Back ဝီကီပီးဒီးယား:ဖျက်ပစ်ရမည့်ဆောင်းပါးများ/မှတ်တမ်း/ယနေ့ Burmese Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/今天 Chinese

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Shortcut
Purge

20 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< July 19 July 21 >

Purge server cache

Vladimír Kinier

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

Redirect to 1990 FIFA World Cup squads#Czechoslovakia because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this former men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. I've checked Wikipedia articles in other languages, but most of them only provide database sources. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia, which may help copy over English article, is slightly longer and listed the clubs he has/had played for... but SKwiki likewise does not provide any decent coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers

[edit]
Times Top 100 Graduate Employers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

[edit]
Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [1] & [2]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
-StellarHalo (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements.FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didem (belly dancer)

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

Fails wp:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide the reviews. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, redirect is better. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid

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

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.
    The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135

[edit]
Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * it has begun... 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (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, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG and fails to pass WP:FORUM. While this topic may be interesting to certain individuals (such as the author who made the page), it does not have secondary sources that cover it as an activity. I couldn't find anything on the subject besides primary sources which are all original research. Silvymaro (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Biewald

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

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic screwdriver

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

Most of this article is WP:OR. It is sourced to self-published such as wowstuff.co.uk or fan sites. A WP:BEFORE search brings up WP:PLOT summary or brief mentions and qualifies as a WP:GNG fail. If it were to be completely rewritten with proper sources it would still be at best a section in another article. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Budd

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

We do not need to have an article on every single person who has been convicted of horrendous local sex crimes. All coverage is rotm trial coverage from publications located in Palm Beach, Florida. After he got convicted it was seemingly never mentioned again. This is exclusively a local affair of one city. This is also a BLP, which is an extra sign we shouldn't have this. If the school still had a page I'd say merge there but we don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Cambridge colleges

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

The list is largely unsourced original research. Most entries cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is not viable as a separate article and fails WP:GNG. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University of Cambridge#In literature and popular culture, but the target should be much shorter once unreliable information is removed. Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Oxford colleges

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

This is a poorly referenced list. It has deep issues with WP:V as most of these cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is a WP:GNG fail that is not viable as a separate article. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University_of_Oxford#Oxford_in_literature_and_popular_media. Jontesta (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Oxbridge colleges

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

This is poorly referenced WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article tries to describe three different ideas of what belongs here, without any reference to reliable sources. WP:GNG fail. Jontesta (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Missed

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

The article is almost exclusively cited to non-RS sites, and isn't even that notable to begin with (I may be wrong). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom MacDonald (rapper): None of the sources here are reliable; they're mostly right-wing publications with clear bias which would never pass the smell test at WT:RSP, the Forbes article fails FORBESCON, and the rest are YouTube and social media. Found no additional coverage. Charting section is full of SINGLEVENDOR fails.
From my past experience, it is important to be wary of the potential for this to be swarmed with comments by biased editors. Hopefully they don't notice this one like they did the one I linked, but if they do, there may be a mess to pick through. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per suggested above. There's no indication this song is independently notable at this point. Cortador (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Julius Ford

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

It does not appear that this individual is notable independent of the shooting to which most of the article's content is devoted. I'm not sure whether the shooting is itself notable, so am ambivalent between outright deletion of the article versus moving and refocusing on the shooting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont know, why are you requesting a delete? 2600:1016:B00A:CEAE:5186:245E:BC5B:563D (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both deletion and moving are appropriate outcomes for AFDs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NEVENT. I did a decently extensive search and while there are a decent amount of later mentions in books (because the motive was religious at least in part) and academic studies, not one of these mentions are sigcov, news coverage fell off the radar pretty fast.
I'm kind of surprised this article managed to survive like this for 18 years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa may refer to:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support disambiguation as above: I don't see enough that would make this substantially notable enough for its own article, and there seem to be many similar places that would be better in a disambiguation page rather than picking one to be the sole redirect target. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry M. Rubin

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

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)

Benjamin Benedict Apugo

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

An article about a politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Endorsing politicians, and speaking on TV can make you appear on the news but the coverage may be your statements and quotes; same issue here. I want a community consensus on this. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello safari, this man here is a notable man being discussed in schools and very popular. for some reason, he has no social media presence. 70% OF the articles i cited are all on the WP:NGRA. there are far less personalities who worked under this man such as Theodore Orji , Orji Uzor Kalu and many more who have wikipedia articles. and as a young 19 year old girl studying history i ran into this mans story in a book called "Ibeku in igbo History", which i am not sure i can cite on the internet because it's an ancient cultural hard copy book.
If you want this book i can scan it to your email. the book is uploaded on scribd.com by someone and in it, this man was mentioned, but i'm not sure if i can cite that since its a Scribd upload done in 2020 or so.
Some articles i cited also spoke about him as a person and every person growing up here in eastern region of Nigeria knew BB Apugo. You can do more research yourself on this person to see i have put in the work before submitting to wiki and my goal in wiki is not bringing people with huge online presence, but working as hard as possible to include articles that are known about in real life but not spoken about on the internet with every possible info i have.
I will continue to cite more sources and keep working to make sure i include more info and I am sure other people will to by the time they see the article on him. Yinka Williams (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (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 keep‎. Haukur (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Tiwari

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

Fails WP:GNG. Virtually no coverage in external sources that I could find. (Note: There is a professor at Cal Poly Pomona by this name, it doesn't seem to be the same guy.) Withdrawn, see below Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matir Asurim

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG.

There's two sources currently, one of which is the organization's own website, and the other is actually a decent source in Jewish Currents [8]. Unfortunately, the Jewish Currents source is the only source I've been able to find discussing this organization in any detail.

Before was a bit complicated, given that the organization shares its name with a more well-known phrase. Looking at the organization's social media accounts and linktree[9], however, and the Jewish Currents piece is the only piece of coverage (independent or otherwise) they feature. (Smaller organizations tend to list any mention of their group in mainstream/local press, so the fact they've only listed one piece is a sign that there is likely no further coverage.) I did do my own web search, however, limiting results to those published in 2021 or later. Doing that revealed one mention in an author bio on Google Books (obviously can't work), one passing mention in the Jerusalem Post [10], and one passing mention in a law student's paper [11] on Google Scholar. While this organization could potentially become notable in the future, it isn't now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School

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

Unnotable school does not satisfy WP:GNG, some editor decided to remove PROD with no improvements what so ever. N niyaz (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton High School

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bootloop

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

There is no substance to the article. In its current state, it's little more than a dictionary entry, to which I feel the need to remind that we are not a dictionary. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a plainly crufty and publicity-seeking article for a random, low-profile redditor who was never notable, and certainly hasn't been even plausibly relevant in at least eight years. See the Google Trends for this user: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9&hl=en

Even when this user was receiving a bit of attention from blogs, their notability was highly questionable, and now - years on - it seems to me patently ludicrous that this, frankly, nobody warrants an encyclopedic entry. The tone of the copy is also the sort of overwrought interest common to writers trying to puff themselves (or their friends) up.

On a personal level, I can think of a dozen amateur fiction and fanfiction writers with greater impact than this user, and I wouldn't say they're notable either. Yes yes, Wikipedia:Other things exist, but I'm really shocked this highly unserious bio withstood an AfD the first time around. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles about Redditors require enough citations to garner notability. It would be worth movable to a Fandom wiki, however it cannot mix with CC-BY-SA 3.0 text, it should have been rewritten. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you didn't really provide any good reasons for deleting this article other than you considering him an non-notable nobody, but that's not how it goes. Notability is not based on personal opinion, it's based on if the person was covered by major notable reliable sources, which this person was. Bonus Person (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A forum fiction writer getting some blog press does not a notable entry make. There’s no way in hell this user passes the (admittedly non-binding) ten-year rule, and the whole page reeks of recentism and publicity-seeking. Without resorting to vulgar comparison-shopping, if every topic which merited a Gizmodo or Verge article was considered notable, the landscape of Wikipedia would look very different. This is not an encyclopedic article. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure calling The Guardian, Inverse, Vice, or The Verge "blogs" is a very strong argument. Also not sure recentism really applies when The Guardian article was written 8 (nearly 10!) years ago. C F A 💬 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The publicity policy you linked says:
"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
Sources like The Guardian and BBC News are independent and reliable, they aren't just random crufty press blogs. Obviously this article would encourage people to read the stories, but that alone does not make it publicity.
The recentism page also says
"Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in the next few decades."
This is not about an event or incident, the page is talking about published stories. People in 10 years will know that this is talking about a horror writer, even if they don't know what Reddit is. Bonus Person (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A strange argument, but there is coverage after 2016 if that's what you're looking for:
  • Westling, C.E.I.; Palmer, S.; McKinney, J.; Di Benedetto, S.A. (2020). Immersion and Participation in Punchdrunk's Theatrical Worlds. Performance and Design. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-350-10197-5.
  • Skains, R.L. (2022). Neverending Stories: The Popular Emergence of Digital Fiction. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5013-6493-8.
  • Stuart, Thomas M. (1 October 2018). "The vast and omnivorous cloud". Horror Studies. 9 (2): 151–160. doi:10.1386/host.9.2.151_2. ISSN 2040-3275.
  • Crawford, Joseph (1 July 2019). "Chapter 5 Gothic Digital Technologies". Twenty-First-Century Gothic. Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.1515/9781474440943-007. ISBN 978-1-4744-4094-3.
I have yet to see a reasonable reason to delete. C F A 💬 03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, that was the "sustained" coverage I was looking for to show this was something other than a forgotten publicity stunt. Keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, (edit conflict). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it should stay because this article has a unique and important part of internet culture with a lot of coverage from trustworthy sources. Removing it would mean losing valuable information about a notable and interesting online event. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mothin Ali

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

Non-noteworthy. City councillors are not noteowrthy per se. Holds no higher office; just a ward councillor Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search