Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 30	February 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Merengue (band)

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

This article clearly lacks the standards for notability, and has been kicking around unchanged since 2007. I could find no mention of this band anywhere online except for their own website linked in this article, which is written in Japanese. Kylemahar902 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donahue Peebles III

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

He fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The Peebles Corporation company and his parents are notable but one can't be notable by association Ynsfial (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ochlophobia

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

This is based two sources: a medical dictionary definition and a list pf phobias, neither of which would qualify as a reliable medical source. As such, it appears to be nothing more than an expanded dictionary definition (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Searching for sources on PubMed led to one instance of the term in a foreign-language paper. It follows that there is no article to be developed. This discussion is related to two previous deletion discussions (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enochlophobia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochlophobia (2nd nomination)) for "Enochlophobia" which does not show up in PubMed at all. A redirect to Agoraphobia ("an anxiety disorder characterized by symptoms of anxiety in situations where the person perceives their environment to be unsafe with no easy way to escape.[1] These situations can include public transit, shopping centers, crowds...") may be appropriate. AskedTeeth (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalija Ugrina

AfDs for this article:

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

None of this passes RS or GNG. Probable vanity page. Already deleted once. Nswix (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Croatia. Nswix (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Adult League Softball

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

Promotional article for a local adult rec softball league fails WP:NORG. A quick source review:

The organization's own websites and other WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like IRS filings: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
Marketing pages for events/activities (no evidence of independence): [6], [7], [8], [9].
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION that fails WP:SIGCOV: [10].
Local news coverage that fails the test of WP:AUD: [11], [12], (these sources also appears to be based mostly on an interview with the league's founders and thus of questionable independence), [13] (based on a press release).
Brief unbylined content in an African newspaper that reads like a press release.
Non-independent content: promotional content from a league partner, a college magazine spotlighting a PALS member who is an alumna.

My before search did not turn up any other qualifying sources. Draftification was contested by the page creator, who may have a conflict of interest since the creator claims to be the one who took photos used of the league in the article ([14], [15], [16]), so here we are at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Pennsylvania. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Inquirer and the PBS affiliate WHYY both qualify as non-trivial and significantly covered sources. User Dclemens1971 is making a lot of baseless accusations about an extremely inconsequential page I created. To suggest that any of this is "promotional" or at all below standard is to call into question the nature of page creation for almost anything not already conventionally known. I hope whoever is involved decides not to delete this harmless and informative page about a recreational softball league in the city of Philadelphia. Adamherp (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Inquirer is a single paragraph. The WHYY source you flag is actually BillyPenn.com, a local "happenings" blog for Philadelphia affiliated with WHYY, which fails the test of WP:AUD under WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every city has numerous adult recreational sports leagues for a variety of sports – I play in a couple! These are not notable, and these sources are purely routine local interest and not substantive enough to establish notability for a generic local organization. My multisport leagues are even chapters of national organizations that put on national tournaments every year and likely have a lot more sources available, but I still wouldn't make an article for them. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A recreational softball league is rarely notable and this one is no exception. Something like this is always going to get some routine coverage, but there is nothing extensive enough to warrant being kept. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Himesh Reshammiya Melodies

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

Contested draftification. Current article is highly promotional, with no sources apart from IMDb and self website. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G11, the whole article is promotional. GrabUp - Talk 16:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - pure spam and also completely redundant when we already have Himesh Reshammiya Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Get this out of here. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool City Region

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

This article relates to the areas governed by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority. Most of its content also appears either on that article or on the articles for Merseyside and Cheshire, the two geographic counties it spans. I can't find any sources that refer to the Liverpool City Region that don't relate to the work of the Combined Authority. Other CAs which are named after existing geographic areas have articles for both the CA and the region (eg East Midlands and East Midlands Combined County Authority, Greater Manchester and Greater Manchester Combined Authority) but these have different boundaries and/or histories. Others (eg York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority) don't have any article about the area they govern.

I feel this is confusing, tautological and illogical. I'm not even sure a merge is worthwhile, unless there is any information not repeated elsewhere on Wikipedia. Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, United Kingdom, and England. Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I saw this was nominated as an AfD, but your arguments make sense.

This article seems to just repeat what is in the LCRCA piece. Deleting this article and having 'Liverpool City Region' redirect to the LCRCA article would be a good solution. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Olayide

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

Article does not cite any sources. I didn't find anything on Google so unless someone can find sources using something else, this article shouldn't exist. guninvalid (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Reading Beans guninvalid (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPROF#6 as the vicechancellor of University of Ibadan from 1979 to 1983. Again, deletion is not cleanup. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not cleanup, sure, but at least from what I've been able to find, I don't see any way for it to be cleaned up. It's missing sources, and I can really only find one source that discusses them in any depth without just copy pasting someone else's article. guninvalid (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Did you find sources about him being the VC of University of Ibadan for 4 years? If there are unsourced crufts, it can be trimmed into a stub with the available sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone add at least one RS, otherwise we are forced to default to delete. The only reason I'm not tagging it with sticky {{prod blp}} is because the AFD clock will run out sooner. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like vice-chancellor is a "highest-level...administrative post". DMacks (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks, in Nigeria the vice-chancellor is the highest administrative post. The chancellor is just a ceremonial figure. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a lot like WP:OR. Please cite WP:RS. guninvalid (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without sources none of the information in this article is verifiable, and notability cannot be established. I couldn't find any sources either, for what it's worth. Zygmeyer (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George DiCaprio

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Authors. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kvešić

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

Semi-professional footballer without evidence of passing WP:GNG. I have searched for his name on Google, but only the Bosnian footballer from Celje with similar-sounding name Mario Kvesić came up. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edith May

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

Not a valid human name disambiguation page. There is only one person and a barge with the name. One entry has "May" as a middle name only (not a maiden name), and the last is indeterminate, but is probably the same. The person should be moved here and the barge hatnoted. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Reynolds

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO; has very few references that don't support its information, and a google search reveals nothing on the article's subject. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been up for over a decade and I was the one updating it. It does not require deletion. Alfred AJ Reynolds has been a long time broadcaster and entrepreneur in Canada and there are plenty of resources. 76.11.17.31 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply][reply]

Also here are contributing references on all details:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2271293/

https://www.novascotiaobits.com/about

https://www.cbislandshine.ca/who

https://www.saltwire.com/cape-breton/caper-behind-mic-on-hit-national-radio-program-18869

https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=&lang=en&q=Canada%27s_Top_20_Countdown

https://web.archive.org/web/20140717134011/http://canadastop20.ca/index.php/about/

Reynoldsaj (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been up for over a decade and I was the one updating it. It does not require deletion. Alfred AJ Reynolds has been a long time broadcaster and entrepreneur in Canada and there are plenty of resources. 76.11.17.31 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also here are contributing references on all details:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2271293/

https://www.novascotiaobits.com/about

https://www.cbislandshine.ca/who

https://www.saltwire.com/cape-breton/caper-behind-mic-on-hit-national-radio-program-18869

https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=&lang=en&q=Canada%27s_Top_20_Countdown

https://web.archive.org/web/20140717134011/http://canadastop20.ca/index.php/about/ Reynoldsaj (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been up for over a decade and I was the one updating it. It does not require deletion. Alfred AJ Reynolds has been a long time broadcaster and entrepreneur in Canada and there are plenty of resources. 76.11.17.31 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also here are contributing references on all details:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2271293/

https://www.novascotiaobits.com/about

https://www.cbislandshine.ca/who

https://www.saltwire.com/cape-breton/caper-behind-mic-on-hit-national-radio-program-18869

https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=&lang=en&q=Canada%27s_Top_20_Countdown

https://web.archive.org/web/20140717134011/http://canadastop20.ca/index.php/about/ Reynoldsaj (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reynoldsaj, My concern is that all of those sources you just listed were created and owned by the article's subject, making them WP:PRIMARY sources. Also imdb is generally not seen as reliable. (see WP:GUNREL list). Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reputable news source (https://www.saltwire.com/cape-breton/caper-behind-mic-on-hit-national-radio-program-18869) , IMDB all entries require a confirmation process, (https://www.novascotiaobits.com/about

https://www.cbislandshine.ca/who) are company websites that all discuss the owner and founder. 76.11.17.31 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising Museum

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

This doesn't appear to be an independently notable organization. Maybe merge into ASU? mikeblas (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Museums and libraries, Organizations, Fashion, and California. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a straight copyvio for which I'm about to do some revision deletion should it be merged somewhere. An independent article could be written as sourcing exists, but this isn't it and probably easiest to start over. Star Mississippi 15:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rev del is done, but we could go even further back to be honest. It's no longer a G11 or at least less of one now. I won't be able to work on it in the AfD window but may do so in the future either as a standalone or part of the ASU article. Star Mississippi 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fashion_Institute_of_Design_&_Merchandising#FIDM_Museum where there is sufficient explanation of it (don't really see any information in this one that needs to be merged there. so revdel doesn't matter to the redir). Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confucian fascism

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

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

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

Kiri Paramore, ed. (2016). Japanese Confucianism. Cambridge University Press. p. 186: Epilogue China and Japan earlier late-nineteenth-century disestablishment of Confucianism and divorce from other social practices in the immediate post-Meiji Restoration period made it easy prey for later cooption by the powerful modern ideological forces of racial nationalism, radical conservatism, and later fascism that arose from within that cultural nationalist movement. The reason Confucianism was easily harnessed to these causes was not primarily related to any particular content in Confucian thought. It was rather because Confucianism's social disengagement allowed it to be easily monopolized by those in authority, thereby quashing Confucianism's capacities to promote diversity, critical thought, and critical activism. This despite the fact that, as the central chapters of this book argued, these capacities existed and were powerfully realized in many earlier historical manifestations of Confucianism.
Mainland China today is experiencing similar problems of industrial high modernity to Japan in the mid-twentieth century, including extreme wealth disparity, environmental degradation, and unequal development. As in Japan, the early phases of Chinese modernization, both under the KMT and the CCP, saw the destruction of most institutional nodes for the social integration of Confucianism. Just as in Japan, China in the modern period also saw Confucianism, its spaces and its practices, deci- mated (Yu 2004: 55). The Confucian revival in China today is thus occurring in a similar socio-political climate and in similar circumstances of Confucian social and institutional disconnection as Japan in the mid- twentieth century. Current attempts to resurrect Confucianism in China as a social movement need to start from scratch because most of the social frameworks which formerly supported Confucian activity were destroyed during modernization. As scholarship on this kind of revival in contem- porary China indicates, resurrecting a tradition from scratch requires a particularly heavy subordination to the state and other institutions of power (Billioud 2015). As discussed in Chapter 6, it was revival under exactly these kinds of conditions which facilitated the rise of Confucian fascism in 1930s Japan. ProKMT (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The reason I created a Confucian fascism article was because a certain Mickie-Mickie attempted to tie Chiangism, White Terror (Taiwan), Blue Shirts Society, the New Life Movement articles to the fascist category, [17][18][19][20] and I opposed such an attempt. I made the article as a compromise. However, I am not against deleting the article. ProKMT (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge with Confucianism#Criticism as an ATD. Agree with nom that this does not merit a standalone article but some coverage could be added there on the New Life Movement and its connections to Confucianism and fascism. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Edd's influence on the indie animation community and Internet as a whole is worthy enough to warrant a seperate article Flixxy0 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flixxy0: With your permission, I have bolded your position:[21] Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's yet to be a consensus on whether this is a keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing is not great, but the article passes WP:CREATIVE.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can anybody explain which specific parts of the article they think are promotional and/or why they think that the subject added them herself? Maybe it seems obvious to them but it certainly isn't obvious to me. DanielRigal (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict) It's close for me, but the repeated coverage addressing the individual behind the account and reference to their interactions with other notable people getting picked up in RS media/scholarship leads me to believe that, against all odds, this person is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your mention of RS scholarship made me check google scholar, and funnily enough there do appear to be scholarly articles based off this person's writing 1, 2. Having trouble accessing the full text of the second one, but the first one, which is a scholarly account based off one of her tweets, is interesting from a notability perspective. Arguable this and other coverage pushes toward notability per WP:AUTHOR #2, though that requires diving into whether "posting" can count as a body of work and I don't think that's necessary as the subject already meets GNG. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The academic commentary from July 2024 in the second link is cited in the article in the suspension section. It's accessible via the Wikipedia Library! [22]. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Selected from a shortlist prepared by lexicographers from Oxford University Press [23] It's not purely a public vote. One of the other choices was "metaverse", which was such a big thing that one of the biggest companies in the world renamed themselves to get on that (poorly thought out) hype train. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I don't get the dislike of describing someone as a 'shitposter'. That's what some people do and are known for. Junlper is a shitposter; so is Catturd and dril. SWinxy (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously this is not a typical encyclopedic article, but I stand by my (extensive) arguments made in the previous AfD. BLP1E does not apply and the sources show continued and in-depth coverage over several years that meet our notability standards. Also, after the last AfD (which was only four months ago!), I found an academic commentary, not a peer-reviewed article, but still subject to some editorial oversight, analyzing her suspension through a critical theory lenses from July 2024. [24] (accessible via Wikipedia Library. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I disagree that any of the sources cited provide in depth coverage about the account itself. Scuba 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why The Business Insider [25], Rolling Stone [26], or The Messenger [27] would not be in-depth coverage about the account's activities? If you're talking about the person behind the account, there is some coverage as seen in the Personal life section, but that isn't the basis of notability, which is the posting. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Paywall

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

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

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

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

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

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

@O5225, we already know which account she has previously edited under.^[a] I'm wondering, therefore, which of the major authors of the article (viewable here) you are accusing here of being a WP:SOCK (which would get them blocked). And if you have no actual evidence, perhaps try to Assume good faith and make some actual arguments grounded in policy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear WP:SIGCOV from Insider, Rolling Stone, and Buzzfeed News. The articles are all about different topics so it doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E. Note: I saw the viral tweet calling for the article's deletion, but did not see the AFD until coming to the page to read the article out of curiosity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Anything potentially relevant about this person should be merged to Goblin mode, clearly not relevant by themselves and does not meet notability guidelines outside of a very small niche. News articles will take any viral tweet and write headlines for a week, doesn't automatically make the twitter account notable. Too many primary sources too. Also, what on Earth is that part about the Chicago rat hole? jolielover♥talk 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also like to add, small mentions in articles do not warrant a page. Some sources mention her as a footnote, like the Vox article about the Hogwarts video game, saying "this person on twitter thought this" how on earth is this remotely relevant or notable? jolielover♥talk 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a misunderstanding of out notability guidelines. WP:BIO says at WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Some sources do indeed only trivially mention the topic in passing, but for the things that she actually derives the bulk of her notability from, that is markedly not true since they are in-depth articles focused on her specifically (e.g. Goblin Mode/Insider [28]; Snickers/Rolling Stone [29]; Ban/Messenger [30]) -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep This article contains multiple reliable sources, and is well-cited. Most of the news items have been archived in order to allow easy access to the articles. The best three articles are Messenger [31], Insider [32], and Rolling Stone [33]. In addition there are (minor) mentions from additional reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources does not automatically mean an article is warranted; most sources in the article only mention the user in a fleeting footnote, even simply linking a tweet. An alarming amount of sources are also primary ones from the user themselves (See their tweets and the Chicago rathole bit). People can have dozens upon dozens of sources and still not have an article, like Errol Musk. This particular Twitter user is often just mentioned as "oh, X topic is trending on Twitter today, let's link some popular tweet relating to the topic", like this source which literally just links the tweet, provides no additional commentary (and you can't even see the tweet), yet is linked as a source to the "In March 2023..." sentence. The source literally does not support that sentence at all. Though at face value it looks like a well cited article, it really is not. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three news sources I highlighted are not fleeting footnotes, but are news stories entirely centered on Junlper. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failing WP:SIGCOV is an argument that can be had, although as I also said above I think there's an adequate amount across multiple events to add up to scraping by that requirement. Quite a lot of these articles give more than a passing mention, and are actually about June (e.g. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) although the amount of WP:INTERVIEW content mediates that slightly. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think so. Firstly, Making memes about a snickers "dick vein" doesn't constitute notability. Neither does creating the viral "goblin mode" meme, or posting funny clapbacks on twitter and then getting banned, even if they do get brief moments of coverage in media. Secondly, even if memes on twitter were enough to be considered notable with adequate sources, there are a total of six sources that directly concern Junlper instead of briefly mentioning one of her tweets. Among these articles are posts from a tech blog and a BuzzFeed interview. Meanwhile, other sources are just her own tweets. Thirdly, the article is full of irrelevant information and random trivia. Why does there need to be an image on the article of her placing coins in a pothole in Chicago in reference to a viral internet meme? Why does it list what accounts she used and when they were banned? Why does it have a list of memes she tweeted that got even the slightest amount of media attention? Why does it have her profile picture? She's not notable, but even if she were, none of that is remotely relevant. This article reads like a post on a fandom wiki. Gore2000 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it isn't that any specific meme etc. constitute notability, it's the collected coverage in sources of the twitter account/owner which makes it notable (in the estimation of quite a few people here). Just to be clear, it doesn't really matter if the coverage is for something that we think is stupid or trivial, the fact of coverage (and it's nature and depth) is what will decide the fate of the article. I and others think there is enough coverage, you don't. As I said this is on the line, but I'm yet to really see an adequate WP:ATA for any content not related the goblin mode, which might help me side with a WP:MERGE/WP:RDR/WP:DEL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment I'd like to point out a post made on January 16th. "when can we take this shit down from wikipedia"[40]. This keeps happening. You guys are on twitter too much. I've seen too many times on Wikipedia where an article goes viral on social media and someone takes action. Think for yourselves, don't take cues from Godfrey G. Golden. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the source assessment for the article itself:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/12/06/goblin-mode-meaning-oxford/			No mention, just a link to (Redacted) tweet	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/arts/goblin-mode-oxford-word.html			Same with the Washington Post one	✘ No
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/26/viral-image/no-isnt-real-fox-news-chyron-about-snickers/			No mention	✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23599799/hogwarts-legacy-review-rowling-trans	Feels like an inteview	WP:VOX	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming/hogwarts-legacy-game-jk-rowling-transphobia-1234676730/			Brief Mention	✘ No
https://www.themarysue.com/the-right-wants-to-stop-trans-adults-from-transitioning-because-kids-werent-enough/			One sentence that discussing the subject (Redacted)	✘ No
https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/mrbeast-under-fire-after-fans-mess-with-feastables-competitors-at-supermarkets-across-u-s			just the tweet	✘ No
https://kotaku.com/youtube-mr-beast-titan-titanic-submarine-disaster-1850575265			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-26/mrbeast-decline-titan-submersible-invitation-youtube			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-body-bag/			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			No mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Advocate article [41] describes the actions that Junlper took to get banned, the details and timelines around the ban, as well as other the reactions of other public figures to the ban. The ban is of both the account (as technically implemented) and of the person behind the account (you are technically not allowed to evade the ban and start a new account). Coverage of an account's ban is coverage of the account and it's ridiculous to try and separate the two unless you are trying to argue that a Twitter ban of Junlper article would be notable and ought to be created, which you're not. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Messenger hired a ton of respectable journalists and editors. The specific journalist in question [42] has multiple years as a journalist in radio and local television. The specific article in question looks like original reporting, whereas some of the concerns about the The Messenger was content farming other publications in its earlier days, which doesn't seem to apply here. I would put it as counting towards GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We likely do have an article on End Wokeness, since there's very good reason to believe it's just Jack Posobiec, [43], but there's no RSs making that connection. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep. After reading some of the sources listed here, I feel like while the sources individually don't really add up to much in my opinion, I also do feel like there's enough reporting on her and the shitposts that it makes it over the line into notability. Procyon117 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RE: the relisting; It is hard to see how, policy-wise, the consensus is leaning toward deletion when very few users in favour of deletion cite any policies whatsoever and their arguments are specifically rebutted by WP:ATA. I am admittedly quite new to editting on Wikipedia, but I am also unsure how it makes sense to apply Wikipedia policy based on a perception of a lack of notability. I know Wikipedia has no rules, but when some users make logical arguments in reference to actual policy revolving around notability, and other users simply disagree and do not engage with those arguments, it's hard to see how consensus could at all suggest deletion without regarding it as a vote, which it is not. The account itself and the user behind it has been profiled numerous times over the span of almost a year and a half (is that not considered sustained?), and reliable sources directly link the account as a participant in or sole originator of at least 3 different events. Is it not the combination of those types of coverage (person + events) that make up the basis of every single Wikipedia article about a person/online personality? It might not be covered as extensively as accounts like Dril or ElonJet, but I do believe it at least deserves the page that is has now based on the level of its notability. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can almost understand relisting but the comment accompanying it feels more like a "delete" !vote than a reflection of the arguments so far. I don't think that any harm is being done by relisting, as the disruptive !voting seems to have stopped now, but I think that the only credible outcomes to choose from are "keep" and "no consensus" and I can't see how this could possibly change. A merge would lose all the stuff about the Twitter ban, which is Reliably Sourced, and nobody has actually !voted "merge" at all. It only gets mentioned by people who are !voting "delete". I worry that it might be tempting to take the source analysis tables seriously. That would be a big mistake. At a first glance a table may give an impression of objectivity but tabular content is as fallible as any other, in this case, the contents fundamentally misunderstand the validity of the sources to such an extent that I think that it renders the tables completely unhelpful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this, I also disagree with the relist comment. I'll try to spend some time working this afternoon on another SAT, as I also agree the above one is not an accurate reflection of the article's sourcing. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To note, I already !voted keep above, but for the purposes of the discussion, I created this SAT:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/juniper-twitter-troll-meme-interview	WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS	~ Contains two paragraphs (6 sentences) of coverage on the subject before moving into the interview. IMO most of the time this would count as SIGCOV, but given the contentious nature of discussion I'm putting it at partial.	~ Partial
https://www.vox.com/culture/23775516/antoni-bumba-blizzy-mcguire-uniekue-selyna-brillare-junlper-kay-poyer-trans-it-girls		Contains an interview with her but no specific coverage or commentary.	✘ No
https://www.insider.com/goblin-mode-julia-fake-headline-creator-2022-2	RSPS for Insider (culture)		✔ Yes
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/snickers-dick-vein-dont-let-this-flop-podcast-1343163/	WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE		✔ Yes
https://x.com/JUNlPERBOT/status/1719714533420212367	WP:TWITTER		✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/goblin-mode-a-state-of-not-caring-what-other-people-think-11669389442		I can only access the first half of the article via the wayback machine, but based on that portion of the article it seems unlikely to have sigcov (article subject is only allocated ~ 1 sentence of coverage). I realized I could gain access via a university affiliation I have, confirmed to not have sigcov.	✘ No
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/12/06/goblin-mode-meaning-oxford/		Does not even mention subject by name	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/14/slobbing-out-and-giving-up-why-are-so-many-people-going-goblin-mode		Only a brief mention	✘ No
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/goblin-mode/			✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/arts/goblin-mode-oxford-word.html		No mention of subject.	✘ No
https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2022/			✘ No
https://twitter.com/SNICKERS/status/1516463576143257603			✘ No
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/26/viral-image/no-isnt-real-fox-news-chyron-about-snickers/			✘ No
https://www.news18.com/buzz/didnt-ask-for-your-woke-pronouns-twitter-user-schools-elon-musk-after-fauci-tweet-6608785.html			✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23599799/hogwarts-legacy-review-rowling-trans	WP:RSPVOX	~ This is another borderline source but I'm leaning towards it not being sigcov. She is quoted several times in the article and there is some coverage of her (she is transgender, did a charity stream, some commentary is provided on her comments) but I think this is partial at best and I'm going to lean towards no. After sleeping on it and re-reading the article I'm bumping this to partial. Yes, it is borderline, but it does have some coverage and commentary, and that's what partial is for here.	~ Partial
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/hogwarts-legacy-game-jk-rowling-transphobia-1234676730/			✘ No
https://www.themarysue.com/the-right-wants-to-stop-trans-adults-from-transitioning-because-kids-werent-enough/		Only a couple sentences of coverage and some quotes.	✘ No
https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/mrbeast-under-fire-after-fans-mess-with-feastables-competitors-at-supermarkets-across-u-s			✘ No
https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-news-no-need-to-spread-lies-mrbeast-addresses-the-job-advert-which-has-confused-the-internet/			✘ No
https://kotaku.com/youtube-mr-beast-titan-titanic-submarine-disaster-1850575265			✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-26/mrbeast-decline-titan-submersible-invitation-youtube			✘ No
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-body-bag/			✘ No
https://www.outlookindia.com/international/us/chicago-s-rat-hole-emerges-as-the-newest-tourist-attraction-news-343708	~ WP:RSNOI		✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			✘ No
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/05/twitter-x-news-headlines-removed/			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20231010020600/https://themessenger.com/tech/elon-musk-bans-popular-poster-who-skewered-him-for-eliminating-headlines-on-x	We do not have an RS/PS for the Messenger, but after spending a bit of time researching them I do not see any reason to doubt their veracity. It was founded by people from WP:THEHILL, considered reliable, and though I see some critiques of right leaning bias in its coverage I don't see any evidence of unreliablity. Additionally, the facts in the article are easily backed up by other sources.	Article is in depth SigCov of subject and her ban from twitter.	✔ Yes
https://gizmodo.com/twitter-x-musk-headline-removal-backfired-on-him-1850906283			✘ No
https://bsky.app/profile/junlper.bsky.social/post/3kbc2fvge2m2y			✘ No
https://twitter.com/JUNlPERBOT			✘ No
https://bsky.app/profile/junlper.bsky.social/post/3kjcczpyh5s26			✘ No
https://www.advocate.com/news/elon-musk-alejandra-caraballo-raichik	No RSPS surprisingly, but The Advocate is the longest standing gay publication in the US and I have used it often as a source both on Wikipedia and in an academic setting with no problems of reliablity.	Junlper is not the main topic of the article (it's more focused on Carbhallo), however, detailed coverage of her posting and ban from Twitter/X is included. I wouldn't be against this being scored as a partial.	✔ Yes
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/06/elon-musk-decides-who-needs-headlines-when-we-can-just-have-pretty-pictures-suspends-account-that-made-fun-of-him/	It doesn't have sigcov so I'm not going to dig into this any further but just vibes wise does not seem super reputable.		✘ No
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-024-00495-z		Only used as an example.	✘ No
https://www.courthousenews.com/dnc-opens-press-credential-applications-to-social-media-influencers/	No RSPS but seems to be a relied-upon news service	~ Seven paragraphs dedicated to the subject, two paragraphs of which are dedicated to talking about her, and one paragraph of commentary/evidence on what she said. The rest are quotes. To note, this source is not currently included in article.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸(talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Source assessment table! And yes can we removed all the sources pertaining to this article that of course doesn’t meet the GNG so that it is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:310B:9FC3:C8EE:98C5 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to remove the other sources. Sources can be used for Verifiability even if they are not related to GNG. DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:310B:9FC3:C8EE:98C5 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only four meet the criteria of GNG, that's not worth keeping the article over. Jenkowelten (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is only four, but four would be quite enough to demonstrate meeting the GNG. DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well tecnically enough, around 3 Reliable Sources itself are infact required for a Wikipedia Article to be made so that’s why 4 Reliable Sources are Enough for a Wikipedia Article unless if its only covered in Atleast one part of the Subject Itself (Outside of This Article Though) 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:C005:9D46:FE3:C9D2 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single source on a Wikipedia page needs to be used to establish notability specifically. This is a source that is used on Obama's Wikipedia page that he is not the main topic of and only mentions him in passing, but it's used to verify and cover an event that involves him. Furthermore, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." IMO that applies to a few sources that are even labelled red in the table above. And as your other reply stated, even four would be enough. I've seen many Wikipedia articles with fewer, and their size reflected it. I think the size and scope of this Wikipedia article is in-line with the subject's coverage. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally per WP:NPP, we only look for two sources that meet GNG to establish to presumption of notability. Four sources is more than enough. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better source analysis table than the previous one, which I heavily criticized above. Four sources is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and with the partials, it would certainly meet WP:BIO's WP:BASIC, which allows multiple instances of non-trivial coverage to count in assessing people's notability.

It doesn't affect the chart since they're being used to cite trivial coverage, but Dot Esports is listed as reliable, and EssentiallySports as unreliable by Wikiproject Video Games's source list at WP:VG/RS. Techdirt has been discussed at RSN a bunch of times [44] and it's a well-regarded blog, but a blog nonetheless and probably shouldn't be used for a BLP. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page reads more like a fandom wiki article than anything we should expect from Wikipedia (picture of the Chicago rathole without even a reference to back it up, really?) This person who was never that relevant, AFAIK isn't even on twitter anymore and is only survived by this rather ridiculous article. What's happening here in my opinion is that a few of her fans are basically abusing Wikipedia's notability rules in order to make some sort of vague point. If anyone who has been mentioned more than twice in any inane Buzzfeed-style "You won't believe what controversy is rocking twitter today!" newspiece so the article writer can buff up the piece with a few Disqus twitter embeds deserves an article where they get to show off their pilgrimage to the Chicago rat hole, then we need to speedily create a wikiproject to address it as there are thousands of Wikipedia articles missing about all of these definitely relevant twitter accounts. I'm sorry if I sound bitter, but I'm honestly just dismayed at the incredibly lax standards of the article which can't even be edited anymore since it has been locked. If anything should come out of this, at least rewrite the article to be more in line with Wikipedia's standards for articles about people.

Andro124 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads more like a fandom wiki article isn't an argument to delete per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and AFAIK isn't even on twitter anymore doesn't really have anything to do with our notability guidelines, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The Picture of the Chicago rathole is illustrating a sentence in the article (that has a source) but the image itself doesn't (necessarily) need a source per WP:OI (and is from the subject of the article). If anyone who has been mentioned more than twice isn't the argument presented in the above table. She's been mentioned in <20 reliable sources. She is significantly covered in 4 sources (again if we take the above table) which is what matters for WP:GNG. And whether or not there are thousands of other twitter accounts that you believe are more deserving of an article also isn't a reason to delete (per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's take a look at that source actually:

In a city known for its iconic landmarks such as deep-dish pizza, the Bean, and the Willis Tower, Chicago has added a peculiar yet fascinating attraction to its repertoire – the "Rat Hole" in Roscoe Village. This viral sensation has become a hotspot for both locals and tourists alike, who are making "pilgrimages" to witness the rodent-shaped splat mark on a sidewalk.

Had to make a pilgrimage to the Chicago Rat Hole — Gatorade Should Be Thicker. (@WinslowDumaine) January 6, 2024

The Rat Hole, formed by the individual imprints of toes, claws, legs, and a tail attached to a body, has captured the imagination of social media users and visitors to Roscoe Village. Winslow Dumaine, a local resident, humorously thanked visitors to the Rat Hole in response to his original post, signifying the growing popularity of this peculiar landmark.
The Lakeview Roscoe Village Chamber of Commerce has embraced the phenomenon, launching a contest to name the Rat Hole. Drawing inspiration from popular culture rodents like Remy and Mickey Mouse, the community is encouraged to submit their suggestions until January 18. The top five names will be selected, and the final decision will be made through a community vote. The Rat Hole has become more than just a visual curiosity; it's now a site for offerings. Tourists and locals alike are bringing coins, flowers, money, cheese, and even shots of alcohol to pay homage to the rodent-shaped impression on the sidewalk.

paid tribute to the chicago rat hole today — beer person (@CantEverDie) January 13, 2024

Social media is abuzz with posts depicting various offerings, with one user even mistaking it for a potential Banksy piece.
TikTok user @Marshian_Rover shared a video of someone pouring what appears to be Malört, a famous Chicago liquor, into the hole as an offering. Despite the harsh winter weather with temperatures reaching -4 degrees, people continue to visit the Rat Hole, creating a constant stream of curious onlookers. [...]

As we can clearly see Juniper's picture is only used as an illustration of the ongoing phenomenon, she is neither named nor commented upon in the body text, we only get an embed of her tweet which the author thought would make for a good insert. By any sane standard a reference like that would not count towards notability. It's the digital equivalent of a using a traditional newspaper article having a passage like "In this Michigan roadside diner, trucker Billy Bob Bobson isn't so sure about the incoming administration's tax hikes" to argue that Bobson is notable in his own right. Merely appearing in an article as illustration of a phenomenon does not constitute noteworthiness. Andro124 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe anybody here is arguing that the that the 'Rat Hole' contributes to Junlper's notability? I think everybody can see that the source is passing and doesn't contribute to WP:GNG. However, you can in-fact use content from sources that don't contribute to notability (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles per WP:NNC) assuming it's not WP:UNDUE. It's one sentence so I don't see it being undue. Again, though, all of this is immaterial because, whether or not we include a single sentence sourced to a passing mention is not important to whether the article should be deleted and is not what AFD is for. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be WP:BASHed into submission when it's plain as day that the article contains non-encyclopedic content that is more interested in promoting its subject than being a useful Wikipedia article. Andro124 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of responding to any of the points I raised, you decided that because I used a couple of links to some actual policies and guidelines (a thing, I note, you have thus far not done at all) you could discount them. The point is that an article contain[ing] non-encyclopedic content is not (in and off itself) a reason to delete an article based on our current policies. As you seemed not to know this I linked you the pages that could explain this to you. If you are uninterested in making arguments grounded in that PaGs (or responding to other's attempts at doing so) I'm not sure what your hoping to gain commenting at this AFD.

If you think linking to policy is disqualifying in an AFD I'd suggest turning up to a few others and not taking your advice from essays who's text hasn't been significantly added to in over 15 yrs. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's apt here, you use them pretty aggressively and IMO unnecessarily. Doombruddah (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have further problems with my conduct I ask you post them to my talk page, as they contribute nothing to the discussion at hand. Focus on content, not on editor conduct. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that wikipedia essays have an expiration date, sorry for that. Andro124 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely an argument to be made that some of material that only uses a tweet of Junlper's without further discussion should be shortened and/or combined to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. However, that's a problem solved by editing and discussion, not deletion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting this as its becoming tedious and really needs to stop. It isn't related to deletion discussion and dosn't need this much digital ink spilled on it Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essays represent one editor's, or a small group of editor's opinions. Taking advice on what is acceptable at AFDs from a very old essay is inadvisable because what is acceptable at AFDs (or even VFDs, which wasn't too far in the past when this essay was created) has changed over the past 20 years. I mean this is an essay that until 3 years ago asserted that that some person liking something is a demonstration of notability, which in case you don't know is pretty patently ridiculous. I am genuinely sorry if you felt offended by my use of policy links to support my argument, but this is standard practice (and to some extent expected) in deletion discussions, and a link to an essay that was last referenced at an AFD in 2018 is unlikely to change that.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the last I'll say on that matter as this has got to the point of pointless wikilaying over an essay of all things. Once again if you want to continue this discussion (or anything else not related to the deletion of the article) I advice you do so on my talk page (or yours or at WP:ANI; just anywhere that's not here). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASH is not a justification for not making a policy based argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Per WP:BLPDD, articles about living people should "Limit content on non-public figures to what's relevant." Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Now go and wikilawyer around this and explain how the vast majority of the article's in-passing references to the subject somehow skirt around this. I've checked and both of those WP articles were last edited in 2023 and 2025 so they hopefully pass your stringent recency requirements. Andro124 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPDD and NotPublicFigure are not notability guidelines, they are about how to structure and source an article on a BLP and make decisions on what material should be included those articles. It has nothing to do with whether or not an article should be kept or not (for more information see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). If you feel the article is lacking in one of the areas mentioned by the guidelines, you are more than welcome to propose the change on the talk page, or gain experience editing on other articles to get up to WP:ECP, then come back and work on it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least making clear you're not in the least interested about fixing the article if your only two suggestions are either to ask you, a person who's been very clear about their partiality to said article, to prune it or the rather farcical requirement that the lowly peasant that I am should go on a quest to go and edit 500 pages before being bestowed the privilege of being able to edit the page of such an august topic as the subject of this article. Andro124 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever help it may be, you can see WP:Edit requests if you're genuinely interested in helping improving the article. If you look at the article history, I don't believe I've ever edited it, and I likely would not be the one looking at the edit request, rather one of the many contributors who have worked on it and are watching the page. You'd be making this request on the article talk page (Talk:Junlper), not my talk page (User talk:wasianpower), though you are welcome to leave a message there as well if you need any assistance. The 500 edit threshold for ECP also doesn't have to be on 500 different pages, you can make 500 edits to the same page and that would count (plus you're already at 120). From experience, 500 edits goes by much quicker than you'd think. I do genuinely hope this helps, Wikipedia is always in need of more dedicated editors and if you're actually interested in improving the article that's great. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to argue that the article subject is not a public figure given that they've given interviews, host a podcast, and regularly makes posts that have cumulatively millions of impressions (see WP:LOWPROFILE). Even if it did apply, there is a distinction between material relevant to the person's notability and the reason(s) why someone is notable. For example, a passing mention of a professor getting appointed to an acting administrator role would be fine to include as being relevant to their notability, even if it's not the reason why they are notable (i.e. their research), while a social media post that would otherwise be okay to use per WP:BLPSELFPUB about how they enjoy rock climbing shouldn't be included (unless perhaps they're some kind of sports or exercise researcher). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you honestly believe anybody here is arguing that the that the 'Rat Hole' contributes to Junlper's notability?"

I mean... you just did. Doombruddah (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read again what I actually said: in response to you saying the picture of the Chicago rathole without even a reference to back it up, really? I said The Picture of the Chicago rathole is illustrating a sentence in the article (that has a source) but the image itself doesn't (necessarily) need a source per WP:OI (and is from the subject of the article). What I did not say was that this passing source contributes to notability (it obviously doesn't), only that it justifies the image being there. As I have said to you over and over again (and you have seemingly ignored) whether or not this sentence or that image are in the article has nothing to do with deletion and shouldn't be discussed here as AFD is not clean-up Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly hard to cleanup an article that has been locked so only "verified users" can touch it you'll note. If a small clique refuses to accept any criticism and improve their pet articles, the only tool left are AfDs. Andro124 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked an article being extended confirmed and/or individual editors disliking how it's written are not reasons to delete. Perhaps, you could point me to that policy/guideline (I'm quite happy for you to use a shortcut to do so). As to your second point, no, there are in fact a great many places you should take a content/conduct dispute before AFD, the NPOV Noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard and Dispute resolution noticeboard to name but three.

Of course the first port of call should be the article's talk page, a place you've never made a request to. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found another source which could count towards GNG [45]. It uses the subject's full real name; in other sources I read she had expressed a desire for it not to be used, but that's more of a concern for if it is added to the article. I'll add this to the SAT as well. IMO GNG has already been established for the subject, but just wanted to add this information. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this source counts towards GNG, as it's mostly Junlper doing the talking (WP:PRIMARY in this case), and the rest of the article does not speak much about her (not WP:SIGCOV). Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put it as partial on the chart, it's definitely not a full point towards GNG. It does have some commentary on her claims as well as ~2 paragraphs that are about her rather than just quotes from her. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on using her real name. There's another one from WaPo [46] using her real name that has a paragraph on her views, which also very briefly covers her social media presence.

It's still partial at best when analyzing through WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV lenses, but it's important to note that WP:BIO's WP:BASIC allows non-trivial, but not SIGCOV-levels of coverage, to be combined to meet the notability standard. While I think there's clearly enough sources to meet GNG as it stands, the stuff that's marked partial in your source analysis table would still go towards meeting BASIC. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LexigtonMisiENG and Miminity, this is probably going to end in "no consensus" which is a shame. I really have nothing to add to this conversation except that this conversation reminds me of this sites' problems with Systemic bias for coverage. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing as how this was relisted again (to reiterate, I !voted keep), I wanted to get out in front of any new votes/comments that might be made by people who were not previously involved in the discussion and/or did not read all of it. Remember, an article has to meet the following criteria in order to exist: notability, verifiability, neutrality, and not have any original research. Let me summarise, in my opinion, what has been established so far about this article in regards to those criteria:

Notability: The subject of the article has sustained, significant coverage from at least 4 different reliable sources as well as non-trival but non-significant coverage from at least 20 other reliable sources. The coverage of these articles spans a time period of at least a year and a half. The subject is notable for more than one event per WP:BLP1E. It does not matter if you believe that the subject is no longer notable in the present day (WP:NTEMP). It does not matter if you think it sounds "silly" or think it belongs in a fanwiki (WP:ARTN). I encourage you to recognise that there are many other Wikipedia pages with even fewer sources. I encourage you to realise that, per WP:NOPAGE, there is no other page this one could be neatly merged into (which only one person has called for as an ATD) without losing significant coverage. As most arguments in this AFD debate revolve around the subject's notability, I would encourage new contributors to read all conversations so as to not give undue weight to just one point of view that one may already be biased toward.

Verifiability: The article makes no unsubstantiated arguments about the subject or the events she was involved in. The only disagreement seems to be whether or not the subject suggested that Elon Musk is a pedophile "satirically" or not, which to me does not seem like a particularly great reason to delete the entire article per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The only times the subject herself is cited is to verify her birthday and her Twitter handle, which IMO fit into WP:ABOUTSELF just fine.

NPOV: The article, in my opinion, includes pretty much the entire breadth of the subject's coverage and does not give undue weight to fringe theories or sources. No one in favour of delete has cited any NPOV problems, but if there were any, it should be discussed in the talk page first before deletion is considered.

No original research: All claims made are backed up by reliable secondary sources with no analysis of primary sources that could qualify as original research. The only part of the article that the subject herself contributed to was the picture of the rat hole. While I believe this doesn't count as original research, nor is it significant enough to have the entire page rely on it, it is also not particularly a justification for deleting the entire article.

Most of my summary is not my own original arguments but rather derived from the consensus of arguments so far generated throughout this disgussion. Though I understand that consensus can change, I would like to remind everyone- as I stated in my original !vote post- that this article has already survived a prior deletion attempt. Since then, nothing about the article has changed (other than folks actually finding more coverage of the subject). All arguments put forward in favour of deletion so far have either been directly addressed in this discussion or describe problems that are surmountable. Of course, this post is not meant to disuade people from contributing but to encourage them to engage with the discussion and arguments that have already been made so as to possibly move toward a clearer consensus (since, judging by the double reslisting, apparently it needs one). Remember, AFDs are not votes. Thank you. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comprised of

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

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

Delete Ill-formed AfD, but allow me: This article is a WP:DICTDEF padded out with examples and long digressions about what style guides have to say about this phrase. The only significant, secondary coverage in the sources are a few articles about one WP user's crusade against the phrase, and those articles aren't really about the phrase at all (and are fluffy slow-news-day pap IMO). If we really want, we can have an article about that little tiff, but the phrase is as non-notable as it gets. All kinds of word pairings are inappropriate or sound awkward in certain situations; to give them articles violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Giraffedata: I like giraffes. Polygnotus (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's appropriately sourced. They aren't passing references and not fluff pieces. If you have any issue about the sources, those should be tagged first or a discussion on the talk page. Also note that User:Giraffedata/comprised of exists for any alternatives to deletion. – The Grid (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently haven't read the talk page, where the discussion was already started last year, and this is its outcome. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Where comprised of was more formal (an article version) of User:Giraffedata/comprised of? – The Grid (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Literature. – The Grid (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with @WeirdNAnnoyed:. There could maybe a case to be made that User:Giraffedata is notable but I really don't agree with the idea that something which a) an editor obsesses about on en.wiki which is b) then covered in the media c) makes the thing notable on en.wiki. That seems perverse. JMWt (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, the solution to that is to take all of the navel-gazing stuff about Wikipedia out, and leave the linguistics. The article was started in 2015 and clearly originated because of that editor. But all of that obscures the reality that there is a linguistic discussion to be had, which many books on English language usage have had going back to at least the 1940s, about the usage of "comprise" and "compose". In retrospect, titling this (say) comprise and compose from the start would have made it less skewed, because the overall linguistic discussion is about a more general confusion, and shift in usage. A yet more general subject is hinted at by the 1906 The King's English where the Fowlers listed this in their section on the "give and take forms" subset of malapropisms; although I am not aware that many people ran with that typology. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is about the perennial usage controversy, so it isn't a dictionary entry in violation of WP:DICTDEF or a usage guide in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Although the topic received a flurry of news coverage as a result of Giraffedata's Wikipedia edits, much of that coverage was really about the linguistic issue rather than Giraffedata himself (e.g. this) and there are plenty of other sources that are unrelated to the Wikipedia side of the controversy (e.g. this and this). Botterweg (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is at heart an encyclopedia article about a usage controversy, not a dictionary definition of the verb to comprise. It reads somewhat polemical at points, but deletion isn't the solution to that. Writing on Wikipedia about developments at Wikipedia is acceptable, provided that we have sources from outside that we can rely upon, which we do here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether coverage on Giraffedata's editing makes this phrase notable, this article already justifies its existence by also including whether "comprised of" should be removed in legal texts by citing well-known lexicographer Bryan A. Garner. As Botterweg notes, much of the press coverage on Giraffedata actually delved into the broader descriptive vs prescriptive grammar debate, providing this article with a thoroughly sourced set of views on this case study ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (weak to moderate) - This is clear NOTDICT territory, fluffed-up with original research and SYNTH (or at least skirting the line of both). We’re also touching on a bit of Woozle/CIRCULAR and puffery territory, though I will admit that is a simple fix. That said, I’m not going to comment on Wikipedians attempting to police the natural development of English. This article, by definition, is NOTDICT territory. At the very least we need to see a re-name to "Use of comprised of" (or similar) or simply a merger with English usage controversies (or similar). I would change to a "keep" vote if we could agree on a name change. This article is about the controversy surrounding the use of the phrase, not the phrase itself. The phrase itself simply… is. MWFwiki (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Nardog alludes to, WP:WORDISSUBJECT highlights some cases where coverage on particular words/phrases provides notability. For articles like thou and no worries, we did not write the titles as "Use of ..." because words/phrases inherently must be used. In other words, we can have articles like "use of nigger in the arts", but "use of comprised of" without a specific area makes the article title unnecessarily longer. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But , again, that isn’t what this article is about. It’s not about the word or the phrase. It’s about the controversy of it. I won’t die on a hill regarding the article’s title but it is incorrect in its current form. It is necessary to make it longer since it’s not simply about the phrase.

“Thou” and “no worries” appear to be — primarily — about the use of the word/phrase proper. MWFwiki (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, (the coverage on) Giraffedata has made this a clear WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Nardog (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single editor’s obsession — which is not supported by various dictionaries^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] (and a Guardian OPED)^[5] — does not confer notability. A single article almost a decade ago does not constitute SIGCOV. I think there is probably enough to establish notability (at least for the controversy surrounding the phrase), here, but otherwise it is not justified by an essay. MWFwiki (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I completely agree with you that Giraffedata's arguments against "comprised of" are all refuted by that Guardian op-ed cited in this article. However, lexicographer Bryan A. Garner's cautioning against "comprised of" in legal texts precedes the creation of Giraffedata's account, clearly making this article about a broader debate on the phrase. Yes, most of this article's sources are from a burst of coverage in 2015, but rather than theorizing on the WP:10YEARTEST, we can see here in 2025 that the article is just as understandable and relevant as when it was written. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with this. I don't know why we're arguing on WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Notability is not a temporary measure. The opeds can be considered primary sources with the key note they also may not be considered as independent sources. The arguments from MWFwiki are bordering "I don't like it" territory though I understand their points when looking at the definitions. We have sources that go beyond evaluating Giraffedata's actions on Wikipedia. The references are not circular as the article came after the media reporting on Giraffedata. (The article creator @Ritchie333 could perhaps chime in if they could.) It looks like February 2015 was when media outlets published about it. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: I never heard of the subject until now, but apparently 57 people I know follow her Instagram account. Since I have several mutuals, I'm not !voting, but I'll take a look at the sources. For the record, coming in 6th place in a reality show just means that there isn't a presumption of notability. She could still pass, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. @MKFI and TurboSuperA+: by dabify, do you want this article to be kept but a disambiguation should be added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A comment for @MKFI and @TurboSuperA+, a disambiguation does not solve that the current page is a weak duplication of the better page Cloud computing. Please clarify. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: I intended to replace the current article with a disambiguation page. MKFI (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeadDesk

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Lal Commodity Management

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Management, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TC-BT-1C-SI, Hope you are Good. I think Not all the sources are Routine, you can look sources closely. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bakhtar40 as you suggested, I checked again. Only Forbes India qualifies, but that's not enough. The other one, FE, is just an interview in a supplement. According to WP:RSNOI, we should better avoid it. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a good independent and reliable reference How Sohan Lal is solving the problem of agri-commodity wastage and other from Financial Express. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – The fact that he is a homonym hinders the search, but it is still possible to confirm the athlete's career at the first levels of Italian football. [47], [48], [49]. Svartner (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above from Svartner are 2 x database and 1 x profile from the league he played in. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ilcalcio provides detailed information, but I agree that more informative sources are missing. Svartner (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Those are database sources which do not count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't read the source, or are you confused with Tutto Calciatore. There is a good coverage of the athlete's career and not just statistical data. The problem is that as I explained, the player is a homonym, so additional sources to ensure WP:SIGCOV are harmed/difficult to search. It's a more complex case than usual. Svartner (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Il Calcio is AI-generated. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete—Although I agree that the sources listed above are "not nothing," they are not WP:SIGCOV in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anwegmann, given Il Calcio is AI-generated, is your position still weak? JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay—Thanks for pinging me here. I hadn't been following this discussion. I have adjusted my vote below. Anwegmann (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have the bare minimum of sourcing. I did find some passing mentions in an Italian source search which are definitely him from his Serie B days. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the exact references? Passing mentions obviously don't count towards significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Il Calcio is clearly an AI-generated summary of his stats (as are all profiles on that site; GPTzero gave all the ones I tested 100% probability of being AI-generated). LegaPro is a blog network, and anyway it's a routine transfer announcement of mostly quotes. Tutto Calciatori is a database. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

So you think AI-generated content is RS?! JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I am a little confused, are there not better sources for this player? Torino is a big club. Monza and Reggiana are fair sized clubs. He has played for some very well known football clubs in Italy, be strange to see this thrown under the bus. Govvy (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Svartner (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has found anything—literally anything—in the last two weeks or the 15 years this has been in mainspace... Articles like these that languish for decades based solely on database stats are exactly why we abolished the old NSPORT presumptions and now require actual evidence that the subject has garnered IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: "Thrown under the bus" ? What do you mean?
@JoelleJay: I wasn't participating in NSPORTS2022, but your theory might be correct. This is why I've been nominating athletes that fall under this criteria for deletion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I was pretty clear, I didn't say keep or delete here, I simply said it be a shame if this was thrown under the bus, hence, playing for those top clubs, if this was an English player, you're deleting a player who played one game for Chelsea, then a load of games for Birmingham and Portsmouth. That would be the equivalent of what you people are considering to delete. Saying that, I struggle to find sources because he shares his name with Paolo Rossi who is one of the all-time Italian greats of football. This Paolo Rossi clearly played Italian league football, per soccerway and looking at the current article its very much incomplete. The player seems to have retired in 2013 or 2014. Lots of stats there for the player on many databases, many like [50], that's one side of the coin, however the hunt for the other side of the coin is those news articles, about the player, when he made his debut, who he signed for, why was that. This requires a really deep dive. I am sure there will be sources, but as the deletionists never like to really try to do deep research you wouldn't present them now would you. And I certainly don't have the time to do proper research, but I am sure there are sources there if you want to hunt them down. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tribuna is just a passing mention in squad list which does not count as significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per above. Il Calcio is clearly AI-generated, and as such, the sources listed previous do, in fact, appear to be nothing. No one has been able to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player. There's really no clear argument for a keep here without meaningful evidence. Anwegmann (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is currently no consensus on whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bio7

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

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

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

I think WP:SOFT applies here. Note that the sources are not self-published, but peer reviewed. It is normal for scientific software authors to publish the initial paper themselves, which in turn then gets cited. Matthias M. (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating reliability and independence. WP: GNG requires that we have sources that are independent of the subject. The author of a piece of software cannot serve as an independent source. Whether their publication undergoes peer review is irrelevant. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added several citations from third parties in the article and ImageJ#cite_note-13 so you might want to reconsider. Matthias M. (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide quotations from those citations that show that they're more than passing mentions? HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michéal Castaldo

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michéal Castaldo (2nd nomination)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Italy, Canada, and United States of America. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎. By Pickersgill-Cunliffe under CSD G4. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BuiltX

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP here. The recreated version still lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. After a WP:BEFORE check, most of the coverage of the company appears to be sponsored content or brief mentions. It's a non-notable company, and I don't think much has changed since the last deletion. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and India. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr Vamsidhar Nali

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

Contested draftification. Body is highly promotional in its tone. No reliable sources found. Fails WP:NBIO with lack of significant coverage. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Sports, India, and Telangana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are unreliable and include WP:MEDIUM, which is user-generated content. The subject is not an MLA or MP, so it fails NPOL, and there is no significant coverage from multiple independent sources, thus failing GNG. The article is also promotional. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yantrana Films

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

No significant coverage from multiple independent sources, failing WP:NCORP. Redirecting to Sangee may be a good option per ATD. GrabUp - Talk 13:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. GrabUp - Talk 13:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft chase from Batajnica

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

Another minor incident blown up to be a major battle with Non nuetral laungage and dodgy sources. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article. You're arguments are pretty sensible. I think that of this article was to be deleted, it should be expanded upon on other articles. Peja mapping (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How ? what do we need to say that is not said in NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where Zoran Radosavljevic's body and aircraft ended up in after he was shot down and also that the MiG-29's were in semi-working condition.

When i made this article i thought that since there were more than 1 aircraft shotdown that it was "large-scale" enough to have its own article, so i apologize for my mistakes. Peja mapping (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Braithwaite Studio

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

Available sources do not show that this company meets WP:NCORP. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Canada. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khairi Meddaoui

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG. Only sources present in the article are databases and only a passing mention and other routine coverage was what I could find in a search. ~ Tails Wx 13:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting Extinction

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

I see no evidence this passes WP:NORG. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Primary Criteria" section in WP:NORG states "presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Multiple references on the page pass this criteria (BBC Video, Guardian, The Sunday Times). Other reputable sources not mentioned on the Rewriting Extinction page (ITV, The Independent) have featured Rewriting Earth (and formerly Rewriting Extinction) and their campaigns.

In the Guardian article and BBC video, Rewriting Extinction is the subject of the piece.

As per the Guardian: "Rewriting extinction: Ricky Gervais joins celebrities creating comics to save species", "Ricky Gervais is the latest celebrity to join an ambitious year-long storytelling campaign called Rewriting Extinction with the launch of a comic called Bullfight." The remainder of the article is a feature on Rewriting Extinction, in the form of an interview with its founder, Paul Goodenough. PersonDoingSomeEditing (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. A google search brought only blogs or websites that talk about the comics they have published. TNM101 (chat) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has changed its name to Rewriting Earth, but is still active. The obvious connection to renowned environmental activists, celebrities and important comic artists lends relevance. The article should be expanded to include current campaigns that have been reported on by the BBC, for example. It can be assumed that further campaigns will follow, as regular work appears to be taking place. Lavendelboy (chat) 09:48, 17 January 2025 (CET)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As shown by PersonDoingSomeEditing, subject has enough reputable and independent coverage (at least 3 sources) to be considered notable. Silvymaro (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to get the views of experienced editors more familiar with our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The BBC video and Guardian sources are the only ones that unambiguously meet WP:NORG (significant, independent, reliable, secondary). Other sources have problems with not having significant enough coverage or being from a consensus reliable source. That said, it does meet the criteria if just barely. Personally I would like to see more instances of significant coverage before an unqualified keep vote. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Farm

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

No sources to show that this TV series meets any notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Mekomo (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never made series, which is easily told by the fact that the article describes it as being on "WarnerMedia's upcoming streaming service"...which in 2025 is Max and WarnerMedia is now defunct. Nate • (chatter) 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only articles are the announcements from 2019 that the show was in production, but it looks like it was never made and lacks WP:SIGCOV for it's own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was only able to find announcements. Looks like it just never came to fruition despite having Kidman attached. My guess is that it got impacted by the covid-19 pandemic and is either cancelled or in indefinite hiatus. On a side note, it looks like there are a few other prospective TV shows by the same studio that suffer from the same lack of sourcing/notability. I'll likely redirect those since they appear to be based on other things where notability has been established. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiteretsu Daihyakka (1988 TV series)

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

Was previously draftified, and contested by creator. I could not find any sources apart from IMDb and IMDb-like websites. Fails notability due to lack of significant coverage. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ross (political consultant)

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

Sources available do not show that this subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO Mekomo (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Mekomo (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other activities of Elon Musk

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

Random collection of bits and pieces from his career. Those with a separate article should be linked to from his main biography and don't need another page to summarize them, which would leave us with just two small sections, which probably just don't need mentioning at all as they are such minor aspects. Fram (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Expanding the scope of Business career to Career of Elon Musk and merging there might make sense if editors believe the content should be kept but not as standalone. It'd be just under 6,000 words if merged there. Edit: If wasn't clear from nomination, the subject was split from main BLP due to size issues, as documented on the talk pages. What's left is a child article summary in the parent now. CNC (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrobers

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

This appears to be a mostly unsourced flash-in-the-pan subculture or moral panic. Every source is from the same roughly one month window in Russia, and in general it seems to have WP:GNG issues. I don't think there's a salvageable article in here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Health and fitness, Fashion, Popular culture, Social science, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Dance (poem)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disclosure: I am the original creator of this article. As nom says, nothing has changed since the first nomination. The article can and in time will be expanded. Yes, the article could be rescoped to be about the hoax rather than the poem itself, but this would not affect the notability of the topic in any way. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you intend to / expect others to expand it with? If there are reliable sources I'm missing other than the one Snopes piece, I'm happy to reconsider this nomination. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on Tamzin's assessment of the sources, this poem is not notable. If this assessment is challenged or more sources are found, please ping me and I will take another look. Toadspike [Talk] 20:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created in 2010 and, as of this writing, has zero meaningful incoming links. A topic that's notable probably wouldn't be orphaned all this time. 162 etc. (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Turkey. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your comment and direction. İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp is a notable person in Turkey, one of the few businesswomen with a successful background and current projects with her company. I refrained from using sources other than English, that might be the reason why it seems lacking. If it is ok to use Turkish sources, I can easily expand. Also I can add related companies, like the ones dominantly active in Netherlands and add SIGCOV accordingly. Thank you for your help in advance, best regards. EditThemAll (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I added wikidata link for trwiki article which was missing but I agree with the nomination rationale. Tehonk (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your comment. I created the article, so wanted to thank you for your contribution and would like to explain the situation. İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp is one of the 3 top businesswomen in Turkey, the other 2 of which already have an established page. Hence, I believe it is fair to have a page with the same amount of resources. However, as most of the resources are in Turkish, I deliberately chose solely English resources.

Please advise me know how to expand better, and if the Turkish sources are a better option, so that we can improve the page.

Thank you EditThemAll (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Linkusyr Could you explain why what's clearly an entire article focused on the company (though in a pretty promotional light) is just passing mentions? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what I said last time. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This was not a world championship match. It was an informal casual match played in Amsterdam (rather than Rotterdam as suggested in the article). I've taken a look at some news sources from the time, and nothing suggests that the world title was at stake (plus, a title match of just four games is absolutely unheard of). I can't find any evidence that suggests that this was actually a match for the world championship, or one of any significance for that matter. [51] 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Dutch newspapers of the time can be checked online for free. They covered the match quite extensively. I introduced a citation in the article, for ease of reference. The 1934 Menchik-Graf match was indeed an informal match over four games, played at Max Euwe´s home in Amsterdam. The title of World Champion was not on the line. The match is adequately mentioned in the articles about Vera Menchik and Sonja Graf, see here and here and there is no reason to have a standalone article on the match. An alternative to deletion might be to rename this article 1934 Menchik-Graf match only to blank-and-redirect it to the relevant section in the Vera Menchik article. I don´t really see the point and consider deletion the best option. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion contested on talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible rename. The second source in the article, which is essentially clippings from 'International Championship Chess: A complete record of FIDE events' by B.M. Kazic (Batsford, 1974), Chapter 10, titled 'Women World Chess Champions; From Vera Menchik to Nona Gaprindashvili' (p.259-267) notes that this was a privately organized challenge match for the title in which Menchik retained her title. This biography of Menchik says the multiple other sources saying that are wrong: [52] (pg. 128), so there seems to be some sort of historiographical dispute (which maybe should be mentioned) Yes, it wasn't sanctioned by FIDE, but private challenges was the norm for the open title between the two best women players, so being "unofficial" doesn't mean the chess world wouldn't have recognized it (indeed, the next challenge match between the same two in 1937 was officially sanctioned). If Dutch newspapers covered it quite extensively, then it WP:GNG is met and the real issue is what the title should be. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAU Ventures

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

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

The startup participated in the first cycle of a unique accelerator launched Israel’s Internal Security Agency (ISA, also known as the Shin Bet in Hebrew) and TAU Ventures, the investment arm of Tel Aviv University. [53] Linkusyr (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Target Tel Aviv University. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Battle of Valjevo

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

Seems to be very poorly sourced, with the only decent sources not really covering this. Also riddled with peacock wording (at least in part following some of the (poor) sources).. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable on it's own, part about the "air battle" or a skirmish could be just included in the particular NATO Operation. Used by revisionists to synth another victory out of a single downed plane, Serbian plane to that. YBSOne (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is already mentioned here. YBSOne (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable, and completely inconsistent. Did they fight 16 planes or 2 planes. Flying towards a formation of 16 planes doesn't mean 16 planes engaged in combat. This seems to be more about attempting to memorialise a pilot and create some revisionist myth than create an encyclopaedia article. Individual losses or skirmishes are rarely notable and I see nothing that makes this pass any notability criteria. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Malakal Airport collision

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources presented by Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicola (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, best addressed with hatnote. Gjs238 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen). Not even sure the hatnote is necessary to be honest, but definitely don't think there's any need for a disambiguation page for a local news blog that isn't notable enough to have its own article. MCE89 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) as an alternate spelling, e.g. Publius Valerius Poplicola, Quintus Pedius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) per Clarityfiend. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is already redirect Publicola, is not Publicola (disambiguation) an unnecessary disambiguation? Gjs238 (talk)

True. It was titled Poplicola (disambiguation) (which influenced my original !lvote), before I took a closer look and moved it. Deletion is also acceptable, since I also added a hatnote to Publius Valerius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after including the website in the hatnote at the main Publicola article, as I've just done. PamD 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create disambig at Publicola, then Redirect Publicola (disambiguation) to Publicola. Gjs238 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Poplicola (cognomen) is not a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question as previous relister.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catskill Mountain 3500 Club

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

Obscure club without adequate WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to meet WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project JEDI

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

PROD removed but not secondary sources forth coming. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROD was contested with the rationale "2-3 good sources in English (see German WP)", but I'm not seeing it. [54] is WP:SPS. [55] and [56] are WP:UGC (see [57]). I see a few brief mentions in books about Delphi, but not enough to constitute significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universe of Kingdom Hearts

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

The article is almost entirely full of WP:Gamecruft. The sources are mostly primary, while secondary reviews are from the game reviews. I think it would be the best if this article will be merged to the franchise rather than splitting it off. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not opposed to "universe of" articles in general, but this one clearly and completely fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE by not having significant coverage specifically about the world itself. I would just be aware that "Gamecruft" is considered disparaging rather than neutral, so people may take your nomination as WP:IDONTLIKEIT when you don't mean it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry G. Gorin

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Russia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, just an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
What is your definition of an "attack page" may I ask? All the sources are independent and reliable and the content doesn't seem promotional.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article demonstrates Dmitry G. Gorin's notability through his extensive legal career, including high-profile cases, academic roles at UCLA and Pepperdine University, and public impact in the legal field. His involvement in cases with significant media coverage and his contributions as an educator meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and warrant retention of the article. Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just being involved in high profile cases and having positions at universities is not enough to make him automatically notable. He has to also meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and I don't really see anything in the article that demonstrates that. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first glance, I was inclined to agree with the nominator. However, after looking more closely, it’s clear this isn’t just any average lawyer we’re talking about - on the opposite. I also disagree with calling it “just another promo page” because every case is backed by independent sources, and the article itself is relatively well-written compared to similar lawyer pages on Wikipedia. Anyways, here is a breakdown of what I found:
- 1) Senior Deputy District Attorney Experience and Lecturer at UCLA - the individual served as a Senior Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County for many years—one of the largest districts in the United States. This role indicates they managed high-profile public cases over an extended period. He has also been a lecturer at UCLA, teaching two law courses since 2003 (as noted on the UCLA website).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He shows up in a lot of search results and was involved in notable court cases, but neither of those things make him individually notable. Being senior deputy DA is also not a position that makes a person automatically notable. You need to find RSes that are about him and don't just briefly mention or quote him. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, UCLA source and the Daily Journal article both provide in-depth, independent, and reliable coverage, which meets the basic notability requirement of two strong sources. Considering his multiple notable cases (some of them with their own Wikipedia pages) and his public service as a District Attorney for Los Angeles County, I view this attorney as clearly notable.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the UCLA source is not independent as he has worked there. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree. UCLA is one of the most respected academic institutions in the United States, with stringent standards for verification and accountability. Nothing on that page appeared promotional or unsubstantiated by other sources. I stand by my opinion unless you can show evidence that UCLA has published promotional material about its lecturers and provide a few examples.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating reliability with independence. There is well-established consensus that content from an employer about its employees is never independent. This is stated in WP:N: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it., NPROF: non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, and NBIO: Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not contribute toward notability, nor do web pages about an organization's own staff or members. There is no scenario where an employer doesn't count as being "affiliated" with an employee. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about this policy on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
WP:BUREAUCRACY
WP:5P5
https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=&lang=en&q=Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

Wikipedia has never strictly adhered to rigid rules without exceptions. Common sense often takes precedence over rigid rule-following, and each situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, we need in-depth coverage and verifiability to ensure that facts are presented neutrally and can be confirmed by reliable sources. This is exactly the case for UCLA's page. No one disputes that UCLA is a respected institution, and I have not encountered any information published by UCLA about their lecturers that cannot be verified. Regarding Mr. Gorin, I thoroughly checked his UCLA profile, and all the information—his education, role as an Attorney, and other basic biographical facts—can be verified through multiple sources.

I have shared my opinion on this matter and have no interest in further discussing it.--50.39.138.50 (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, the article meets WP:GNG. What coverage of a lawyer's activities do we need? To the sources already cited in the article, I can add this one: Gorin Selected to the 2021 Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California [58]. Moreover, in media outlets such as the NY Times [59], CBS [https//www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/los-angeles-deputy-mayor-brian-williams-fbi-search-bomb-threat-against-city-hall/], and TMZ [60], he provides commentary on high-profile cases he handled at the time. In articles from The Guardian [61] and the Daily Journal [62], he comments on other significant cases. It’s clear that articles about cases he worked on won’t necessarily detail his personal life. The notable cases are what defines the lawyer. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that most lawyers who work on high profile cases won't have a lot of articles written about them, the articles will usually focus on the cases. What that means is that most of those lawyers aren't notable, it doesn't mean that the standards for lawyers are lower than other figures. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of this person's roles contribute whatsoever to notability. Lawyers can only achieve notability through either significant coverage of them in independent secondary RS, or through academic impact as established by C1. Quotations from the subject never count toward GNG, and that is the entirety of the coverage linked above with the exception of the "best lawyers" press release, which obviously fails independence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The article meets basic criteria for notability as per WP:GNG – we have two in-depth sources here, this, and this, with the former providing sufficient amount of information on the biography. In addition, with multiple sources covering the cases led by Gorin, it is safe to assume that the subject is notable. Baruzza (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UCLA source is obviously not independent. The Daily Journal one looks good if it's truly independent (it reads like a paid-for advertorial, and the site offers ways to "submit your news"), but even so we need multiple sources of IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the reviewed sources, the page meets general notability criteria. Subject's decades-long public role as a District Attorney in Los Angeles County and the notable cases he has overseen confirm his significance. Silvymaro (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silvymaro, which reviewed sources are independent, secondary, and SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!} 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identiv

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (Spain)

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

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

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

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

Merge/Redirect with/to International Communist League (Maoist). It was covered by the Argentinian site Infobae in 2022 [63], listed here as a communist party in Spain. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage isn't in-depth though. Doesn't make sense to me to convert articles of organisations into redirects to international organisations they are a part of (and thus setting a precedent to create similar redirects). There is no significant coverage of the topic in the international's Wikipedia article and the scope wouldn't necessarily be appropriate either, as this party isn't merely a national branch of the international. I'm not sure International Communist League (Maoist) meets notability guidelines either. Yue🌙 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Half the Infobae article is devoted to the MCP. Precedent has nothing to do with this; there are numerous political party redirects to lists of political parties. The point of a retaining a redirect in this case is because the subject is not an implausible search term however there is not enough material at this point on the subject to justify a stand alone page. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Swanepoel

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. There seems to be a misconception that getting a book on the New York Times Bestseller List is a free pass for a Wikipedia article. While there was a day, 15 or 18 years ago, when many people passed AfD on that basis, we have never been a free web host nor nor LinkedIn. I see lot of poor sourcing here. I'm not against Draftifying this, but I'm leaning delete . Bearian (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Khalaf

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to Lebanon at the 1988 Summer Olympics: I'm not sure I understand the opposition to this common ATD target for non-notable Olympians. JTtheOG (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Redirect to Lebanon at the 1988 Summer Olympics.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Discworld Convention

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

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

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

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

Primary sources for the convention are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as written. It is plausible this could be rescued, but right now I don't see the sources in my BEFORE. Redirect is problematic; this is mentioned in Discworld and Terry Pratchett, but the mentions are trivial. All that said, I think Discworld fandom might warrant an article, and this could be mentioned there, but sadly, this does not exist. And what we have here is, currently, an entry on a likely non-notable fan organization that did not attract any serious, independent attention. Sorry, folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, which can become a merge target for other NN topics. Even if GNG was met, it'd have to be a Gen Con or Origins level convention to escape NOPAGE considerations. Individual conventions are great... but they're better covered in fandom-appropriate articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gen con means a general convention? What is 'origins' level con?Halbared (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gen Con and Origins Game Fair. Sorry, not trying to be cryptic, those are long running, annual, named national/international-scope conventions. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I can see they're big! 20k. The Discworld con is restricted to 1k so it doesn't change into a shopping centre type thing like Comic Con. I was looking at the List of fan conventions by date of founding, a lot of which don' exist any-more and have the same amount of information as this page, such as Gallifrey One (which is active), I see Dr Who has a fandom page, this may be a workable solution.Halbared (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, per Jclemens, and add in the content from Draft:The North American Discworld Convention. Brilliant solution, problem solved. BD2412 T 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this solution, and I think the above-mentioned Fans and Fandom may be helpful in expanding on the topic; the Hollywood Reporter article and Discworld and the Disciplines, p. 216, while both very brief, verify that fandom has been going strong as of 2015 and 2012, respectively, and could be used in an introductory sentence on the fandom more globally. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Rename and expand to Discworld fandom as per the great working solution above.Halbared (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We can't close an AFD as a rename. The article's title is an editing decision that has to be discussed by editors if this article is Kept. Should we interpret Rename "votes" as "Keep" votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in order to rename and expand scope to Discworld fandom afterwards, as discussed above, which I think solves the problems and is a good way to present this. Daranios (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Zahir (Konar Education Minister)

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

Nominated for PROD, but PROD reverted with comment "As a cabinet-level official of a province, he is automatically notable, even without multiple in-depth references". The one reference is a passing mention. Article has been substandard since 2009. Blackballnz (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Holt

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

Amateur-level and youth football coach. Doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG. References are either passing mentions or primary sources. Searching revealed more of the same. C 679 05:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Zealand. C 679 05:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same reasons as nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Historical figure of cultural significance. And there are multiple reliable sources mentioned as citations. Maybe this article needs to be improved. But before nominating for deletion, you should always consider Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cultural significance can be mirrored in the high amount of prilgrims seeking blessings by the figure as a saint until today (WP:RECENTISM) (WP:NOTE) (WP:GNG). Sources are independant and confirm the notability in a verifiable and traceable manner (WP:RS) (WP:V). Hence this topic has no self-promotion inherent and meets encyclopedic standards (WP:NOT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonnaise.sandiwch.123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while the article has undergone an expansion and more citations have been added to it, multiple references within the article do not look reliable. For example, Tazkare Khwanadane Hazrat Eshan published by a company that is part of the organization which the article subject is a member of- the Naqshbandi order or Naqshbandiyya, and E. J. W. Gibb Memorial by Nicholson, Reynold. The other sources need to be evaluated- they need to be reliable, independent and non-primary sources. Then, the article should be cleaned up, and any content attributed to unreliable or otherwise inappropriate sources should be removed. Then, what remains should be considered and the discussion on whether or not the article should be kept can continue. HyperShark244 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request: cleanup the article Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband and remove all content that is not verified through reliable, independent and non-primary sources from the article. Pinging @Onel5969: @HistoryofIran: @UrielAcosta: HyperShark244 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Universities Consortium

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Christian: Very limited is there. can redirect Monhiroe (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! What does this guy have to with the Channel Islands? I assume you posted in the wrong thread. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky

AfDs for this article:

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

I know this subject has survived a previous AfD, but the last one was six years ago and I think the project has leaned a bit more deletionist over time in regards to BLPs. This is something I've run into a few times myself in a Wikipedia-related context (I nominated myself for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover and I have written an article about a different Wikipedian since then that I actually think meets our current notability requirements). I think Matetsky's biography is a lot like mine... in that we're not really notable. I took a look at the cited references and the closest any of them gets to WP:GNG is the Princeton one here. My short-lived biography also only had one SIGCOV reference at the time. Everything else is a passing mention. I did my own before and did not find any other sources with more significant coverage (they were just more passing mentions). Deletion might not be the only answer here, a partial merge to the article about ArbCom might make sense, with the subject's name as a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, if the nom is about making comparisons to other articles (which I don't "think" we normally do) I've seen far fewer references in other articles that have been kept... - jc37 10:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Look at the quality of the references. Most literally just list his name and are directory-like entries on websites. I've definitely seen people compare articles/AfDs in an AfD before to show precedent and differences in regards to level of secondary coverage. I'm going to try and keep my commenting at a minimum here but I hope that people try to distance themselves from the Wikipedia aspect and just see this as a normal biography. Is there enough coverage for a standalone biography? I don't think so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your "hand wave" assessment of the page's sources.

That said, "standalone" biography? Are you intimating that you want to see this listified somewhere? - jc37 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I ask you to give me three sources that demonstrate GNG coverage. As for standalone biography, I did mention the possibility of a partial merge (and then redirect) to ArbCom. The passing mentions of this subject are usually in that context. Kind of like how my name is a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. And I see that you adjusted that redirect [64].

I think there's more to this article than merely his Wikipedia work, notable as it may be.

Anyway, I really am trying to AGF here, but from what others have noted below, and from the seeming tone of your comments, this is starting to feel like "sour grapes" here.

I think I'll wait to see what other commenters have to say. - jc37 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referencing that redirect, but the discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to other people's perspectives. I started this AfD because I had genuine concerns about notability. I'll note that the previous AfD closed as "no consensus" so it's not like I'm the first person to have this opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that the timing was probably a dumb decision on my part but it really wasn't intended in any malicious kind of way. I was working on List of Wikipedia people lately. I've been considering the notability of other articles and whether other Wikipedians are notable in their own right. I try really hard not to be a hypocrite and apply consistent standards across the board. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feels a tad bit pointy based on her creation of Tamzin being tagged for notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant to be pointy, someone mentioned the AfD in that discussion and I think they had a point about notability. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the whole I find the way redditors are covered compared to Wikipedians disappointing (I think they get more/better press). So I wish someone like Matetsky was notable for his immense contributions to Wikipedia. However, the coverage he has received does not pass notability. None of the sources really offers any indepth biographical coverage of Matetsky. Instead we get passing coverage of him talking about ArbCom, which any number of Wikipedians including myself have, some press coverage of some cases he's been a part of as a lawyer (all lacking WP:SIGCOV of Matetsky as a topic) and various "things on the internet he's done". If this were some 19th Century person I could maybe understand why we would stretch our policies and guidelines to include. But this is a BLP where we shouldn't be stretching things and I do not think he meets our standards for notability and so the right thing would be to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say "things done on the internet" like it's a bad thing - welcome to the 21st century : )

Anyway, I think you left out book and magazine editor as well... - jc37 17:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Smith

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

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

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

Merge into Katrina Leung, for now. Honestly, we should probably cover them all in one scandal article, but he is notable for being her handler and for the fallout. The event is very notable [65] [66] [67] PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Back Magazine

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

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

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the magazine in coverage, mostly non-independent, or official bios of its founders: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]
Brief mentions of the magazine's coverage of organizations featured in it in blog posts by those own organizations (self-referential and not secondary) [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]
WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs such as the magazine's trademark, gov docs and its own webpages: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]
WP:USERGENERATED business directories: [92], [93], [94], [95]
Pure advertising for Giving Back magazine: [96]

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

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

Keep – The first issue was published in 2007, so it’s a relatively old publication. The magazine has covered major regional events, for example, the coverage of Prince Albert II’s visit. It also documents local events in the San Diego-Tijuana area, including philanthropy and community events. There is some coverage in reliable sources as well, and I believe Fox News is good enough to show notability. The previous version had approximately 20 citations. This one has more than 30. Tnifty (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of red herrings here. The age of the publication is of no relevance to its notability. The events the publication has covered are of no relevance to its notability. The Fox source you refer to (not Fox News but San Diego's local Fox affiliate) has a single sentence that says: Giving Back Magazine partners with several organizations in San Diego and Tijuana and showcases the people and companies that are doing good in the communities. (This is not WP:SIGCOV that qualifies toward notability.) The number of citations has no bearing on notability (and indeed, a large number may undermine the case for it; see WP:REFBOMB). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangirnagar University Swimming pool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete The pool didn't even last a full decade and is very run of the mill; there's probably a whole lot more about the shoddy construction job out there than about anybody actually swimming in this failed body of water. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MrSchimpf and MILL. I understand how upset students and their families would be to send them to Bangladesh's major public university where they can't even bathe in a pool. However, that's not our purpose. Other than perhaps the maintenance folks, nobody has ever lived there. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectJahangirnagar University as an alternate to deletion and merge whatever content can be salvaged. Interesting historical footnote.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jahangirnagar University. I disagree it is just a random swimming pool in a random university rationale, but I do agree that it does not have enough notability for a standalone article. The available content can be merge into university page. - The9Man ^Talk 17:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
সুইমিংপুল পরিত্যক্ত, পুকুরে গিয়ে প্রাণহানি [Abandoned swimming pool, death in pond]. NTV (in Bengali). 4 June 2016.			✔ Yes
"JU swimming pool remains abandoned for 20 years". The New Nation. 25 August 2016. Archived from the original on 2023-11-10.			✔ Yes
>জাবির জিমনেসিয়াম ও সুইমিংপুলের বেহাল দশা [JU's gymnasium and swimming pool in poor condition]. Daily Inqilab (in Bengali). 1 October 2016.		About half the article is about the swimming pool	✔ Yes
২৫ বছর ধরে অচল জাবির সুইমিং পুল [JU swimming pool idle for 25 years]. The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali). 20 January 2020.			✔ Yes
Ujjal, Arifuzzaman (6 November 2021). জাবিতে জিমনেসিয়াম ও সুইমিংপুলের বেহাল দশা [JU gymnasium and swimming pool in poor condition]. The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali).		About 30% of the article is about the swimming pool	✔ Yes
Mamur, Abdullah (25 February 2024). জাহাঙ্গীরনগরের ‘ডেডপুল’ যেভাবে প্রাণ ফিরে পেল [How Jahangirnagar's 'Deadpool' came back to life]. Prothom Alo (in Bengali).	A primary source, first person account of beautification of the site		✘ No
Hossain, Tarek (4 March 2024). রংতুলির আঁচড়ে সুইমিংপুল [Swimming pool with colorful tiles]. Samakal (in Bengali).			✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep There is significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, national media, over a period of many years. A source analysis shows that the facility meets WP:GNG. Nate is correct that more has been written about the failure of the pool than about anybody actually swimming in it. It is immaterial why independent sources wrote about a topic, the fact that they have written about it is what makes it notable, not whether it fulfilled its intended purpose. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The place now turned into an open air painting and grafitti area, a formal art-walk place. The article is extended a little about the latest use of the place. It can keep. for its new use. ~ Φαϊσάλ (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
You cannot vote twice. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please review source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled al-Ayoubi

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Syria, and England. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I offer no opinion on the merits of the article itself, but I did want to note that despite the nominator's claim, I didn't notice anything in the article history to indicate this was ever tagged for PROD at any point (and the date claimed for that, supposedly two days after created, was in fact the creation date of the article). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC - as well as the 2019 source which is in the article as an External Reference, a quick search of Newspapers.com shows international coverage of his defection in 2012 (which is what he did - not mentioned in the article), and an article in 2013. I'll add some sources and info and come back. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. He received lots of news coverage from 2012 through 2021, easily meeting WP:SIGCOV and preemptively disproving WP:BLP1E. He's notable as a defector, not as a diplomat. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:BLP1E - I don't know how that's been disproved here. The "lots of news coverage" link does not work for me, and my own BEFORE search only brings up a small number of hits, all around the time of the event he's known for, except for the Barnsley retrospective, which really isn't enough for a BLP. We could redirect to "list of Syrian defectors." SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Just noting that the nominator is a brand new account whose first edits were sending articles to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdul Karim

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Syria. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd assume being the general manager of the Syrian Arab News Agency and the national Syrian television channel would be relevant factors here too. /Julle (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - if he's important enough for the United States government to sanction him, then it's likely that he's notable. I'm not a fan ofAl-Jazeera, but the consensus of editors is that the English language edition is a reliable source; see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Bassam Imadi. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Property Couch

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

All of the sources in this article are non-RSes, and most of them are affiliated with the podcast. I couldn't find better sources WP:BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated this page for speedy deletion a couple of weeks ago as it was unambiguously promotional, and it was duly deleted. In its current incarnation, it doesn't look much different: there is the same reliance on poor sources, which are themselves quite promotional or have a very close connection with the subject. I could not find better sources in my WP:BEFORE, and certainly none with impartial significant coverage. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had draftified it earlier, was contested by creator. No reliable significant coverage exists (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Economics, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Rives

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, Morocco, and France. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator's reasoning, the lack of WP:RS is especially concerning as it is also a BLP. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves^€500 13:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep: significant coverage in a reliable and independent media outlet, addressing the subject in depth and directly (3 articles) https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/jean-marc-rives-expose-a-leveil-normand_54969366.html https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/sur-murs-leveil-paysages-jean-marc-rives_9291390.html https://actu.fr/normandie/ferrieres-saint-hilaire_27239/eure-ce-peintre-international-sort-un-livre-pour-apprendre-a-dessiner_60960106.html + (not really independent nor in depth) https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id521597/article/2024-05-11/dedicace-de-jean-marc-rives-la-fabrique-de-la-risle-de-beaumont-le-roger A drastic cleanup is due, though. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.

Kind regards RJMarco (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any independent sources about this podcast. I'd expect a WSJ-affiliated podcast to have sigcov but it doesn't look like it does. Unless someone else has better luck, maybe it should be a redirect to The Wall Street Journal? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Furniture Confederation

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

Declined prod. 1 of the 2 sources added is a non independent source from Furniture News. Most of the 10 google news hits for this org are from the non independent Furniture News. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guest family

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

Genealogical cruft. Cobbled together from unconnected parts with no overarching coverage of this extended family. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vik

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

Non notable film maker. No notable productions. Lots of awards but none are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wonderland is straight PR with no by-line. Forbes plethora of top howevermany of whatever are not significant. LA Weekly is straight PR. Same with Flaunt. There is a big push to promote her but Wikipedia is not a venue for that. Spam built by a cast of SPAs, UPE and socks. Telling is the representation in the opening sentence. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Czech Republic, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the awards here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above "Lots of awards but none are major." There are a LOT of festivals, award ceremonies, award farms, whatevers that hand out or sell a lot of awards, at times making up categories so they can give everyone an award. Listing awards is not enough, they has to be something significant about them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

Non notable actor. Lots of small parts but no significant roles in notable productions. (Significance of parts is puffed up in the article, "significant" part in Lotus Eaters (film)? No) Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of interviews where he talks about himself but not much else. Closest is the GQ piece on the Winehouse hologram tour where he is mentioned a few times but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Future in Chains

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

The book described in this Wikipedia article doesn't seem to exist in any relevant libraries; in fact, the article also doesn't discuss or mention anything about the work's publisher. I strongly presume a self-published novel.

Large portions of the article seem to be composed in a non-neutral manner by an LLM. I doubt that the opinions described in the article can be found in any meaningful publications.

The article doesn't cite any reliable secondary sources. Let me present a quick source analysis:

Footnote 1: Refers to Daily Times Nigeria; the text is very obviously LLM-generated, and the author's profile in that source indicates to me that the account (called ada-ada) is used for advertising and promotion. It is not a reliable source.

Footnote 2: Refers to Vanguard News. Same LLM-text as found in FN1; the source includes a disclaimer that reads Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof. Obviously not a useable source.

Footnote 3: (The Nation Newspaper) could possibly be a reasonable source, but I am not sure. Either way, it heavily quotes the subject, and thus, it is not intellectually independent or indicative of notability.

Footnote 4: Despite containing author information, the article is actually posted with a "The Editor" profile, and the text reminds me of something LLM-generated.

Footnote 5: dto. FN 2.

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references are quite weird given they use edited photos of the author and LLM generated text.

The article creator was blocked for paid editing so Delete an article created by a banned user without substantial edits by anyone else. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and the fact that this looks heavily promotional in nature.Plasticwonder (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article passed WP:Nbook, this subject was reviewed by literary critics in The Lagos Review, Afrocritik and Premium Times. They're all reliable source. Though I'm not voting for keep or delete. Whatever the outcome may be. Goodluck 102.90.100.245 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why are we so eager to delete? Two reviews are okay for me to say that this article meets WP:NBOOK. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. It only needed clean up, which has been done already. We should always conduct a thorough investigation before nominating any article for deletion. Ok1616 11:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NBOOK. Equine-man (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The author has written more than two dozen books, all of them self-published, none of which has seen any degree of success [97]. It strains credulity to believe that a handful of news outlets are suddenly interested in covering the author's latest book, which is also self-published and also has no evidence of being commercially successful. The current sources are highly suspect and offer no explanation for why they are covering the book:

The Daily Times article is clearly LLM-generated.
The articles from Vanguard and The Nation are overly promotional puff pieces. Sample quote: Nigerian author Ndifreke Ukpong has released his much-anticipated novel A Future in Chains - much-anticipated by whom, exactly?
The Afrocritik article also reads as LLM-generated. Even worse, the article's content is reproduced word for word on another website with a different author name. The Afrocritik article is by "Ime John", and this Southern Examiner article is by "Levi Chidiebere".

There is clearly paid promotion and AI at work here. Given the wiki article's AI-generated origins, the article creator being blocked for paid editing, and AI-generated Goodreads reviews on the author's books [98] [99] — enough red flags are flying that this content does not belong on Wikipedia unless the book is reviewed by two clearly independent sources. Astaire (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Astaire. I would also add that none of the author's books seem to be more than about 100 pages long, with a couple being as short as 30 pages. Obviously that's not inherently a problem, but combined with everything else it makes it pretty obvious that this author is churning out lots of short, self-published books to sell on Amazon, then paying for AI-generated "reviews" and other promotional coverage. Paid reviews and advertising by the author are explicitly excluded under WP:NBOOK. Given all of these red flags, I agree that this does not belong on Wikipedia unless it can be shown that the book has been covered by unambiguously independent sources. MCE89 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Astaire said the book review in Afrocritik and Southerne examiner are the same thing, but different author. It's true, Ime John reviewed the book in Afrocritik while Levi Chidiebere published it in Southerner Examiner, under Arts and Culture. I don't see anything wrong with that because he didn't claims to be the one reviewing the book. There is no evidence that this book reviews was paid publication. This publication is known for investigative journalism [100]. Astaire didn't point out those review on RS, only pointed out Afrocritik and Southern Examiner which was published by Levi, anyone can publish a review under Arts and Culture, as long they didn't claims to be the owner of the review. But why are we always quick to say delete without proper research? 102.90.80.11 (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with that because he didn't claims to be the one reviewing the book. You don't see anything wrong with the same article being published in two different places, under two different author names, with no indication that one is reposting the other? Really?

The Premium Times article is clearly more AI-generated nonsense. It's not a review, it's a puff piece that doesn't make a single negative comment about the book. Astaire (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamicjerusalem Studies

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

This term is not notable and fails WP:N. Per WP:NEO, "neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." This seems to be the case here, as this term is used primarily by the organization of the individual who coined the term, and is essentially nonexistent elsewhere. The topic is also already covered in a thoroughly sourced manner in Islamization of Jerusalem. --Eelipe (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AXS Pte Ltd

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mentions, routine announcements, or otherwise unreliable so not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Not sure how this made it out of AfC after being draftified and then being made even more promotional by SPA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Must be re-written to exclude promotional content and adhere to neutrality. While CNMall41 I understand your sentiment, this company passes WP:NCORP by being covered multiple times in The Straits Times, SG Business Times, and The Mothership (at the very least), all independent sources in Singapore. All articles I've checked have author name and no sponsored credentials. There are more than 20 sources listed on the page, with at least 3 unique ones I've mentioned. Would you please specify how that fails WP:NCORP? Silvymaro (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He explained that in the nomination. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a list of the references you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT. Also, the statement "have author name and no sponsored credentials" raises red flags.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41, I believe the article about AXS Pte Ltd should not be deleted, as it meets Wikipedia's WP:NCORP criteria for notability. Here’s why:

Significant Coverage: The company has been featured multiple times in The Straits Times, SG Business Times, and The Mothership, all of which are reliable, independent sources. For example:
- "AXS launches app for cardless parking at some malls and commercial buildings". CNA. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
- "联合创办人吴麟书：AXS可成为区域首个跨市场付款金融科技公司". www.zaobao.com.sg (in Simplified Chinese). Retrieved 20 January 2025.
Independent Sources: All cited articles are written by third-party journalists, with no paid sponsorships or press release content. These are all national newspapers and publications in Singapore - Straits Times: Daily newspaper in Singapore - Channel News Asia: Singaporean national locally and international free-to-air terrestrial and satellite television news channel - Zaobao: is the largest Singaporean Chinese-language newspaper with a daily circulation of about 136,900 (print and digital) as of 2021. - Mothership: Mothership’s, press accredited digital media platform that was approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information in Singapore which has access to government information, news, and events.
Meeting Notability Guidelines AXS Pte Ltd fulfills WP:NCORP, as it is a key player in Singapore’s electronic payment ecosystem.

If there are specific changes or improvements still required, I’m happy to work on them further. I kindly request that the article not be deleted, as the company’s notability is supported by credible sources and its impact on Singapore’s payment landscape. Thank you for your consideration. Elvintjs11 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvintjs11, try again without using AI to write your response. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvintjs11:, please see WP:CIR. If you are unable to look at the specific guideline provided to you ([{WP:ORGCRIT]]) and provide a simply response with a list of references meeting that criteria, I won't be able to assist you with reviewing them. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is clearly a major service in Singapore and meets WP:NCORP based on the coverage by major Singapore media over the years. The article was very promotional and I suggest a rewrite, I have already toned it down somewhat and I agree with Silvymaro that this subject is notable and needs a cleanup. It should also probably be renamed as per WP:NCCORP to remove the "Pte Ltd" unless needed for disambiguation. Sargdub (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !Keep votes, kindly stick to specific P&Gs of Wikipedia in your rationale that explains why this article should be included, along with references supporting your claim. Relisting for further discussion and a source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting Yesterday Free

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

I can find no evidence that this album meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Propose merge/redirect to Mark Heard as an alternative to deletion Emm90 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur's Bakery

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nothing in google news. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its website. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Northern Ireland. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orodruin (disambiguation)

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

Only one non-primary topic. GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- My understanding of DAB is that it would support deletion of this page, per the nominator, @GilaMonster536. Currently, "Orodruin" re-directs to Mount Doom. What is the point of this page?
MWFwiki (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- By the looks of it, it is to disambiguate three things named "Orodruin", and point to the three different articles where the three may be found. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a fine DAB. Sarsenet (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (page creator) per WP:TWOOTHER, now that another editor has added another item to the dab. Java Hurricane 06:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message Exchange Bus (MXB)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Message Exchange Bus (MXB)

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

not a single reasonable source Baratiiman (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If a user doesn’t know Persian or how to simply translate a Persian page to English with Google Translate, it doesn’t make all the Persian references unusable or unreasonable. The Persian references in this article come from the most reasonable, reliable, mainstream, and important news sites in the Persian language, some of which have more than 70 years of experience. The English references are not mainstream, but most of them are reliable and rational or at least secondhand, if not firsthand. Having problems with references doesn’t make the whole subject worthy of deletion; rather, adding more reliable references would be more reasonable.

Thank you for your time. Taha Danesh (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[2] ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/can-you-use-comprised-of-grammar

[3] ttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/ru/%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8C/%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/comprise

[4] ttps://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/comprise

[5] ttps://www.lexico.com/definition/comprise

[6] ttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/05/why-wikipedias-grammar-vigilante-is-wrong

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 31

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.