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.
Promotional article on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Notability isn’t inherited by proximity to “what may be notable” hence being “general counsel” for a publicly traded company doesn’t confer notability. A before search leads me user generated unreliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has a job. There's not much beyond that. Coverage mentions him in relation to the company, but it isn't in-depth or significant or focused on him. --Kbabej (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: per Justanothersgwikieditor. The article can be expanded further, same goes for the Bangawan Solo article (someone else will have to visit the public libraries for the locked sources though as I am under quarantine at the moment). – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: From the article he has non-trivial mentions in Wired, Der Spiegel, The Daily Dot, CNET, The Hollywood Reporter and LGBTQ Nation (although I'm not 100% sure on the quality of that last site, haven't seen it before). There is also discussion of Yiannopoulos' comments on the Drunken Peasants podcast by The Huffington Post and the New York Daily News, and Kirk has appeared on CNN. Seems like there is persistent, non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article has barely any content and virtually no sources. This same user attempted to create the same article previously, which was deemed incomplete and moved to a draft space back in July; the user has not done any of the recommended work and has instead recreated the article with no changes from the draft. Suggest deleting the article once more until the original concerns are actually addressed. Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was surprised to not find significant coverage of this game, especially after the developers went on to release Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl, but it doesn't look like it got any reviews from the usual major outlets. It's been included in a couple list articles [3][4] but no full reviews from reliable sources. Ultimately fails GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are good, but they should be added to the existing draft first. And I've never heard of PixelDie, but no other articles on Wikipedia cite it, and I don't think it would pass as a reliable source under WP:VG/RS, so I don't think it can be used. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But two sources aren't nearly enough, and that doesn't address the fact that the article as it stands now is virtually empty. Hence why I still maintain the article should be deleted and the draft it was copied from be continually improved upon until it's actually ready. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the Metacritic test, and the sources brought forward do not indicate WP:SIGCOV. This is undoubtedly a non-notable game unless better quality sources, such as reviews from reliable outlets, can be found.ZXCVBNM (TALK)08:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the snippiness is not appreciated since the WP:BURDEN is to provide proof of notability, not to point out the lack of it. However, that said, the ShackNews article is not an analysis of the game, just an announcement post for a streamed demonstration of the game, so it doesn't count at all. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is also a fairly short announcement post that the game exists. It has a slight amount of analysis, calling it "small but respectable", but doesn't ascend to the level of WP:SIGCOV. And the review is not from a reliable source, the writing style is clearly amateurish and I have doubts if it went through the editorial process. ZXCVBNM (TALK)05:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Would you care to explain" sounds accusatory. "If you wouldn't mind, could you explain" or "If possible, could you explain" would be more polite. Similarly, claiming I am making a "vague wave" is suggesting some level of bad faith editing (or at least lazy editing) on my part. (Not to mention I didn't "just" point to the policy - I did give an explanation of why - that it needs more reliable sources.) ZXCVBNM (TALK)16:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. I'm honestly surprised that there is no buzz around this game at all, but going through sources only shows the smallest of news snippets, such as the early access release and a stream announcement on Shacknews. Mlb96 already found both of these sources above. I found nothing else; not a single review in a reliable outlet ("Pixeldie" is not reliable in this instance). IceWelder [✉] 08:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete fails WP:ORG. Media coverage has the organisation making comments in the media, rather than being the subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
At first sight the article seems legit, with sources and all, but neither of the sources says what the article claims they say, i e everything in the article fails verification, and the legitimate sounding "Indian Defence Research Wing" that is used as source for everything technical in the article turns out to be a private website hosted by GoDaddy, the article used as source isn't a real article but someone's personal opinion that the website expressly doesn't take any responsibility for, and even that post doesn't say anything even remotely similar to what the article creator claims it says. So some random dude posted a personal opinion on a reliable seeming but decidedly not RS website (an RS website on the subject would have a "gov.in" address, and wouldn't be hosted by GoDaddy), and a random WP editor then adds a lot of fantasy stuff to the post and creates an article here about a class of super-duper Indian warships that don't exist. If something comes out of the project, and a reliable source can be found, a new article can be created, but this one belongs in the trash bin. Drachentöter001 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator has removed the most blatant fantasies from the "article" but everything that is left is still either completely unsourced or failed verification. Drachentöter001 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Trackless train. Closing given the fact the article creator redirected the article to the article suggested here.
Redirect to Trackless train. last time I saw this article was in draftspace, I have no idea how it got moved to the article namespace, especially since I don't remember submitting it for approval. Either way, I found out about Trackless train midway through and abandoned it. (I didn't know how to nominate it for speedy deletion at the time). As for the promotional content, I was pretty new when I made it and couldn't find any sources, so I did a quick search and nabbed the first one I saw. It's definitely not worth keeping. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᵀᵃˡᵏ ᵗᵒ ᵐᵉ16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly to Hills Football League as suggested above. Three rather different views already expressed on what to do with the article, though I think looking at the article itself, and the opinions given, redirecting at this time is perhaps the best course of action. Article doesn't seem notable enough to be standalone but could be a useful redirect term and the history is then preserved. Bungle(talk • contribs)20:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage and the current sources (except the Wired one) are apparently fictional (all dead links despite being supposedly from this year, back-ups on web.archive (if they exist) are 4xx errors). Actual sources mentioning Tubbo which I found online are unreliable or mention him only in passing. 15 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have checked not only the current references by the references of the draft it was accepted from. I have failed to find any that show Tubbo to pass WP:BIO. What I found were 404 errors. The only remaining reference that is not a 404 appears to be a fantasy report of a fantasy world. Depressed, I tried a WP:BEFORE style search and failed to find any items even close to significant coverage about Tubbo in any reliable sources, let alone multiple ones. I conclude that he fails all our inclusion criteria FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me21:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to either Dream SMP or Dream (YouTuber), since he's heavily involved with the server and affiliated with Dream. I'm unsure which of the two pages Tubbo should redirect to, which is why I also proposed a Merge as an alternative action; some info about him can go into Dream SMP and other info about him can go into YouTuber Dream. Either way, he needs more sources covering him before he gets his own article here. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Tubbo has had a charting song on the UK Singles Chart, which was removed without explanation from the article before it was published to mainspace. I have restored it. There is some notability here, but I'm not sure this alone could sustain the article. It appears the uer ExcuseMePowerGamers has made several hoax additions to articles, and they are responsible for fabricating LA Times and NME citations on subjects. I've restored another removed Dexerto citation to the article. Ss11220:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112:Dexerto is actually an unreliable source according to WP:VG/RS; I remember because I asked about the outlet a couple months ago. I did find this source from Looper which listed him as a Twitch streamer who "blew up" in 2021; it isn't too long, but it does provide some usable material for the article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning delete but a few reasonable redirect/merge targets have also been proposed and should be considered Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article is rather problematic and has seen lots of vandalism. To hinder IP users from disruptively restoring the article off a previous revision, a deletion is preferred. If this was to be a redirect, it should be creted on top of the deleted article per the foregone reason. IceWelder [✉] 21:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to First Lady of Guam. I find Eddie891's contribution the most persuasive. Note the target of this merge isn't exclusive, and some content may be better merged elsewhere per Lajmmorre. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one's tough, since I focus on WIR. Although I've seen quite substantial coverage about the spouse, I wasn't able to find SIGCOV about her and it could easily be because of the times and perhaps not much were written about her in Guam. In the same way some of the articles for women in Papua New Guinea's notability are often challenged due to the nature of their work (not much fanfare) and contributions to their respective community.--WomenProj (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are adequate for the period in question. There are certainly newspaper records which could add to the coverage if anyone can find them.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep rationales are somewhat weak and assume there is sufficient coverage without offering it. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle(talk • contribs)20:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect: either to her husbands article or to First Lady of Guam. I came here expecting to !vote keep, but have found absolutely no substantive independent coverage that would establish GNG. Based on the time period, if that coverage has not been digitized, I'd still expect to see some inkling of it, but have that has not been forthcoming. Nothing here seems to establish notability independent of her husband. We fundamentally cannot write a substantive article on her (i.e. what she did) with the sources available. Keeping history would allow for recreation should substantive coverage emerge at some time in the future, but it just isn't there from what I have seen-- Eddie891TalkWork13:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this should be merged into her husband's article with a redirect from her name - as others say we don't have a record of what she did, but I do think that the page as it provide extra info that is relevant to her husband's. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No significant roles so fails WP:NACTOR, no claim to meeting WP:NMUSICIAN and the article is cited purely to passing mentions, social media, unreliable websites and paid-for spam. A WP:BEFORE search only yields more press releases and 'Brand Post' coverage in Influencive, Time Bulletin, The Open News and other blacklisted sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This actually refers to the original creator, if you check the deleted edits, the creator of those is globally locked. The IP cited the first AFD. The new incarnation of the article is not similar to the previous one, though. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication that there is any independent notability for this character just as a Marvel Cinematic Universe character. No discussions, articles or analysis of this character specific to the Marvel Cinematic Universe were found in my WP:BEFORE search. Simply being mentioned as a character in an upcoming movie does not establish notability. Merge or redirect to Doctor_Octopus#Film would also be fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might be ok. I’ll think on it. I was thinking either let it develop after the release, or have it deleted then. If you redirect, the poorly sourced content will remain readily accessible indefinitely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film per all others, especially Rorshacma. There is not justification now for an independent article, and no good reason to thing there will be in on release, and even then, it should be developed in the main article before being spun out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect Otto Octavius is a character depicted in multiple ways in multiple media. One article should be sufficient to cover all V'ed incarnations of this notable fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film - At this point, there really is nothing to justify splitting this off into an independent article. If, after No Way Homes release, there is enough content that a separate article is needed, it can be re-examined then, though I suspect its likely that it would still be a better fit to be covered on the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Octopus#Film. While this character will very likely get more coverage following the release of No Way Home, it is too soon for this character to have a separate article since the coverage does not exist right now to justify that. I agree that it can (and should) be re-examined in the future when coverage changes based on No Way Home. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of a smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he was the mayor of a small town whose mayors are appointed within the town council rather than being directly elected by the general public, which is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of proper sourcing to establish that he could be credibly claimed as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other small-town/appointed mayors -- but the article is written more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all with a small smattering of run of the mill local coverage in the local media where coverage of local mayors is simply expected. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being mayor of a small seaside town does not confer notability, and neither does anything else in this rather exhaustive list of accomplishments. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: all of Melody's articles are unsourced, but it's easy enough to prove that the claimed chart positions for her singles and albums are correct (they are all here [5]), and can be added to the articles as sources. Here is the Oricon chart position for "Haruka" [6] – I don't know where the sales figure has come from, but this definitely reached no. 10 in the chart. Richard3120 (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lei Aloha unless evidence of significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources can be located. The chart information is not enough to support a song having an independent article. With that being said, I believe a redirect is preferable to an outright deletion as this is a viable search topic with a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Like many articles on trains, this is in a sorry state and sorely needs both references and a rewrite. However, there's plenty of SIGCOV to justify keeping the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A previous article about this person was created by a now-blocked WP:COI account and deleted in August 2020. The present article was created as a Draft by a new user, declined 3 times at AfC between January and June 2021, but has now been moved to mainspace by the article creator. (The Infobox photo can also be seen in this reference but has been uploaded to Commons as being from another account's "personal collection".) I can't see the previous article instance to compare it, but Timtrent's rationale on that AfD seems applicable to the present instance, as do the rationales in the AfC rejections, such as that appearing in a 100-richest-women-in-a-country list is not inherently notable here. Although receiving one of 5 New Indian Express "Verve" awards in 2019 is noted in the article, that does not appear inherently notable for WP:ANYBIO #1, and would have been open to consideration in the 2020 AfD. Clearly this is a person who has board roles in various companies but I am not seeing evidence that encyclopaedic notability is demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 and Salt: WP:ROTM business person. I do not have admin goggles so cannot compare with the prior article that was deleted. Even so I see very similar rationale for deletion. Words such as "entrepreneur" do not need to be stated for real entrepreneurs. M<rketing categories like the 100 richest Foos in Bar are puffery and pointless. They indicate faux notability, gossip column trivia and hype. Vinod did stuff. Good. But it is not notable stuff, and she fails WP:BIOFiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me16:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing the Deletion The above-stated reasons are just baseless, she had made some remarkable achievements as a woman and that's the reason why the media covered the achievement widely. she is a widely notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.156.209.34 (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT pretty clearly a PR piece and does not appear to be any more notable than she was when the previous version was deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
She is an author with an Amazon-bestseller to her credit. There are sources to corroborate the content in the article, including the leading Indian daily The Indian Express and the Passion Vista Magazine, besides citations to the book. Will add more sources on finding them. I hope the article is not deleted as the existing sources validate the content.49.207.209.71 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. There is no substantial covarage from proper sources. Only some presentations, obviously covert press releases and promotional stuff. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have spent some time searching for material that might substantiate this person's notability. Unfortunately, every discovery brought further doubts, leading finally to my conclusion that the article should be deleted. To save other editors the time and trouble, here are a few things I found:
The book The Prosperity Factor seems to be a compilation of contributions by around fifty authors. Janik is one of these, and her contribution, entitled Best No-Bake Success Recipe, occupies about seven pages in this 384-page book. This book appears in many different covers, each featuring a photograph of one of the 50-or-so co-authors next to Joe Vitale. I removed the book cover image showing Vitale and Janik since it wrongly implied that they were the only co-authors. The book cover template here has a silhouette next to Vitale entitled "Your photo next to Joe", implying that a route to some sort of "fame" was being offered.
The book by Janik (The True Story of the Spiritual Awakening…) is "independently published".
The apparent journal paper Marketabilty of Block-Chain Technology in Third World Scenario is merely a transcript of an interview with Janik. Neither the paper nor the journal have any entries in Google Scholar.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Indie film with no real coverage in reliable sources. Article was mostly built by an UPE (blocked since) and their sockpuppets (at least 2 of them blocked since). Sources are promotional-tool sites where the producers could buy coverage to publicize their film: broadwayworld.com, imdb, two minor film festivals which mention the film but provide no info about it. One UCLA campus newspaper review by a then-freshman at UCLA writing about it. I don't think that qualifies as significant coverage.
Comment: Obviously I'm in favor of delete, but wanted to add what brought this article to my attention. It appears the makers of the film engaged in a huge vote-stuffing campaign on both imdb and Rotten Tomatoes. On imdb, there's over 23,000 votes for an unknown movie and nearly 22,000 of them are 8s, 9s, or 10s (10s are the vast majority). On RT, despite there being only 1 review, over 100 users voted to give it a 98% "fresh" user rating. Even Metacritic has six user reviews and all gave it a perfect "10". A valiant effort, supplemented by the aforementioned UPE(s) socking. Someone paid a few bucks to get this article built. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good resource... with care. One of the "keep" votes (Film Fanatical10069) is a confirmed sockpuppet of an UPE, and another (Кость Лінивець) probably was, based on bahaviour, but that account is no longer active so no way to confirm. A real editor voted "keep" citing Broadwayworld.com, which according to this discussion is not a reliable source to establish notability, because you can pay that site to publish a PR article for you. WorcesterHerald.com, despite the official-sounding name, is not a real newspaper, just a website that was briefly active for several years and is now dormant. I doubt that's a reliable source either. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After another conversation with Toddy1, I wanted to elaborate a little more. I'd like to make it clear that I did remove references that were promotional in nature, and some that were just trivial mentions of the film. The sock editor added them back, I reverted, and Toddy1 reverted me to avoid the impression that I was deleting references just because I wanted the article deleted. The opposite is true - I think the article should be deleted because the references, every single one of them, are either (a) user-submitted content like imdb, (b) paid-for quasi-advertising like broadwayworld.com, (c) trivial mentions of just the title, and (d) one UCLA campus newspaper review by a student. Those are all still there, and I'd encourage voters to look at each one. If you do, you'll see that while it's an impressive-looking mountain of references at first glance, none of them actually stand up to scrutiny as reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. They were all engineered, one way or another, by people looking to promote the film, and that's why a paid editor(s) and socks were the ones adding them in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Closing after this was relisted as failing GNG.
Delete - I would tend to agree with the view that this is something for a specialist site and does not have the level of notability that would warrant a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The first reference had no link, and when I searched it in an archive of old magazines there was nothing. The second one is a book which I have a file on. But, after searching through the entire book (thankfully the party that the so called “Anwar Ismail” belonged through only had a few representatives so that wasn’t long), there’s no one named “Anwar Ismail”. The third reference, seemed promising, but seemed like it was either a dead link or fake reference. The final one also has no link.
There was also an image, which has been deleted. The image turned out to be some other guy called Hadji Imam Sofwan. I'm 99% sure this article is a complete hoax. I might be archiving this article, since it lasted a surprisingly long 59 days. The man from Gianyar (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can verify that there are no "Anwar Ismail" in the roster. The tirto.id article seems fake too. Aside from deleting, I would recommend a sanction be given against @Khalif Ali Husain the Third: if the hoax is proven to be created in bad faith. Juxlos (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There seems to be one significant case, which iis not enough for notability as a lawyer. The refs seem to emphasis his purple heart, the most trivial of US awards, tho he does have one higher--tho not high enough for notability in connection with it --I conclude that the purpose of this article is advertising his practice. . DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet BASIC. I wouldn't say the Purple Heart is the most trivial of US awards (there are many that are FAR more trivial), but it's not near enough on its own for any kind of notability. Intothatdarkness19:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep There is significant amount of coverage to keep this article. Just as WaddlesJP13 stated, if it doesn't come to fruition , then it becomes a cancelled project. As to it being WP:TOOSOON, guess you haven't read the articles about All Net Resort & Arena under the [Category:Proposed indoor arenas in the United States] or the Future Buffalo Bills stadium, Miami Freedom Park, Oakland Ballpark, etc. under the [Category:Proposed stadiums in the United States] (couldn't get it to link to those two Category pages). What will we do, delete them all? Roberto221 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mis-identified in GNIS as a "populated place". This is a ranch/farm. The first mention I could find was from 1949 [7] that says the new owner of the 900 acre property was changing the name to Agua Linda Ranch. Contemporary reports [8] say it is a 63-acre farm, available for weddings. Definitely not a notable community. MB04:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NFILM, like most Woody Woodpecker shorts. A basic BEFORE search found no significant coverage to speak of, and the existing article has no references that meet NFILM. This should be a redirect, but my attempt to do so was contested, so I am bringing the article to AfD to establish consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NFILM, literally nothing but a plot summary and 2 sentences for the lead section. Like most Woody Woodpecker shorts, this does not have sufficient notability to be a standalone article. I cannot find any SIGCOV from a before search. I initially redirected this to Woody Woodpecker filmography, but the redirect was reverted, so I am taking this to AfD to establish consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NFILM. Outside of the 1 reference to The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons, I cannot find any SIGCOV from a before search. This should be redirected, which is what I did initially, but my redirect was reverted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails to meet GNG. Article has just 1 reference, and I cannot find any SIGCOV from a basic before search. Like most Woody Woodpecker films, it is not notable enough to justify an article, and should be redirected. This is what I did initially, but my redirect was reverted, so I am taking the article to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I PROD'd this article because it was unsourced. Now, a few sources have been added to the bottom of the page but the content of the article is unverified and could be original research for all anyone can tell. It makes a lot of historical claims and tells detailed stories without any evidence of its accuracy. LizRead!Talk!03:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is a rationale for deletion. The number of editors working on Chinese history topic is extremely small—most articles on individuals pre 20th-century are in awful shape, even higher-profile emperors. This, along with hundreds of other Chinese history articles, uses primary sources and has no footnotes, mainly because that is how the few editors who did write on Chinese history wrote their articles. Again, WP:DEL-CONTENT says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". If deleting articles because they could be OR was a practice, the thousands of articles with the tag "this article cites no sources", wouldn't exist. Aza24 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added a couple of inline book references. I can understand that the nominator is bothered by the present text, with its anecdotes about framing with buried dolls, etc., but adapting/simplifying the text to move from the historiographical practice of past times to the norms of our time and extending inline referencing are matters for normal editing rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There really is no excuse for this one, given that the source cited for the origin of the name says, in its entirety, "Tracy,—478.8 miles from Omaha; elevation 5,149 feet. It is a side track named in honor of Judge Tracy of Cheyenne." The topo says it's a siding too. We have never taken sidings to be notable per se. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND assuming it is a railway siding; however, the name being Tracy turns up so many false positives. As well, there's a number of mentions in books but many are poorly digitized so it's hard to tell if it's actually mentioning this place. Having said that, nothing I was able to find establishes this as anything other than a railway siding. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk))03:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article, and thousands like it on Wikipedia, is one that has grown entirely out of poorly-thought-out editing practise, that in turn came apparently out of a desire to rack up a high article-creation-count. So someone looks at GNIS and sees that this is a "populated place", and since Wikipedia practise has been that everywhere on GNIS that is a "populated place" should be described as an "unincorporated community" (a suitably meaningless catch-all), that's what they do. This is because of this mantra, that was never the result of any actual consensus, that Wikipedia is a gazetteer of populated places so every populated place on GNIS (or even worse, GEONet Names Server) should have a corresponding article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is in fact not a gazetteer - it is an encyclopaedia. However, even a glance at NPP shows that articles like this are still being produced at a rate of 10+ a day (the latest I've seen was a string of articles about tiny "villages" in Dagestan about which literally nothing can be written sourced to a reliable source beyond the name and the district population in 2010). Simply trying to AFD all of them one-by-one is not the solution. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable rail siding mislabeled as a populated place by GNIS, with erroneous "community" designation added by the article creator. –dlthewave☎05:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I did find this interview with the artistic director of the film festival [9]. There certainly might be more sources which are not in English. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. Article seems largely sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are no embassies, agreements, state visits etc. Article even states "Sierra Leone has not traditionally been a country of cooperation for Spain," LibStar (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage about this supposed relationship from independent sources. Article essentially admits to being non-notable as pointed out by the nominator Spiderone(Talk to Spider)07:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. I'm not quite sure about this one, but in terms of WP:BASIC, she comes pretty close with the Indy Star article in combination with the Butler article (which is a student newspaper so not quite as strong). The article certainly needs some more work but that's a separate issue.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC requires multiple published[4] secondary sources. One source in "IndyStar" is not enough. And I don't understand your vote. What do you "oppose"? It is "keep" or "delete". KidAd • SPEAK17:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Of the sources I can find about Hannigan, only the Indy Star article is independent, reliable, and has significant coverage. Of the rest cited on the page: Butler article is an interview (not independent) and from a college paper (not 100% reliable); Broadway World is basically an event listing; Cleve Scene is also an event listing. Needs multiple (at least 2) sources that are independent, reliable, and has significant. Samsmachado (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Second nomination following a first discussion that was closed no consensus due to a complete failure of anybody to participate in the discussion at all. This is still a WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim I can discern here is that he exists, and said existence is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his self-published social networking profiles and streaming platforms and online music stores -- and the only source that's actually independent or reliable just soundbites a brief quote from him in an article whose core subject is something else, which is not enough in either substance or volume to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if all of the sourcing around it is garbage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article are either unreliable or not significant and thus don't contribute to WP:GNG notability. Searching is difficult since I obviously don't speak Amharic, but I haven't been able to identify anything that would suffice under either the GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I'm always glad to reëvaluate if some significant coverage can be identified, but until then I'm thinking he isn't notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication the subject meets WP:SINGER. Despite searching for references in the native language with the help of Google Translate, I didn't really come across any website that could plausibly be considered significant coverage. The references in the article certainly don't establish notability. ✗plicit07:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is consensus that this needs improvement rather than deletion. However, even those editors !voting to keep have expressed serious concerns with the content, and if issues with poor sourcing and promotionalism are not speedily addressed, an argument based on WP:TNT would be persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk)05:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Torres, Blanca (April 16, 2006). "Redefining what getting older means; Consultant and author specializes in getting businesses in touch with the baby boom generation". Contra Costa Times.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Keep I guess i'll actually vote. The sources I found above and the indication of there being quite a bit more was convincing enough to me that Dychtwald is notable in this subject of aging. SilverserenC04:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article on Age Wave, this is an article on Maddy Dychtwald. Also, notability is not related to the state of the article. Besides, this source does explain what it is. SilverserenC02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, so someone removed all the reliably sourced coverage so the article could then be nominated for deletion because all the sources showing notability had been disappeared? That's sketchy. The article definitely needs to be shortened, but there's definitely reliable sources in there now showcasing notability. Anyways, as the article now shows and the source I gave before says, Age Wave is "a research and consulting firm established to “guide Fortune 500 companies and government groups in product/service development for boomers and mature adults.”". Basically a consulting firm for designing products for the elderly. SilverserenC02:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific sources demonstrate notability? And does "consulting firm" mean anything beyond "this is a DBA Dychtwald and her husband use when talking to reporters"? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since we usually go with the rule of three on AfDs, I'll do with these three: one, two, and three. Which are all about the books she's written and her work. And I have no idea regarding the consulting firm. I don't think Age Wave is a major contributor to her notability, it's the things she's written that has, which have gotten a significant amount of coverage. SilverserenC19:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepUser talk:Silver serenUser:力User:Eddie891 To expand on the above discussion, I am concerned that you have not examined the article, its sources, or revision history prior to asserting these redundant criticisms, User:力. Dychtwald has written for multiple international mainstream news outlets, such as the Huffington Post and Wall Street Journal, in addition to her book authorship and research study partnerships with the likes of Merrill Lynch which have been widely covered and referenced by mainstream media outlets and other secondary sources. She has also appeared for discussion and interviews Fox Business television as well as NPR and CBS Radio, among others. All of which are clearly mentioned and cited in the article. Further, related to the issues we have now been forced to discuss herein because of the following users' actions, I am in the process of compiling and organizing the evidence and argument to raise claims of harassment and WP:HOUNDING through the proper Wikipedia channels against users User:Timtrent and User:Justlettersandnumbers, and likely User:Theroadislong as well, for the their abuse of their Wikipedia privileges. This Maddy Dychtwald article is one of several articles on which they have appeared to have worked in unison with an M.O. of reverting, on a broad blanket basis, all edits made by paid contributors on articles, without regard to the merit of the content. They are clearly imposing their own apparent disdain and malcontent for paid contributions and instituting these reversions in what can only be described by their actions as bad faith -- Justlettersandnumbers "go-to" claim cited to in these blanket reversions is “Rv paid editor contributions, we can’t allow WP:deceptive advertising anywhere in the project, whether disclosed or not” which is very clearly a work-around bad faith assertion to implement their motivated goal of removing paid contributor content, which they cannot directly do and cite to as the reason for their conduct as it is obviously against Wikipedia's policies to remove content solely because it is inputted by a paid contributor, which, further, these individuals clearly know because one is a seasoned AfC reviewer and the other is an admin and VRT member - quite disgraceful conduct given their experience and stature on the platform. After they revert an article and remove much of its content, these users then promptly (usually within minutes) propose the articles for deletion once they have wiped the article of its substance that demonstrated notability. For example, the Source Assessment Table added above by Timtrent, as you will be able to see comparing the time stamps here to the article's revision history, was added to this thread at the end of a 70-minute time period in which Justlettersandnumbers wiped most of the content from the article via their "revert" tactics, coveniently followed exactly 40 minutes later by Timtrent adding the Notability tag (adding just the above chart to the article talk page with their cherrypicked sources to criticize for notability purposes), then followed exactly 30 minutes after that with Timtrent proposing the article for deletion and adding the above chart. During this process/scheme, these users have repeatedly added issue-raising tags (such as Paid contributions and Notability) on multiple articles without starting a discussion on the articles' talk pages to support or discuss their claimed tags as required by Wikipedia's policies. Interested users and editors can find other examples of similar harassing and hounding conduct by Theroadislong and Justlettersandnumbers on Charley Hughlett (both users) and Jayde Riviere (just Justlettersandnumbers). They also appear to have potentially implemented this scheme for article deletion on Maddy Dychtwald's husband's page, Ken Dychtwald. Although it is already disclosed on these articles' talk pages as well as my own, for the sake of transparency, I will again disclose that I am a paid contributor on these articles. To that end, I am not opposed to criticism and good faith, constructive revisions and/or supplementations to my work - this is Wikipedia after all - but this persecutory witch hunt is frankly repulsive, a waste of everyone's time and energy, and quite unfortunate. Thank you. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After a massive restoration of previously excised material (I make no comment on the excision or the restoration, I just note the fact of each) the article now has 155 references. That is WP:BOMBARD. IT has rendered the source analysis (above) obsolete. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me11:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:BOMBARD, which I suspect that you know but are asserting anyway in furtherance of personal motives because, based on your veteran status on Wikipedia, you must certainly be aware that total quantity of references in an article alone is not an element of bombard/cite overkill. Over 1/3 of the 155 references are citations for Dychtwald's work product - which, in this circumstance, I would assert is not used in this article in the manner that the spirit of Prong 3 of Bombard ("Citations to work that the article's subject produced") is intended to curb because these references merely directly support and establish those facts and are not leveraged to establish Notability as Notability is already well-established by the other content and references included in the article. Further, most sentences have less than two cited references, and many of those sentences with more than one reference include concise compilations of multiple facts (e.g. one-sentence lists), requiring separate references to establish different facts/elements of such sentences. I also suspect that if these references were not included as references for these facts, the facts would then be conveniently tagged, highlighted, and the information deleted due to the lack of citations. Quite interesting that there appears to be the cliche "always something" and "playing both sides of the fence" critical reception going on here. Wiki Page Polisher (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their work itself can only be a reference that adds value to WP:BIO in specific circumstances. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference. Others will judge. Not you nor I. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me16:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once you strip out their own work or work for hire or work by close associates, etc. you aren't left with much except passing mentions, etc. There does not appear to be enough source material from independent sources to pass the very low bar at WP:GNG. --Jayron3217:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm perfectly fine with demolishing the article and having a much shorter one using only the actual source coverage, like those I listed above. The article is definitely promotional at the moment and anything sourced to a primary source should be removed. SilverserenC18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is so much trash in here, it's hard to figure out what's what. I think I lean toward keeping it, because there is some coverage of the books--but man this needs more culling, even after I got done with the blatantly promotional "look how often the subject is mentioned on TV" sections. Those long sections on the books need to be cut drastically, for instance. Then again, Jayron32 may be right--it's all really thin, and there's stuff in there (I suspect this is common in this field) that looks like real sourcing, but is in fact just product placement. Look at this: oh Yahoo posts something about her study! yeah except that this content actually comes from Edward Jones, which commissioned and published the study. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck my delete vote and am simply neutral now. I largely agree with Drmies and Cullen. Once you cut through the multiple layers of crap, there is probably enough coverage of her books (in particular Cycles, per Silver seren's sources) to have an article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but take a scalpel (more like a machete) to the article. Absurd over-reliance on self sources to name drop Fortune 500 companies and overly detailed discussion of work that is largely self cited. If reliable sources don't care, why should(how can) we? Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Thames began his acting career two years ago and does not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, which says WP:GNG is passed if an actor has had significant roles or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. His first lead role in a feature film is in The Black Phone, which has not yet been released to mainstream audiences. His second lead is for an upcoming film that has not begun filming. As a result, it might be to early too have an article on him. Drafitying the article is also an option. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: at a quick glance, WP:NACTOR is not met here. Two of the article's sources only mention Thames as a passing reference with no further elaboration about him. Draftifying would likely be pointless as it is typically only done when articles may be improved in some way. Doing it here would not change the fact that he is still not notable, even if another film releases in a few months starring him. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 22:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mason Thames's new film, The Black Phone has now been released. Mason is the lead in the film opposite of Ethan Hawke. He has also had several articles in major industry publications that can be added as well.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Should an appropriate redirect target be found, please feel free to create said it. Noting that this article was never sourced, leaving nothing to merge. ✗plicit02:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. The term exists but I don't see any potential for a valid encyclopedic article; all I can find online is other dictionary definitions. Merging could be an option if there's a suitable target. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. I was thinking this might be related to the Florida Trail but the only thing related is the logo which looks to be a homage to it. I don't see this passing WP:GNG. The votes in the first AfD from 2007 were on the fence about it because of the possible potential of expanding the article. – The Grid (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Planned video game that does not satisfy game notability or general notability. There is only one reference listed, which is not independent, and therefore nothing that resembles significant coverage. This article is obviously incomplete because it lacks a Development section (and so doesn't say anything). There is also a draft, so that this article cannot be moved to draft space. The draft is a little better than this article, but its Development section relies on rumors, and some of its references are malformed, so that merging the draft into the article is not feasible. Speculation about upcoming video games is essentially crystal balling, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of RS prior to today's news related to rumors and Streisand Effects of WB denying this game, but as they are published by RSes with industry validation, they are valid to include. Also, IGN is considered an independent source for coverage of video games, so that's not an issue (and most of the major VG publications covered the news today of its announcement). There clearly needs to be more sources added, but this would have been easily proven out by a proper BEFORE search. --Masem (t) 00:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of dedicated third party sourcing is out there to create a start class article without any speculation involved. This nomination is a failure of WP:BEFORE.
Speedy delete: I just made A draft for this article this morning, with better sources. This duplicate article was created in the evening. I made it a draft specifically so it could go through the proper notability tests and to be discussed/improved upon before turning into an article. 2603:8080:F605:4078:3DFD:A663:C795:1ADB (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a valid speedy deletion rationale, but it doesn't matter, you don't need to delete the article to implement the content of your draft. Just...edit it in. Build up the article with your draft content. Sergecross73msg me00:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep You've gotta be kidding me, just google it and look at how much coverage it's getting in reliable sources. We don't need to include speculation because there is plenty of material to include regarding the multiple leaks from last month, which were extensively covered in reliable sources (again, just google it). The Hungrybox leak isn't even mentioned in the article [edit: now it is], and the PapaGeno leak only has a single sentence. I don't think that the nominator even attempted to comply with WP:BEFORE. Mlb96 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sufficiently supported by RS and doesn't seem to be WP:TOOSOON as well (at least there is a gameplay trailer and an adequate amount of information about characters). OceanHok (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The article has just been created, with the game having being announced within under 24 hours, and it has already gained large notably and although MANY edits within the article are cut and paste from the draft made by user DocFreeman24, large apologies, it is also keen to mention the title Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl had in article within the first day of its announcment and received the same amount of notability and no mention of speedy deletion was ever placed, so please I ask you kindly and heavily just like the many people within the talk PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE ARTICLE, WeldingF November 19, 2021.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable local politician from New Mexico. No reliable sources with any info on him other than local New Mexico publications. Appears to be one giant piece of self-promotional puffery. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL/Extraordinary Writ. For that WP:SNG, he qualifies under the first guideline as Politicians and judges who have held [...] state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. as a member of the New Mexico State Senate. This article can definitely be improved, but he passes the threshold. There is not a good citation in the article for his having served, but he's listed as having served on the New Mexico Legislature's website, so I think that passes WP:V as well. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk))01:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I did not realize holding office in a state senate was an automatic qualifier. My mistake, was not aware of WP:NPOL until now. How do I withdraw this deletion discussion? Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.