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

The result was keep‎. The consensus here is to Keep this article on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lion lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:PROMO WP:ADVERT piece, g11 declined because "looks notable" which has nothing to do with g11. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Products, and Kenya. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has significant coverage from CNN and WIPO already cited in article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: our WP:G11 policy states:

”This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.”

I don’t think this article meets the criteria for a CSD G11 tag; that’s why I removed the tag. We’ll see what others say.

The article has multiple refs, in particular CNN and the World Intellectual Property Organization’s WIPO magazine.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The CNN Business piece reads like a promo piece a marketing agency would put out same with the WIPO Piece, although the WIPO piece seems to be more of an informal piece with interview quote throughtout. So while CNN is normally reliable it feels like in this case, it is one of the less reliable end of CNNs articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These lights won first place in the young inventor category of the European Inventor Awards, sponsored by the European Patent Office. That’s a big deal. Slam dunk notability based on that.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has significant enough coverage but article very much needs fixing to sound less promotional in tone and images are both copyright violations. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable, and any promotionalism has been removed. This discussion should closed per WP:SNOW. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SNOW in the desert. Nice. I'm not getting it to snow, see below. Copyright concerns over the photo, is a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright concerns over a photo means you propose the image for deletion. It's irrelevant to the notability of the topic, or to the original reason this was proposed for deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They do if the article is to be deleted, they go hand in hand. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Boy this needs a rewrite. It's been covered in NPR [1] although it looks like a different thing. Georgia PBS [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kukos on copying the photo from the World Intellectual Property Organization, that's getting a tag as a copyvio. It's sourced there to someone else, who doesn't match the name used here, so red flags all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Two copyvios, both from WIPO. Dude, they basically enforce copyright around the world and coordinate treaties, don't steal from them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, delete the photographs. Your points are irrelevant to the notability or promotional questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, they are red flags though, they pop up when people try to promote stuff on here. More times than I'd care for. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the inventor (who doesn't have an article). I don't think the light system is notable, there are a few discussions around the teen that invented them. The Copyvio photos are a red flag though, this is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Louloudi92 uploaded commons:File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg and commons:File:Lion Lights system.jpg to Commons. His user page says he is the assistant editor of WIPO magazine.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Commons admins will look into it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Oaktree b's deletion requests at Commons. No response positive or negative so far:

• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Turere-profile-picture.jpg
• commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion Lights system.jpg

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; the red flags certainly don't help either. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable. I say, delete people who nominate referenced things like this.Danstarr69 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! That’s a pretty rough comment.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Even if it wasn't referenced, the references are easy to find.

If they weren't then fair enough.

It's like with someone I added to a 16 year old short film the other day on IMDB. As it was her first, and only film credit as far as I can see, I searched for external links to add to her profile. However I only found two, most likely because she's got married. One self-published. And one partial-interview in a local newspaper. She got to the final of a county Miss World type competition, and got to the final of two national Miss World type competitions, all three in the same year, plus is or was a model and a dancer.

If she had an Wikipedia article, and someone nominated it for deletion then fair enough, as there's nothing to prove she's notable. Did she win those 3 competitions she got to the final of? Who knows, because there's no follow up stories after January 2012 when that news story was published.

Editors are supposed to try and improve articles before nominating them for deletion.

Yet there's 100s or 1000s of people who seem to spend all day, every day, going around deleting or nominating articles for deletion, with no attempt to improve them first. Danstarr69 (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, we aren't here to rewrite the article after a deletion discussion, we're here to "process the paperwork". Wikipedia has a whole volunteer staff that need to do the work to keep it functioning. There are hundreds of AfD's that come up weekly, in English alone. If we stopped after each one and did the work on the article, the rest would get backed up and we'd never recover. I look at the discussion in AfD, say my piece, move on to the next one. That's my "job" here, that is entirely voluntary I might add. No one pays me to do this, I do it as I enjoy it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without a doubt. Agletarang (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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