Thus, it feels as though a redirect to Companion would be the best option at this point, unless I've missed something with the sources provided. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I'd love to keep Ben's article around. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the third source there, the Radio Times article. I don't think that's entirely accurate, the analysis of them constituting an 'odd couple' isn't plot summary.Frond Dishlock (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just describing his and Polly's role overall in the series? That's still essentially the equivalent of a basic character overview rather than actually discussing the character himself. Pokelego999 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Is the fact that they are an "odd couple" due to their class difference discussed in the series itself? If not I would say that it is commentary rather than plot summary which would probably be considered original research if not supported by a secondary source. It is also discussed as "evoking male fantasy of..." in source 2, Women in Doctor Who, which compounds it as analysis. It is a comment about the relationship between Ben and Polly and therefore applies in equal parts to both characters. Which then, in case Ben Jackson would not be kept as stand-alone article, could be discussed within Pollys article and then is specifically not coatracking. At the same time it would fit WP:MERGEREASON #3 (although it would be more than "only one or two sentences"). If such a merged article would better be called Polly (Doctor Who) or Polly and Ben Jackson or some such could be decided based on how large a part of analysis refers to both. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the arguments you've provided in relation to the sources, then I suppose the best option for Ben would be a merger. Given almost all of Ben's coverage factors directly into his relationship with Polly, it seems beneficial for both articles to merge from what I've seen here. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Polly, otherwise a weak keep. I would agree that only the Frankham-Allen Companions book gets us comfortably over the crucial SIGCOV threshold in that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The problem with the plot summaries that seem to make up most of the coverage is that any overall narrative of the character would inevitably be constructed by us. Frankham-Allen has some analysis of the character as a person -- but notably he handles Polly and Ben as a single unit, analyzing Ben in terms of his relationship with Polly. One finds some interesting things here and there, e.g. this book mentions Ben as one of the rare working-class companions. I think it's possible to have a somewhat encyclopedic article here. But overall it seems like we would best fit the available sources by treating Polly and Ben together in one article. -- Visviva (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only one of the books provides SIGCOV. We need more than that. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ all except Pagaivanuku Arulvai. It was not properly tagged, so deleting this article would have been out of process. ✗plicit 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film)

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

This film is never going to release. Why is it notable? This film is unreleased since 2017. DareshMohan (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF Keep without prejudice, the parameters of discussion have changed since the start. —siro χ o 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Siroxo: Why should unreleased films that are only partially filmed (less than 100% filmed) for three or more years be considered notable? DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased films may be notable. Here sources tend to focus on Kalaiyarasan, so I'd say Redirect there.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an exception to WP:NFF. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 09:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unreleased and will never release due to years of delay. These films from 2017—2020 have no update.

Comment@DareshMohan: I am not absolutely sure "bundling" so many unreleased/upcoming films in the same Afd is extremely clear nor that it will prove efficient. I would tend to think that each of these films deserves a specific approach. In strictly procedural terms, I see that the Afd tags on other pages lead here without this fact being clearly presented on top of this page (in the actual nomination), and I am not quite certain it should or even can be like this. It will become increasingly complicated to make sure what people are commenting on exactly if distinct Afds are not created, or to know what they comment upon if other pages are bundled into this Afd in the meantime. For instance, my comment above is strictly related to Puthiya Mugam and not to anything else. I suggest to fix this by having one Afd for each film.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Mushy Yank: I think it is fine because all of the films are unreleased for years. Imo, creating 5 more AfD's with the same "This film is never going to release. Why is it notable?" wouldn't make sense either. Remember: unreleased films should not have articles unless the production is deemed notable, which is not the case.

Invitation for @Siroxo: @Raydann: to cast their votes for the other 5 films. DareshMohan (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Unreleased for over six years. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. aggarwala2727 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing SNG for film. Okoslavia (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unreleased film = not notable film. It's as simple as that. A forthcoming film by a notable director with a notable cast with a definite release date, yes - but after three years, I think we're in safe 'not happening' territory and in case it ever does happen, a nice, new article can be unveiled. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: The assertion that "Unreleased film = not notable film. It's as simple as that" is simply not true. There are many unreleased films that are extremely notable according to Wikipedia generally accepted standards. The guideline clearly states: "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." (emphasis mine) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Berle Sanford Rosenberg". de.wikibrief.org. Retrieved 2023-07-11.

[2] ttps://www.thepopverse.com/cbr-layoffs-june-2023-comic-book-resources-layoffs-inside

[3] ttps://bleedingcool.com/comics/firings-quittings-and-valnet-fallout-at-comic-book-resources/

[4] ttps://www.comicsbeat.com/inside-cbr-layoffs/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]