Wikipedia

Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

24 November 2024
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< November 23 November 25 >

Purge server cache

W3G Marine

edit
W3G Marine (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)

Out of the sources supplied, 1st 2 are primary, 3rd is dead. the 4th one seems ok. But a search for sources yielded little in terms of sigcov. Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this 2010 in Scotland. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article on a small firm. The article describes developments in which they were involved in 2011, for which some passing coverage can be found. There is also a passing book mention here. More recently there is a 2021 post by a trade association of which they are a member about an offshore project for which they provided project mgt. Overall, a company going about its business, but I am seeing nothing which can demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antony King

edit
Antony King (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've looked at the sources, and they seem to be mostly a mixture of press releases, interviews, or insignificant mentions, with only a few sources that aren't. A before search turned up similar. At the very least, the article needs to be stubbified; at most, it needs to be deleted/redirected/etc. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can dismiss an Emmy Award nomination as not significant say it all.4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I think Alexandermcnabb is pointing that Antony King has only had one Emmy award, and the ANYBIO criterion requires multiple nominations. In any case, someone who is notable under the creative criterion, but has only received one Emmy would have significant, independent coverage outside of Emmys.com. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing my point that anyone receiving an Emmy Award nomination at the national level fulfills criteria 4c at WP:CREATIVE because of the nature/significance of an Emmy nomination. It inherently is "significant critical attention". Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 You bought up the ANYBIO criterion, so I responded to that. And, as I've said already, [i]n any case, someone who is notable under the creative criterion, but has only received one Emmy would have significant, independent coverage outside of Emmys.com. And to respond to your comment, I tend to think of "significant critical attention" as something that persists over time. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 16:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC) (Edited comment at 16:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
That would be true if we were just looking at one off critical reviews or in the context of a minor award/honor. Being nominated for the top honor in American television outstrips other kinds of critical assessment; particularly due to the global cultural capital that major entertainment awards (ie EGOT) have.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social radicalism

edit
Social radicalism (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)

Unless I see sources distinguishing the two—the article presently cites none (!) whatsoever—this seems to overlap entirely with Radical politics. Remsense ‥ 论 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- these are clearly different. The first is "the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system," formerly used to describe Radicalism (historical) and now fully general, across the political spectrum. The second is "is a political philosophy and variety of radicalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical radicalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance." So, the first is just "being radical" and the second is "a specific radical and usually centre to centre-left political philosophy".
While I'm not sure these refer to the same thing, here are a few sources that mention the term "social radicalism", one of which is an entire book about it (found by googling "social radicalism" in quotes):
See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22social+radicalism%22 for some more. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overlap entirely was a misnomer on my part. I am immensely skeptical given the lack of reification of this term that it should be given its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak restore redirect delete (or perhaps disambiguate?)-- I'm seeing use in sources, in addition to the ones noted above, but the context and meaning is not consistent across the sources, and does not quite line up with the currently-totally-unreferenced page content. There seem to be the following uses:
    To describe the popular movements aligned with "unpolitical socialism" (i.e. social restructuring without recourse to formal government) in the 19th century, as in Claeys 2009.
    To describe broad populist radical movements, as in Plessner 1999 (the de.wiki article is helpful for getting an idea of the source's perspective)
    To describe the broad layer of radical social movements, from the French Revolution to Marx to 1968, as in Egbert 1970
    To describe groupings with revolutionary ideologies in 21st century Islamic social movements in Indonesia, as in Hendri et al [1], Azisi et al [2], Ali et al [3] , and a number of other Indonesian publications
    In an attributed quote that is difficult to parse (but nonetheless made it into the title) of Pike-Rowney 2023, [4]. Here it seems like an allusion to the broad layer of social movements, perhaps?
    In the title of a dataset "Political and Social Radicalism", where it seems to just be describing radicalism expressed socially. [5]
    To describe socialdemocratic ideals espoused by Eugene Forsey, in Canadian Conservative Political Thought [6]
In sum, I'm not seeing a consistent definition conducive to an article, it seems to encompass a wide range of loosely radical liberal, populist or social-democratic movements, sometimes identifying only a subset thereof and sometimes expanding out to even include other anti-establishment movements. All of these usages are describing a radicalism that is in some way social, but they don't begin to provide a theory or description of a singular concept. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosral Recordings

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nosral Recordings (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)

All but one of the sources used for this article have a close affiliation with the subject. The HM story states that a former writer for that publication launched the label, and most of the other coverage is trivial and written by someone closely affiliated with the subject (because they worked for Rottweiler Records). The editor who created it was banned for undisclosed paid editing. A single unaffiliated source (Jesus Wired) is reliable but the coverage of the label itself is trivial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Umemura

edit
AfDs for this article:
Haruki Umemura (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)

Deleted before. No trace of notability, played 1 cup game and not in any of the J Leagues, creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So, Umemura didn’t play a lot of soccer due to some serious injuries, but there is an absolute ton of extensive independent coverage both of the injuries cutting his career short, but also of his after football career as the assistant abbot of a Buddhist temple belonging to his wife’s family. I’ve gone ahead and edited the article with all the extra information, sources and line citations. It’s all in Japanese (naturally), but you should be able to use google translate to check it if you are so inclined. I only ended up using like 6-7 of the articles, but there are at least another dozen or so readily apparent via a basic google search of his name (in kanji), and I can only guess many more if I used more precise search terms. With all these in-depth and independent sources, there is no way that this article does not meet general notability, and since, as @Clariniie points out, there is no seperate NFOOTBALL, this is as clear a keep as I’ve come across in a while. Ping to @GiantSnowman as requested. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To add, I can’t find evidence of a prior AfD (I’m guessing just because I don’t know where to look, having only been here 3 months still), but if it was 10 years ago that would have been just after that first injury, so it makes sense it failed because at that stage he’d still played no professional games yet, and had not transformed himself into a monk, so coverage would have been minimum simple due to “too soon”. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haruki Umemura, it's literally linked in the top corner. Please summarise the sources for us. GiantSnowman 18:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nice, can’t believe I didn’t look there.
They’re all in the article now, I added them all as sources / line citations… just click and translate via google translate. Some shorter articles, but some long articles too, a couple in the 3-5 page range. Here’s the kanji for his name though 梅村 晴貴 - cut and past that into google and you’ll get the full basic search for his name.
It’s late here and I need to sleep, but if you still really need me to go through them for you rather than looking, I’ll have time later tomorrow.
Have a great day over there. Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so just the basics since I’m a bit busy this afternoon, but here’s that summary. Source order is as listed on the article.
Sources 2 and 4 - different pages from a 3 page article in a sports magazine on Umemura’s youth career, move to the professionals, and the injury that derailed his career.
Source 3 - single page article in the Shizuoka Shinbun Newspaper talking about Umemura’s participation in the SBS Cup International Youth Soccer tournament during his youth career.
Source 5 - short announcement, in an online soccer site, published by Kodansha, Japan’s largest publisher, announcing his professional signing.
Source 6 - short announcement, in same online site as source 5, announcing his injury and upcoming surgery.
Source 8 - 4 page article in a sports magazine talking about Umemura’s move from professional player, to team staff, to priest, due to the request from his wife’s family to take over their temple, and about his new role in that temple.
Source 9 - 1 page article in same online site as 5 and 6, talking about transition from player, to team staff, and then his two and a half years of training to gain his priest’s license. Also an announcement that he will be involved in a 15th anniversary match for the Toyama team, that I haven’t tracked down yet, as this article talks about it in the future tense.
Hope that helps. Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Artcile has been updated with more sources, giving this another week so it can be re-evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

edit
The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store (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 highly WP:PROMO article about a local pot shop. While the paid editor is to be commended for using AfC for this article, it still fails WP:NCORP for failure to meet WP:ORGCRIT with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I've included an assessment table below. There's a single source (a design blog) that probably qualifies; nothing else meets all the required criteria.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
  The only people quoted in the article are employees of the subject.        
      Routine coverage of financial results is WP:ORGTRIV.    
    Appears to be 100% AI-generated promotion      
  Promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject     Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV    
  Cannabis Business Times is a WP:TRADES publication.     Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV    
      Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV    
  Green Market Report is a WP:TRADES publication.     Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV    
         
      Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV    
      Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV    
      Dead link, not archived.    
  Highly promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject   Content is not bylined; author is "Honeysuckle Team."      
      Dead link   A list of awards at the award sponsor page is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.  
      WP:TRIVIALMENTION in context of coverage of other topic.    

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Thank you for your review. I’d like to address the concerns raised about notability and sourcing and provide additional context to support the article’s inclusion.
    I understand that some sources may be viewed as routine or promotional. However, publications like *Cannabis Business Times* and *The Villager* provide relevant and independent coverage. Since legal cannabis is a new and heavily regulated field, mainstream media coverage is understandably limited, but these industry-specific sources highlight the subject’s importance within its niche.
    The article also highlights milestones that go beyond routine business activities, such as being one of the first dispensaries to open after legalization, positioning the company as an early contributor to New York’s cannabis market. Its rebranding reflects growth and commitment to expansion, while its partnership with The Doe Fund, including hiring program graduates, addresses equity issues tied to past drug policies. These achievements illustrate the company’s broader impact on the industry and community.
    If the consensus is that the article needs further work, I’d request it be moved to Draft Space for improvement as additional independent coverage becomes available. I appreciate your time and welcome any feedback on strengthening the article. Stephvrona (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you using AI tools to generate your responses? According to GPTZero, this response was WP:AIGENERATED with 100% confidence. That would explain why you asserted Cannabis Business Times and The Villager as valid sources, when the former is a WP:TRADES publication and thus not qualifying as independent, and The Villager is a hyperlocal publication that fails the test of WP:AUD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes @Dclemens1971, GPT helps me word my replies so i'm not rambling in them or coming across as defensive - i'm not, just working to better understand how i can improve.
    I have made the suggested edits by other users. I would very much like the opportunity to keep this article posted and improve on it as TTA earns more notable media. I do very much appreciate the community feedback. Thank you! Stephvrona (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Without giving an opinion on anything else, I think the source assessment table is wrong on the first source. The Village Sun is a daily newspaper in NYC and the article has a by-lined author by a on-staff independent journalist. That source is both clearly reliable, and independent, even if the journalist interviewed some of the people working at The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store. Journalists do fact checking and the paper has an editorial staff. That should clearly be in the WP:SIGCOV column as an accepted source under WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Created by acknowledged paid user Stephvrona. As noted at the top, this article is very WP:PROMO. The article lead is promotional, and the "Locations and operations" section is blatant advertisement. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability is lacking per the chart, but I would argue that this article could also be deleted under WP:TNT as it is clearly written as an advertisement. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thank you for your review. in the context I found this list List of cannabis companies if the article is indeed too WP:PROMO in tone, then can it be either rewritten to be more in same style with the entries with the list mentioned, or at least have its name listed there for relevance.Villkomoses (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to rewrite it in the same style as the entries of mentioned list. I put a good deal of time into not writing it from a promo voice and am open to the feedback. I will work to create an alternate version that matches the style. Thank you! Stephvrona (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have you chosen to start your keep vote in the same way as the articles creator? Also you have provided no reason why or why not suitable sources exist for this store. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're separate users (Stephvrona's initial !vote is 100% certainty WP:AIGENERATED according to GPTZero; Villkomoses' !vote is rated 100% human). Still, Villkomoses has not specified whether or why this article meets a notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the article creator and yes i use GPT to help me get my points across in a way that makes more sense so i'm not rambling in my replies.
    The sources i have available are the sources i have available. I've contacted my client and notified them of the source categorization. It will take some time to collect them. I am however happy to make the suggested edits and continue to improve the page as new, qualifying information becomes available. Edit: Realizing now that you werent speaking to me, sorry about that. Thank you! Stephvrona (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the excellent discussion of the sources by Dclemens1971, invoking WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:MILL. There are only two reliable sources, NY1 and Timeout, which are both in passing. If you live in the New York City metropolitan area, you can’t but help notice the explosive growth of cannabis stores in the past few years. I don’t see from these sources, or my own experience, that this trio of dispensaries are somehow more notable than the other hundred. FWIW, I don't use, but clients, colleagues and family members do, and I’ve never heard of this corporation. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the discussion above, none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:27, 1 December 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie King (darts player)

edit
Robbie King (darts player) (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)

Declined prod. Only a primary source provided. First 2 google news hits are about him but look rather routine. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 24 November 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.

Helene Pellicano

edit
Helene Pellicano (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 and WP:NTENNIS. Shrug02 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iffy the coverage in Times of Malta is pretty solid, but they all count as 1 source only per WP:GNG ("Multiple publications from the same author or organization"). Malta Independent's ref is just a match report and is not a significant coverage of Pellicano. I'll see if I can find something more. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Curteanu

edit
AfDs for this article:
Marius Curteanu (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 did my very best but I cannot find substantive coverage in independent sources. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prentiss

edit
AfDs for this article:
Emily Prentiss (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)

Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this newer rendition of the article being up for only a few days, I have made significant contributions and devoted a lot of effort to research and writing in relation to this article. After reviewing the relative policies, it is clear that Emily Prentiss, the character HERSELF, meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and deleting the article or restoring it to a simple redirect is a very ignorant and foolish idea, especially when this article is being continuously improved day-by-day.
Emily Prentiss is a key figure in Criminal Minds, especially Season 12 and onward, when she becomes Unit Chief and later Section Chief, cementing her as one of the most important characters in the show’s 17-season run. She has been in all but three of the seasons, and has been brought back two times by fan demand. Her storylines—like her faked death to evade Ian Doyle and her leadership during high-stakes cases—are not just central to the series but have also been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. Outlets like ScreenRant, Collider, and TVLine have provided in-depth analysis of her character, her role in the show, and her significance in cultural discussions. Many of these sources explore how Prentiss’s narrative and Paget Brewster’s portrayal have resonated with audiences and contributed to broader conversations, such as those about representation and aging in Hollywood.
The article has expanded significantly in recent weeks (as the proposer for deletion acknowledges), with thousands of bytes of new content added to deepen its coverage of her backstory, personality, storylines, and reception. This growth reflects my effort to continue developing this article to surpass the minimum requirements set by Wikipedia for an article like this. Removing it now would dismiss that progress and deny room for future improvements. Articles are not expected to be perfect from the outset, but this one has already demonstrated substantial progress, and its continued development would benefit readers and contributors alike.
The individuals suggesting we restore this article to a redirect have suggested that Prentiss’s article isn’t warranted because some characters from other shows, like NCIS, are treated as redirects. Firstly, I find this hypocritical because those same individuals are the ones complaining about me using the David Rossi article and the failure of deleting his article as one of the justifications for keeping Emily's article. As explained in the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy that those same individuals cited, Wikipedia evaluates articles individually, based on the notability of the subject and the availability of independent secondary coverage. However, the survival of the deletion on David Rossi's article is allowed to be used as an argument per an exception in that policy regarding outcomes of deletion proposals on related articles. And, if we are going to do comparisons to characters of other shows, I'd like to point to Grey’s Anatomy, where over a dozen characters—including multiple minor characters who are less central to the show and less notable than Prentiss—have their own articles. If those characters meet notability requirements, there is no valid reason why Emily Prentiss, a lead character who drives major storylines, should not. If they do not meet the notability requirements, then I struggle to understand the proposer's specific decision to delete this article rather than focus on other character articles that are obviously less notable, less covered, and less detailed. However, as I said before, the existence of other articles is not an argument for the existence of this article. I am just writing this paragraph to emphasize the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the opposition's argumentation.
The real-world impact of Prentiss’s character further underscores her notability. Fan demand played a key role in Paget Brewster’s return to the series after her departure, highlighting the character’s importance to viewers. Additionally, Brewster’s decision to embrace her natural gray hair, which was written into the character, sparked cultural conversations about aging and beauty standards. These discussions were covered by major outlets like TODAY and E! Online, showing that Prentiss’s relevance extends far beyond the show.
Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia’s principles of being an open and comprehensive encyclopedia. Emily Prentiss is clearly notable under both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and the article’s ongoing development should not be hindered by what appears to be an ignorant and abrupt attempt to discard it. Removing it now would erase a valuable resource and dismiss the ongoing effort to improve articles relating to Criminal Minds. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Wikipedia, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN
The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.
----
A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:
  1. Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
  2. ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
  3. E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
  4. CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.
These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.
----
B) Prominence as a Lead Character
  • Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
  • Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.
----
C) Reception and Real-World Discussion
  • Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
  • Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.
This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.
----
D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS
Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”
This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:
  • Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
  • Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
  • Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.
These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.
----
Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”
Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.
----
Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”
Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.
----
Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”
Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.
----
  • The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
  • It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
  • The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
  • The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.
Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and purpose.
----
DocZach (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the "character has gotten even more notability over the past year." What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me break down for you step by step the issues with these arguments:
  1. To begin, Looper is unreliable. Screen Rant falls under Wikipedia:VALNET. CNN and Yahoo are just casting announcements, which are not relevant to the fictional character's notability (They would be important when covering the actress). Both CNN sources are just announcements of her casting return. The gray hair source discusses Prentiss's actress and her acceptance of her hair, rather than the character. If the character's hair was discussed, it'd be different, but this is specifically Paget's hair being discussed here. I can't access the Yahoo source, so a new link would be appreciated.
  2. In-universe importance is not relevant to a subject's ability to get an article. This is included in nearly every fictional character guideline in the book. If these things are important, they need reliable sourcing showing that impact to back it up (None of which is illustrated in the sources provided)
  3. Brewster's coverage is Brewster's coverage. Unless there is significant overlap between Prentiss and Brewster, such as an analysis article discussing how Brewster's performance greatly affected how Prentiss's character was formed, for instance, then maybe that could be viable, but all the sources provided are very clearly either about Prentiss or about Brewster, with only mentions about the other. Fan demand is relevant, but needs Wikipedia:SIGCOV to back it up. Additionally, that trivia is summarizable in a sentence or so, easily mergeable back to the character's list.
  4. Most of your claims here I've already responded to (A Google Search one is a weird argument and I don't think it should've applied either way) but on the character list point, the current article has entirely plot information in it. This is summarizable at a list without much being lost, and many of the sources acknowledged at this AfD don't have enough coverage to build up substantial substance in the present one, since many of them are not about Prentiss and instead about Brewster, or fall under the scope of trivial coverage. I can go into a far deeper source analysis if you want clarification, of course.
Overall, there's a distinct lack of SIGCOV that hails from reliable sources, and the coverage doesn't really seem to exist that justifies the separation here. On the topic of Rossi, his AfD seemed to have a very inaccurate close; there was one Keep vote, and yet the AfD was closed as Keep despite two strong Merge arguments. Rossi should probably be rediscussed at a later date, since I don't believe he was discussed in-depth enough during his first AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So your solution is to delete an article that you think has some issues instead of helping improve it first? DocZach (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you are citing explicitly states:
"Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."
The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi honestly should undergo revaluation. His discussion was closed as Keep with only one detailed Keep and two detailed Merge votes, which doesn't seem to be a proper consensus, especially given the low discussion turnout of that AfD. Besides, similar characters being kept is nowhere precedent. Even though I slightly disagree with the outcome, Vislor Turlough was kept at AfD as a Doctor Who companion, yet other Doctor Who companions (Such as Katarina, Kamelion, and Dan Lewis) were merged into other articles despite similar arguments and backgrounds. Consensus for notability of a subject is very much on a case-by-case basis, and having articles of similar backgrounds does not instantly guarantee that the same argument applies to another subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I mentioned OTHERSTUFF, you hadn't mentioned the other deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts on the Rossi:
  1. While Rossi did survive an AfD, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "caution should be used..." because most do not receive wide participation -- and that could be said of Rossi. His AfD received little attention, with only 5 other people !vote. But moreover with an even split 3/3 keep versus merge -- the decision that there was consensus is somewhat questionable.
  2. Of the top four characters by number of appearances per IMDB (whereby Prentiss is 7th).[12] only half of them have an actual article, while two of them have redirects. Of those with redirects they still have over 100 more episodes each compares to Prentiss.
  3. And looking at the current List of Criminal Minds characters the top two listings here as well are simply redirects. Those redirects were previously articles as well that were merged and deleted per GNG in 2023.
  4. Interest in show and characters is falling significantly (WP:RECITISM), the page views for Criminal Minds alone has dropped off 50% and 70% for the characters of Reid, Prentiss, Jareau, Garcia and Rossi [13].
But all of that simply speaks to the dangers of introducing WP:WAX. It is a slippery slope to introduce the existence of other things (surviving AfD) as there are also other examples of other things were deleted with arguably more significance. This is really what the essay expresses, and instead the arguments should focus on why Prentiss (what the essay expresses as individual merit), not some of the common notability fallacies. TiggerJay (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical that you are arguing against comparing articles while continuing to do just that. The argument that similar characters in other shows have been merged or redirected does not negate Emily Prentiss’s notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFICTION. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and Prentiss clearly meets the criteria. She has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as ScreenRant, Collider, CNN, and TODAY, which analyze her pivotal role as Unit Chief and Section Chief, as well as her cultural impact and importance to the show. These sources go beyond plot summaries to discuss real-world factors like fan campaigns that brought Paget Brewster back to the series and the broader conversations about aging and representation sparked by the decision to integrate Brewster’s gray hair into the character. There's even articles about her romances within the show. These are not trivial mentions; they are substantial discussions about her relevance both within and beyond the show.
Wikipedia evaluates notability based on reliable secondary coverage, not arbitrary metrics like episode counts. Her role as a lead character in major story arcs and as the head of the BAU from Season 12 onward makes her far more central to the narrative than some characters who have been redirected. And potentially, articles for other Criminal Minds may also warrant creation, and I would not be opposed to such a decision.
Please read over WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Firstly, I reject the argument that declining page views signal reduced relevance. Secondly, notability is not temporary, and the character remains central to the currently airing Criminal Minds: Evolution. Interest naturally fluctuates, but revivals and major developments have historically reignited attention on Prentiss and the series. DocZach (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting the sources. Reliable, independent sources like ScreenRant, TODAY, and Collider do more than verify her existence—they analyze key aspects of her character, including her leadership as Unit Chief, her faked death arc, her multiple departures and re-appearances, her special appearances, her romances, and her role in sparking broader cultural conversations about representation and aging. Just because some of Paget Brewster’s decisions shaped some of the narrative doesn't erase the fact that the focus of these sources is also on Prentiss’s impact as a character and her resonance with audiences. These discussions are not trivial mentions—they demonstrate the significance of her character within and beyond the show, meeting both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. This article is 100% warranted on its own. DocZach (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable in fiction, plentiful sources. Not going to write a long-winded defense. It is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Appears to be mostly, if not entirely trivial coverage of the character. No objection to a split later if significant coverage can be found, but people here appear to be confused about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think we should merge an entire article-length coverage with over 30 sources of a character into another article that already has a long list of characters? Did you even take the time to read any of the sources provided in this article? DocZach (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, not just in passing. Sources like ScreenRant, Collider, and TODAY provide in-depth analysis of Emily Prentiss’s narrative arcs, including her faked death, her return as Unit Chief due to fan demand, her romances, her appearance, and her evolution as a leader in the show. This is precisely the type of sustained, independent coverage that WP:SIGCOV defines as significant, and it establishes Prentiss’s clear notability as a standalone topic, making a merge inappropriate. DocZach (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UNAF U-20 Tournament squads

edit
2024 UNAF U-20 Tournament squads (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 a general consensus that minor regional football tournaments do not warrant separate sub-articles, especially those focused on age-specific categories. Such articles are reserved exclusively for continental championships that attract significant media attention and widespread recognition. EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanhe University

edit
Shanhe University (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 do not believe that this article meets the notability criteria. While some news sources have reported on it, it does not appear to be a long-lasting phenomena that would be of relevance to anyone on English Wikipedia. Most sources discussing it seem to merely use it as a vehicle to discuss educational inequality in China, and it doesn't seem to have captured public attention for any notable period of time. --IntergalacticOboist (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shooterwalker. Seems to be a short-lived meme that doesn't really garner enough coverage for even a proper Stub. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FireHOL

edit
FireHOL (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. FireHOL maintains a dataset of malicious IPs which a couple studies use, but this article is about a firewall configuration tool that doesn't have any significant coverage. For this reason, I think the article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep. Google books and google scholar seems to have a number of books and journals on cyber security, network forensics, ransomware, etc. discussing FireHOL. I confess it is too technical for me to evaluate the sources, but I do think the volume of coverage suggests this is a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for voting. I'm not sure if you read the AfD rationale, but there is some literature about a dataset that an organization called "The FireHOL Project" maintains. Those sources will appear in searches but aren't actually about the subject, a configuration tool that (confusingly) is also named FireHOL. (If this doesn't make any sense to you, consider that it's very common for organizations to release products whose names are identical to that of the organization creating them. For example, people commonly refer to "Google Search" as just "Google".) I understand that you don't feel comfortable evaluating the sources you found, but this is why we don't keep or delete articles based on how many WP: GOOGLEHITS they return. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJED-LP

edit
WJED-LP (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 was recently proposed for deletion with the rationale No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. However, there was a previous contested PROD in 2017 — by the same editor — with the rationale No indication of meeting WP:BASIC. Created by blocked spam account. That means we have to come here. All I have to add to either rationale is that this is nominally a remnant of the looser standards in this topic area in 2016, which were more "lenient" than the sitewide standards that should have applied at the time and only have since 2021. LPFM stations, and in fact virtually any station started within the last decade, are usually GNG failures. While this theoretically can be redirected to the List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Puerto Rico, I don't think this should be an alternative to deletion in this case — Puerto Rican stations seem more prone to redirects being overwritten by IPs, so I see little value in retaining the article history. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armudly

edit
Armudly (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 GEOLAND as there is no evidence that this place exists, let alone is legally recognised. GEOnet Names Server is not a reliable source per the RSN discussion. The location in the article is the ruined village of Mos, not Armudly.

Ineligible for prod since it was already prodded and declined by Explicit in 2021 on the grounds that it exists on sister projects, however these are clearly just copy/pastes of the EN Wikipedia article on Persian, Georgian, and Malay Wiki. Azeri wiki (the only sister project that would actually matter in this case) doesn't have a corresponding article. There is also no reliably-sourced information to merge here.

This article was mass-created by Carlossuarez46 along with many, many other failing articles. In the same 60 second period in which they created this article (01:27 19 August 2008), they created three others, and 852 articles in the same day. FOARP (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Supercopa de Catalunya

edit
2018 Supercopa de Catalunya (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 appreciate this article has only recently been created and had to go through the AfC process to do so, but there is simply no need for standalone articles on these matches. The Supercopa de Catalunya was a novelty trophy created by the Catalan Federation so they could expand the existing Copa de Catalunya to more clubs but still wanted to have a guaranteed match between Barcelona and Espanyol (probably not anticipating the latter's decline and the rise of Girona in the region). So the tournament itself is notable, but clearly wasnt taken very seriously as demonstrated by the attendance being about 10k each time when Barcelona have 70k season tickets. The tournament then seemed to die altogether due to COVID and has not been played since. The 2 paragraphs of information in this article (and that for 2014) summarising the match can be and should be merged into the Supercopa article. Crowsus (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Supercopa de Catalunya

edit
2014 Supercopa de Catalunya (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 appreciate this article has only recently been created and had to go through the AfC process to do so, but there is simply no need for standalone articles on these matches. The Supercopa de Catalunya was a novelty trophy created by the Catalan Federation so they could expand the existing Copa de Catalunya to more clubs but still wanted to have a guaranteed match between Barcelona and Espanyol (probably not anticipating the latter's decline and the rise of Girona in the region). So the tournament itself is notable, but clearly wasn't taken very seriously as demonstrated by the attendance being about 10k each time when Barcelona have 70k season tickets. The tournament then seemed to die altogether due to COVID and has not been played since. The 2 paragraphs of information in this article (and that for 2018) summarising the match can be and should be merged into the Supercopa article. Crowsus (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

edit
Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (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)

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of Youlin has been questioned in the past. I will open a discussion at RSN in a few so we can get an official consensus either way. As far as verification, that is not what qualifies a television series for inclusion. It must still have significant coverage regardless of cast or creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the already-mentioned coverage, one can add for example:

Neighbours and childhood best friends, Zubia (Dananeer Mubeen) and Saim (Khushhal Khan) fall madly in love with each other but both their families refuse to take the feelings of the two young adults, barely out of their teens, seriously. Misunderstandings and family honour create obstacle after obstacle for the young lovers, leading them to an ill-planned elopement.With nowhere to stay and no money, Saim and Zubia agree to a quick nikaah read by their landlord but, with Zubia’s obsessed, angry brother-in-law Danyal (Ali Raza) in hot pursuit, they have to run again. Cold, hungry and insecure, Zubia goes into shock after strangers attack her. In a fear-filled rage, she tears up the nikaahnama and runs home, while Danyal catches Saim and beats him to within an inch of his life. Zubia is barely safe at home but Saim is fighting for his life. It seems that this may be the final blow to their fragile love story.Rahat Jabeen has given us a more authentic take on the self-doubt and foolish joy of young love. Strong performances from Khushhal Khan and Dananeer Mobeen, and a solid supporting cast have brought this story vividly to life. This popular show consistently makes ratings but, as usual, repetition and stretching are threatening to make it drag.

Bylined (Sadaf Haider) in Dawn.
+Bylined review (Ozair Majeed) (https://pakistanicinema.net/2023/06/04/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-review/)
I consider there is sufficient coverage to either Keep or Redirect/merge, depending on what other users think. -Mushy Yank. 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping you, @Mushy Yank:. Discussion about Youline started here and here. For Dawn, the source is fine but its thin and only one. It is enough to verify but still needs more coverage. Pakistani Cinema is not reliable. No editorial guidelines and appears more a user generated content based on "your content" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you show me which sources show the significant improvement. Adding content without significant coverage would not be HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Youlin Magazine source does not appear to have traction to be considered reliable to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorke Sherwood

edit
Yorke Sherwood (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:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)
    PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His roles are not significant, as required by NACTOR, in either the silent or sound eras. He worked in the silent era at a time when full-length features were common and actors were credited; the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited underlines his non-notability. Also, his talkie credits are almost all uncredited, not the sign of a notable actor, but rather that of a journeyman. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal of Rebuttal No. No No.
    1) Please. Read the guideline again or my !vote again. One of the criteria for NACTOR is

    The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

    Emphasis mine. Prolific.
    I did not count but hard to say his contribution was not prolific.
    2) he meets that criterion imv; but some of his roles can be considered significant anyway; watch the film I linked; open the articles, some mention his roles with a praise, and I haven't added all that there his. He is a notable supporting actor in my view.
    3) "the fact that he appeared mostly in shorts and uncredited" seems inaccurate. And his presence is always sourceable with books/newspapers sources (I can add 3 refs for each film, you can help if that's your concern)......Or just open the film on the page for example, he is credited and not at the bottom of a 15-minute end credits scroll.
    4)The fact that it is a short is totally irrelevant. You don't like short films? sorry to hear that but the fact that they are short (up to 40 minutes...) has nothing to do with their notability nor, consequently, the actor's. Nothing at all.
    Anyway, I have added quite a few things to the page. Thank you for your concern.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And p. 151 and 543 of the book you mention in your opening statement are not passing mentions, rather significant coverage, one being a full biographic entry. -Mushy Yank. 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. There are many sources discussing his work in google books; usually in the context of individual parts within specific films. He was a busy character actor that portrayed a range of parts from small roles to mid-sized parts and even a few principal character roles. Altogether the sourcing collectively meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR, and while I didn't do a thorough search, a preliminary search indicates he most likely will pass WP:GNG, if the right amount of time and digging is put into the article, and thanks to Mushy Yank for the work they have put in. He gets a bit more than a passing mention in a 2/16/1931 piece in the The Evening Independent (St. Petersburgh, FL), The Sunday Messenger in Athens, OH calls him a "noted British player", in their review of The Man in Possession on 8/30/1931, even though he is clearly in a supporting role. He has mentions in papers from Adelaide and Murrumbidgee (NSW) to Manitoba, Canada.Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cogs Hollow

edit
AfDs for this article:
Cogs Hollow (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 DonaldD23 talk to me 19:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ramírez (footballer, born 1993)

edit
Christian Ramírez (footballer, born 1993) (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)

Notability is questionable but worth discussing. I'm struggling to find anything else than databases, primary sources and match reports - which is the case in the Spanish Wikipedia too. He is certainly not an accomplished footballer, having represented two elite clubs, and playing 70 minutes in the cup and 139 minutes in the league for these two clubs respectively. I did find a piece about him being champion of Belize, though the league of Belize is very, very low-ranking. I am open to suggestions about more coverage. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Abante

edit
Ken Abante (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)

All the sources are either blog posts, pass mentioned or written by the subject like this and this. All the sources Fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV cannot be established too. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 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 redirect‎ to Passions. Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Wilson (actor)

edit
Adrian Wilson (actor) (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)

Delete Redirect (see comment below) - 100+ episodes on Passions is good, but that is not sufficient for WP:NACTOR I don't think (it is not multiple roles) and I couldn't find any decent secondary sources with significant coverage to support the subject's notability. Also, the article has been unreferenced for a fair while. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:10, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuko Kawada

edit
Atsuko Kawada (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)

Delete Keep - see comment below. My WP:BEFORE turned up no evidence of secondary sources with significant coverage. The corresponding Japanese Wikipedia page did not seem to have any especially substantial references either. I therefore submit that the subject meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:NAUTHOR. There may be better sources in Japanese, in which case I would happily rescind my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:55, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADS-AC

edit
ADS-AC (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. I could not find any sources to establish notability. This was dePRODed without sourcing improvements, and the user who dePRODed went admitted on my Talk page that they do not have sources to establish notability.

This has also been tagged for notability issues for four months. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe that Tkorrovi might have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject in this article. I've left them a message on their Talk page. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, i have no interest in promoting myself, no personal interest, neither do i get any benefit from any of it. This is not WP: COI, i'm not writing about myself, and not in the interest of these who contributed to the software or anything related. The ADS-AC article was in fact created not by me, but by someone else, there were a number of people involved in these issues. I didn't even like creating the article at first, but as it was created, it stayed, was there for 10 years i guess. To be the way to show some principles in artificial consciousness, including these by Dennett and McCarthy, and implementing them in software, not mentioned anywhere else. My interest is artificial consciousness, i created the artificial consciousness article in Wikipedia, many many years ago, and i have been one of the main contributors to it since. This software is part of my interest, it has been a common interest of several people, one can see in the AI Forum (archive), elsewhere in the Internet, but these sites are mostly no longer there any more. My interest is artificial consciousness, a certain field of study, this is no way in conflict with the interests of Wikipedia. Or if you claim anything, would you also then propose how to improve it, other than removing all knowledge, thank you if you do. Tkorrovi (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural revolutionaries, destroy knowledge, clear decision. There is no talk about the principle of generality and multiple drafts model, and implementing them in software, in the AC or AI articles. sure remove that knowledge, so there will be one more thing that no one knows about. Tkorrovi (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone bad, only confrontation, no talk about the actual article. This is how it shouldn't be. The article has improved during the process, it is no longer considered to have lack of sources, only the lack of notability tag remains, which also supposed to be about lack of sources, and is no longer relevant, but it is there. There has been discussion with another editor, that sources for open source software are not so simple issue than say geography articles, there mostly are no journal or newspaper articles about most of the open source software. The other of my concerns is what it is about, and what the software implements, the two principles proposed by Dennett and McCarthy, their meaning, and actual importance in software. This article mentions it, the software is about it, and i don't want it to be lost from Wikipedia. Thus i think that here should be some other solution, improving and evolving things further, rather than mute deletion. Thank you for these who paid attention. Tkorrovi (talk), 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Sourcing has been identified. Star Mississippi 16:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sparidaans

edit
Jeffrey Sparidaans (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t just go “unnotable darts player” for a Tour Card Holder ranked 80th in the world, say it fails stuff without qualification and hope it gets deleted. JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Szpity88, @LBLM9253, @Liamw90, @GalacticalCosmics, @XeverPL, @Martinevans123, @Ivan Chornyi, @Ser!, @DarthBob, @BeanieFan11 JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a case of WP:CANVASSING? LibStar (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey who? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions have had low turnout, I‘ve pinged editors who have made made substantial edits to darts articles like Jeffrey Sparidaans, and users who have previously participated in deletion discussions. I do not have any prior knowledge or their opinions on the the status of Jeffrey Sparidaans' article, Martin doesn't seem to know who Spaaridaans is. JamesVilla44 (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on the deletion sorting page to try save some of the actual notable pages from deletion (and vote to delete the unnotable "he played in a tournament once" ones), and would advise anyone who's concerned about the low turnout to do similar. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do now, thanks. But I really cannot pretend to have an informed opinion here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesVilla44, I have participated in many darts AfDs and was not notified. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have included you in the notifications but I also think it should lay on @ItsKesha, the proposer of the deletion discussion, to make sure that editors are informed when a discussion is posted, to ensure that editors who have made substantial edits to darts articles, editors who have participated in previous discussions on in closely related darts articles to the likes of Jeffrey Sparidaans, editors known for expertise in the field of darts Wikipedia and
editors who have asked to be kept informed of deletion discussions, are informed. JamesVilla44 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't those editors follow the deletion sorting for darts? LibStar (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how to do that JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You simply need to watch this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Darts. I would expect those with an interest in darts to follow this page. No need to notify them. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - additional sources for Jeffrey Sparidaans were added, it is a current Tour card holder, former World Championship participant and multiple medallist from WDF World Cup with some media coverage (something in Dutch, but should not be a problem). --DarthBob (talk) 20:42, 28 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ronald K. Hoeflin. which I have protected. Consensus is clear that the Society is not independently notable of Hoeflin. Star Mississippi 16:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Society

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mega Society (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)

Not a notable society, it does not meet WP:NORG. It has been through 5 previous deletion discussions - deleted 3 times, no consensus once and kept once (in 2008). There are multiple sources on the page that I have carefully reviewed (I have collapsed the source analysis as it is long). The TL;DR is that some of its members are notable (and have pages): particularly Marilyn vos Savant. However, all other mentions in the sources are limited to the society's entry qualification which is supposedly 1 in a million IQ range (but is not, in fact). Many sources repeat that claim - some more critically than others - but no secondary sources go beyond this and tell us what this society does, what its outputs are, what its remit or purpose is, etc. It is essentially a club with a difficult entry requirement that does nothing notable. The founder, Ronald K. Hoeflin has a page (and also a string of other non notable societies to his name). Redirect there would be one possible AfD outcome.

Source Analysis
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
      The society's own web page, and in addition, their journal, Noesis, are clearly primary sources and also lack independence for the same reason. It is clear that any historian who wanted to write a history (a secondary source) about this society would find a gold mine in the pages of Noesis. However we cannot use that for a tertiary encyclopaedic article. We must wait for the historians first.    
  • Ellen Graham (1992-04-09). "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer -- Rival IQ Societies Bicker Over Scores and Styles; Cindy Brady's Velocity". The Wall Street Journal.
   Cannot see any indication it is not independent   I have given it a yes on the assumption that the copies available [16] are what was published, but I have not been able to find the original yet to verify this.   This one goes a little further than most articles, but it is really about what Mega Society is not. It verifies its claims, and then subjects them to some scrutiny. The Mega Test, he says, measures "doggedness and reference skills." But again, there is really no ORGDEPTH here. It is all about who is allowed to join and nothing about what the society does. Nothing about outputs or impact or anything that would normally make a society notable. All we really see is it is notable for using a home made test to allegedly find the super intelligent (and doesn't really). That is all.    
  Small concerns about the similarity between articles (see below) but not enough to doubt the independence of this excellent source.     The first and lst of these have essentially the same text about the society despite being different authors. It would look like plagiarism, except that what is included is rather limited. Basically it is that the society claims to represent the 99.9999th percentile. The first one also mentions Langdon. Beyond the entry requirement, there is nothing about what the society is or does, nor history, nor activity. There is no in depth description of the society. It is basically just "pass this test, join this exclusive society". The first article adds "Critics question whether IQ tests measure intelligence accurately" but there is nothing more critical or in depth than this. None of these meet WP:ORGDEPTHn and you cannot create a page about an organisation based entirely upon its entry requirements.    
    The work is reliable although this uncritical reporting does not do them credit. Nevertheless they get a pass for reliability in general.   No ORGDEPTH. The Omni test was written by Ronald Hoeflin, founder of the Mega Society, a high-I.Q. club that makes Mensa look like preschool. Mensa membership is open to I.Q.s above 133 -- the smartest 2 percent of the American population. The Mega entrance requirement is an I.Q. of 176 or above, the 99.999th percentile, or one in a million people. Uncritical, errant, but certainly nothing from which an article can be written.   Secondary for the Mega Society although it is a news article with some primary information.  
      The only information about the society is that it has 16 members and entry is through the mega test. The remainder of the information is about Maxim and Langdon (running an unlisenced IQ test).   News report. Primary for the news reporting and there is no analysis.  
  vos Savant was writing on behalf of teh society, of which she was a member. Omni collaborated with the society and published their quiz. This is therefore clearly not independent.   I presume vos Savant would be reliable about the society.   6 pages on the society, although a large chunk is just data. However this would be more the kind of thing you could write an article about, if it were independent and secondary.   vos Savant is providing the societies lines in this article. That is a primary source.  
      The article is about Ronald Hoeflin and the Mega Society gets one passing mention as one of his many societies.    
    It's a gossip column. But at least it states its sources.   Passing mention. Still, Kevin Langdon, editor of the Mega Society Web site (the Mega Society is to Mensa what Ruth Bader Ginsburg is to Harriet Miers), while acknowledging the limitations of psychometric testing, offers a candidate for the honor [of 2nd most intelligent American]: Bob Dylan.    
    The article contains a small error. Vos Savant's 228 IQ was measured in childhood and is not her IQ now. It was measured at a time where it was actually a quotient divisible by age. Children with very high IQ scores see those scores regress towards the mean (whilst still remaining above average) as they get older. However this does not detract from the overall reliability of the newspaper.   Dr. Frank Luger is a member and membership was 30 at that time. That is all. Nothing about the society. Certainly not WP:ORGDEPTH. No inherited notability even if Luger were notable, but he has no Wikipedia page, so apparently is not.   It is news reporting about the membership. WP:PRIMARYNEWS although that is moot for this purpose as it fails on SIGCOV.  
  Information in Noesis makes it clear that Mega Society approached the Guinness Book of Records over the listing. Thus it is not independent.     Talks about Vos Savant as most intelligent person. Mentions that she and 2 others are members of this society. No information about the society.   Depends what you use it for. It is primary for the record, secondary for other uses.  
  • Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And what is that makes Marilyn vos Savant so uniquely qualified to answer such questions? There is only one reason: she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest IQ ever recorded. Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.
       All we have is information about vos Savant, with this passing mention: Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.    
  • Roger D. Carlson (1991). Daniel J. Keyser; Richard C. Sweetland (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2.
       This is looking at the Mega Test itself. It is a thorough look at the test (summing up by calling it number pulverisation) but it has no coverage of the eponymous society.    
  • Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
       Does not mention the society at all   N/A - no mention  
  • Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.
     The source is reliable even though the one sentence mention contains an error.   Single sentence on page 113. All it says is entry requirement is a 176 IQ (one in a million). That is all. And that turns out to be wrong.    
  • Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. ISBN 9780521739115. [Curve-fitting] is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ scores much higher than 160
       Does not mention the society at all   N/A - no mention  
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An old organization, well-known within the high-IQ society community, and a real curiosity from the point of view of the history of psychometrics in America. A number of its members were notable -- some even notorious -- in their own right: Rosner, vos Savant, Langan, Raniere... I understand that Paddles the cat is better covered by secondary sources, but I prefer an encyclopedia that has more than well-attested trivialities to offer. Let us preserve knowledge, however niche, let us not sacrifice this article. K-trivial (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The high-IQ world has only a few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active. I am unsure of the impetus behind the constant recommendations to delete valuable information on such a topic. UnitsReceived (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) — UnitsReceived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    ...few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active How should I interpret that claim in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Society (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top One Percent Society and One-in-a-Thousand Society and Epimetheus Society? Only the Omega Society article hasn't been deleted yet, because it has yet to be written. Polygnotus (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are not a member of any of these societies or others, such as MENSA or the Triple Nine Society. The Epimetheus Society, Prometheus Society, and Mega Society are widely known to the vast majority of members of these organizations. Multiple external sources discuss each of them, and given that non-members do not have access to the actual content, forums, discussions, or events taking place daily, it is impossible for non-members to know how active each society truly is. UnitsReceived (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood what I wrote. You claimed that each of the societies listed on that article were notable. I showed that 4/6 articles were deleted for lack of notability, and one has not been written yet. Polygnotus (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an argument for the article to be kept. If what you're saying is true, it's not verifiable, which means that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is wholly irrelevant. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin. Seconding all of the points made by Polygnotus, Jjazz, and Sirfurboy. Throughout this article's long history very little constructive editing has occurred, and a non-insignificant amount of work has been put in to keep a few IP editors' contribs either NPOV, as well as the removal of a level of citation overkill that makes it extremely hard to claim good-faith contributions. I have also seen these editors then insert links to the page on many articles related to human intelligence generally, as well as some straight up incoherent additions of it. It is remarkable how most of the IPs/new users that have decided this article's survival is absolutely critical not only write in a similar tone (ie. thinly veiled condescension despite inability to engage with basic standards for contributing to articles constructively) but also similar tactics (ie. severe citation overkill, then an invocation of a good-faith defense when questioned on the irrelevance of their additions). I genuinely do not know what motivates a claim such as the above, that EVERY society noted on Hoeflin's page is notable and active. I have seen little to demonstrate that Mega Society was ever really "active" as a notable organisation given its member count and skeptical tone of the coverage it received (specifically in regard to the test itself, the only qualifier for membership) a few decades ago. It seems rather obvious to both Hoeflin and contemporaneous sources that the test itself provides dubious efficacy and has an unstandardized nature. IQ tests as a whole are not direct proxies for intelligence, and an IQ test that didn't try to conform to the format of its peers, rejected any form of standardisation and outside feedback, and was used as an admission tool for a group of members that hardly cracked the double digits, should be subject to even more skepticism and scrutiny. It does not make for the foundation of an article that is of use to any reader at present. Transgenderoriole (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Transgenderoriole. (a) Doesn't "severe citation overkill" suggest that the topic is notable? Why would "too many citations" be a reason to delete an article entirely?, (b) might a "good-faith defense" reflect a genuine good faith effort to make the article better?, (c) of the some 63 million articles on Wikipedia, why is the deletion of this article of critical importance? Why not improve the article? Robin (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admire your commitment to account creation, very nice userboxes! If you have any information about the society which can be backed up by sources where it is not more than a passing mention, feel free to contribute those while adhering to the guidance of WP:BLUE and WP:REFCLUTTER, bearing in mind that your previous cohort weren't able to parse those fairly simple guides despite their interest in the pinnacles of human intellect. Yours, Transgenderoriole (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin per points already raised. The society is mentioned in reliable sources, but the references aren't really about the society. Hoeflin is maybe notable, as are other reported members, but the society itself is not. CAVincent (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The three most well-established and oldest 4-sigma-plus IQ societies, despite being mentioned in reliable sources, are not considered notable? To each his own. UnitsReceived (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An account created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD is not considered credible? To each his own. CAVincent (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article meets Wikipedia's guidelines as: (1) the subject has been discussed in detail by numerous sources, and (2) the sources consist of reliable mainstream publications with editorial oversight that are independent of the subject, as evidenced by the following Source Analysis:
Second Source Analysis
Number Source Comments
1 Mega Society. "The Mega Society". Retrieved 10 August 2023. Primary source supports membership count.
2 Ellen Graham (1992-04-09). "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer -- Rival IQ Societies Bicker Over Scores and Styles; Cindy Brady's Velocity". The Wall Street Journal. Article in the Wall Street Journal discusses the Mega Society extensively. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
3 Dean Keith Simonton (2012-11-01). "The Science of Genius". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-11-25. Article in Scientific American. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
4 Mega Society (August 2005). "Constitution of the Mega Society". Retrieved 2006-07-25. Primary source.
5 G. Miller (May 1, 2012). "Get smart". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Article in Scientific American discusses the Mega Society. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
6 Anderson, Jack (November 28, 1988). "Is 176 IQ Enough in White House?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 7, 2024. Article in The Washington Post discusses the Mega Society and several members. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
7 Joshua Harris (1997-05-14). "Let's See, Complain Is to Club As Order Takeout Is to Diner". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Article in The Wall Street Journal discusses the Mega Society and several members. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
8 Lena Groeger (2012-11-01). "When High IQs Hang Out". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Article in Scientific American about High IQ Societies. Discusses Mega Society and quotes a member. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
9 Miyaguchi, Darryl. "A Short (and Bloody) History of the High I.Q. Societies". Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests. Retrieved November 26, 2024. Website with history of IQ societies.
10 Lemley, Brad (March 17, 1985). "The Mind of Genius". Washington Post Magazine. pp. 14, 23. Article in Washington Post Magazine. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
11 "The Mega Society". Retrieved 16 May 2011. Primary source.
12 McWhirter, Norris; McFarlan, Donald (1988). The Guinness book of records : 1989. Internet Archive. Enfield, Middlesex : Guinness Pub. ISBN 978-0-85112-878-8. Source of varying credibility over the years.
13 Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Book critical of Mega Society and intelligence testing in general.
14 Roger D. Carlson (1991). Daniel J. Keyser; Richard C. Sweetland (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. Critique of Hoeflin’s tests. Does not appear to mention Mega Society directly.
15 Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. Is meant to support criticism, but does not provide criticism of tests with a ceiling above 160.
16 Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. Supports criticism. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
17 Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. Supports criticism. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.

Robin (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Robin82346 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did you create this account and make some edits specifically to !vote in this AfD? It sure looks a hell of a lot like this account was created in response to CAVincent's comment. Polygnotus (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question. To address your concern, I did not create this account or participate in this discussion as a response to anyone's comment. My contributions to this AfD and Wikipedia as a whole are made with the same goal as everyone else's here: to uphold the principles of neutrality and thoughtful discussion.
That said, I would like to take a moment to highlight the importance of focusing on the merit of arguments rather than speculating on motivations or resorting to tactics that could be perceived as dismissive, particularly when directed at women or any group. Intimidation—whether intentional or inadvertent—has no place in collaborative spaces like this. I encourage us to engage constructively and keep the discussion centered on the issues at hand. Robin (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. Polygnotus (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the link. However, I’m not sure how referencing an essay, which represents the opinions of contributors rather than established Wikipedia policies or guidelines, contributes constructively to improving the article. If you have specific input or suggestions grounded in policies or guidelines that can help make the article better, I’d be happy to hear them. Robin (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robin, Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you see the source analysis in the nomination? I collapsed it to hide the table. See the green bar. Click the "show" link and you will see that I have been through these. The principal problem, and one you have not addressed in your table here, is that these do not show WP:SIGCOV at WP:ORGDEPTH as required for an organisation. See WP:SIRS. This also explains that the primary sources, while useful in their way, do not count towards notability. All we have in secondary sources about the society are the entry requirement. There is nothing about what the society actually is, does or why it is notable. Nothing we can write the article from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the sources provided by @Robin. Some of the sources are already mentioned in the article. I also went through and culled material that actually didn't event talk about the Mega Society, so the article is even shorter now. Most of these sources referenced about seem to discuss the Mega Society only in passing reference, and I can't find really anything from them to add to the article unfortunately. Jjazz76 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jjazz76, Mega Society and some of its members receive coverage in Linda Leopold's 2013 book Smartast i världen : IQ-sällskapen från insidan. Google Books provides partial access. Best, K-trivial (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@K-trivial - Is this book in English or just Swedish? Any digital copies you can find or just hard copies? Jjazz76 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book is in Swedish, has no ebook version that I can find, is out of print, is not in any library I can access and unavailable at Open Library. I followed it up on Goodreads and found this in a review: Linda's book starts out very good with a history of the field of research around intelligence and then later goes through all the secret societies around IQ and the people considered to be the most intelligent in the world. It's here the book starts to slow down and become less interesting even if the question why all these societies with so much intelligence have achieved so little is very interesting. (Hallberg, 2014) [17] The review also indicates it is written as creative non fiction. I searched as much as I could on Google Books and discovered the noun phrase "mega society" gets 11 mentions in the book. Going by the preview, I could dismiss all but 4 as not being significant mentions. Four may well have more but I could not coax google to tell me. One mention appears to caption a photo. Another suggests information comes from Noesis. It is also clear the author spoke to Hoeflin, and his other societies are also mentioned. I can't evaluate this one any further. Swedish books have much smaller print runs than English books, but I have not been able to ascertain how many copies are out there. It appears to me to be essentially independent, published by the largest Swedish publisher, so presumably reliable, although bear in mind it is CNF and not an academic study. The review suggests that the societies are presented as existing but not doing anything interesting. I cannot be sure if it has SIGCOV at ORGDEPTH on the society. If it does, however, it is a single source, and to meet WP:SIRS we need multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: Worldcat indicates there is an ebook, but I can't find it and cannot access the 2 Swedish libraries listed. I won't be requesting an ILL.[18] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sirfurboy! Jjazz76 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I have a request for copy in with the author. Robin (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sirfurboy, @Jjazz76, and @Robin82346, the eBook is available on Kobo: https://www.kobo.com/en/en/ebook/smartast-i-varlden-iq-sallskapen-fran-insidan. I suggest the query string mega instead of the more specific mega society. It will bring up the Mega Test as well, though, but false positives are easily ignored. Best, K-trivial (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: also on Nextory: https://nextory.com/se-en/book/smartast-i-varlden-iq-sallskapen-fran-insidan-2599622. Best, K-trivial (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is not expensive, but it is in Swedish. I can read a number of Germanic languages at various levels of fluency, but none are North Germanic. That is unlikely to change. So before I spend real money on a book I cannot read, as a source of information for a page we should not keep, I think we need to address the multiple sourcing issue. If we have at least one other source that meets ORGDEPTH, I'd make the effort to see if this one does. But as it stands, even if I obtain the book, spend considerable time understanding what it says, and determine that it may be included as a source that meets ORGDEPTH, it would still be alone. So notability is not met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for an e- version. @K-trivial - What specific content do you think can be cited from it? Jjazz76 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources above, particularly the articles "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer" and "Let's See, Complain Is to Club As Order Takeout Is to Diner" in The Wall Street Journal. In addition to basic information about the society, our article should include a list of notable members, of whom there are a remarkable number, given its small size. Tim Smith (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Tim Smith. The article did include an extensive list of members and qualifiers, including sources. But that list was unfortunately deleted on October 5th by @Polygnotus, with the explanation WP:NPOV. Should it be added back in? Robin (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only Marilyn vos Savant is well known, and I doubt Hoeflin wants to be associated with Keith Raniere. Also at least some of those BLPs include disclaimers saying that the test is nonsensical:
    1. Marilyn vos Savant: The second test reported by Guinness was Hoeflin's Mega Test, taken in the mid-1980s. The Mega Test yields IQ standard scores obtained by multiplying the subject's normalized z-score, or the rarity of the raw test score, by a constant standard deviation and adding the product to 100, with Savant's raw score reported by Hoeflin to be 46 out of a possible 48, with a 5.4 z-score, and a standard deviation of 16, arriving at a 186 IQ. The Mega Test has been criticized by professional psychologists as improperly designed and scored, "nothing short of number pulverization".[15]
    2. Solomon W. Golomb contained an unsourced and false claim, which I deleted.
    3. Richard G. Rosner says: In 1985, he scored 44 of 48 on Ron Hoeflin's Mega Test, sufficient to gain entry into the Mega Society.[citation needed] The Mega Test is described in a history of IQ testing as "a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses."[16] In 1991 he retook the test and achieved 47 of 48.[citation needed] From 1991 to 1997, Rosner was editor of Noesis, the journal of the Mega Society. Rick completed Hoeflin's Titan Test and is the first individual to have answered all 48 questions correctly.[17][better source needed] No professionally designed and validated IQ test claims to distinguish test-takers at a one-in-a-million level of rarity of score. The standard score range of most currently normed IQ tests is from IQ 40 to IQ 160. A score of 160 corresponds to a rarity of about 1 person in 30,000 (leaving aside the issue of error of measurement common to all IQ tests), which falls short of the Mega Society's 1 in a million entry requirement.[18] IQ scores above this level are dubious (pending additional research), as there are insufficient normative cases upon which to base a statistically justified rank-ordering.[19][20] High IQ scores are less reliably reported than IQ scores nearer to the population mean due to the inherently volatile assessment parameters that come from the limited data availability.[21] The Mega Test has been criticized by professional psychologists as improperly designed and scored, "nothing short of number pulverization".[22] Neither the Titan nor Mega tests are considered useful to psychologists in their current format, owing to their lack of supervision and time limits. The Titan test is further criticised for having multiple similar and non independent questions. Both tests have been shown to significantly over-report IQ.[23]
    4. Keith Raniere says In June 1988, the Albany Times Union profiled Raniere, reporting on his membership in the Mega Society after he achieved a high score on founder Ronald K. Hoeflin's MEGA test, an unsupervised, 48-question test published in the April 1985 issue of Omni magazine.[24][25] Although the MEGA test has been widely criticized as not having been properly validated, the 1989 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records (the last edition to include a category for highest IQ)[26] described the Mega Society as "the most exclusive ultrahigh IQ society", and the 1989 Australian edition identified Raniere, Marilyn vos Savant and Eric Hart as the highest-scoring members of the group.[27][28][29][30]
    5. John H. Sununu does not appear to mention anything about these topics.
    6. I tagged Christopher Langan's IQ testing section with {{npov-section}}.
Sources

References

  1. ^ Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  2. ^ Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  3. ^ "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  4. ^ France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  5. ^ "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  6. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  7. ^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  8. ^ "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  9. ^ Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  10. ^ Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  11. ^ "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  12. ^ "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  13. ^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  14. ^ "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
  15. ^ Carlson, Roger D. (1991). Keyser, Daniel J.; Sweetland, Richard C. (eds.). Test Critiques Test Critique: The Mega Test (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. Although the approach that Hoeflin takes is interesting, it violates good psychometric principles by overinterpreting the weak data of a self-selected sample.
  16. ^ Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. [Test taken by reported record-holder was] a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses.
  17. ^ "Rick Rosner's Science-Based Longevity - Life Extension". www.lifeextension.com. Retrieved 2021-08-19.
  18. ^ Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
  19. ^ Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.
  20. ^ Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. ISBN 978-0-521-73911-5. [Curve-fitting] is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ scores much higher than 160
  21. ^ Lohman, David F.; Foley Nicpon, Megan (2012). "Chapter 12: Ability Testing & Talent Identification" (PDF). In Hunsaker, Scott (ed.). Identification: The Theory and Practice of Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Education Services. Waco (TX): Prufrock. pp. 287–386. ISBN 978-1-931280-17-4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 March 2016. Retrieved 22 September 2013. The concerns associated with SEMs [standard errors of measurement] are actually substantially worse for scores at the extremes of the distribution, especially when scores approach the maximum possible on a test . . . when students answer most of the items correctly. In these cases, errors of measurement for scale scores will increase substantially at the extremes of the distribution. Commonly the SEM is from two to four times larger for very high scores than for scores near the mean (Lord, 1980).
  22. ^ Carlson, Roger D. (1991). Keyser, Daniel J.; Sweetland, Richard C. (eds.). Test Critique: The Mega Test (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. Although the approach that Hoeflin takes is interesting, it violates good psychometric principles by overinterpreting the weak data of a self-selected sample.
  23. ^ Redvaldsen, David (29 April 2020). "Do the Mega and Titan Tests Yield Accurate Results? An Investigation into Two Experimental Intelligence Tests". Psych. 2 (2): 97–113. doi:10.3390/psych2020010.
  24. ^ Morris, Scot (April 1985). "The one-in-a-million I.Q. test". Omni, pp 128–132.
  25. ^ Parlato, Frank (July 2, 2017). "Blast from the past: Complete text from 1988 Times Union article about Raniere – and his take-home IQ test". Frank Report.
  26. ^ Johnson, Robert. "The 18 Smartest People In The World". Business Insider. Retrieved December 30, 2019.
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference FR180713 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ McWhirter, Norris; McFarlan, Donald (1988). The Guinness book of records : 1989. Enfield, Middlesex : Guinness Pub. p. 16. ISBN 978-0851128788 – via Internet Archive.
  29. ^ Carlson, Roger D. (1991). Keyser, Daniel J.; Sweetland, Richard C. (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0890792542.
  30. ^ Castles, Elaine E. (2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1440803383. Archived from the original on September 26, 2013. Retrieved August 31, 2013. And what is that makes Marilyn vos Savant so uniquely qualified to answer such questions? There is only one reason: she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest IQ ever recorded. Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.
  • So, in summary, such a list only serves to make the organization look bad. Polygnotus (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just going to answer with "No", but Polygnotus provided a lengthier reply. CAVincent (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus you obviously did not bother to read any of what you deleted from this article on October 5th. The sources you deleted include (1) an article in the Washington Post on Sununu, (2) an article in Esquire on Langan, (3) an article in Los Angeles Magazine on Golomb, (4) an article on vos Savant in New York Magazine, (5) Time Union article on Rainere. All sources discussed their membership in Mega. Do you want to undo your delete for discussion or would you like me to? Robin (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robin82346: You could try, but WP:EDITWARring is discouraged and the WP:ONUS to get WP:CONSENSUS is on those who want to include content. Polygnotus 08:35, 30 November 2024
    I'd add that Sununu's involvement with the Mega Test was mentioned in:
    Sununu's wiki page used to cover this, but the paragraph was removed in October 2019.

    As to Golomb, his Mega Test achievement and remarks were covered in "Brains – They’re the smartest people in L.A.", by Catherine Seipp, Los Angeles (magazine), November 1987, reproduced in Noesis n°22.
    Best, K-trivial (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trivial mentions can't be used to claim notability. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources above are also the sources discussed in the nomination. The second you refer to is a news report about Paul Maxim's legal challenge, and is thus primary news reporting (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS), but for both and others, the major problem is all we have to write the article is that there is an entry requirement. There is no information about what the article is or does. The relevant subject notability guideline for an organisation (WP:NORG) says this about what we are looking for as significant coverage in a source:

    Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

    This is found in the WP:ORGDEPTH section of the diagram. Note that WP:ORGSIG says

    No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is.

    So for this organisation we do have a good number of sources that tell us it exists and that it has a difficult entry requirement. But to be notable for a page on Wikipedia, there must be deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the organization and not just how to get into it. That is what these sources do not do. Hoeflin has a page, and Maxim's challenge can be described there. The Mega Society is already listed there, and you could even expand the mention on that page to a paragraph or two. But there is no case for a page based on this sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboysee my comment above. A list of prominent members with sources in mainstream media seems noteworthy, no? Honest question. Robin (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of those is prominent, and if coverage is not WP:INDEPTH and WP:SUSTAINED it doesn't count. Polygnotus (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just brought the list back. Robin (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus You have been warned previously -- please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the page (vandalism). I have brought back the list of members per request of user @Tim Smith. Robin (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robin82346: You have been warned previously, see You could try, but WP:EDITWARring is discouraged and the WP:ONUS to get WP:CONSENSUS is on those who want to include content. above, please refrain from editwarrring and falsely accusing people of vandalism. You need to get consensus. Myself and @CAVincent: have already said the list should not be included. Polygnotus (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited, and the argument is that it is inherently notable because Savant and a criminal were both members. That is covered by ORGSIG: No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. No exemptions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy Nobody is arguing that notability is inherited from Hoeflin, so stop with the straw manning. In depth coverage is provided in the Wall Street Journal (Graham), re-read the article, the title of the article even includes Mega. Robin (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you are arguing that, because the society has 1 well-known member, the society is notable (in the Wiki-sense of the word). That is not how it works. You deleted {{uw-coi}} claiming it was Harassment. And now you are editwarring on the article and falsely accusing me of WP:VANDALISM which, historically, has proven to be a horrible strategy on Wikipedia. What is your relation to societies created by Hoeflin? Polygnotus (talk) 08:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus Again, stop with the intimidation and threats. This is now your second warning. I deleted your post to my page as it was a continuation of your harassment on this page. I have no COI to disclose.
    What a shame that Wikipedia has devolved to this. It's so sad. Robin (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So last time you called {{uw-coi}} Harassment and then you started editwarring and called {{uw-3rr}} intimidation and threats. Wikipedia is a consensus based project, and those templates, and the WP:COI guideline and WP:EDITWAR policy are the result of many discussions and iterative improvements. If you want to achieve anything on Wikipedia you need to convince other to agree with you, see WP:CONSENSUS, and people don't like it when you editwar and falsely accuse others. Polygnotus (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus you’ve been editwarring this and other high-IQ articles for months, deleting sources and content without consensus. Do you have a COI to disclose? Were you rejected by one or more of these groups? Robin (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it, people get mad when they feel like they "lost" a discussion and then they start lashing out, making false accusations and editwarring. Seen it all before. Multiple times. You still haven't answered my question What is your relation to societies created by Hoeflin?. Good luck tho, I still love you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, back off Creep. Robin (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I see I made one error in my initial source assessment in that I did not group both Wall Street journal articles together. Two articles from the same outlet do not count as two sources, they count together. My assessment of these is above, however. One of these is about the mega test but all it says about the society is Mega is the most elite of about a dozen high-IQ societies claiming intellectual superiority to Mensa International, the oldest and largest. and that is a very debatable sentence. Clearly not ORGDEPTH. See above. The second is a news report and says of the society: Mega, founded in 1985, currently has only 16 members world-wide. Applicants must have an IQ equivalent of at least 176, though society officials don't trust standardized tests like the Stanford-Binet. Mega's own tests, written by society founder Ronald Hoeflin and software designer Kevin Langdon, are designed to discriminate among IQs well above 150. So the only question now is: can we argue that this is Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It doesn't. Thus we don't need to group them, because neither demonstrates notability under WP:SIRS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators, What has become painfully clear to me in my efforts to improve this article is that this is not just a discussion about content or policy—it’s a reflection of deeper challenges within this community. If you look closely at this AfD thread, you’ll see evidence of behaviors that undermine the very principles Wikipedia was built upon. Source removal, intimidation, edit warring, vandalism, and harassment have made their presence felt here. This isn’t just disappointing, it’s heartbreaking. Wikipedia aspires to be a beacon of knowledge and collaboration, a place where people come together to build something greater than themselves. But today, I see an environment where trust is eroded, where good faith is questioned, and where the tools meant to empower contributors are weaponized to silence them. This should give all of us pause. In our society, intelligence and expertise are highly valued—and rightly so. High-IQ communities, much like our elite educational institutions, represent the best of human potential. But let’s not forget a fundamental truth: much of life’s outcomes are determined by factors beyond our control—by circumstances of birth, by opportunities we didn’t choose, by privileges we didn’t earn. That isn’t fair. It never has been. And it’s why our shared commitment to neutrality, to open dialogue, and to respectful disagreement matters. Because fairness isn’t automatic—it’s something we have to work for, together. This article has survived five previous deletion discussions over the span of two decades. That history speaks to the resilience of the topic and the sustained interest of editors, but it also speaks to something larger: the enduring challenge of balancing competing perspectives in a way that serves the greater good. As I share these thoughts, I know I will once again become a target for vitriol. It’s not the first time, and it will not be the last. But my hope is that this moment can be different—that we can pause, reflect, and remember what brought us all here in the first place. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. I trust in your ability to weigh these matters with fairness and integrity. Robin (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High-IQ communities, much like our elite educational institutions, represent the best of human potential. that is your COI speaking. In reality, these are tiny obscure groups of mostly non-notable individuals, and the groups have achieved very little except further inflating the ego of people who are insecure about their brains, see superiority complex. Most of the media coverage consists of human interest stories subtly mocking neurodiverse people, which is rather disgusting. Since they have not met the requirements of WP:GNG, nor of any specialized WP:SNG, they are not WP:NOTABLE. This article has survived five previous deletion discussions over the span of two decades. That history speaks to the resilience of the topic and the sustained interest of editors no, the history of this category of articles means that undisclosed COI editors keep recreating deleted articles about nonnotable topics and then socking and meatpuppeting during AfDs, which is rather effective for niche topics that most people ignore. Polygnotus (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit overwrought for an AfD discussion. Nice speech, though. CAVincent (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polygnotus, how could you read that statement and respond like this? Can you just table policy points for a moment in this debate and react like a human being? I have no idea how this discussion will close, and I haven't read through it all, but our editors are our strongest resource here at Wikipedia and civility is a pillar of the project. AGF and all. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I strongly believe in AGF, but I also strongly believe that AGF is not a suicide pact. Nothing I said was incivil, afaik. It is not difficult to see such a statement for what it is, although it may require some reading of the archives and reading between the lines. Kneejerk reactions based on who wastes more bytes on pleasantries and platitudes are usually not helpful. I have received somewhat valid criticism for not being nice (I would describe it as "too direct") at some point in the past, but never for being factually incorrect. And of course SPAs are unfortunately not a very useful resource for Wikipedia. If you would like to know how I reached my conclusions I am happy to give you some information, but its probably not wise to post that here. Polygnotus (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a lot of digital ink being spilled here, and unfortunately some admin is going to have to read through all this to close it. Also, the more we write ourselves, the fewer other editors will take a look, in my experience. I'd like to make a suggestion that we leave page content discussions for the talk page of the article. They don't belong here. Also we can leave the closing admin to assess and decide what weight they give to the two SPAs here (whose edits have been marked as SPAs because they created accounts after this AfD started and have only or mostly edited just here). Lastly there is a COI behind this page, but I have no evidence that either of the SPAs, nor the other keep voter, who edits mostly pages related to high IQ societies and their members, are in any way involved in that. But the society itself is open about working to produce and protect this page. See [19], editorial by Kevin Langdon, and likewise [20]. In answer to concerns Langdon raised in the first editorial, I did indeed come to this page off the back of editing Chris Langan's article, but I certainly did not confuse it with his equally non notable Mega Foundation. Nor did I think Langan was still a member. The issue is simply this: I came to see if I could write and improve the page, and I could not find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that would allow me to say anything about what the society is, or what it does. The topic area is a walled garden, with a few people writing histories, such as Darryl Miyaguchi and Scott Douglas Jacobsen, but most of what they have written is self published. Sources that are not self published are either unreliable, primary or not independent. Much of what we do have calls this society "obscure" or similar. People know it exists, but not what it does. That is what is lacking. If we had the sources I'd withdraw the AfD and write the article. But we don't have the sources. That is what we need to concentrate on. Apologies to the closer for adding to the digital ink. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For more, google site:megasociety.org wikipedia, for example https://megasociety.org/noesis/183 Unfortunately, we are still having trouble keeping an article on Mega alive at Wikipedia. Chris Cole provides the details in his “Wikipedia Update” in this issue. One of the issues involved in the Wiki Wars is “notability.” Although Mega is certainly notable as the high-IQ society with the highest credible admission standards, this has been a hard sell. In order to try again later it would be helpful if we could do something to put Mega on the map. Elements that would contribute to this include: ... Sympathetic news stories focusing on Mega or including the society in coverage of the higher-IQ societies. At least one COI editor even tried to teach people how to hide: Single purpose users are frowned upon and were a frequent bone of contention during the AfD and DRV processes. So I urge you all to "establish" yourself as Wikipedians and It is a very good idea to put something on your user page, (it doesn't matter what) to avoid showing up as redlinked users -- being redlinked will count against you in any debate. I was also not impressed by the large amount of IPs used to try to prevent deletion of an article about a non-notable topic. Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 1 December 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel. Star Mississippi 16:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters

edit
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (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 feel this was mistakenly closed as keep at the previous AfD. To be clear, the first game, Godzilla: Monster of Monsters was determined to be notable. For the second game, Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters, only one review was found: [21], [22]. So again, I suggest this article should be redirected to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel. Mika1h (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 Looking at the Classic Home Video Games book, it says "this reference work provides detailed descriptions and reviews of every U.S.-released game for the Nintendo NES, the Atari 7800, and the Sega Master System". In such case, I'm not sure whether it should be used for notability purposes - by that every U.S. released game for all of these platforms would be notable, which doesn't sound right to me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Godzilla: Monster of Monsters#Sequel per nom and per my last AfD vote. Not enough for independent notability but the reviews of this game that do exist should definitely be covered here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 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.
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. Star Mississippi 16:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian flag officers losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War

edit
List of Ukrainian flag officers losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War (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)

Per WP:NLIST, in order for a standalone list to be notable the list must itself be a topic covered in reliable sources: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists." In contrast to the list of Russian generals killed, there is not discussion of Ukrainian 'flag officer' deaths as a set. Since there are no reliable sources that discuss ukrainian 'flag officer lossses' as a set, this list article does not meet the notablity guidelines. This is in contrast to Russian generals killed during the invasion of Ukraine--they are discussed as a set in reliable sources. To take another example, reliable sources discuss 'non water floods' as a set[1][2] and therefore this group or set satisfies the notability requirements for a list article: List of non-water floods. There is no reliable source in the article under discussion for deletion here that discusses Ukrainian 'flag losses' as a set. List notability can be tricky to understand, but the key is that the set must be discussed in reliable sources as a set. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hayes, Jamie (5 July 2024). "From Chocolate To Butter, The World's Worst Non-Water Floods".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Kernan, Sean (2022-08-17). "The Worst Non-Water Flood Disaster in History". Medium. Retrieved 2024-11-24.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Singh (cricketer)

edit
Lakhan Singh (cricketer) (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 don’t believe the subject meets WP:GNG criteria. Furthermore, there is no significant coverage available about the subject as a cricketer, which directly fails WP:NCRIC. Additionally, the creator of the article is currently blocked. Baqi:) (talk) 13:36, 24 November 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Bandits

edit
Cyber Bandits (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 don't believe that this film meets the criteria for WP:NFILM and, to my understanding, it has not received significant coverage or achieved notability otherwise. Merging information from this article into the article about its director may be more appropriate. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unconvinced this subject is notable; all sources added to the articles added only seem to add like, a sentence of coverage at best. These fall under Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTIONS at best. I can't check out the offline sources for obvious reasons but at a glance the lack of coverage here doesn't show much inherent notability beyond verifying the film existed, which doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:NFILM, which states: "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." So far all of the sources I'm seeing are falling under at least one of these. Unless actual significant coverage can be shown, I'm falling firmly under the fact that this subject isn't notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 Some of the sources have multiple paragraphs, the fact that we chose to only use them in a certain way is not indicative of what is inside them. The delete argument here is both spurious and in bad faith, as you are basically accusing those putting these sources forward as lying and further being rude to people improving the article. Way to be WP:UNCIVIL.4meter4 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, as I am merely basing this off of what I am able to access and off of relevant policies in relation to them. Saying a source may not comply with notability policies is in no way rude, and I apologize if my wording may have come off that way.
Allow me to rephrase my concerns so that my stance is a bit clearer: The sources added to the article are sources I am unable to view in their entirety, and the fact only one sentence has been added from any given source indicates coverage is sparse if the source is not being used in its entirety. For an AfD, illustrating that a source meets SIGCOV is the foremost rationale to Keep it, and the fact I am not seeing that makes me hesitant. I apologize for being a bit hasty in my assessment.
To clarify: Which sources contain multiple paragraphs? I would appreciate some clarification so I can more accurately gauge source content. I'd be willing to change my vote if this coverage is significant, as a few SIGCOV sources on top of the others definitely should act as enough coverage to act as the base of an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 realizing I forgot to ping you to notify you of my reply. Would you be willing to clarify the sourcing situation above? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Groen

edit
Sven Groen (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:20, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rizal Barellano

edit
Rizal Barellano (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lacks significant success in the sport. Google Books - 1 result, only a mention. Google Search - less than 80 results, not prominent. 12 results in Google News, the only one that went beyond a mention was: The first one in 2008 was Rizal Barellano, who was eliminated in the preliminary round by Miloslac Navratil and of whom you never heard again ... Rizal Barellano, born 1965, reached 2006 the quarterfinals of the Asia Pacific Cup and was the first Philippine player invited to the PDC World Championship. It doesn't look he is still playing. Still nothing much. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. I could find no independent significant coverage. Web searches came up with the standard mastercaller and PDC website stuff, but those can't be used towards notability as they are sports statistics tables. He doesn't in any of the darts reference books. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AstrooKai (Talk) 10:01, 25 November 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.
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 Handle editorially‎. There are a lot of options on the table, none of which will result in deletion and therefore a relist isn't needed. Please discuss merger/set index options on the Talk. Star Mississippi 16:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Band Aid (band)

edit
Band Aid (band) (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)

WP:NOPAGE. Band Aid is the collective name of the numerous permutations of celebrity musicians who have recorded and released different versions of the charity song Do They Know It's Christmas. Band Aid has never released any other song, just this one. Most (all?) of the information on this page is duplicated on the Do They Know It's Christmas article. All we're achieving by having two pages is to have the same thing explained twice in different ways. This article should be redirected to that page. Popcornfud (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing. That same guideline encourages separate articles if the first one gets too unwieldy. That's the problem with the song article, so it can be trimmed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem with that strategy. Every single iteration of Band Aid (the band) is directly tied to each iteration of Do They Know It's Christmas. There's nothing to explain about the band that isn't also directly relevant to the song — they're essentially the same entities.
For example, the background detail — the reason why the band was put together — is also the reason the song was written and recorded. There would be barely any detail that would be uniquely relevant to one article and not the other. Popcornfud (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a good faith gesture, I acknowledge your stance but will simply disagree and will leave my vote and reasoning as they are. We'll see where the discussion goes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 25 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58th

edit
58th (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)

WP:TOOSOON, the film will released on 2025 and it shouldn't create a Too Soon article and we will wait on 2025. Royiswariii Talk! 11:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about switching to "draft" article rather than delete instead? I know it's too soon but it's officially confirmed by GMA that 58th will be released soon next year as long as the article has been improved with better reliable sources. GeniusTaker (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible but it much better to delete it to wait a more reliable sources in 2025. Royiswariii Talk! 12:54, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Muñiz

edit
Antonio Muñiz (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)

A biography of a living artist. The article seems to be entirely promotional, and the artist not notable at all. I can't find anything that constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources that would come close to WP:GNG, and nothing that approaches any of the criteria at WP:ARTIST. Of the references in the article, three don't mention Muñiz at all, and the other is a local art blog.

The article was created by Abe21lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has no contributions unrelated to this topic), who wrote on the help desk have created one for my partner, Antonio Muñiz, as you can see (I guess). I also manage his website (http://www.anotniomuniz-art.com) and his Facebook page. (diff)

Consequently, I think we should delete the article. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:39, 24 November 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Zoboli

edit
Vittorio Zoboli (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)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up a number of listings/database type sites, but no substantial secondary sources to really establish the subject's notability with respect to WP:NMOTORSPORT in my view. The article has been without citations for a long time - I did find a reasonable primary source for the Subject's Formula 4 championship win, which I have added, but I don't think that this is sufficient for notability. That said, I would happily defer to WP:MOTORSPORTS for their more expert opinion. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is presented in (truly) non-encyclopaedic style but Zoboli is notable. He ticks WP:NMOTORSPORT having driven full seasons of top-level F1 feeder series (Formula 3000) and has twice competed in non-championship Formula One events – even finishing 3rd at the 1993 Formula One Indoor Trophy. Sparse internet coverage on a driver whose career spanned between 1988 and 2006 hardly surprises me – more thorough coverage is likely to exist elsewhere. MSport1005 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to agree with MSport1005 that coverage here is going to be in offline in books, magazines, etc. I can see a bunch of coverage in snippet view in google books which leads me to this conclusion. In this case we should follow WP:NMOTORSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is going to be a nitpicky point, for which apologies in advance, but WP:NMOTORSPORT #2 says "A driver or rider who has competed for at least one full season in ... a top-level feeder series to Formula One." I note, and I am going on the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 articles, that none of his seasons were full seasons. That is, in all of them he missed at least one race. Also that WP:NMOTORSPORT #1 specifies Formula One Championship races. That said, I am content enough to go with keep, though the quality of the article is poor. The one reference I was able to find, for the F4 win, contradicted the year that was originally in the article, which doesn't give me a warm feeling that the rest of it is in good shape at all. I would try and edit myself, but I am certainly not at all well-versed in the field. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MSport1005 and 4meter4 Sandcat555 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With some re-formatting and the inclusion of a proper infobox, the article would probably be much better. Sandcat555 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Deley

edit
Johnny Deley (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:26, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Hubbard

edit
Vic Hubbard (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:24, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Robinson (darts player)

edit
Reece Robinson (darts player) (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 darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:22, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serah (actress)

edit
Serah (actress) (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)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of substance to support the subject's notability with regard to WP:NACTOR. Based on the scanty information in the article as it stands, the subject wasn't mentioned in any review I could find. That said, it is difficult to unearth any needles from the haystack of results that come from only being able to search for a one word name, and a search on the subject's full name (extracted from https://web.archive.org/web/20090602050929/http://www.serahs.net:80/) turned up just four hits. I would happily rescind my nomination if someone, e.g. the creating author, were able to support notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:50, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Peter Fieber. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 09:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fieber (footballer, born 1989)

edit
Peter Fieber (footballer, born 1989) (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)

According to Soccerway, he only played 19 matches at professional level before moving to lower leagues then disappeared. The sources provided are either passing mentions and transfer announcements. Being the son of a former footballer, notability is not inherited from relatives. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:09, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wartenberg, Hesse#Geography. Liz Read! Talk! 09:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angersbach

edit
Angersbach (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 GNG; no people with the surname on Wikipedia. C F A 💬 14:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantaloupe Hotels

edit
Cantaloupe Hotels (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)

Small Sri Lankan hotel chain. Aside from the primary source citations in this article, the rest are mostly a mixture of routine press coverage about new property openings and awards, therefore I don’t believe this crosses the threshold of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to pass WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus among participants that this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

edit
List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature (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 topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We got three keeps and a delete. Verdict? Espngeek (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's really changed since the relisting (when it was 3 keep/2 delete counting the nomination, though it isn't a straight vote). I'd expect it to be open for at least the rest of the week – WP:NORUSH. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can’t delete an article because you personally don’t care about it. There are many articles I don’t care that should still exist because others want that information. You can argue that we shouldn’t keep a list of nominations either because they aren’t as important as the winners. The winners and nominations aren’t the only important films. The submissions help to understand the context around the nominations. It starts discussions about what wasn’t chosen and why. This is an article that is important to me. I use it a lot when talking about animated films and Oscar nominations for fully understanding what was happening that year. I created a Wikipedia account specifically so that I can comment to save it. AnimatedCort (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Espngeek (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate that readers use this list, arguments such as WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL are discouraged in deletion discussions. (This AfD is a good example of how those arguments can fall short.) It is better to cite specific policies and guidelines, such as how this list is notable. Regardless of the outcome, I hope you'll stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it funny that the delete voters are complaining about WP:ILIKEIT votes when fundamentally, the delete votes are WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes without a policy leg to stand on. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument is spurious as this list doesn't meet any of the four criteria specifically outlined in that policy. This topic passes WP:NLIST as there is WP:SIGCOV which discusses this topic directly and in detail in multiple WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. The topic has a clearly defined scope. Frankly there isn't a policy based rationale here to delete the article.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try again to clarify what I mean by WP:INDISCRIMINATE, quoting from the policy: As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A trivial accomplishment (I'll admit this part is subjective, but it's reasonable to argue a submission is trivial), even if it's true and can be sourced, does not have to be listed here. Additionally, from a different section on that page, the examples under each section are not exhaustive – hence why I cited INDISCRIMINATE even though it wasn't one of the four specific examples. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that. However, I think that argument is pretty weak in this case due to the quality of the sourcing, the volume of coverage, and the repeating aspect of the coverage across many years. When a topic gets WP:SIGCOV repeatedly across time, that is a strong indication its notable under WP:EVENTCRIT. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 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.
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.

Carl Meyers

edit

The result was Withdrawn‎ Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Carl Meyers (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:NPOL. Being a member of Regents of the University of Michigan does not make the subject pass notability for politicians. It has been established that the the subject of this article won a state wide Michigan election as it can be seen here. Therefore, I am withdrawing this nomination. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators

edit
List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators (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'm not finding the needed coverage of these commentators as a grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 24 November 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.
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. czar 01:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Hue

edit
Warren Hue (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)

Relying on self-promotional press releases without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Primary School

edit
St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Primary 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL: nothing special about this elementary school. Other than that, it has no sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Racine, Wisconsin#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Lutheran School

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wisconsin Lutheran 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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL: nothing special about this elementary school. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 24 November 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.
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. ✗plicit 10:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa

edit
Te Pīhopatanga o Aotearoa (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)

Appears to lack notability. I found only one independent reference and it is primary and provides no coverage.

I also nominating the episcopal units:

Te Pīhopatanga o Te Upoko o Te Ika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Te Pīhopatanga o Manawa o Te Wheke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Te Pīhopatanga o Te Tai Tokerau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Te Pīhopatanga o Te Waipounamu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Te Pīhopatanga o Te Tairāwhiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Traumnovelle (talk) 05:05, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylord Ravenal

edit
Gaylord Ravenal (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 have not been able to find significant sources that talk about the subject. Jinnllee90 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2024 (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/2024 November 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Much scholarship has been published on Ferber's novel and its characters, largely because of the importance of Kern and Hammerstein's musical Show Boat which is widely recognized as a landmark musical. There is significant coverage of the character in Kreuger, Miles (1977). Showboat: The Story of a Classic American Musical. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-502275-0., Block, Geoffrey (1997). Enchanted Evenings: The Broadway Musical from Show Boat to Sondheim. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-510791-8.,Decker, Todd (2013). Show Boat: Performing Race in an American Musical. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190250539., Blacklegs, Card Sharps, and Confidence Men: Nineteenth-Century Mississippi River Gambling Stories. LSU Press. 2010. ISBN 9780807137369. among a host of other books.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 4meter4. When you add these refs to the article, see if you can note the most important plot differences from the musical's script that affect Gaylord's character in the 3 film versions. For example, in 1951, a much shorter period of time has gone by at the end when Ravenal returns to Magnolia and his young daughter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's little point in doing a Google book search and then claiming that any results represent significant coverage. Mention of a fictional character in plot summaries of an influential or popular book is not in itself SIGCOV. We don't have an article dedicated to Magnolia, who IS the central character in the book. Ravenal is not the central character or even "the leading male character" as the article claims. He PLAYS the male lead on the showboat, but is not the lead. He comes, he goes. He's not a good person. But he is not discussed at any great length in these books beyond plot summary, he is not more notable than the central character of the book and its adaptations and there is not, actually, SIGCOV about him at all. There's no point doing a merge, the information's already in the Showboat article. Likewise a redirect - the character is more than adequately covered in the showboat article. Notable. Good grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent over a week reading these books recently while rewriting the musical article, I can categorically say your assessment is inaccurate. There is indeed critical analysis of the character in these sources beyond plot summaries, and in particular discussion in how the character was fundamentally changed between Ferber's novel and the musical, and also altered further in successive film and radio adaptations. The coverage is substantial and not at all brief. It's obvious you haven't read the material. One of the weaknesses of the current character article is it does overstate the prominence of his role in the novel; although in the musical it is a more central role because the story was changed into a romance. The character article needs a lot of work, but it is a notable topic. FYI there is also coverage of Ravenal in books on Ferber, and cross comparisons between the men in her other novels in that literature. 4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 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.
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. Seems like a consensus for a procedural close. This happens a lot with bundled nominations. Liz Read! Talk! 09:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nucky Thompson

edit
Nucky Thompson (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)

Unfortunately, as much as i love Boardwalk Empire, Nucky doesn't passes WP:GNG, all the sources are passing mentions of the show and some don't even talk about him. My WP:BEFORE didn't help either. I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons.:

Jimmy Darmody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Margaret Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nelson Van Alden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eli Thompson (Boardwalk Empire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mickey Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Richard Harrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gyp Rosetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Valentin Narcisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. I am finding WP:SIGCOV on several of these characters. It is going to be a headache to talk about them as a group. No prejudice in the nominator bringing them forward individually, but I strongly oppose a bundled nomination.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close - A cursory search is showing a pretty large difference in potential notability for the different characters in this bundle, making it impossible to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK. As stated by 4meter4 already, there should be no prejudice against subsequently nominating some of them individually, but the discussion for all of them as a bundled nomination is not going to work. Rorshacma (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close per Rorshacma. Even if it achieves the same outcome, this process is all wrong for this many different articles. I see enough early evidence that each article is a little different. By going one-at-a-time, we have a better chance of getting it right. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's absolutely no reason for this to be here. Each of these can be merged into List of Boardwalk Empire characters without needing to be here, and, in the process, any excess detail can be trimmed. Nothing about the nomination suggests that the delete button is helpful here--or, really, that it would even be policy based to delete any of this: If the characters of a notable franchise aren't themselves notable, merge them to a list of characters per WP:CSC point 2. You can't delete the redirects, because that would violate attribution per WP:CWW. Let's save AfD for things that might actually be deletable under at least some policy-based theory, please. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 26 November 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.
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. Clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Andromedon

edit
Titus Andromedon (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 don't think this character passes WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 4meter4 turned up some fantastic finds, and even a glance at the sources shows some good promise. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. I am persuaded that sources exist. This article can be improved, and deletion is unnecessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:20, 27 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and a discussion has already been started on the article talk page to address concerns such as a) pruning this list to make it manageable and consistent, b) article scope, c) BLP concerns and d) perhaps a change in article page title. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of youngest killers

edit
List of youngest killers (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:NLIST and WP:No original research. While undoubtedly there are sources about child murderers as a group, the is not a List of child murderers but a "List of youngest killers". There is a subtle but important difference here. The term "youngest" is an evaluative quality and claim which doesn't match the cited literature. It's also an unstable claim that relies heavily on original research and synthesis. Maintaining this list cannot be done without engaging in original research and it should be deleted for this reason. Additionally, there are WP:MINORS and WP:BLPLIST issues with this list. 4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not because I love it, but because I think that just about everything the nom said is wrong.
    • There's no difference between "child killers" and "youngest killers", except that the former introduces the question of whether the child is the perpetrator or the victim. There is a difference between "killers" and "murderers", and it's one that (a) argues in favor of "killer", as murder implies a level of comprehension that may not be warranted ([44], pg. 80), and (b) should be addressed in the WP:List selection criteria, which desperately need to be discussed, agreed upon, and pinned to the top of the talk page. But even if you thought the other title was infinitely better, that argues for a Wikipedia:Requested move, not for total deletion. We often say that deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and it's not WP:MOVE, either.
    • The subject does not rely on OR. Calculating an age and putting a list in numerical or chronological order is the kind of simple WP:CALCulation that is clearly permitted by the NOR policy. More importantly, it's not OR because reliable sources write about exactly this topic. See, e.g., this list-style news story titled "America's Youngest Killers". OR means that reliable sources don't say that. When we've got reliable sources actually (a) making a list of (b) the youngest killers, then it's impossible for us to claim that "List of youngest killers" is something made up by a Wikipedia editor and never published in a reliable source. There has been research on how young killers differ from older ones; for example, this New York Times article, "How Youngest Killers Differ: Peer Support", says that younger rampage killers behave differently from adults (e.g., have other kids actively encouraging them to kill someone). In other words, it's an evaluative quality that matches the literature that should have been seen in a well-conducted WP:BEFORE search.
    • WP:MINORS is an essay whose advice is IMO already being complied with, and which we are free to ignore anyway. WP:BLPLIST says that the contentious claims "must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources", which no good editor is going to object to, but which is another problem that's solved with the [Edit] button instead of the 'Delete' one. More to the point, did you look at the article content and think about what "BLP" stands for? First entry: No name, and either dead or about 135 years old. Second entry: No name, and either dead or 121 years old. Third entry: Named, but either dead or 131 years old. Fourth entry: No name, and either dead or 104 years old. Claiming that BLP prohibits this makes a mockery of the idea of a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Glancing down through the list, up to the age of about 10, I see only a few that (a) actually include a name, (b) aren't obviously dead, and (c) don't link to a separate article with more detail. (I'm assuming that nobody's trying to say that we can have a whole article on Mary Bell, which not only describes her as "Britain's youngest female killer" but also details her being physically, emotionally, and sexually abused from birth, as well as multiple other assaults she committed, but that it's somehow worse to have her name in a list with two bland sentences naming the young boys she killed and what her initial criminal sentence was. We do need to copy the refs out of that article and into the list, though.)
  • Finally, where I land with this is that the page needs a proper set of list-selection criteria. That's not usually something developed in the AFD process, but I particularly recommend that an upper age limit be set, and that it be set quite low. Thousands of WP:MINORS kill people each year. I'd suggest considering a cutoff around age 10, but editors might want to look into things like how crime statistics are reported (e.g., "under age 12"). I suspect that most of the concerns about BLPs are actually about older teenagers, and I confess that I do not see much point in having a list of "youngest" that includes hundreds of people, and one-sixth were age 17 (which is a legal adult in some countries). Similarly, it will be important to decide whether the list should include homicide or only the subset that is murder. But the first step is to keep this; the details can be settled on the talk page later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the argument above convincing. I do agree that this page should be watched harder when it comes to recent cases to avoid BLP issues, and there should be some bar set. Otherwise, this very clearly does pass NLIST, and doesn't seem too hard to maintain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but choosing a valid criteria for inclusion will probably change the scope and title of the list dramatically. There must be thousands of 3 year olds who manage homicide throughout history, so "youngest" is out because 1. age doesn't distinguish and 2. there's no way the list won't have massive gaps. But all this to say that the list should be kept only to make it easier to turn it into a valid article one day. Wizmut (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wizmut A new title would be an acceptable WP:ATD. Propose one.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'List of killers aged X or younger' - where is X a number based on what reliable sources find notable. I would guess 13 or 15, but I don't favor pruning before the article has been worked on. Wizmut (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"must be thousands of 3 year olds who manage homicide throughout history" if we're talking about intentional killings, as the scope of this list is currently defined, I would really doubt that. Accidents are not the same and were always excluded from the scope. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What are we doing here? Beyond what fits neat and tidy into Wikipedia policy, some of these so-called killers are still alive. You think people can't figure out who the "Unnamed son of Pauline Randol" is, just because we didn't give out the name? To make such a mistake as murder is terrible either direction - but those who did that while so young should not have some widely-read info as Wikipedia have it all out there for the world to read about. If some of them managed to get their lives back together over the years, Wikipedia has uncovered what they had lived past. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A sort of Wikipedia:Don't be evil argument? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article meets WP:NLIST criteria as there are reliable sources that explicitly discuss and list young killers, making the subject notable and verifiable. Other issues raised can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. The concerns about WP:OR are unfounded, as basic calculations like age ranking are permissible under WP:CALC, and the topic is clearly supported by existing sources. To address WP:BLP concerns, especially regarding recent or living individuals, you can instead propose extended protection/confirmation on this article. DocZach (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While some valid concerns have been posted here, we shouldn't be so quick to throw this entire page down the gutter. I only have two concerns with this page: 1. It can never be truly finished. There are countless minors who have murdered somebody and they are not mentioned here. 2. This page doesn't have strict enough guidelines to ensure no WP:BLP violations. But this is also Wikipedia and it sucks at enforcing it's own rules (for example, Ryan Wesley Routh has a Wikipedia page all about him even though he has not even been convicted of his alleged crime. The page still stands to this very day and no matter how much it's mere existence is a complete violation of Wikipedia's own rules, it remains because we can't reach a consensus on whether we actually care about the rules or not). I'm getting off track, but to address a few other concerns, in a lot of these cases, the minor is either deceased, or was charged as an adult. If the identity of a minor has been provided by the local press of where the killer comes from, then we have every right to mention them by name. There's no reason to hide information relating to children who have been convicted of murder or found liable after they had already passed away. I will however say I fully support purging this page of information on killers who were neither formally convicted of murder (as in found guilty in a Juvenile court), or were just a suspect (e.g. that school shooter in the US state of Georgia, although that suspect is too old to be listed here anyway). After all, this violates WP:BLP. MountainJew6150 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MountainJew6150 With regard to your first issue, lists that can never be finished or "dynamic lists" per WP:LISTTYPES are sometimes OK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PARAKANYAA You are right, but I was mostly talking about how it's a difficult subject to document given that there are probably thousands of people under the age of 13 who have committed murder that simply haven't made it into the news. Dynamic lists are easier to do for subjects that yield more attention than a basic homicide, I mean, in 2021 there were 480,000 murder victims. If just 0.1% of those killers were under the age of 13, then there would need to be 480 killers listed who killed during just that year alone. This list covers a fraction of murders committed by those under the age of 13. With that said, I'm still in full support of keeping this page up as it covers the most notable incidents. MountainJew6150 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A further look at the sources would probably make it easier to determine which age is truly considered unusual from a criminology standpoint for murder. It doesn't have to be 13. I doubt it's as prevalent as that, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all teenage criminals ages from 13 to 17 are to be considered "youngest" killers. Absolutiva (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: I invite anyone looking at this page to join me at Talk:List of youngest killers#List-selection criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 30 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durham, Gibson County, Indiana

edit
Durham, Gibson County, Indiana (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 first in a series of rail spots in Gibson County, this is one of the clearest ones: it originally was the south end of a wye and is now the south end of a passing siding. The houses to the east of the spot didn't come along until around 1960. Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 24 November 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of monospaced typefaces#Iosevka. czar 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iosevka

edit
Iosevka (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 article cites no secondary sources whatsoever, and a preliminary Google search confirms that there is only one news article covering this typeface, and it is in passing. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The search in question, for those curious: https://news.google.com/search?q=iosevka /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of monospaced typefaces. YC comments and GitHub repos don't establish notability, but redirects are cheap. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:14, 26 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_AfDs_closing_today&oldid=1169938010"