Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Purge server cache

Re.press (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)

Article does not meet WP:GNG, sources are comprised of 4 personal blogs, 2 subpages from the subjects website, and 1 post from a defunct small publishers community which contained the subject. No other reliable sources can be found on the subject, and searches only turn up books printed by the subject. CitrusHemlock 23:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's not clear to me why this page exists or how or why it could ever be bought up to WP's standards.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values No It's the organisation's mission statement No It's the company's own marketing material No Lacks the objective overview required to meet the definition of significant No
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values No It's the company's website again No It's too close to the subject No Just a list. No prose. No
https://switchtheplay.com/news/switch-the-play-and-gll-national-news-release/ No It says it's a press release No Press releases are put out by the organisation and are not subject to editorial oversight. No Lacks the critical insights and objectivity required for significant coverage. No
https://www.sportspro.com/insights/analysis/london-2012-olympics-venues-today-london-stadium-velodrome-aquatics-centre/ No Appears to be published by a partner organisation No No discusson of the source's reliablity on RS No Article is about former Olympic venues, not Greenwich Leisure Limited No
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1097435/ No Press release aggregation site. No Little to no editorial oversight. No Appears to discus the company's rebrand but not the actual company or its history. No
https://www.andrewbibby.com/socialenterprise/greenwich-leisure.html No Bibbly is a journalist for hire No Published to journalist website without editorial oversight. ~ Some depth of coverage but it's akin to a press release and clearly primary No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully object to this page being placed suggested for deletion. GLL is notable as one of the UK's larger social enterprises and also runs some of the venues that were used in the 2012 London Olympics, such as the London Aquatics Centre (which has its own Wikipedia page) and is also mentioned on the Zaha Hadid Wikipedia page. There are also quite a number of Olympic and Paralympic medal winners that were supported by GLL's Sport Foundation. I'd like to try and find some independent, impartial secondary sources so the GLL Wikipedia page could meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Could we take it off the list for the time being so I can suggest some changes and then reassess please? Leemann72 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The applicable guideline is WP:NONPROFIT, and it is also noted there is no indication of a WP:BEFORE search done by the nominator. A quick search on ProQuest indicates circa 419 hits for "Greenwich Leisure Limited". Further in-depth analysis would be needed to build an article, but there does seem to be coverage out there including this, in a long standing journal and written by the journal editor. The Guardian newspaper confirms that GLL is the biggest trust in the UK running sports facilities. All told - enough evidence to presume notability under NONPROFIT in my view - even if the article needs lots of work. ResonantDistortion 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have edited further and added more references to hopefully help improve the article. Leemann72 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel it meets Notability Requirements, but it is time to protect the page so only confirmed editors are able to edit the actual article and nonconfirmed editors and paid editors can only make edit requests on the talk page.--VVikingTalkEdits 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with the Guardian sources it probably meets WP:GNG.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 19:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Foufas (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)

Article deleted in 2010, failed PROD in 2021. Sources exist, as added in that PROD of 2021, but article is not nearly notable enough for inclusion. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the source eval for the ones by Oaktree. More input from community is appreciated since the article was PROD'd and AFD'd earlier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thanks to Oaktree b for digging up those sources, but I don't think there's enough for notability - he came out live on air, posted something controversial on Twitter and once had a bad experience with British Airways. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Astaire (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FOK! (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)

Unsourced for over 10 years. An article about a Dutch forum website. Fails WP:NWEB. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Site was, in earlier days of the modern internet, one of the if not the biggest Dutch-language forum, fairly sure I remember it winning the Dutch website-of-the-year in some category or another (probably news or entertainment?) prize at one point, for a while was fairly commonly mentioned and quoted in Dutch news media, had a couple pretty big scandals, and pretty near enough everyone around here in the Netherlands had at least heard of it for one or several of the previous reasons. So it quite probably is notable. That said, it's looking to be pretty hard to prove with actual sigcov in independent sources. Not sure if it's because online searching seems to be getting worse with the year, or because coverage around the time of its peak popularity--late 00s/early 10s, I think--simply no longer is there. Going to look further to see if I can't find some proper sourcing, but not super hopeful based on my initial search. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, did my further searching, and believe I've found enough to justify keeping the article:
Suspect there's more somewhere, but it's taking quite some digging because various older newspaper articles don't seem to be indexed by google, searching for fok.nl crowds the results with subpages of the website, and searching for fok! results in a lot of animal welfare articles because that's the Dutch verb for breeding. (sigh) Still, I think the above are just about enough to demonstrate sufficient notability. AddWittyNameHere 16:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Grill Flame (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)

Seems to fail WP:CORP. The references in this article are largely unacceptable as Non-neutral PR releases. The only others offered and found relate to some kind of legal issues between franchisees and the company, but a proper article cannot be based on only that. I also have concerned around possible UPE due to spammy marketing jargon being introduced and reintroduced into this article. - The literary leader of the age 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woja Emmanuel (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)

two concerns, 1st: Subjects notable only for one event (kidnapping) which covered by one sourced that he worked for, i.e., Eye Radio. 2nd: the main contributor to the article seems to be the person himself as they uploaded 3 different images of the topic of article while claiming they were theirs, see [Woja Emmanuel pictures at commons]. yet the editor did not delcar any conflict of interest, so this article may also falls under Wikipedia:Autobiography. Not to mention multiple instances of failed verification and the use of self-published articles. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article was rejected 4 times as a draft before the editor decided to move it to the main space regardless. Below is the rejection comments:
  1. Self published articles shouldn't be used as reference. Also interviews are also not considered as reliable sources to approve. Add 3 reliable sources per WP:RS. Please see WP:THREE. Evident here
  2. Articles published by the subject and his organizations, as well as interviews can not be used as sources for a BLP and should be removed. Currently it seems that the only claim to notability is being kidnapped, which means that the subject falls under WP:BIO1E and does not qualify for an entry on Wikipedia. At best this belongs in some list of kidnapped journalists in South Sudan, if such list exists. Evident here
  3. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Evident here
  4. Also possible WP:COI at least on photos. Evident here
FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessKenya Group (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 page was edited back in 2012 by the same user who created Invade Agro Limited, and who was blocked for promotional editing. Company does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring this article to AfD. CycloneYoris talk! 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: fails Wikipedia:NCORP Themoonisacheese (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: amazing that it's survived so long. Deb (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I made a lot of edits to the page and improved on it a few years ago. The company is in existence and trades under the name Dimension Data East Africa. Deb and Themoonisacheese are you able to assist in improving the page? It would be great if we continued to collaborate Zotezangu (talk)13:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly don't need articles under both names - a redirect would do. Deb (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to assist in improving the page because i can't find source for any information about it, except for the business records already listed on the page. Business acquisitions do not create notability, so unless there is something notable about this business (that can also be sourced) i don't see how this meets NCORP. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minera Valparaíso (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:NCORP, no sources cited in the article. Created by a sockpuppet, see previous AfD. I don't know if WP:G5 applies anymore since it's over 10 years. Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 25 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! 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Refoogee (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)

Unremarkable television episode with one review (a review of the whole season) and passing references in ratings lists of all TV programs. I don't know how this survived the purge of early episodes of this series. But I do feel sorry for the person who had to write three paragraphs of hidden text to explain the controversy over the season numbers in the infobox. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finances with Wolves (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 plot summary and two excessively quoted reviews (I condensed them), one of which being a review of the whole season. I don't know how this survived what seems to be quite the purge of episodes of this series. I can't find anything at all of relevance on Google search or Google Books to justify an independent page for this episode Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sayyaf (Islamic State leader) (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 seeing any indication that this meets WP:LASTING here. Routine death in long civil war. CutlassCiera 22:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not a routine death in a long civil war. Was a key senior figure how "ISIS became the world's wealthiest terror group." Subject to a number of WP:SIGCOV in the form of multiple in-depth researched profiles testifying to his importance after his death, including in NBC, WSJ, meeting WP:GNG.
Longhornsg (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Was a key senior figure" is not going to cut it in terms of notability. The main concern of no lasting effect is in that coverage cuts off. CutlassCiera 03:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Was" because he's dead. The relevant policy here is WP:NBASIC, which the coverage suffices. WP:LASTING applies to events, not people, anyway. Longhornsg (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Lasting does not apply to people. It is part of the event SNG, and as such does not apply to anything that is not an event. The only people-related guideline would be BIO1E, which does not apply here (many events). PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the article and the coverage, as stated by Oaktree b, is strictly about his death. There isn't any other evidence that he is notable besides his way of death. CutlassCiera 14:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhornsg. There does seem to be sourcing attesting to his importance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game (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)

These teams have met over 70 100 times in their history, of which there is a dedicated Wikipedia article at Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry. There are also articles on both teams: 2024 Texas Longhorns football team and 2024 Texas A&M Aggies football team. No indication that this game is specifically notable or demonstrates continued coverage such that a stand-alone article is warranted. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: FYI, A&M not Tech. Resurrection of one the most storied rivalries in college sports. I'd say it's fairly significant and/or about as significant as a bowl game. Tejano512 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tejano512 To be fair, Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry is linked in the lead. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I got the rivalry link from the article—I just corrected it both above and in the article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete or merge with Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry. This game in and of itself is not notable and the article makes very few claims to notability, many of which are borderline WP:OR (was one of the most memorable games in the two teams' rivalry (unsourced), The 2024 matchup reignited one of college football's most storied rivalries (given without attribution), etc. Large chunks of the article are also unsourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NEED. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: I would argue that the "Legacy" section of the article is undue at this point in the time. The game doesn't have a legacy - it happened nine days ago. In addition, the content in that section (and many others) is not sourced, and makes no real claim to notability in the first place (other than "they didn't play for a bit, and then they played again"). As far as the content in the Legacy section goes, the first sentence is OR and commentary on the rivalry itself, the second just mentions the result and adds some OR/commentary onto that, and the third just mentions that it was the most-watched game in the series's history (which doesn't say much considering I would assume streaming and broadcast access is greater now than at any point in the history of the series) and that an attendance record was broken, which is neat but ultimately not unique. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others (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)

Very run-off-the-mill legal case. Employer was found partially guilty with most charges dismissed. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT as a 4. Routine kind of news event. For context, this used to be a BLP article about a non-notable person, which was just renamed in this case as a result of a separate AfD. Following that and removal of a lot of non-legal case puffery, it has become clear how routine the case is. Some people in the other AfD used WP:CRYSTALBALL with regards to why they claimed the BLP or legal case was notable, which swayed the closing admin in moving it to the case, but now sans the puffery, it's pretty clear that the case does not appear notable, other than routine coverage that any legal case, especially one in hot-button topics gets and with most of the case charges having been dismissed, it's unlikely it will set any kind of precedent, which until proven to do so is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Raladic (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would delete this article as covering a non-notable legal case, but it appears likely that Garden Court Chambers (the losing defendant in the case) is a notable law firm, and this decision is a noteworthy event with respect to the firm. I would therefore suggest creating an article on the firm, including the case as a section, and redirecting there. BD2412 T 21:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that the press coverage shown by the citations makes this case particularly notable, and not just run-of-the-mill. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor you may not be familiar with our policies, but press coverage of routine events does not confer notability as cited in the nomination per WP:EVENTCRITERIA: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Raladic (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to this FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FLIPPINGOUT:This case is not a routine kind of news event. It was one of the first legal cases to use the precedent set by the case of Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe and it involves the well-known organisation, Stonewall (charity). Leave has been granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so whichever way the appeal goes, it will set a precedent. It is the opposite of a routine case. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That just shows that the Forstater case may have notability, please note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so it doesn't go the other way around. This is a very common fallacy at AfD. As for Stonewall, all claims against them were dismissed, so a "yup, they didn't do anything wrong" is definitely not news/notability. As for your claim about some additional court of appeal, beyond the one that already dismissed the case, there is absolutely no reliable coverage on such a thing existing, other than editors claiming of its existence, so again, please keep the WP:CRYSTAL out of AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Some additional court of appeal' is the Court of Appeal (England and Wales). The previous appeal was heard by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no reliable sources supporting this, so again, please keep the WP:CRYSTAL out of this AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it is going to the Court of Appeal isn't WP:CRYSTAL. We have a WP:RS that it is, it is WP:PRIMARY, but absolutely valid to use for straightforward statement that the Case has become an Appeal and was Allowed on 25-Nov-2024 and that its status is Hear By 01-Dec-2025. Void if removed (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legal cases get appealed all the time, that doesn't make them notable. Since zero RS have talked about it, the current presumption is it's not worth their time as just another run-off-the-mill appeal. Which means right now giving it any kind of notability is the definition of crystalball. Raladic (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insisting that a legal case is a "routine event" does not make it so. Wikipedia has long-standing definitions for what types of events are normally considered routine. According to WP:ROUTINE, routine events include announcements, scheduled events, wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences. According to WP:NOTROUTINE, routine events include weddings, funerals, sports scores, and other "and finally..." stories According to WP:EVENTCRIT, routine events include most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena. None of this applies to a legal case that received in-depth coverage in all of the UK's most reliable newspapers. Astaire (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS - our notability standard is not whether the national media infrastructure most regularly criticized for over-playing anti-trans narratives made a temporary cause celebre of a case that did not establish any new precedent or do much of anything at all for any of the parties involved. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for citing WP:NOTNEWS, which provides yet another definition of "routine" to illustrate my point: routine news is coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, none of which applies here. Your opinion that the UK press covered this case "too much" is just that - an opinion that goes against WP:RSP consensus. Astaire (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing that literally any court case that gets media coverage requires a page on Wikipedia? Because that is effectively what your comments imply. And I'd say that lots of people would prefer to avoid Wikipedia being a compendium of endless pointless civil suits. Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Why are you retrying this mere hours after the previous discussion closed? The closer found consensus to keep and rename the article and called it a notable legal case, so you are deliberately ignoring consensus from the last discussion. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and try again in WP:6MONTHS. Astaire (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as closer of the previous discussion. This is not a routine legal case, but has precedential importance in that it seems to be the first case in English employment law that determined that "gender-critical" or "anti-trans" views are a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and that therefore someone can't be fired for expressing such views.
The importance of the case in this respect is highlighted e.g. by the following selection from among the numerous articles and blog posts about the case by British law firms and legal professionals: [7], [8], [9] [10], [11].
Moreover, the case attracted in-depth coverage by mainstream media, making it notable, e.g. by the BBC and The Guardian, which notes: "With its own dedicated (unofficial) Twitter account and people following proceedings daily live via video, the unlawful discrimination case brought by barrister Allison Bailey against her chambers Garden Court and Stonewall has seen levels of engagement rare for an employment tribunal." This makes it clear that this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case. Sandstein 09:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, this case was not the one that determined that gender critical was a philosophical belief (not a protected characteristic), that was the Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe case.
Lots of people get confused by the fact that whilst gender critical was found to be a philosophical belief that is protected under the equality act, it's protected in the same way supporting a football club would be. It is not protected in the same way as the 9 protected characteristics set out in the act. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inf: The case which established the precedent that ‘gender-critical’ philosophical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 was actually Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe. The Bailey case is legally significant firstly because it is one of the first cases where this precedent was applied – the grounds for the claim were amended to include the philosophical belief during the course of the claim, after the precedent was established by Forstater. Secondly, the Bailey case is legally significant because it includes a claim under section 111 of the Equality Act that a party caused or induced another to discriminate: the claim is that Stonewall caused or induced Garden Court Chambers to discriminate against Bailey. Bailey lost this claim in the employment tribunal, and at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. So currently her case is a precedent about what constitutes causing/inducing to discriminate. She has announced on her website that she has obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. There is no reason to doubt her statement, but it has not been included in the article because it has not yet been reported by secondary sources. When the case is heard by the Court of Appeal, that judgment will become a precedent, whether she wins or loses. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand LunaHasArrived’s comment about a football club. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make (although rather badly on further reading) was that gender critical beliefs aren't one of the 9 protected characteristics, just that they're covered by one of them and that lots of stuff is covered by philosophical belief (the ehrc's website uses the example of someone trying reducing their effect on climate change.)
I have to say your insistence on the fact that the court of appeals case will be legally notable and that the original case was legally significant (for it's use of the Forstater judgement) do not seem to be backed up by secondary rs and seem to be your own opinion. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your close of the previous AfD about the BLP and your reasoning for the move was thus made in error as the case did not set precedent as was explained above by Luna now. In light of all this. Do you want to vacate your AfD ruling that appears to have been made in error? Raladic (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because my previous AfD closure was based on the consensus view in that discussion, and not, as here, on the basis of my own since-formed views about the importance of the case. Moreover, irrespective of its precedential value (which seems to be not substantially contested), for the reasons explained above, it is certainly notable because of the breadth and depth of coverage it has received in reliable sources. Sandstein 17:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there has been breadth of coverage in the UK media (and effectively just the UK media) there's no indication of depth I've seen. It's all puffery. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per prior discussion. Nothing has changed in the last 24 hours.
Void if removed (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the frustration here. In any sane world this would indeed be a very run-of-the-mill case but this is not a sane world. This has been hyped up into a cause célèbre and that is one of the things that makes it notable. We need to cover it, and the media circus around it, taking care not to get any of the clown paint on ourselves by buying into the hype. That's not easy to do. Sober coverage of this is hard to come by. Even nominally Reliable Sources write about this with little regard for accuracy (and that's putting it politely). It doesn't help that Bailey herself simultaneously tries to spin this as a great victory from which she emerged vindicated and also as an outrageous injustice that must be repeatedly appealed before she gets justice. It's never going to be an easy article. We can only do our best. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oluwole Aderogba Olaniyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:PROF. While one might argue for notability under criterion 3 of academics' notability, the membership requirements for corporate members of the NSE indicate that this does not establish sufficient merit for notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, out of all the citations, only two of them aren't just the subject's publications, and those two sources only talk about him in the context of his position, which does not make him notable.
If someone can find a source that shows him as having achieved other notable things, along with a more interesting biography, I will gladly retract this vote. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055 I think you are only focusing on the 'prof.' aspect. However, this subject is a "member of a highly selective and prestigious association" which is COREN. This is stated in the article with the right citations and with some of the subject's research works. I believe we should discuss how to improve the article instead of deletion. Opyquad (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Opyquad are these the Guidelines for the membership requirements of the "highly selective and prestigious association?" Or there is another one that I am yet to see. I have performed WP: Before, there is no reliable and independent source that can establish either Notability for academics or general notability guideline. Thank you Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055 It seems we are not on the same page. I never quoted COREN guideline in my earlier response. My point is that the subject is a researcher in the field of structure and materials and has co-published several researched papers in his field.
I can't be the judge in this case. As such, I'm leaving the decision for you and other experienced editors than me whether to delete the article or leave the page for improvement. Based on @Malcous recommendation and the disclosure guideline, I have left a disclosure on the talk page. Thank you. Opyquad (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beehunter, 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)

This is plainly a rail point, formerly a crossover/junction and more recently a rather odd pair of junctions. The only road in the area actually swerves to avoid the spot, and the only building is in the middle of the junction; I would gather it was once the "tower" but it's impossible to tell. I did find some explicit reference to it as a rail station/junction but other references are to the marsh or to a potential archaeological site, or to local mining activity, npne of which are not in this immediate vicinity. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — I’m not sure I agree with nominator’s reasoning, as it seems to be skirting the edges of WP:OR territory. That said, I am also struggling to see how a single article from 1970 qualifies the junction for notability, particularly after glancing at the criteria set-forth by WP:NTRAINSTATION. MWFwiki (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Nicholls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable producer, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Previous AFD in 2010 ended in Keep but editors there provided no proof of significant coverage either. Sources provided and found in Google are mere mentions of subject, while the series produced are certainly notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is not eligible for a Soft Deletion outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15.ai (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 due to a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Despite extensive attempts to find sources the only notable sources seem to be a flurry of mentions stemming from a Kotaku Odds and Ends article [14] or a controversy involving Troy Baker and Voiceverse. All other sources about 15.ai are either self-published or unreliable. [15] Brocade River Poems (She/They) 19:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weighing in as non-editor here— I'm surprised to see this page up for deletion? 15.ai was certainly a big deal for some online communities (TF2 and MLP are the ones I'm aware of), and a quick search on YouTube makes it clear that it's notable. Deleting this page would just make information about 15 less accessible to the public than it already is. 2backslashes (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)2backslashes (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock Strike[reply]
Comment: I apologise if my involvement in this article voids my comment, but I believe it worth mentioning that it seems that the creator of 15[dot]ai is requesting for news coverage regarding the site's creation, meaning that Wikipedia:Notability criteria could fluctuate during this discussion. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solicited coverage by the creator will not be independent. It will not count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the author of the coverage is performing their own research(i.e not regurgitating the creator's words) and they are not paid for covering the work, I do not see how the resulting coverage would be considered non-independent. Ca talk to me! 09:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creator writes Also, if anyone can get me in contact with reputable journalists or news outlets so I can write down the detailed behind-the-scenes of http://15.ai, that would be much appreciated. - So the creator is seeking to place content they have written, presumably in the form of a press release. That is not independent. News articles predicated on an approach from the creator, and regurgitating material written by the creator are certainly not independent. Hypothetical questions beyond that would have to wait for any actual coverage, and nothing can be said about hypothetical analysis that has not yet been done. There is no indication here that any such analysis is being done. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm very surprised to see it being nominated for deletion for a second time even though it was previously decided that the subject met GNG. The subject has been in the news cycle for more than one event. The first time was when it was first unveiled to the public in early 2020 (The Batch). The second time was when it went extremely viral on Twitter (Kotaku, Game Informer, etc. covers this). The third time was when a company Troy Baker partnered with plagiarized 15.ai's work and went viral on Twitter again. (NME, Eurogamer, etc. cover this) Thus, the conditions for WP:BLP1E are not met. WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply here. I copied over the table from the last deletion nomination.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[[16]] Yes Yes Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS: "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable" Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact Yes
[[17]] Yes Yes Game Informer is in WP:VG/RS Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact Yes
[[18]] Yes Yes PC Gamer is in WP:VG/RS Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact Yes
[[19]] Yes Yes Rock, Paper, Shotgun is in WP:VG/RS Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact Yes
[[20]] Yes Yes Den Fami Nico Gamer is in WP:VG/RS Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact Yes
[[21]] Yes Yes AUTOMATON was considered to be reliable in a previous noticeboard post. Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact Yes
[[22]] Yes Yes The Batch is the newsletter personally written by Andrew Ng, one of the most prominent authors in modern AI: [23]. Per WP:ExpertSPS this source is reliable. Yes The referenced article is about the subject and its functionality (first time 15.ai became popular in early 2020). The newsletter has a section on 15.ai, and per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Yes
[[24]] Yes Yes NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music and gaming. Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. It also covers the Voiceverse controversy and 15.ai's role in it. It wasn't a mere mention of 15.ai, but included a description of what 15.ai is, multiple quotes from 15.ai, and discussed how the plagiarism was discovered. Yes
[[25]] Yes Yes Eurogamer is in WP:VG/RS Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. It also covers the Voiceverse controversy and 15.ai's role in it. Again, not a mere trivial mention of 15.ai, but included a description of what 15.ai, multiple quotes from 15.ai, and the whole Twitter interaction that went viral. Yes
[[26]] Yes Yes LaPS4 is reliable and independent, especially in Spanish-speaking gaming communities (used in many Spanish Wikipedia gaming pages: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=laps4&title=Especial%3ABuscar&ns0=1&ns100=1&ns104=1). Plus, the author (Jose Villalobos) is still writing for LaPS4 ([27]), so there's no concern for pay for play. Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[[28]] Yes Yes Stevivor is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region. While there is no previous consensus on the reliability of Stevivor, the author (Steve Wright) is still writing for Stevivor ([29]) and has hundreds of reviews on OpenCritic ([30]), so there's no concern for pay for play. Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact Yes
[[31]] Yes ? In a previous archive, it was determined that the usage of WCCFTech is situational due to concerns of pay for play, but in this case the author (Ule Lopez) has been an active writer for a very long time, and is still active today ([32]). Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail. It also covers the Voiceverse controversy and 15.ai's role in it. ? Unknown
[[33]] Yes ? Unknown reliability, though the author has written about other AI-related topics (e.g. [34]) Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its impact ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Aside from these, there are plenty of tech blog posts about the subject, including some from well-known players in the voice AI space. They might not be as reliable as the sources above, but they still indicate notability in the voice AI space. (see ElevenLabs: [35], Speechify: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin: GregariousMadness (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  • Delete: Sources 1 and 2 are brief stories about this app, that you can use to make a game character say silly/whatever you want things... Rest aren't in RS. "Look at this cool app we found!" seems to be the crux of their reviews. Then we get down into the weeds over NFT sillyness and other items involving this site. I don't think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There hasn't even been any substantial sourcing since the last AfD in January 2023 that's come up.... "15 alternatives to this site" don't show n notability, reads more as clickbait and important coverage. None of the sources published/used for sourcing since the last AfD show any improvement over the sourcing we found last time 'round. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But why would that matter? Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." I made a source assessment table that provides coverage beyond the two sources listed in the OP. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think it was notable last time and this doesn't improve it. Agree to disagree I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are numerous problems with this source assesment table, including a misapplication of the Kotaku source. Again, the VGRS says News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance emphasis added. Notably, whenever the Kotaku source comes up everyone who mentions VGRS conveniently cuts off the second half of it. Kotaku's article about 15.ai isn't tagged as News, it's tagged as "Odds and Ends", which is precisely the sort of "blog/geeky posts" that editors are cautioned about as you can see here. [41]. Meanwhile, of the other sources listed the following sources all reference the Kotaku article [42][43][44][45][46]. All of the news sources, including the one Japanese site and Spanish that doesn't explicitly mention Kotaku, are from a range of dates between January 17, 2021 to January 19, 2021, and after the Kotaku article. Despite insistence by multiple editors that 15.ai is of ground breaking importance to the realm of AI Voice Synthesis, there hasn't been a single reliable, independently published source provided to substantiate the claim. Other websites which are being used use as Elevenlabs and Speechify appear to have simply cannibalized the Wikipedia article for 15.ai for their website, with Speechify using wordage verbatim from the old Wikipedia article, and making minor changes. Per WP:REFLOOP Wikipedia cannot use sources which heavily relied upon Wikipedia. You were also told that Andrew Ng's The Batch or other self-published sources do not contribute to GNG. [47], yet you have checkmarked it as doing so. Even as a WP:EXPERTSPS editors are still cautioned if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Likewise, NME is considered reliable within its expertise, which is music. [48]. You are ignoring WP:RSCONTEXT and using a consensus that NME was reliable for BLP information about a musician as a sign that it's reliable for an article about Artificial Intelligence. Moreover, the NME Source is about the controversy that was a flashpan incident, it does not represent WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability emphasis added. There is no demonstrably WP:SIGCOV.
AfD Abuse
Regarding that notability isn't temporary, I note here that the previous AfD for this article was interfered with [49][50][51][52] by a bevy of WP:SPA. The article itself was heavily edited by someone who continues, as of last week, to abuse multiple accounts for the sake of editing 15.ai [53][54]. With the revelation of the persistent multiple account abuse, the votes of HackerKnownAs and SirGallanthThe4th in the original AfD brings the number of improper votes to keep up to at least 6 [55]. Discounting the suspicious votes and the votes from the confirmed sock accounts, there is no real clear consensus on the notability of 15.ai, and that factored in my decision to bring the article to AfD again. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, for the sake of clarity, I'll provide a handy-dandy table as well for evaluating the sources and for why I nominated this article as failing GNG.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[[56]] Yes ? Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS: "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable", however WP:VG/RS cautions against "Geeky/Blog" posts. Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section is not their News section. No The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject. No
[[57]] Yes Yes Game Informer is in WP:VG/RS No The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, references back to the Kotaku article. No
[[58]] Yes Yes PC Gamer is in WP:VG/RS No The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, references back to the Kotaku article. No
[[59]] Yes Yes Rock, Paper, Shotgun is in WP:VG/RS No The referenced article does not provide significant coverage of the subject, references back to the Kotaku article. No
[[60]] Yes Yes Den Fami Nico Gamer' is in WP:VG/RS Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact Yes
[[61]] Yes ? AUTOMATON was considered reliable by what was probably only a drive-by/sock [62] Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact ? Unknown
[[63]] No The article indicates some sort of direct contact with the creator as it says "In an email to The Batch, the coder declined to disclose details about how the model works but said it was inspired by the 2019 paper that pioneered transfer learning for text-to-speech models" Yes The Batch is the newsletter personally written by Andrew Ng, one of the most prominent authors in modern AI: [64]. Per WP:ExpertSPS this source is reliable. ? The mention of 15.ai is a small blurb in an otherwise long newsletter. The newsletter has a section on 15.ai, and per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Even in the section for 15.ai, half of the words are not about 15.ai directly, but the technology behind it. No
[[65]] Yes ? NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which was specifically said to be music in the discussion.[66] No The source discussed the creator of 15.ai's response, but says very little about the webapp itself. The entire coverage of the webapp is "Voiceverse was found to have been using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character, but it was actually taken from 15.ai – a non-commercial text-to-speech service." and "It was found that log files show that Voiceverse used the service for an AI-powered voice to be sold as an NFT". No
[67]] Yes Yes Eurogamer is in WP:VG/RS No The source discussed the creator of 15.ai's response, but says very little about the webapp itself. The entire coverage of the webapp is "Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service.Unlike Voiceverse NFT, 15.ai is free to use and play around with. Using just 15 seconds of voice samples from various fictional characters, its tech lets you type in text and get, say, David Tennant's Tenth Doctor or Glados from Portal to read out what you wrote." No
[[68]]
Yes ? LaPS4 is unknown, I cannot find a single RSN discussion about it, and usage on different Wiki's is not indicative of suitability for inclusion on ENWiki. However, LaPS4 has no identifiable editorial board and a survey of 10+ recent articles show them all written by Jose Villalobos. Prior to 2018, there seems to have been more staff [69] but is gone by June 2018 [70] and it was confirmed in March of 2018 that the ownership had changed [71]. While the new owners had an editorial board, they no longer actually own LaPS4.com, and there is no indication of an editorial board in 2021[72]. As for its usage on the Spanish Wikipedia, one [73] usage for PS2 Sales itself cites Wikipedia. Notably, LaPS4's article was deleted on the SpanishWiki for being irrelevant and promotional [74] Yes The referenced article is about the subject, its functionality, and its overseas impact ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Repeating what was stated last time it was nommed for deletion. Per User:Elmidae, "However, basic notability is not in question - these four mainstream game magazine articles [75][76][77][78] already form a sufficient backbone for that." Kotaku is only quickly mentioned in each one and the coverage is way more than a "flurry of mentions".
Otherwise, the app was one of the biggest happenings in speech synthesis in the early 2020s and took social media by storm as it proved that voice cloning with a small amount of data was possible. Personally speaking, it's so important enough that if former competitors of 15.ai (11labs and Speechify) are still saying the app was one of the biggest things to happen to AI voice cloning years after it went offline, it must be true. Tacotron2 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Tacotron2 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Why did the OP mark me as an SPA? That I made few or no edits outside 15.ai is false. My edits have been about AI speech, which is a broad topic of interest. Per WP:SPATG my vote should never have been tagged. Tacotron2 (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said in the other thread, I found this deletion page because there's a giant, hard to miss red box at the top of the 15.ai page that says it's going to be deleted. Like the last time I found the deletion page. My name is literally the name of the algorithm that inspired the 15.ai TTS, of course I'm going to argue against its deletion. Tacotron2 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general test for SPA:
A user who appears to focus their edits on a particular article or related set of articles in a way which may cause other users to question whether that person's edits are neutral and are reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas.
You have answered your own question:
My name is literally the name of the algorithm that inspired the 15.ai TTSS
See also [79] [80][81][82][83]
A significant amount of your edits all revolve around 15.ai. You made a number of minor edits adding artifical intelligence tags to articles besides that. Everything else is related to 15.ai and the underlying technology of 15.ai. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Re; the announcement above. Before you ask, no, no one asked me to vote on this. I found this myself because I was watching a YouTube video about this topic and made an account minutes ago so I can throw in my opinion. After reading through the arguments, 15ai is more than notable enough for inclusion. Multiple reliable gaming publications (PC Gamer, Game Informer, Rock Paper Shotgun) goes much beyond referencing Kotaku. And further coverage spans multiple important events with its initial viral success and the later NFT controversy. Also, just because someone uses a new account doesn't mean that their opinion shouldn't be heard. Iliketrains125 (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Iliketrains125 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock Strike[reply]
Comment: It's funny how articles like Speechify linked at the top that's way less known and has way worse problems is allowed to stay but apparently not this one by the way. Iliketrains125 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Iliketrains125 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock Strike[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed to stay", as it was never nominated for deletion. Procyon117 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Speechify article isn't great, GNG doesn't require the sources to be presently used in the article, only that the sources exist. As I did a search for Speechify, I found an academic book (which I have added to the article) that discusses its applicability in helping students with dyslexia develop reading comprehension. Conversely, 15.ai has flashpan news coverage of a controversy involving VoiceVerse and some minor coverage stemming from a Kotaku Odds and Ends article. PC Gamer, Game Informer, and Rock Paper Shotgun all make clear reference to the original Kotaku article, which is a good enough signal that they only know about it because of the Kotaku article. Again, there is an utter lack of WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage around 15.ai. The GameInformer piece reads As Kotaku noted when writer Zack Zwiezen also shared this app, the PC Gamer Reads Spotted by Kotaku over the weekend, 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun ends their article with Ta, Kotaku with the Kotaku being a hyperlink to the Kotaku article about 15.ai Brocade River Poems (She/They) 20:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire argument hinges on the fact that three otherwise RS articles referenced Kotaku in a single sentence, so they're all immediately invalid? That's exactly how news spreads. People find out about something from another source, and they're free to do their own analysis — that's exactly what those articles do. Throwing out all of these sources because they don't conform to your arbitrary criteria makes no sense. Tacotron2 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not Brocade River Rooms' criteria. They are Wikipedia's criteria. Whether that's how news spreads or not is very well and good, but that has nothing to do with the black-letter guidance on Wikipedia articles. If you do not understand this, you need to review the relevant notability policies and guidelines. Ravenswing 20:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:WEBCRIT. The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 65.74.159.44 (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#If_the_content_is_not_notable Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to note that the IP is flagged by Proxy Check as a VPN/Proxy [84], from the organization BrowserStack with a fraud score of 95. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG through sustained coverage across multiple events (2020 launch, 2021 viral spread, 2022 NFT controversy) in reliable gaming and tech publications like PC Gamer, Game Informer, Eurogamer, and NME. Sources provide independent analyses of its capabilities and spread through the Internet, not just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. While some coverage stems from an initial Kotaku piece, there is sufficient independent in-depth coverage to establish notability.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Madeleine961 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious about the supposed coverage from 2020, because the only sources from 2020 utilized currently on the article are Andrew Ng's The Batch, which was explicitly noted does not count for notability. [85], Gwern, which is likewise a self-published source and would consequently not count toward WP:GNG, and Equestria Dail, which is only considered reliable for stuff from the show's production crew only [86][87]. Given how new you are to Wikipedia and AfD in general, you should probably be aware that Self-Published Sources do not count toward notability. If you have coverage from reliable sources for 2020, by all means, provide it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:180.129.92.142, a user who has been accusing editors — who voted Keep in this AfD, like me — of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HackerKnownAs), has been found to be part of a sock ring with User:Ltbdl, a now-blocked user who had previously vandalized the 15.ai article. they are now blocked due to persistent vandalism. This edit from the now-blocked sockpuppet [88] is concerning, where the blocked editor expresses full support of User:BrocadeRiverPoems's edits no matter how contentious. The sockpuppet accusations toward me and others were opened by User:BrocadeRiverPoems, who is the creator of this AfD and has been arguing against every dissenting comment. She has also tagged me as an SPA even though I should have never done so per WP:SPATG.
Something smells fishy about this and suggests that her edits of the 15.ai article and her raising it to RFC and AfD weren't in good faith. Tacotron2 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for this discussion. If you want to accuse me of something, use the appropriate venue. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. This comment is very relevant for the admins in their assessment of this AfD, especially since you are the one throwing accusations, calling me a sock and an SPA immediately after I made my post in this very AfD.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ I'll make a post about this interaction in other admin channels after this AfD is resolved. Tacotron2 (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)​​[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG per BrocadeRiverPoems' sourcing analysis. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD is a mess (SPAs, socks, etc.), but based on the source assessment above, I'm !voting delete. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 11:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As with other editors, I find the sourcing analysis by the nom sound, and that this ephemeral site fails the GNG. Ref bombing ≠ SIGCOV. Self-published sources ≠ SIGCOV. That the site was allegedly "big on online communities" ≠ SIGCOV. That one purportedly finds mentions on social media ≠ SIGCOV. I'm also desperately unimpressed by the wave of sockpuppets and SPAs who "just happened" to find this AfD or "just happened" to see something on social media indicating that it was at threat, and I hope the closing admin takes this into consideration. Ravenswing 11:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but how are you so sure the Keep votes are socks? The only proven evidence of sockpuppetry was from an account that had been unanimously agreeing with Brocade [89], and the only accusations of sockpuppetry levied against me and others in this AfD have been inconclusive or on hold. Tacotron2 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, the sources presented are a mix of non-RS, and one or two RS's that are not SIGCOV. And yeah the socks are obvious. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the source assessment table presented by the nominator, which I have reviewed and agree with. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are six keep !votes in this AfD but those 6 editors have a grand combined total of 424 edits between them. There is no need to doubt their good faith, but it seems evident that there is a lack of experience being represented here. Oaktree b's source analysis is correct, as is the more careful analysis by Brocade River Poems. There is evident confusion about what constitutes a reliable source, and also clear confusion as to what amounts to SIGCOV. The purpose of GNG is not a tick box exercise of finding a mention and then an article is in. We need secondary sources from which an article about the subject can be written. Significant coverage is necessary to give us something to write, and we do not have those sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm confused by where all these delete votes came from in the span of an hour, I'm just as confused as the claim that secondary sources from which an article can be written don't exist. Why do the Game Informer, PC Gamer, and Rock Paper Scissor articles not count as valid sources? Tacotron2 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot answer for the others, but I have been watching this AfD from the start, and it is often the case that when someone posts on an AfD, it lights up in my watchlist, reminding me to !vote. Additionally, I have been trying to reply since I saw Counterfeit Purses !vote earlier, but owing to a storm, my power was out and I too was surprised that there were now 3 other delete !votes when I got my WiFi back on, but I suspect the process for those is much the same. Now then, you ask why those three sources are not counted by me and others? See the source analysis by Brocade River Poems and Oaktree b. These are not significant coverage which should be coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. A paragraph that tells us what 15.ai does is not significant coverage. If you look at what I said, I covered this point. We need secondary sources from which an article about the subject can be written. Significant coverage is necessary to give us something to write, and we do not have those sources. "Look at this cool app" does not cut it (per Oaktree b). HTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, agree to disagree. I'm hoping that other editors can chime in too. Tacotron2 (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here from the ANI on User:RocketKnightX's disruptive removal of the afd notice. Also Tacotron2, you were warned about canvassing] others [90] and responded by canvassing more people [91]. Please don't canvass editors to the afd. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I actually didn't see that message, that's my bad. But I thought asking people who were involved in some form of contribution wasn't canvassing if it was done on Wikipedia? Tacotron2 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. Like Lavalizard (and likely some of the others), I too came as a result of the ANI filing. The six editors who came in with Deletes have over 200,000 edits between them, and nearly seventy years of combined service on Wikipedia; we cannot remotely be compared to a handful of canvassed SPAs and socks. (For that matter, I personally have contributed to several hundred AfDs.) Two things beyond that: first off, if you're confused as to the requirements of WP:CANVASS, read the policy. Secondly, you can disagree with the requirements of WP:SIGCOV all you please, but they apply all the same. Casual mentions and namedrops are explicitly debarred from contributing towards the notability of a subject. Full stop. Ravenswing 20:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I realized that I asked the wrong person to chime in because they proceeded to vandalize the page, but I didn't know that they would do something like that. I apologize for the unintentional canvassing because I was told at some point that asking people to help chime in on an AfD was a good idea, but my mistake doesn't negate the points others have made. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The evidence given for delete is convincing and aligns with personal research I attempted to do when this article was in the WP:DRN. I feel personally though that WP:GNG is a weak reason for deletion, but the evidence for this reason is substancial. Thought 1915 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Full disclosure, I was the person that was "canvassed", but I don't believe it was WP:INAPPNOTE: neither I nor the other person who posted in the AUTOMATON notice voted in the 15.ai AfD, so it doesn't fall under vote-stacking. Another full disclosure, because I see that the rest of the AfD has been filled with claims of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, IP editing, SPA, suspicious vote timings, etc.: I am normally an IP editor that I use on my main machine, and I have this account logged in for lurking, which is why it says I only have seven edits under my belt. (This is allowed per the security and privacy clauses of WP:SOCKLEGIT). I am here because I was notified on my talk page to provide some insight into the AfD. Another full disclosure: I have voted on a page similar to 15.ai, in which I voted in favor of delete. You can see my diff on NovelAI here. [92].

Now, that being said, let's jump into this AfD. Probably the main point of contention is whether the four articles for 15.ai demonstrate significant coverage. According to WP:SIGCOV, ""significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I'm going to go through the three sources that have been deemed to not meet SIGCOV per the above source analysis. Let's start with PC Gamer. I'm going to outline parts of the article that addresses the topic directly and in detail, plus original analysis of the subject that shows that it didn't outright copy material from Kotaku, which as of right now is of uncertain reliability.
  • PC Gamer: The article, as usual, begins with describing 15.ai and its popularity on Twitter. It's all very fascinating to read about, from its use "deepmoji" systems to assign emotions to the way the algorithm scrapes the internet for online slang. But all you need to know is this: type in a line or two, pick a character, and the system will swiftly deliver a generated clip of, I don't know, the TF2 Heavy replacing a former US president in Home Alone 2.. This quote from the article describes the usage of DeepMoji in 15.ai's TTS system, which, importantly, is never mentioned in Kotaku. This meets significant coverage.
  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun: The article, as usual, begins with describing 15.ai and its popularity on Twitter. Aside from the TF2 crew, you can also take Portal's robots GLaDOS, Wheatley, and the Sentry Turret for a spin. Oddly, Undertale characters are available too but I didn't think that they—oh, that's the joke. Gordon Freeman's in there too. Go on. Try to make him talk. This quote from the article describes the variety in 15.ai's character selection, but notably, it mentions a number of characters that were never mentioned in Kotaku, as well as describes the "joke" in the inclusion of Gordon Freeman's "voice". This is original analysis done by the article that wasn't present in Kotaku. This meets significant coverage.
  • Game Informer: The article, as usual, begins with describing 15.ai and its popularity on Twitter. The full list of characters to draw from is fairly extensive, including Spongebob from the Nickelodeon show, several major characters from My Little Pony, Daria and Jane from MTV's Daria, and so much more. You can also mess with that wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff thanks to the Tenth Doctor's voice modulation from BBC's cult classic Doctor Who. Here, again, Game Informer shows off the variety of characters, and importantly, mentions The Doctor from Doctor Who and Daria and Jane from Daria, neither of which are mentioned in any of the previous sources. This shows that these three articles didn't simply copy over the Kotaku article.
So, to recap, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Do the above three articles address the topic directly and in detail? That 15.ai is the topic of the articles is clear; the whole article is about the app! Now, the point of contention arises from the wording in detail; and this is where I also believe that they do. While the Kotaku article is probably not reliable, all of PC Gamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and Game Informer offer new bits of information that was never present in the original Kotaku article that they refer to. While the Kotaku article may serve as a catalyst or inspiration for their coverage, PC Gamer, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and Game Informer each introduce new insights, context, and analysis that were absent in the original Kotaku article. They describe unique aspects of 15.ai, such as its technological underpinnings, its varied character roster, and its use of AI systems like DeepMoji, which all serve to add depth and original content to their reporting in detail.
The characterization of the debated articles as nothing more than "Hey, check out this cool app!" doesn't do it justice. If they really wanted a fluff piece on 15.ai just to boost their view count, then they could have copied over what Kotaku wrote and called it a day. What's particularly important to note is that these three articles aren't merely rehashing the Kotaku piece. For instance, PC Gamer mentions how the DeepMoji system interacts with 15.ai’s TTS architecture. Rock, Paper, Shotgun highlights the humor and depth in the app’s character selection, with original commentary on the inclusion of Gordon Freeman’s "voice." Similarly, Game Informer dives into the wide variety of characters, introducing examples like Doctor Who's Tenth Doctor and Daria's protagonists, which are not mentioned in Kotaku.
Now, we haven't even gotten to the point that I was asked about in the first place. AUTOMATON MEDIA. As someone who's lived in Tokyo for three years and had a huge interest in Japan's gaming and tech culture, it's quite a respectable source in Japan, they've been around for a long time, established over a decade ago, and it's been used many times in JP-language Wikipedia. They even have an article for the site. Japan Wikipedia: [93] and English Wikipedia as Active_Gaming_Media It's not as big as Den Fami Nico Gamer, which is already in VG/RS, but if someone were to ask to add AUTOMATON as VG/RS, it would almost certainly get accepted. If Den Fami Nico Gamer is New York Times, then... AUTOMATON MEDIA might be something like The Boston Globe, if that makes any sense? (Both are reliable but one's smaller and less known, that's what I'm getting at.)
All this to say, I'm voting Keep, but not by a huge margin. If 15.ai was a corporation, then I would probably vote delete as I did with NovelAI, since the criteria for WP:NCORP are much stricter. But for an indie website that took the Internet by surprise in the early days of voice AI, I think this meets WP:WEBCRIT (but just barely). Thanks for reading my essay.
PS: To note, the creator of 15.ai did just post about the future of 15.ai on his mostly inactive Twitter just a few hours ago that gives a lot more detail on 15.ai ([94]), so could that have possibly started the flurry of edits? Not sure. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that UnstableDiffusion (talkcontribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Per WP:WEBCRIT webcontent should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. followed by except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site
The crux of the issue, for me, is the such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site. It fails WP:WEBCRIT and it failed WP:GNG. A brief summary of the nature of the content is all the most reliable sources provided for the website provides. Further, WP:NWEB says Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline. Even if we generously say that the content of the most reliable sources (the gaming media) does surpass trivial mentions per WEBCRIT, it says that Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content...for which, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content.
What do the sources actually say about 15.ai itself?
  • Kotaku reads 15.ai is a site that lets you type in any text you want and have a bunch of different characters repeat those words. The results are surprisingly good, especially with some characters, like Portal’s GLaDOS...You can read more about how it works. Also, impressively, the whole thing was created by one person....the site often gets hit hard by people throughout the day, so it might take a few minutes for your audio to be created. 75 words total describing 15.ai itself.
  • GameInformer Reads [W]ith the help of this simplistically brilliant text-to-speech app. The app in question is 15.ai, and it lets fans put in their own text and modulates that text into the speech of some of our favorite characters. ...The full list of characters to draw from is fairly extensive, including Spongebob from the Nickelodeon show, several major characters from My Little Pony, Daria and Jane from MTV's Daria, and so much more. You can also mess with that wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff thanks to the Tenth Doctor's voice modulation from BBC's cult classic Doctor Who. The app in question is super easy to use! Simply select a source (Portal, Half-Life, etc), then select the character you would like to emulate, and choose an emotion for the adapted speech. Input whatever you would like the character in question to say (with a 200-character limit), and voila! A few seconds later, you have a downloadable audio file for the mashup of your dreams. Roughly 161 words describing the basic functionality of the app and some characters.
  • PC Gamer Reads 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters. It's all very fascinating to read about, from its use "deepmoji" systems to assign emotions to the way the algorithm scrapes the internet for online slang. But all you need to know is this: type in a line or two, pick a character, and the system will swiftly deliver a generated clip of, I don't know, the TF2 Heavy replacing a former US president in Home Alone 2...GLaDOS is a natural fit, what with her voice sounding like computer-generated speech by design. But for all the hours of banked audio given to The Stanley Parable's narrator, the algorithm simply can't capture Kevan Brighting's whimsically droll intonation. 123 Words with mentions that it uses "deepmoji" and scrapes the internet, but more review of the characters.
  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun the text to speech algorithm 15.ai that studies clips of characters and uses deep-learning to make those characters say whatever the heck you want. The possibilities are endless and the amount of control that you can use to tweak how words and phrases are pronounced is pretty deep if you're willing to get into the nitty gritty of it...SpongeBob SquarePants and the various characters of Team Fortress 2 seem to be popular options... 15.ai's about page has more other information about how the algorithm works, including the model called "DeepMoji" that helps it to convey emotion. Roughly 96 words discussing characters and the basic functionality.
These all fail the criteria provided by WP:WEBCRIT of not being a brief summary of the nature of the content. The issue isn't strictly that they referenced Kotaku, the issue is that they aren't WP:SIGCOV. A brief burst of news coverage sparked by a Kotaku Odds and Ends article does not meet notability WP:SUSTAINED. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the issue, for me, is the "such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". I hate to tell you, but WP:100WORDS is a very commonly accepted guideline for determining whether something meets coverage within a source. [95], [96] For Rock, Paper, Shotgun, you accidentally combined "it" with "SpongeBob" with the ellipses, and you omitted the first four words of the sentence, bringing the total word count of the coverage (per your admission) to 101 words. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
AUTOMATON ([97]) Yes Yes Reliable in Japanese-speaking media, has its own Wikipedia page on Japanese Wikipedia. Yes Yes
Den Fami Nico Gamer Yes Yes Yes Yes
Game Informer Yes Yes Yes Per above; identifies the Doctor and Daria/Jane, which is never mentioned in Kotaku Yes
PC Gamer Yes Yes Yes Per above; identifies the use of DeepMoji in the TTS, which is never mentioned in Kotaku Yes
Rock, Paper, Shotgun Yes Yes Yes Per above; identifies the humor of the website with how Gordon Freeman doesn't say anything, which is never mentioned in Kotaku Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's a fancy table of the above for your viewing pleasure. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that UnstableDiffusion (talkcontribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

  • Keep (previously, I merely had a comment only). First of all, I apologize for accidentally deleting things other people said. I typed something up, got pulled away from my PC, and came back but failed to load the latest version. My comment was something along the lines of "This is smelling like a vote, but I thought this was not a vote, and instead a series of arguments for or against deletion." I'm against deleting this article, because it was a big deal when it came out and was groundbreaking at the time. Reading this article is an easy way to learn about the history of the site. Dogman15 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the delete voters unanimously agreed that Brocade's analysis above that deemed AUTOMATON was of uncertain reliability was correct, but all of them apparently missed the fact that AUTOMATON, along with Den Fami Nico Gamer, is one of the biggest and most reliable gaming outlets in Japan. This also smells like editors claiming that they did their research but apparently did not and jumping to a vote prematurely. Tacotron2 (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am making a new comment on this discussion to provide an update on 15.ai According to the most recent tweet from the creator [98] Then, in the middle of 2022, things started to go wrong. I received multiple complaints of copyright violations, and I received a cease-and-desist letter. I dismissed it as unimportant and chose to disregard it, since, technically, copyright law surrounding generative AI at the time was on my side. But due to certain other details that I can’t share here, I was effectively forced into stopping operations of the website immediately without warning or preparation. Per my understanding of WP:COPYVIOEL material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation we cannot cite or link to 15.ai itself for any information relating to the article if it is Kept. I am unsure how this impacts the ability to use citations that themselves link to 15.ai website such as the Kotaku, but I suspect they would be fine. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I was planning to perform a source assessment, but then I looked at the bottom of the article, and saw that it has been reference-bombed, and that the version of the article that was kept in January 2023 had been reference-bombed. I see that there have been multiple source assessments of partial sets of sources, which do not prove that the other sources, not assessed, do not provide general notability. There was a previous AFD in January 2023, and we should give some credence to it unless there are reasons why we should either disregard it or move beyond it. The nominator has not provided a specific reason why the earlier AFD is not still in effect. The result of the January 2023 AFD was a Weak Keep, and this article should still be Weakly Kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a previous AFD in January 2023, and we should give some credence to it unless there are reasons why we should either disregard it or move beyond it. Robert McClenon, yes, there are excellent reasons to disregard that AfD which was a trainwreck of sock puppetry, such as by [99] and [100] and multiple SPAs such as [101], [102] (their only edit ever!), [103] etc. As has happened on this AfD, there are a lot of SPAs. You have noticed the refbombing. The SPAs would certainly raise concerns that not all the sockpuppetry was uncovered, and meatpuppetry is also likely. This AfD has been blatently canvassed too. This is all highly problematic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision to keep wasn’t because of SPAs. AfDs are not a vote. If you read WP:SPA, it says "focus on the subject matter, not the person." You yourself have not acknowledged the argument that AUTOMATON is a valid source and that the other contentious articles sufficiently meet SIGCOV per WP:100WORDS, instead choosing to point out that the Keep votes have few edits. Tacotron2 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100WORDS being an essay, it has no bearing here. Ravenswing 20:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly has some amount of bearing when it is an often cited guideline for SIGCOV on AfD. It's disingenuous to write it off for "being an essay". Tacotron2 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see it at AfD at all, myself. (Which begs the question; when have you? This is the only AfD you've ever participated in, and it's been two years since you've edited anything that isn't 15.ai related. While we're talking about "disingenuous.") Ravenswing 22:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: having just counted, 100WORDS links to fewer than 80 AfDs. Ever. By comparison, sixty AfDs were filed just yesterday. So let's review. You've already been canvassing to this AfD, making sure to call in those who voted to keep in the last AfD and ignoring those who didn't. You shamelessly went on to cast aspersions on veteran editors who came in to register Delete votes. And now you're just making stuff up about AfDs in which you've no evidence of being familiar? I'd advise you to quit while you're behind. Citing ignorance or "brain farts" will only go so far. Ravenswing 22:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a welcome environment! Casting suspicion on every move instead of assuming good faith even when said new editor admits to a mistake surely isn't biting the newcomers and discouraging them from learning the rules! Tacotron2 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite aside from that assuming good faith works both ways, there's a difference between learning the rules and just making them up as you go along. The way to go about the former is to stop assuming beyond your knowledge. You didn't actually know the canvassing rules; that was the point to ask. You had no idea at all the degree to which 100WORDS was cited or not; that was the point not to airily claim that it was an "often cited guideline." It is incumbent upon newcomers to learn the rules, and two and a half years after your first edit, the time is now. Ravenswing 08:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment was directed at Robert McClenon who, like me, is well aware of how AfD works, having commented on 2460 AfDs. I have commented on 721. You, on the other hand, have commented on 2. This one and the last AfD for this page. I think you can trust us to know AfD is not a vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And just out of interest, Ravenswing's claim to have edited a few hundred AfDs turns out to be a huge underestimate. They have edited 4762! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sirfurboy - That is interesting. What tool do you use for that query? That sort of metrics are interesting to someone who sometimes was assigned to do quantitative program management as an IT engineer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See [104]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, Sirfurboy🏄, that tool says I have edited 27,618 AFDs. I know I have closed quite a few AFD discussions but that total kind of blows my mind. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness me! That's an insane number! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I applaud both of your dedication to keeping Wikipedia devoid of useless articles. But that doesn't mean your argument has greater merit than editors who are only here (like me) because they saw the big red box at the top of the Wiki page and so they deserve to be ignored. I'm here because I believe that the subject is notable. Let's keep the discussion on the facts presented, not on speculation whether someone is trustworthy or not. Tacotron2 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ignoring you. I said you didn't need to reply to this comment to lecture editors on meta matters regarding P&G. The last AfD was a mess, and the rampant sock puppetry on that one was not discovered until months after it closed. It should be set aside and ignored. The last AfD should be ignored - that is not saying anything about you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted this elsewhere because I just noticed that I was mentioned in an AN thread. Regarding my canvassing:
    "I'll be honest with you. I had a brain fart. I thought canvassing was coordinating off Wikipedia to stack a vote. I thought that if you did it on a user's Wikipedia talk pages directly, it wasn't canvassing. I don't know why I thought that. I read something similar to that somewhere else on Wikipedia and I must have misinterpreted it, where asking editors to contribute to a discussion was encouraged. I'm sorry about that." Tacotron2 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per my previous assessment - these four [105][106][107][108] to me seem sufficient as a baseline, and while the following "viral" cycles and follow-ups are pretty lighweight, the froth does add 'some' mass, so to speak. There is a limited amount of steam I am prepared to expend on this, so I'll leave it at weak keep this time round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elmidae, thanks, but you do not state that you were canvassed to this AfD [109], along with other former keep !voters (those who have not been banned for sockpuppetry). Having contributed to the last AfD, your contribution is still clearly relevant and belongs here, but I note that no one invited any of the previous delete !votes, who were LilianaUwU, Iazyges, Cinadon36, and Oaktree b (the last of whom found this anyway). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, drop 'em a note then; this one looks like it will stay open for a bit yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet. But with four dueling source assessment tables to evaluate, let's not add any additional ones, at least not from the same participants who provided these four. And while it is against Wikipedia rules to canvass, that fact shouldn't lead a closer to totally dismiss a good faith argument (which counts for more than an argument that is just a "per" comment), I see that all of those who argued for Deletion in the previous AFD have also now been pinged to this discussion. So, doing that action can be seen as lessening the influence on canvassing now that all previously participating parties have had their attention brought to this current discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm surprised a CU hasn't been done on Tacotron2 as they are massively canvassing in this discussion and/or sealioning. Hold the pepper and stop bludgeoning. – The Grid (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello, everyone! Over the weekend, I did my due diligence and dug up multiple other sources reporting on 15.ai that haven't been mentioned before. I'll refrain from using a table per User:Liz, so here they are!
  • [111]United Daily News, a major Taiwanese newspaper that's one of the two largest traditional news groups in Taiwan, alongside The China Times. This source clearly meets WP:SIGCOV with its in-depth coverage. Importantly, the article does not mention Kotaku, like the AUTOMATON and Den Fami Nico Gamer articles.
  • [112]GamerSky, a major gaming news and media website for the Chinese market, founded in 2003.
  • [113]Towards Data Science, a very popular and reputable ML/AI newsletter with >639K followers on LinkedIn and >233K followers on Twitter, shows up as a news outlet on Google News, and used on multiple highly technical Wikipedia articles like decision tree, image compression, and long short-term memory. Meets WP:SIGCOV with its in-depth coverage, and the article does not mention Kotaku. In addition, the author of the article, Rionaldi Chandraseta, is a co-author on a paper published in 2019 in the IEEE. [114]
  • [115]Sina is one of China's largest news portals, particularly for tech reporting.
And then, various mentions of 15.ai that don't establilsh notability, but are useful for give extra context for the article. Please disregard these for the sake of determining GNG.
  • [116]Byteside, an indie AI/ML newsletter that appears to be self-published.
  • [117]Towards AI, a very popular and reputable ML/AI newsletter with >269K followers that doesn't describe 15.ai in particular depth.
  • [118]While AI voice memes have been around in some form since ‘15.ai’ launched in 2020, the recent launch of Eleven Labs’ AI speech synthesiser has supercharged this trend.Analytics India Magazine, this growing India-based ML/AI news outlet briefly mentions 15.ai as the first instance of voice AI used in content creation.
  • [119]AI voice tools used to create "audio deepfakes" have existed for years in one form or another, with 15.ai being a notable example.Inverse, a US technology and science magazine, briefly mentions 15.ai as a "notable example" of audio deepfakes.
There are many less reliable sources that I've filtered out, but the United Daily News, Towards Data Science, GamerSky, and Sina appear to be reliable. I'll be on the lookout for more sources, and I'll be editing the article with new information gained from these articles.
I've been doing my own research to verify that AUTOMATON, as discussed above, is indeed a reliable source. It has been used in good articles as a reliable source (for example, see Only Up!, Visions of Mana, and Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada, which all cite AUTOMATON articles as part of their page). With these sources in mind, along with the already agreed-upon Den Fami Nico Gamer article (and possibly the Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Game Informer, and PC Gamer articles, depending on your opinion on those), we meet at least three independent and reliable articles that clearly demonstrate significant coverage (Den Fami Nico Gamer, AUTOMATON, and United Daily News; Towards Data Science is also a contender as a potential fourth), thus meeting WP:GNG.
Thank you for your consideration! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 23:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little Gay Pub (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)

As the article creator, I am not sure that this has the required level of sustained coverage. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushrod, 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)

This is another "what did the WPA text say?" case, as Baker cites it for a founding date in spite of ample evidence that this is in fact another rail spot. What older topos and aerials show is that this was once the east end of a small yard; I found one person cited as yardmaster there. And all the relevant hits indicate this, with lots of irrelevant surname hits. There's no town here now and now place of it to have been, as the topos show nothing but trackwork and a couple of buildings. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was able to find a news article from 1959 that refers to it as a "town": [128], but it's more about the man it's named for than the place itself. A 1946 article in the Linton Daily Citizen has a little more information, but just describes it as a rail point and not a town: [129]. Undecided about whether this counts as WP:SIGCOV. As much as I hate geographic permastubs like this one, we have a little bit more (albeit conflicting) information than is typical for these "GNIS gives this name to this point" type articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see from a 1958 aerial that there was no town there; except for the Quonset hut (which might have been a different building at the same spot) there's just a structure withing the wye of the tracks. Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former cricketer. Possible redirect targets include List of Canadian first-class cricketers and List of Canada ODI cricketers. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2023 National Games of India (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. This is one of 4 near-identical articles in the NPP que. I took on to AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogasana at the 2023 National Games of India and asked for a thorough discussion as possible guidance for the others and other similar articles. I am AFD'ing the three remaining articles which are are Mallakhamba at the 2023 National Games of India , Archery at the 2023 National Games of India , and Yogasana at the 2022 National Games of India. This would require meeting GNG, i.e. GNG sources on the topic and not only are there not GNG sources, there are no sources except for stats database and as a result the article is stats-only. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, although it's a bit hard to tell with Chinese schools because of difficulty in searching. The one source looks like a cartoon, but I think it's a blog for alumni of the school - again, not really sure. Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Huaian (and add a "schools" section to that article, potentially, to include this school) or delete - the source provided is Baidu Tieba, which is a forum and thus is not a reliable source (@Bbb23, the cartoon you were seeing looks like a banner image for the forum group). From what I could tell the only potential claims to notability were it essentially carrying on the legacy of "安徽省立第九中学" ("Anhui Ninth Middle School", which I could not find info on) and the school being one of the first "four-star high schools" (whatever that means) in Jiangsu province ("江苏省首批通过验收的四星级重点中学") - although both those claims come from a self-published source. However, even those claims don't seem like it lends notability to this school.
    There's also a Baidu Baike archived source here of what looks like provincial/Jiangsu media covering the school's new campus. Unfortunately there is no live link and I could not find it in the Internet Archive. This probably isn't enough to withstand a notability claim, even if it was a live link / archived and accessible through a website other than Baidu Baike, which is deprecated.
    zh:江苏省盱眙中学 is the associated page on the Chinese Wikipedia - sources there are either inaccessible to me or dead.
    My Chinese is quite out of practice so there's possibly other sources I've missed in my search. Please let me know if anyone else finds anything. Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 07:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I was able to find 2 sources which makes the subject meet the minimum requirements for GNG:
  • "江苏一中学将中考排名印上校服 学生称伤自尊". edu.sina.com.cn. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
  • "盱眙中学新校区启用暨开学典礼举行(图) —江苏教育新闻网". www.jsenews.com. Retrieved 2024-12-10. - Alternative source to the event covered in the Baidu archived source provided by Staraction
Jumpytoo Talk 18:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (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 haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable third-party sources. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [130] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [131], [132], [133], [134] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [135] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; [136] and [137] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [138] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tapani Uitos (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) 18:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10 Television Network (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)

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterr10 Television Network, closed as soft delete. Source #1 reads pretty much like a press release and is likely one, source #4 does not mention Enterr10 at all. Not sure about the reliability of the two others: DreamDTH (source #2) appears to have a strong editorial policy, but mentions running advertising, which I am concerned about, while source #3 is barely in-depth. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheoTown (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 page was deleted multiple times for A7 and G11 reasons, so I figure having a full deletion discussion might be worth it. The only sources given are primary: the game's website, and the Steam/App Store/Google Play pages and ratings. The only sources I could find were a self-published blog explicitly including affiliate links, and this review, whose website appears to have an editorial team but for which I'm not sure how reliable it is, as only one of the members is an accredited journalist. Still, assuming this counts as a RS, a single source isn't enough for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premachi Goshta (TV series) (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)

Edit war between three editors attempting to redirect and a LOUTSOCK who keeps removing. Looking at the sources, they are all unreliable as churnalism, general announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommend redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein which is the show this is based off of. Although, would also request protection of the title if that happens. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iamdikeh (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)

Simply fails WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Also fails the explanatory essay at WP:NYOUTUBER. Pieces from the sources are either WP:INDEPENDENT or unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisayo Fosudo (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 or WP:ENT, and also does not pass the explanatory essay at WP:NYOUTUBER. Pieces from the sources mostly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Awards won/nominated are not significant enough to confer inherent notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Code prefixes (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)

Two years on, and every issue from the first round is still here. Again, the information from here does not agree with the list in Sectional center facility, and the latter information is correct, and this is not. Last time I pointed out that 207 was wrong, and yes, it's different, but it's still wrong: 207 has nothing to do with Silver Spring, and the actual name of the SCF is "Southern Maryland". It still doesn't step up to the issue that many SCFs serve zip codes in multiple states. If someone wants to make the listing in the SCF article into a table, I'd be fine with that, and this could be redirected there. But as it is, this is a magnet for misinformation and needs to cease to exist as it stands, and it should not be merged into the other article, because it is mostly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbian (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 neighbourhood in Pakistan. I couldn't find any information about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is mess, WP:NOTPROMO. It fails both WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE resulted in only few press release, appointment announcement, and navigational maps. The sources mentioned within the article do not pass WP:RS, 1 being press release statement, source 2 leads to a blank website (at least for me), source 3 is an announcement and source 4 is University's official website. MimsMENTOR talk 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Suat (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 watercourse in Thailand. It has no sources for 8 years. I could not find anything about it on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Falisiewicz (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)

Semi-professional footballer without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only secondary source I found is Dziennik Wschodni, a brief mention in transfer announcement. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. FlalfTalk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. FlalfTalk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.

        Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. FlalfTalk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.
    FlalfTalk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onais Bascome (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 notability and significant coverage criteria. This article is just a list of squads he was picked for and all the cited sources are routine match reports and squad listings. Shrug02 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transactions on Graph Data and Knowledge (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)

New journal, indexed in some databases that are rather trivial for an OA journal, but not any selective databases as required by WP:NJournals (see MIAR). The article appears to be well-sourced, until one starts to look at the references in detail: all of them are either written by people involved with the journal, or are press releases, or source things that are only tangentially related to the journal, e.g., a reference (currently #16) to the publishing platform used but otherwise not even mentioning the journal. In short, this fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a very respectable new diamond-access journal, published by a good academic research center who also publish many major conference proceedings in computer science. That said, our applicable notability guidelines require in-depth coverage in publications independent of the journal, a standard that is often difficult to meet for major and well-established journals. Without a media splash this is unlikely for new journals to achieve. I would suggest a redirect to the journal it is intended to replace, and a mention there, but we have no reliable independent sources that could support even that much content. I did find [146] but I'm unsure of its reliability and independence. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick and thorough feedback (the CS perspective is appreciated). Moving content to existing articles would be a backup option. Regarding the sources, I am still puzzled by the requirement, since the claims that have TGDK-affiliated sources are all of a kind where these sources seem to be just right. For example, the EiCs have published an article that gives their motivation for creating a new journal and that mentions which other people were involved in the history. It is not a third-party source, but how could a third (uninvolved) party claim to know any of this? It's fine if the answer is that we don't want information about a group's motivation or "private" activities in a Wikipedia page, but if we do, then we will usually need to take some of the involved persons' word for it. For other references the case is even stronger, e.g., when Dagstuhl Publishing "claims" that their license is CC-By, then this is actually making it true (you cannot claim to publish a document under a license and not also do it). None of this comment has any bearing on notability (the main issue here, I agree), but I would like to understand which "self-referenced" claims are considered problematic here at all, in case I might make them again in other pages.
    [P.S. Small clarification: TGDK is not "intended to replace" JWS. Colleagues from our research community have decided to take over JWS after the mass resignations from the EB, and we wish them all the best in their efforts. Our main sponsor SWSA supports JWS alongside TGDK.]
    --Markus Krötzsch 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have created the article since I believe that the journal has reached the notability of typical computer science journal articles in Wikipedia (I have disclosed my CoI, but also note that I am only affiliated in a voluntary capacity with the journal, and not in any way affiliated with Dagstuhl Publishing). I would like to disentangle the critique of the sources from the question of notability in the discussion:
  • The sources are adequate for the facts that they support, which are questions like "What is the license of the journal?", "Who are the editors?", and "Which submission software do they use?". You will not find any evaluative claims sourced to either the publisher or the researchers involved. Claims about indexing and archiving are sourced to the responsible parties.
  • The journal is notable since it is frequently cited by other reliable sources, notably in other research publications. What is "frequent" must of course be related to what is normal in the research field (you have more citations in medicine than in computer science). The young age of the journal must not be held against it (citations grow over time), and in particular it should not be levied against OA journals that some publisher-controlled indexing services have embargo times of three to five years before including new journals. TGDK follows the standard processes for registering in these services, and this will just go through once the waiting time is over (at least I have never heard of a case where this was not successful for an international academic journal with a notable and experienced editorial board). The journal is already included in one discriminating index, DBLP, which is specifically relevant in computer science and that does not automatically pick up all journals.
From studying Wikipedia policies, I think both "delete" and "keep" would be viable options here. The practical consequence of "delete" would be that some content of TGDK would move to Journal of Web Semantics and to Dagstuhl (where it is now merely linked to). This would be okay as well (for me personally), but it would lead to a worse structure for Wikipedia that is less accessible (Dagstuhl's page is very long, and already conflates the publishing branch with event hosting; and JWS continues to be an independent Elsevier journal that is not a natural place to look for content on TGDK). This is why I believe that Wikipedia is better served by keeping the separate page for now. --Markus Krötzsch 07:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is incorrect to state that "some publisher-controlled indexing services have embargo times of three to five years before including new journals". Some of the most selective databases (Elsevier's Scopus and Clarivate's citation databases) often include new journals within 1 year of publication. --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the mandated waiting times are really in effect. If you have heard of examples that bypassed this, then maybe they had a special connection to the (usually commercial) indexing service in question? It's certainly not a path that is open to TGDK. For example, Elsevier's Scopus has published guidelines that state that "it is general policy that a journal needs to have a publication history of at least two years before it can be reviewed for Scopus coverage". This agrees with information that we have received from Dagstuhl that states that you can first apply for inclusion in the third year of publication. Anyway, if you read the inclusion guidelines, then you realise that the bar there is quite low, so I would find it strange if Wikipedia would rely on this for notability. --Markus Krötzsch 10:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those rules are not written in stone: I know of at least one quarterly journal that was included in the Science Citation Index Expanded after only 3 published issues. It's unusual, but it happens. Unfortunately I have no published source of this, so you'll have to trust me on my word... --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we are all discussing this is in good faith. Note that both Markus and I are discussing this under our full names under which we also publish our scientific work. Any intellectual dishonesty on our side would reflect on our scientific reputations, and so possibly affect our careers. We are as accountable here as it gets. Anyway, your claim was that this happens "often". I'm sure you would agree that the distinction between "has happened once or twice" and "often" does rather matter for whether it is a reasonable thing to require at this point. Jan Hidders (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply put, this fails WP:NJOURNALS because it's WP:TOOSOON. Maybe in a few years, if it becomes an established mainstream journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the criteria for notability of journals that is mentioned in the policy is whether the relevant academic community has taken notice of the journal. That is undeniably the case. If you check the editorial board on [147] and cross check it with the main researchers that publish in established venues (think The Web Conference, SIGMOD, VLDB, ESWC, ISWC, etc.) and journals (e.g., Journal of Web Semantics) on subjects in this domain (graph data management) you will see that this editorial board *is* actually that academic community. That by itself, the fact that this very well established community of considerable size and authority decided to start a new open-access journal, makes it already notable. We are clearly and verifiably not talking here about a small fringe group who is starting a separate journal that is disconnected from the main academic community. [Disclaimer: I am on the EB of this journal. I also have several decades of experience as an academic researcher in this domain so can speak with some authority here, but what I said can be independently verified. I'm also the guy who helped Wikimedia transition from a file-based backed to a database-backend. Not that it matters, but I just wanted to have mentioned it. :-)] Jan Hidders (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The composition of the editorial board is completely irrelevant. See WP:NOTINHERIT. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is highly relevant. It means the academic community has taken note, and in fact so much so, that most of them signed up to the EB. Note that the argumentation is not that it is important because the most important researchers are associated with it. The argument is that it is important and noteworthy because this particular scientific community decided to start a new journal. That is not the same thing, and so WP:NOTINHERIT is besides the point here. Jan Hidders (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, if you have a conflict of interest, you should declare that (as Markus did above). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I declared my connection in my very first response on this page.
    And, yes, I had also already familiarised myself with WP:N and WP:GNG. I did not see anything there that explicitly rules out what I'm arguing for as evidence of notability. On the contrary, there is an explicit mention in WP:NJOURNALS that it is relevant whether the journal has received notice from the academic community, and it clearly and verifiably has. This is apart from the fact that it is already being cited, which you can also verify. It is clearly the case that this not some obscure new journal that nobody is taking notice of. I would also emphasise that the guidelines are, you know, guidelines. The ultimate question is if this is worthy of an encyclopedia article that people who are interested in knowledge-graph research would be interested in reading. I don't see how anybody knowledgable in that field could argue that it is not.
    I do understand that as an outsider you would like to follow the rule of "this should be evidenced by outside source material that discusses it" but I would argue that in this case that is a bit unfair given the size of the connected community. Pretty much anyone who would be discussing this journal somewhat authoritatively is connected to it. That would leave citations elsewhere in notable journals and conference papers as a source of evidence, and those, as already discussed, do exist. Jan Hidders (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to formulate a consensus here: Headbomb is right that, when it comes to discussions on Wikipedia, personal standing or expertise does not matter. We are discussing as contributors here, not as experts from the research community that would be most interested in this article. Yet Jan Hidders is right that the academic standing of the editorial board affects the notability of a journal, since it is a relevant criterion for those authorities that Wikipedia does recognize (e.g., Elsevier names "editor standing" as a criterion for inclusion in Scopus). So when we ask if a journal can be notable even before the (hard-to-avoid) embargo time of those companies, then we should allow their underlying criteria in the discussion. Of course, this can only add to the overall picture, never be the only criterion. --Markus Krötzsch 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal could fail tomorrow. Internal dissent. Publishing a weird paper, leading to a boycott of the journal. Lack of funding. Bad management. We don't have a crystal ball.
No one is saying the journal is bad or unreliable. But it is not notable. Not yet anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 10 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 summary deletion‎. Article subject requests deletion, and deletion policy provides some basis to do so. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryscott O'Connor (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)

Every source used here is biased, either for or against her. Beyond 2006-2007, I cannot to find any notable reliable coverage of the subject. ―Howard🌽33 13:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Washington Post feature is quite extensive, but I got the sense that it was more of a case study (showing the anger of the online left during the GWB presidency), rather than a profile (of her as a significant figure). The Mother Jones source isn't significant enough IMO. No other indication that she or her blog were notable after 2007. WP:BLP1E doesn't quite fit here (a blog isn't an "event") but feels relevant. Astaire (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE
Can I just request deletion of the page, since it’s about me?
That would be great. I’m mortified by this entire discussion, and the fact that my ego even brought me here to try to defend its existence.
So, my vote is for deletion. Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSOCMLW (talkcontribs) 19:55, 10 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.
List of health insurance executives in the United States (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:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the top 50 companies by whatever metric is arbitrary. I suggest having the article list the chief executive of companies notable by Wikipedia's standards is a better scope and have updated the article to reflect that. Also see List of chief executive officers. It seems like the article can likely be improved as an alternative to deletion. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NLIST. The timing, the mention of Johnson and the fact that the only detail is about compensation packages is highly suspect and the article creator should probably be on a list somewhere. Astaire (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Feels suspect re timing, and we don't need articles simply listing execs in particular industires. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than Delete due to WP:CROSSCAT, the article should become wider, such as "List of health ensurance chief executives", period. Worldwide. This on its own should also mitigate the notability issue. As a Brazilian, I am willing to source executives from my country. MandRaiden (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a part of what is arguably a historical event. make it larger and expand it to a worldwide scope maybe. but dont delete. MildLoser (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is about the Killing of Brian Thompson, then that article already exists as linked. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of basic settlement units in Brno (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 recently created list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is an extremely detailed breakdown for specific purposes in a professional sphere, which goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Other European metropolises do not have a list with such a breakdown (so Brno is very random in this context). Similar lists are not found on cswiki either. FromCzech (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest that's quite fair. I simply wanted to make a ranking of the basic settlement units by density and population since that's what I'm usually interested in, but if others agree for the deletion I am for it too. GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is already the article Administrative divisions of Brno would it simply be way better to move the article there? GreenWolfyVillager (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not solve the concerns I raised above. It doesn't matter if the list is stand-alone or not. FromCzech (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No matter how much work I do on this page, it will never fix the issue of there being no sources for it. Because of Wikipedia's original research and fancruft policies, I can't do anything else with this page. It simply just fails the notability requirements. Before I made my edits to it (which could honestly be considered fancruft because no one needed to know about the intricate details of all nine gamemodes), it was honestly one of the more pathetic stubs on Wikipedia. I love this game and it hurts a bit to say this, but the page just has to go. It isn't going to get any better, no one is going to do any more reporting on it. The game is dead, I've never seen more than six concurrent players on SteamCharts and online mode is a barren wasteland. Unless you guys want to keep this forever-incomplete article, then it has to go unless one of you guys can do your magic and find like 15 good sources on the gameplay, development, and reception of the game. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Passes WP:GNG with flying colours; definitely enough to warrant keeping this article. Just because the game is dead doesn't mean it doesn't deserve coverage: see WP:NTEMP. Beachweak (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Ganja (1796) (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)

Completely unsourced and was already draftified once. A WP:BEFORE only brings up other events of the Persian expedition of 1796, or other battles having happened in Ganja in other years, but nothing about this specific battle. This source provides an overview of the region during the time, and confirms the general situation in the year preceding the battle (with Erekle/Heraclius and Javad Khan respectively under Russian and Persian allegiance), but does not mention a battle taking place in Ganja in 1796. This excerpt from Azerbaijan's Presidential Library briefly mentions that Russia, not Georgia itself, occupied Ganja in 1796 (and links more sources, although they are all written in Azerbaijani). All in all, there doesn't seem to be enough sourcing to confirm that a battle between Georgia and Azerbaijan took place, let alone to verify WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Seth (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 can only find routine coverage from fashion shows and brand PR, which is not enough for GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Media Articles found, non-notable - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Africa (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 list of random people (and weirdly some states) who may have once lived on the African continent whom the author felt were "legends". In other words, a mess of original research and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of fascism (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)

POV fork, mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? It's a full article with seven different content sections. Only one of those sections is "Poor record in war". Also, why didn't you object to the spinoff when we were discussing this on the talk page before? Sunrise (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that is because there was no consenus to fork this off, what there is a discussion about one paragraph (loss on war), which is you Vs many (so did not have any consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I originally proposed one paragraph, and edited it to address feedback over several rounds of discussion. In my reading of the discussion, I addressed all the concerns presented, after which most editors were neutral or generally supportive, except for one editor who believed it had too much weight. As a result, I declared my intention to create a spinoff where the paragraph could be included, and there were no objections.
As a result, over the past month I have been researching this topic in order to write a full spinoff article, in accordance with WP:Summary style and the established precedent on "Criticism" articles for ideologies (WP:CRITSP). The resulting article has three subsections derived from the main article, the one section we discussed before, and three entirely new sections written from imported content and my own research. But I suppose we can do an AfD? Sunrise (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TFD seems to generally object to it. And they never changed that stance. Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence my reference to "one editor" in my previous comment (out of 7, by my count?). Regardless, I undertook to address their concerns by offering an alternative solution, and they didn't reply (nor did anyone else) so I assumed it was acceptable. Sunrise (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kowal2701 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also WP:CRITSP: For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but as pointed out above there was no consensus to create this, which came out of a decision about the war paragraph which was (explicitly) rejected for inclusion in the main article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above - that is not my reading of the discussion (and you didn't make any objection yourself, even though you commented). Perhaps we can get an outside view on that? Regardless, there's no such thing as "no consensus to create" for an action that has been mentioned on talk with no subsequent objection. If your issue is about that single paragraph, then AFDing the entire subarticle would seem to be the wrong venue. Sunrise (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator, I suppose. I don't spend much time at AfD, so I don't really know what arguments will be accepted on this point. But there is a long precedent for "Criticism" articles about ideologies (WP:CRITSP, as mentioned above), with a full list at Category:Criticisms by ideology.
Normally, I would follow the organization of WP:Summary style, making a new article when a subsection gets too large for the main article, with a summary being left behind. That is what I was doing, and it's the opposite of a POV fork. (The main article is currently desynced due to a revert, but that's a matter for talk.) Certainly there should no question over whether there's enough content for a dedicated article; for one, there's quite a few things that I haven't currently added. The fact that an editor previously raised weight concerns about some of this content being in the main article (which is reasonable, and indeed this article was created in response to that) is a further indication that a dedicated article is appropriate.
AFAICT, I think the nomination may have been based on an error? The claim that it's mainly based on one part of this article, its faliure in WW2 doesn't make sense, as I noted above. The nominator has acknowledged an error (diff) but I'm not really sure what it is. Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Old Grandma Hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable soccer stadium that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NARENA, which holds that athletic stadia are neither presumptively notable nor inherit the notability of any teams that play there. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist, the article has been inadequately sourced for over fifteen years now (and was notability tagged for 12 years), its only current source is primary. Previous AfD went keep on the basis of several "It's notable," "It's big," and "Important games have been played there," among other illegitimate reasons. Ravenswing 09:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete zero notability established. Sole source is from the home club, their website also doesn't appear to exist anymore. Looking at the previous AfD (which you also nominated), all of the keep arguments completely violated WP:INHERIT and WP:NARENA (which some of them even used as a keep argument), and the closing admin looks to have simply done a vote count. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game (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 a die hard Lions fan and that's a big part of my editing, but this game isn't particular special or deserving of a standalone article. The only "remarkable" part about it was a mishap regarding taking a timeout at the end, which is a mishap that happens several times a season. Does not warrant a standalone article and should be deleted.

I obviously understand there was bad clock management, there's no doubt about that, but this is barely more than what routinely happens every single season several times. Games are always cost this way, by miscommunications. There's always going to be sensationalized reporting that happens immediately after a game, that's frankly expected. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough game. Definite recency bias in this articles creation. This is not one of those games that will be mentioned as an all-timer. The Hail Mary game versus the Commanders, sure, but not this. Maybe it deserves a special mention in the Bears' and Lions' season pages, but nothing more than that. Eg224 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather keep this page. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • leading to the firing of a Bears coach midseason for the first time – It's certainly not the only reason for the firing, but it is an obvious contributing factor. Let's not act like this was the only reason it was.
  • Getting the Lions to their best start in franchise history – This took a number of games to accomplish, this game is not special in that regard, and, simply based on team strengths of schedules and records, this game was not expected to go any other way than a Lions win by most pundits.
  • ...as well as one of the most baffling endings to a game ever... — That's certainly subjective. I'd counter by saying it's not even top 10 for the wild and wacky things that have happened to the Lions.
  • I don't think that recency is the only reason why this was created. – The game will only ever really be mentioned in the context of Matt Eberflus, it'd be fairly unexpected to have long term coverage.
To be honest, the rational provided feels more like WP:ILIKEIT than anything. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While clock management situations, and disastrous ones at that, are common place in the NFL, theres none quite like this one. 26 seconds to get a play off or call a timeout and they do neither until theres 5 seconds left, in which that is the final play of the game. Add on to that the first mid-season head coach firing in the 105 year history of the Bears and the best start in the Detroit Lions 95 year history makes for a pretty historic game. The Butt Fumble was notoriously memed and ridiculed into oblivion so much that the Wikipedia page for said play still exists, so if you take down this game, the butt fumble would deserve to be taken off this site as well. Not to mention the fact that Chicago also faced off in 2 brutal games against divison rivals Green Bay and Minnesota previous to this game, so the Bears were already known for stuff like this, but this was just absolutely mind boggling and set a precedent on how low it could go. The game was also broadcast on CBS to a nationally televised audience, with all time quotes from Nantz and Romo. With all that being said, theres no way that this play would soon be forgot like other mismanaged clock situations and i believe that this page should be kept IBeFlyin (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was deemed a miscommunication by both the QB and the coach for what it's worth, and those are fairly common, especially by inexperienced coaches and rookie quarterbacks. I don't think the standing of Detroit as a team is particularly relevant, or who Chicago played directly before the game. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this game gets memed and ridiculed over time the way the butt fumble has, then there would be a good case for creating a page about this game at that time. But for now that is WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Bears–Lions rivalry, where a special mention as a notable game can be included. As the nomination noted, there is nothing especially unique about this game. 2024 Chicago Bears season is a much better place to discuss the impact of various games over the season, while Bears–Lions rivalry is a good place to speak directly to this game and what happened. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments related to the Butt Fumble don't hold water, for obvious reasons, but also because, as the nominator noted, poor clock management and miscommunication happens all the time in the NFL. The Butt Fumble was a singularly unique play with few, if any, appropriate comparisons. Although WP:RECENT makes this difficult to judge right now, it is important to put this game in the context of what is being claimed that makes it notable. Eberflus was historically a bad coach who was likely getting fired at the end of the season either way. Although bad, this game was the straw that broke the camel's back, not the only reason for his firing. The fact that the Bears haven't fired a coach mid-season is more of a flukely TV factoid that doesn't really mean much is the grand scheme of things. And lastly, in the grand scheme of crazy endings, this was definitely absurd clock management, but otherwise was a fairly routine end to the game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It’s both a historic game for the Lions (being their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years), but also a historic game for the Bears as well (for obvious reasons) and given how coaching mishaps of this magnitude are so rare, along with how widely talked about this game (and the near-unanimous calls for the firing of Eberflus after said game) about the game is, I don’t see how you can delete it at this point, though I do understand the arguments for deletion. :KDoppenheimer (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a historic game for both teams. For the Lions, this gave them their best ever start to a season, not to mention their first Thanksgiving win in 7 years. As for the Bears, this caused Matt Eberflus to become the first Head Coach in Bears History to be fired mid season. I see no reason we should delete this. Carson004 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention I do not see anywhere in that article that would meet deletion criteria for any WP essays, like WP:G12 for example. This never broke any copyright rules Carson004 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It took more than this game for the Lions to have a "historic" start and it took more than one game to get Eberflus fired. Your argument doesn't really hold water. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it is still historic, so YOUR argument cannot hold air Carson004 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that if this WERE to become noteworthy and talked about like the Buttfumble in the future, then this article can be recreated and should stand. As it stands, however, this definitely feels completely reactionary. Definitely can be mentioned on the Eberflus page, but that's as far as it goes imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.135.55 (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want this page to stay since this game was historic. 2601:40A:8400:1820:5D10:B5A6:B02:CF3D (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe over time this game will get memed like the butt fumble due to the clock management at the end of the game, at which point an article about the game would be appropriate (and at such a time the game may have accumulated a more useful nickname than the title being used here). But until then there is nothing special about it. The notion that the game is historic because its Detroit's first Thanksgiving win in 7 years is not a remotely appropriate standard. And the fact that the win gave Detroit its best start ever is not a reason for keeping either. Lots of games have given a team their best start in franchise history, and we don't have articles on them and there would be no reason to. I went to Miami for an example since that one is probably the easiest, given that they had a perfect season in their 7th year as a franchise. In 1966 they won for the first time in their 6th game, so that made for their best start ever. As the franchise's first win, that may well be notable, separate from their best start. They then won 2 more games that season so each of those wins marked the Dolphins' best start too. Then in 1967, they won their opening game, so obviously that represented their best start. Wins in weeks 9 and 10 also gave them their best start ever, so in 1967 the Dolphins had 3 wins that represented their best start ever. Then in 1968, in week 5 they earned a tie putting them at 1-5-1, which was their best start ever. Their remaining 4 wins that season also produced their best start ever, so in 1968 the Dolphins played 5 games that produced their best start ever. In 1969 they never had their best start ever. But that changed in 1970. Their win in week 3 put them at 2-1 for the season, their best start ever, and each of their remaining 8 wins for that season represented their best start ever. So they had 9 games in 1970 that represented their best start ever. In 1971 their win in week 2 put them at 1-0-1, their best start ever, and 7 of their remaining wins represented their best start ever, so they had 8 games that produced their best start ever. Then we get to 1972. They of course started 2-0, which was then their best start ever and each of their remaining 12 wins also represented their best start ever. So 13 games in 1972 produced their best start ever (now some of those games that represented the best start ever for any NFL team and especially the final game that clinched a perfect regular season may well have a claim to notability). So after their initial season, the Dolphins had 38 games where a win or tie produced their best start ever, and no one cares about or remembers most of them. And that's pretty easy one to go through since they won't have another best start ever until they start 15-0. Other teams probably have more than 38 games representing their best start ever, but even at 38, we hardly need articles about games that almost no one cares about or remembers just because they happen to represent a teams best start ever. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WALLOFTEXT 38.122.245.52 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More like a well thought out and explained vote that addresses the silly and non-policy based WP:ILIKEIT keep votes. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps a bit of a weak one. But there is evidence of WP:IMPACT, whether or not Eberflus was an awful coach, a 105-year first and historic season for the Lions is something. Plus sometimes the wider impact is not felt until end-of-season recaps (yes, yes, WP:CRYSTAL and all), but this is just borderline enough in terms of wider significance for me. See the AFD for Hail Murray for a similar article that editors were in a rush to delete and wound up being kept. This was nominated a day or two after its creation, seems like a bit of a rush to me. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Etzedek24: Why are you putting so much weight regarding a "historic season for the Lions" on just this one game? There were 10 other wins besides this one. If anything that sounds like information that doesn't belong in its own article. If the Lions win again next week, does that mean that should also be its own article? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All things considered together satisfy WP:IMPACT for me. I don't particularly think one is more important than the other, it's the confluence of them that takes this over the threshold for me. I even did say that I think it is a weaker keep. No need to be hyperbolic. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 04:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be hyperbolic @Etzedek24, I'm focused on the fact that a number of people have mentioned the Lions' season as a reason for keeping, when from my perspective, it's entirely irrelevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The game was impactful, but only really to the franchises themselves, not to the broader culture of the NFL, as all of the other games with dedicated pages are. Nothing particularly distinctive happened this game, it was memorable but poor clock management resulting in you getting less plays off than intended isn't exactly unique. Dak in the 2022 NFC Wildcard stands out in my memory; that game doesn't have it's own page, it is just described on the season pages and 2022 playoffs page. I feel like the Hail Murray is a particularly misguided equivalency because the play itself was notably distinctive; it was a highlight and a signature play with a unique name. It fits in with the other entries on Category:National Football League games, this one just does not, it stands out as the least significant unnamed event on the page. The game was primarily just impactful on the franchises. Thus, talk about the significance to the Lions' season on the Lions' season page, the significance to the Bears' season on the Bears' season page. Talk about that on the Bears–Lions rivalry page. In my opinion, this game does not warrant it's own page. TheHaft (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Delete This article is completely useless and should be deleted as soon as possible. If this article stays, why don't we have articles about other NFL games in which teams set their records?! And also, this article literally makes no sense, because it has no historical significance, Detroit set its record not only because of this match, and the fact that Detroit lifted the curse of Thanksgiving is absolutely insignificant information. According to this logic, Wikipedia should have articles about Damar Hamlin's collapse in the 2022 Bills—Benglas game and Christian Eriksen's collapse in the 2020 UEFA Denmark—Finland match. Obviously, those articles would have been much more important, since it almost took the lives of two people. 212.164.65.158 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Delete, on hold (see below the relist) pending below discussion, is this notable as the worse NFL clock management of all time?), have been watching the discussion and am surprised at it having so many keep comments. Hey man im josh is a Lions fan so there is no bias involved, just a commonsense appraisal of this page from a standpoint of notability. Probably a redirect to the fired coach and maybe a sentence or two mention on his page should be added to cover the topic but keeping the page would lower the bar for stand-alone pages for individual NFL games. The only NFL game I ever attended was the game in which Jim McMahon took over the Bears quarterback position. I missed the first quarter and the only touchdown of this Bears-New Orleans game, a game that George Halas said was the worse football game that he ever saw in his life. I consider it a notable game for Halas' comment alone, and McMahon's beginning his reign, which I knew was significant as I watched it happen, led to a couple of great years for the Bears and was icing on the cake. I haven't attended another NFL game because I saw the worse and that's enough for me. But Wikipedia probably wouldn't accept a page about it. The clock mistakes in this 2024 game are similar, and the bottom of the barrel is sometimes only notable to those who remember being there (for three-quarters). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is one of the most significant games of the 2024 season. The history of it being the root cause of the Bears firing a head coach mid-season for the first time in nearly 80 years is notable in itself. Cramerwiki (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of Eberflus being firing is more than just this game. It is due to his ineffective 14–32 record overall and 4–7 record this season. In addition, the game immediately before other teams' first mid-season firing of a head coach do not have articles. Frank Anchor 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eberflus was directly fired as a result of the ending of the game. Had they won, sure, he'd be gone after the season anyways, but this is what directly led to it. This will be a significant piece of NFL History. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pure unsubstantiated speculation. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor You are correct. If a coach getting fired in mid-season after a game makes the game notable then we need an article about this game (and many more), since Robert Saleh was fired after the game. Maybe there is a scenario where clearly something in that game all by itself got the coach fired, and the game thus became notable - maybe they won the Super Bowl the prior year and in the first game of the season they did something so stupid that they got fired - but even then, discussion of the game and the stupid decision would belong in the coach's article, not a separate article for the game, unless the game itself gets persistent coverage.Rlendog (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cramerwiki If the game actually does become "a significant piece of NFL History" then there will be ongoing coverage of the game to establish that, and at that time I don't think there would be much objection to recreating this article. Until then that is merely WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to 4 of the 10 keeps, and to a reply someone made on a keep vote, that's certainly not replying to every keep vote as you've stated.
If you read the WP:BLUDGEON essay I believe it's clear that my behaviour does not fit said mold. Feel free to take me to WP:ANI, but I do feel comfortable in stating I have not been bludgeoning the discussion and I resent said accusation, which in of itself, is an attempt to invalidate discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, to bludgeon the accused bludgeoner as well as DrewieStewie who says the play is "monumental", a question. Is this being called the "worse time management in NFL history" in reliable sources? I know it was a time management misplay, but has bad use of the clock and time outs occurred on this scale before? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll check the sources after work since I’m about to clock back in, but as a quick clarification, I stated that the consequences of the play have shown to be monumental, in the positive for the lions and in the negative for the Bears/Eberflus. Clock management has never been this poor at the top level of gridiron football, and the criticism has been extensive and widespread, resulting in these consequences. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I'm looking for is not relevance to the teams or the coach, those are of minor notability and no reason to keep, but to possible worse NFL clock management of all time. That would be a reason to keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I'm not finding an individual incident discussed, in of itself, as being the worst of all time. I'm finding games discussed as such, particularly pointed towards YouTube, but I'm finding a difficulty in finding said coverage because, as I'm sure you know, recent stories typically end up popping up more prominently and there's always sensationalism after games to bait in the clicks. Strange because you would think there'd be lists of the worst individual clock management decisions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, there have been mentions and comments about this being one of the worse, and yes, there should be a list or Hall of Shame somewhere. This RM has been wrongly contested on the basis of team and coach history, when it seems to me it should all hang all fall on the 'worse time management' notability (where it is probably at least a contender). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Oh I'm sure it's a contender, but anecdotally speaking, I feel like we hear about this sort of thing all the time. Personally I think there have been worse mishaps than miscommunications and misunderstandings between a head coach and his rookie QB (after all, no reason Williams couldn't have called a time out). Never the less, I'll give it more of a shot again later, but a lot of the focus seemed to be on games as a whole, as opposed to an individual decision. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC Sports says it was one of the worst incidents of clock management of all time. 38.122.245.52 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your NBCsports find adds the notability to this being possibly the worse clock management in history (and yes, Williams could have called a time out but didn't, a major part of the topic). With this source I'll probably change to 'keep' below. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested (pending discussions, previously Delete): While I do understand that this can be labeled "historic", I'm pretty sure that this is more of WP:RECENTISM than actually making it historic. However, the context that has seriously built up on this article made it pretty solid and put on some valid contention whether it stands to keep or not. (Plus it can be considered a significance among the rivalry as well) Regardless though, I think that a game that has the significance of an example of having bad clock management, which the coach then getting fired the day after, is not enough to warrant a standalone creation. (Plus most of the context that happened in the final drive would most likely won't be talked about in much detail or mostly remembered other than the fact Detroit has the best start in franchise history and finally won a Thanksgiving game in 7 years)
Unlike what I said, Madhouse in Maryland and Miracle in Miami are good examples of something that is significant to the point where it can be talked about in detail. (Since the context in the final drives would something that can be remembered and look back into)
If this does get deleted however, I do want to see some split merges of some information to both team's appropriate articles and their rivalry page.
Edit: After looking back in this proposal with some of the recent replies here, I decided to just put this on the contested state under the grounds of some pending discussions above this reply. Due to this, I decided to temporarily invalidate some of my sayings here. Kirbix12 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Bears-Lions rivalry. This article is strongly built on WP:RECENTISM with information people may forget within a few months. It certainly does not warrant a standalone article, and should be merged or redirected.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would help me if some of the keeps could provide links showing the long-term notability of this game. Just a cursory search on Google right now, and I don't see much more than blog posts and other fan pages popping up that are still discussing this game. It's possible that some season recaps will touch on this in a month, but even then I am not sure that meets the notability requirements. That said, I would have no prejudice if this article is deleted/merged that it could be recreated in a year or so if long term coverage continues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sense in keeping this article due to WP:RECENTISM. Bad plays happen all the time and coaches get fired from them. As its own article, the WP:ILIKEIT votes do not explain the "historic" aspect of this game. Any kind of historic moment could just be covered in the rivalry article, season articles, and maybe even Eberflus's article. Conyo14 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the notability of this possibly being the worse use of clock management in NFL history. An editor above brought this NBC Sports source. The topic's notability comes from 'worse in history' and not what teams played or what streak was broken. The firing of the coach fits the topic as an aftermath (in an "Aftermath" section). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy Kryn, the article you brought forward states It was one of the worst examples of clock management in NFL history. (emphasis mine). Notwithstanding your misquote, the article is also written by Mike Florio as a commentary article, and surely states the author's opinion on the matter (note the colloquial nature of his writing, like "No, Matt. You didn’t. And everybody knows it."). I dont mind your opnion on the matter, but want to be clear that you are definitively misquoting the article and likely misrepresenting the source as justification. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice the word 'possibly'? 'One of the worse' means it's in a very small class, with the author also saying 'and that is no exaggeration'. The worse clock management in history is among that small class, and could very possibly be this one. There are no other "candidates" being mentioned or found in sources, this one may be unique, and the descriptor "possibly" is accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your quote was The topic's notability comes from 'worse in history'. Just pointing out the source you attribute this to does not say this, as somebody could be led to believe. Again though, this source is an opinion piece, written just a few hours after the game and does not purport to make any definitive claims. Mike Florio is an entertainer who is well known for making exaggerated or dramatic claims about football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how you'd misinterpret my statement by reacting to just a portion of it, once again missing the word 'possibly'. I don't know Mike Florio's work, and you may be right, but I think NBC is seen as a reliable source, and their management made the decision to publish Florio's comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disregarding your first sentence in your comment. It's just that you made a definitive statement that the notability of this article is inherent due to it being the worst of something ever. That said, that source was produced hours after the event, provides no historical context, is written as a blog post and is authored by someone well known for making reactionary hot takes in American football. This commentary here is primarily for the closer, to help them to understand the source in question and whether it establishes anything. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking for Randy, I can confirm that he said possibly prior to being the worse use of clock management, therefore is not misquoting. It's only his opinion that the NBC Sports source, along with other sources, qualify the GNG standard for this article's longevity. No need to read too deep into it. He's at least done a more generous job at eeking out a reasonable !keep. Conyo14 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying otherwise. But Randy did say The topic's notability comes from 'worse in history', and I am pointing out that 'worse in history', as he stated earlier in his comment, is not what the source says. It says "one of the worst" without listing any other examples. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure he is not quoting that either. He's just quoting what others are trying to say in this AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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).[171] 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 [172].
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 () 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see strong arguments on both sides, with no consensus forming. @DocZach: I strongly advise you to review WP:BLUDGEONING before you continue. Your lengthy, persistent, repetitive responses to every opposing view will not help sway the outcome your way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. DocZach (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's difficult to see how consensus can be achieved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch, Greene 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)

Very little to go by on this one, but the presence in GMaps of a now-defunct Antioch Church a short ways to the west suggest that this is a locale named after it (Antioch being a common part of church names. No sign anywhere of a town, however. Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Hunt (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)

Unable to locate any books reviews. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Unable to find an reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV No indication of significance. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated scope_creepTalk 07:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch 11:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One article here, but it keeps timing out [174], still not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I deprodded this, but on further investigation it looks like it has been written by a combination of SPA/IP/the subject. There's a profile in NYT (Cohen, Joyce. Away From the Hammer and Quiet Enough for Poetry: He had been thinking Brooklyn, but he found what he wanted in Queens. New York Times. 8/13/2017, Vol. 166 Issue 57688, p4), which looks to be in the property section and doesn't address his poetry more than in passing; also a Proquest copy of the article Oaktree b mentions above (Hamlet, Isaac. Iowa poet goes from pigs to pearls. Press - Citizen Iowa City, Iowa. 10 Aug 2019: A.2.); I also found one sort-of-review piece quoting him with brief bio material (Working Out What to Do in the Hamptons This Summer? Tauer, Kristen, Nordstrom, Leigh, Wally, Maxine, Women's Wear Daily (May 24, 2019): 17). Not found much else on Ebsco/Proquest that isn't just him as an agent/editor. Poetry collections are notoriously sparsely reviewed and awards are often more important in this area, but I'm not familiar with the US minor poetry awards. With three different bits of press, plus the review in the article, and the award, I'd generally be leaning keep, but in view of the promotional history here, I'm undecided, willing to be persuaded either way. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I normally try and keep poets and poetry articles if I can as I believe they exhibit the height of human creativity and expression, living a life in a garret and suffering to express, that all denote notability even if only spoken off. Choosing that life is an aspect as well, which is important. However it is a BLP and there must be something there. The award has been given to few very famous individuals but didn't see him listed either on Wikipedia article or the actual site and couldn't find any other Steinback award for poetry. There is a fiction award, and a fellowship award but couldn't identify him. That was reason I sent up to Afd and didn't think he was notable and still don't. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given User:Espresso Addict]'s comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Music Group (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 NCORP. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing more substantial than the references already used, most of which are a) listings or b) no longer accessible. (The exception is XXL, which is a Q&A with Nyzzy Nyce, who founded Hurricane Music Group. The Nyzzy Nyce article was (soft) deleted in 2022.) JSFarman (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love WP:ATD in theory but I can't find any evidence of their affiliation beyond a few songs credoted to Hurricane Music Group/Duck Down. I couldn't find Hurricane Music Group on the Duck Down website, and Discogs (which I know is not a great source) only lists two releases and both are by the same artist. There is no entry on Allmusic. JSFarman (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid - this artist was under a distro deal with duck down / 3d and made national headlines for blogs and has millions of view due to the joint venture for indiana that’s a staple !! do not remove this !! Guiltytalent (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Adding comment from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Music Group. (JSFarman (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Two contributions to Wikipedia, the first reverted and the second being the above. Hmm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Duck Down Music Inc. isn't a good Merge target as it is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at this point, without any reliable sources, promo for a non-notable company. Searches turn up nothing solid. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie Moleta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I found this article because Moleta redirects here and I wanted to determine whether it should be a disambiguation or if Moleta (kgosi) should be the main subject. Searching suggests this is a run-of-the-mill musician. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are four sources fully cited in this article talking about her. They appear to be reliable, secondary, and independent sources; the two I've managed to access myself provide significant coverage and I assume the others do as well, particularly the news article in The West Australian with her name in it. That's three GNG-qualifying sources right there. Quoting, GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- just because the sources in the article were not linked does not mean they do not exist. Whether a person seems "run-of-the-mill" is irrelevant as long as they pass GNG; and if you read the news articles which were cited in the article at the time of the nomination she does have a somewhat interesting style.
I would make this a strong keep if I could track down the URL for the West Australian article, but I can't currently. Probably searches are failing because the news source does not keep archives from 2001. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly I think it will likely need to be a disambiguation page -- the kgosi while arguably more historically significant is likely much more obscure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ref 2 is significant (partially interview based but with more than sufficient additional coverage); ref 4 is the same author in the same source a couple of months later with a cut down para about a live appearance, so I don't give that particular weight. There's basically a paragraph of review included at De Morgen[175] (the article covers releases from multiple bands/muso )- it looks like this is the same as ref 3 since it's the only mention of her in the archives. Ref 2 (GTranslated) suggests that she has had more success in France than elsewhere, however she has hardly any appearances on French sites currently. The West Australian smells like an interview and/or a festival appearance (Kulcha was WA's multicultural arts body), but would need someone with access to the archive to check. I can't see any other reviews around for her albums including via sampling archive snapshots of her website. In the absence of additional reviews -- particularly for her other work -- I think that a case can be made that her album Dive weakly meets WP:NALBUM (the Liberation and De Morgen articles, plus two of its songs were in the soundtrack for Pretty Things (2001 film)), that her albums other than Dive are clearly non-notable, and that she does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence James Ludovici (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)

PROD was contested. Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. The bulk of the article is just an unsourced list of his non-notable works. The article has had a notability tag for almost 9 years with no additions to support the subjects notability. cyberdog958Talk 07:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Al-Assad family as WP:ATD. WP:NOTINHERITED. Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Of course there will be coverage in this context, but the child is not inherently notable. WP:SIGCOV is in the context of the child's comments about their parent, not about the child. Middling math accomplishments fail WP:DUE and are insignificant to establish notability. Sanctions in the context of being a tool of his father's regime. Longhornsg (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is an article about the daughter of kim-jung un (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ju-ae). Never held a government office, non-notable child of a dictator. Hafez's recent aquisition of a PhD in number theory seems significant enough to me. If deletion is chosen, then I also think a redirect to the family page seems best. 157.193.117.76 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that article is not up to standard, please nominate it for deletion as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply having a PhD and being related to a famous person does not not meet WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:The individual was expected to be the successor to Bashar al-Assad, having been designated as the future president. This anticipation has brought him significant media coverage from reputable news sources, as evidenced by the list of references provided, demonstrating that it meets the minimum requirement for WP:GNG.Instant History (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a good number of sources attesting to his mathematical skill (he got an Honorable Mention at the IMO at age 15 - nothing to sneeze at!). Perhaps we could add his mathematical acheivements to the article. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... so I nominate keep. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pump Aid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable politician. All sources are from his party, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 06:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some sources related to him:
ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:35, 9 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 Speedy keep‎. I'm withdrawing this and closing as speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPathtalk 23:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ferguson (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 disambiguates between exactly two articles. This is unnecessary as the existence of each article can be dealt with by hatnotes on either pointing to the other, which I have ensured is already happening. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 9 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.
Susan Kushner (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)

Unsourced and entirely in-universe. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramona Quimby. Johnj1995 (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramona (novel series)#Characters. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meld Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV sources were found. The article currently cites primary blogs, which do not count toward notability. Therefore, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of YouTube videos about this product (this is how I discovered it). Here is one from one of the most trusted sources for live streaming topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw9c2sKk1ec. Here is one from another established YouTuber who specializes in this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzAl4BW3uiA. I wasn't sure how to cite these, but they strike me as significant in this product category. Open to guidance here. There are not a lot of independent publications remaining that report on live stream tech :(. Emcee8710 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they may be youtubers you trust, but on Wikipedia, we generally do not consider youtube videos as a good source (especially to prove notability), see WP:RSPYT. Also the ones considered 'trustworthy' are those uploaded by news sources who are considered reliable, like BBC, CNN, or those here. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources at all, and per Exclusive Editor
And a comment: Somebody should draftify it though, since if good secondary sources are found, what's written shouldn't go to waste. FLIPPINGOUT (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crockett Town, Virginia (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 can't find anything for this. Newspapers.com results are for Crockett, Virginia. I've tried searching for Crockett Town and the variants Crocketttown and Crockettown, with only some minor coverage for a Crockettown Road. The gbooks preview for "Land Causes, Accomack County, Virginia 1727-1826" indicates no mentions of this, which is some evidence against the possibility that this is a settlement whose rise and fall predates most digitized coverage. A recent Arcadia Press book about Accomack County only has Crockett as a surname. I'm not seeing any evidence that this passes WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND, or even anything that could be used to expand this article. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it comes up for me as a snippet in a GBooks search in "Virginia's Eastern Shore: A History of Northampton and Accomack Counties", Volume 2, p. 812: "the present crossover road from Crockett Town area to Mount Nebo". This is the only reference in that book. Those two places seem to represent the west and east ends of the present-day Omega Road, respectively, based on the ~1942 USGS topo map. It's not named on older topo maps, and after beating through a variety of old maps, there's no evidence that it was an actual settlement (nor that the Crocketts lived there). Choess (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most likely existed when this article was created, but no longer exists. Searching the official Accomack County home page the only Crockett that comes up is Robert D. Crockett on the board of supervisors. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia, the majority of which like this one machine- or bulk-created 16 years ago with no expansion since, I recommend a bulk deletion of such non-notable places made by this user. I commend Hog Farm for his research that the creator didn't do, but there are hundreds and hundreds like this one, names simply lifted from a map to a database and then lifted to be articles that do not meet our notability standards, if not outright incorrect. Reywas92Talk 05:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yanis Roumadi (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)

Several searches pulled up only databases and a very few signing announcements—nothing that appeared to be WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Snyder (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 Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Peace in Africa (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)

Promotional article paraphrasing the website for an organization which is not notable. 🄻🄰 03:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stars in the Sky (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 standalone song from Sonic the Hedgehog 2 doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. All of the the sources are just promotional stuff. It would be better if it was redirected to either Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (soundtrack) or Kid Cudi discography. Toby2023 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELOSYS (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 G11. Mildly promotional article on a Slovak fire-control system. Article only includes one source, which appears to be primary, and reliable sources are clearly lacking. No evidence that this warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Fernengel (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 anything to substantiate the notability of this artist. A WP:BEFORE search found a few mentions of him, social media postings, a couple public-relations previews (press releases), and things he has written about himself. There is no independent significant coverage in reliable sources, or essays/articles on his work in art history texts; no major exhibitions at notable galleries or museums; no works in notable museum or national gallery collections. The article is an autobiography and also edited by single purpose accounts. It basically says that he grew up drawing dinosaurs, had a show at "Larry's Bar", designed a beer bottle label, and is an AVID (in all caps) Denver "Broncoes" [sic] Fan, and a "pizza expert", none of which adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]