Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 18

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Just Another Cringy Username (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 18 September 2024 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Fever.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< September 17 September 19 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prairie Fever

Prairie Fever (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)

Single source article, showing no RS or SIGCOV. Film was direct-to-DVD and has no visible cultural impact. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems good enough! Babysharkboss2!! (No Life 'Til Leather) 17:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Clarke

Katie Clarke (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)

Tagged for notability since 2018. Not clear whether the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice (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)

One review (which is questionable reliability wise), nothing else found in a search. Self-published. Does not pass NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Taitano

Jesse Taitano (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 longer meets WP:NMMA or WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Veleva

Anna Veleva (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)

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2007. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paul Polansky. czar 02:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak

Black Silence: the Lety Survivors Speak (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)

Found no reliable, significant sources. This recent source does call it "controversial", but does not specify why. That does indicate that there may be coverage I was unable to find. There is discussion about the author's investigation into this topic but the author has written several books on it and the coverage isn't about this one specifically, so imo it should go on the author's page if there aren't sources about this book specifically. The one source in the ELs might be coverage of this book, or it might not, could not find it. Redirect to author Paul Polansky? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle with the history preserved if someone would like enact a merger. Star Mississippi 01:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VTES 3rd Edition

VTES 3rd Edition (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)

Outside MtG, individual sets of CCGs are almost never notable, and I don't see why this should be an exception. Maybe merge the mention of awards to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle if it is not there and redirect this per WP:ATD-R? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any opinion on the suggestion to Merge this content to a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of determining consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American regions by life expectancy

List of North American regions by life expectancy (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 contested. List is original research and synthesis - extracted data in form not present in secondary, reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've stated my point of view at the article's talk page. Though the data in the source database were filtered and simple calculations were made, these transformations are obvious and easily verified. All data in the Wikipedia's page are in the source database or can be easily obtained by an obvious mathematical operation.
It's like retelling a text in your own words. When a Wikipedia editor retells a text, he does not retell the whole text but only a part of it. The same way, a Wikipedia editor has not obligation to use necessarily all records in an original dataset - only a part of it can be used. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, User:Lady3mlnm and User:Рулин, I assume you are arguing for Keep here? How would you respond to the nomination statement? Please put your arguments here rather than on the article talk page so the discussion is in one place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stand-alone list based on an authoritative reliable secondary source (that we can assume itself based on set of independent reliable sources), which has significant coverage and independent of the subject. Source of information is given and data can be verified. Filtering of records based on obvious criteria, routine calculations, and sorting based on indicated logical principle can't be considered as original research. Users are free to apply their own sorting by the table tool. There is also no contradiction with WP:NOT. So though the article is not great, I don't see enough reasons for deletion.
The list contains evaluation of life expectancy in regions of many countries that doesn't have their separate pages about this topic. The principle of region comparison is not an original research by itself, but presentation of data, within the framework of the encyclopedia tools, that allows people to do their own independent conclusion. So I consider the article as valuable page of Wikipedia. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a confusion here between WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY sources. The material that the article is based upon is not a secondary source, it is a database (Global Data Lab). That database offers no: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources (WP:SECONDARY). Notability of all articles is dependent on the existence of secondary sourcing. The author of the article has extracted information from the database to create the article, hence original research. There is no indication that the database in and of itself is notable. There is no secondary sourcing which compares the subnational administrative units of North America by life expectancy. I did request for secondary sources to be added which would satisfy WP:NLIST, but none were identified. I did find a source which compares subnational units of the USA and Canada (Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Four Volume Set: A Treatise in Population p.210), but could find nothing else. FWIW, previous consensus has been to delete these list types of subnational unit articles in the absence of specific sourcing satisfying NLIST: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first-level administrative divisions by country. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. Consensus is trending towards merging these by-position lists to a single comprehensive one, perhaps with fewer listed per position, as a viable ATD. I am also closing the other nominated by-position lists similarly. Editors are welcome to BOLDly merge the lists mentioned here but not currently nominated, or start a discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders (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)

Looked at the sources, and besides baseball-reference, there isn't much to justify the list as a group. If this included all double plays, then it might be more notable as a group, as Baseball Almanac covers it. Since it is only the one position, I think WP:NOTSTATS comes into play. Edit Including the bottom two for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a left fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opposition to the merger has been raised, and to allow a full week for the added articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Deletion and Merge. However, the merge target article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as an outfielder leaders which is also up for an AFD discussion. So, this discussion can't close as a possible Merge until the fate of that article is determined. You might consider participating in that discussion, too, so it can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Dear me. Let's see.
WP:SALAT has nothing to do with this situation. Besides some housekeeping notes, it gives three annotated examples of the types of lists to avoid:
  • "list of brand names" (Way too broad, could have millions of entries)
  • "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" (Of no interest to anyone)
  • "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" (Does not contribute to the state of human knowledge)
This list is not remotely like any of those, not even close.
Another editor wrote "I am not sure that double plays by right fielders is inherently notable", but then why would you want to want to be in this discussion if you don't know that? (Narrator: they are.)
WP:NLIST, c'mon. If you think that this dataset has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" very many times, you must not read much in depth about baseball, in which case why are you trying to erase the work of editors who apparently have. It's late, and I shouldn't have to go get refs to prove the sky is blue.
And in addition to that, the nomination might be malformed. Not sure. I'll leave that that to an admin to decide. I got here from the center fielder article and that is confusing and it took me a bit to figure out what was going on -- apparently it was made into a group nom midstream, which is not a deal-killer but tricky, and not made clear enough, all the articles in the class are supposed to right up top, and that might be important enough that we want to start over. And if so well we have a wikiproject on baseball and maybe there would be the place to start with a discussion on the general question of "should we have these types of articles generally"? We're not going to be deleting or merging the shortstops DP article (if we are, just shoot me), so why are we singling out outfielders in particular, etc etc etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The premise of that argument can be summarized with WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and proof by assertion. Also, the examples provided in WP:SALAT are just that, examples, it's not meant to be exhaustive; the concept or principle is what matters. Left guide (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Left Guide, I'd like to see the sources. Conyo14 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the nominator said that Baseball Reference is a source (which it is, altho you might have to have a subscription). Extremely reliable source. We don't need multiple sources I believe.
I don't know what so say about WP:SALAT thing. It doesn't say or imply "You should avoid these sorts of things, but... um there are lots of other things you should avoid but we aren't gonna say, wink wink, use your imagination". You could invoke SALAT against literally any list if you liked.
I'd prefer not to be SHOUTED AT thanks. And no I'm not going to stop washing my cat and look up sources for you when WP:BEFORE has not been done into the corpus of books, many available thru the Internet Library and library loan, which is a lot of work but for a group of articles of this calibre would be called for. Since you are taking it upon yourselves to participate here, you ought to know that the rubric for keeping is not "is the article ref'd" but "can the article be reffed with reasonable effort".
"Other stuff exists" only applies if that other stuff should also not exist. Right? Am I wrong there? As to proof by assertion:

Proof by assertion [is when] a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers

How dare you. This would be insulting if it wasn't so obviously just throwing words so it looks like you have an actual argument. Way to turn this into a playground fight. I wrote one gosh-darn post, cogent enough and not terribly prolix I don't think.
Look. It's apparent that you guys are looking for an excuse to delete these perfectly good articles, to the point where it's a problem. If you are making a regular practice of this it's a big problem. You obviously didn't read my post with the position "Hmmm let's see what this guy has to say and maybe consider it" but rather "I'm not changing my mind, I am here to eradicate this work, period, for reasons of my own, so I'll only read it to look for ammo to achieve that end." Sheesh.
I also would like to remind the closer that it's not a vote. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Baseball Reference is a source for this list, but secondary sources are required to establish notability. WP:SECONDARY:

A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

Can you indicate where in that source there is thought, reflection, analysis, evaluation, or interpretation? Left guide (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or alternatively, if you are unable to identify secondary coverage in Baseball Reference, can you please provide other sources which show secondary coverage of this list topic? Left guide (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a thorough search of sources, but found nothing on this subject nor its sisters in the bundling. Baseball reference is a good source, but it's also the only source to which I say it's not enough. Also, calm down. I just want to see the sources you're talking about and then analyze them. If you did a WP:BEFORE, which should be done by voters too, then please provide. Conyo14 (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for being polite and making cogent points, good improvement.
Anyway, so here's the rub, and it turns out we're just having a terminology mismatch. Not anybody'ss fault really. Another term for "outfield double play" is "outfield assist", and that's more common. Annnnd... another term -- more modern and informal-- is "baserunner kills". This is pointed out in the lede, bolded, but way down. I can see where one wouldn't know to search on that, particularly if they don't know the subject.
So, searching on "baserunner kills" gets me this article at something called Batter's Box. Long article specifically on the topic, starts off:

BaseRunner Kills -- It's one of my favourite plays in baseball. And it's always a big play. When an outfielder throws out someone, at a minimum he's turning an opposition base runner into an out. He's not retiring a hitter, he's removing someone who's already reached base and is therefore a threat to score. When an outfielder throws out a runner at home plate, it's the next best thing to actually taking a run off the scoreboard...

And it goes on and on, paragraph after paragraph, long article, lots of info. Has a table with outfield kills as a rate stat -- kills per 1,000 innings. Much more informative IMO. Hopefully someone will come along and add that table after the existing one, also he points out that the list should be split into pre- and post-1920. And the article renamed. These're content issues tho.
I stopped there cos that's plenty.
I can see where searching on "outfield double plays" is not going to throw too many results. I searched on "outfield assists" and did get, not a lot, but enough to hang an article on, especially considering we've got the Batter's Box article.
I found in the The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, here,

Outfield assists, like catcher's assists, are inversely related to team performance. A bad team will have more outfield assists than a good team.

More than a passing mention anyway. Used in computing win shares I think.
This book has

While infielders record hundreds of assists per season, 10 is an excellent total for an outfielder. Tris Speaker, a legendary center fielder... holds both the single season (35) and career record (449)

There're some more, small, but if you pile them up they add up.
So hopefully terminology problem cleared up and Bob's your uncle?
So, but, couple things, it occurs to me, is this even a list article? It's got several paragraphs of text and then the list after. Name of the article doesn't matter, it could be renamed. The text isn't ref'd, but its all true and the writer didn't make it up, so there're sources out there. Tag that part of the article for lack of refs, that'd be fine.
As to original research... a lot of our lists are original research, and it's just not a problem. It doesn't detract from the Wikipedia. Don't worry about it. In fact the list rules tell you how to make a list. I made List of statues of Queen Victoria and I had to find and add them in one by one -- there's no existing list (that I could find). Is it bad article? Would it be better to 404 on readers searching for a list of statues on Queen Victoria? Of course not. What was I supposed to do instead of making that good article? Browse Reddit? How would that be adding to the sum of organized human knowledge? I wouldn't get overly attached to rules that don't help what we are trying to do here. Seriously. It's not a game where we try to win by finding some rule that lets us destroy OK articles. (Well I mean it is, but it shouldn't be).
(N.B. I added the above later than the following comment in order to keep the thread together.) Herostratus (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing those. Unfortunately, it appears those sources discuss assists and not double plays (for Wikipedia's purposes they're distinctive terms since we have distinctive sets of articles for them), so I'm afraid you're at the wrong set of articles with those sources. However, your efforts are not wasted since those sources can be used to help establish notability at articles like List of Major League Baseball career assists as an outfielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a right fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a center fielder leaders, List of Major League Baseball career assists as a left fielder leaders. Left guide (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another term for "outfield double play" is "outfield assist", and that's more common. No, that's patently false and you know that based on how much you know about baseball; double plays and assists are fundamentally different concepts. That's an attempt to sneakily twist and gerrymander what the sources say in an WP:OR/WP:SYNTH manner when sources that directly discuss this topic don't exist. Left guide (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC) struck some bits that may be too harsh Left guide (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna disparage your research, but it appears that double plays and assists are different things according to the MLB. [1], [2]
But I think you may be somewhat on the right track? Conyo14 (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's close enough that there is no need for a second article. The double play totals can be included in the assist article. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing notice: An attempt was made to notify WikiProject Baseball of this discussion in a blatantly non-neutral manner in contravention of WP:CANVASS using the following language:

Heads up, attack on assists articles

Some editors are wanting to destroy the lists of outfield assists, here (left, center, and right in the same AfD): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders as a bad list (altho it is a full article also) -- They seem quite determined and unamenable to persuasion (although having no idea what an outfield assist is) so this looks like not a "let's together consider these articles" situation which is why I use the word "attack".

And I suppose they will succeed, assuming that the closer mainly relies on headcount or giving particular weight for certain rules.

(Infield assists are not under the gun -- yet. I see that for instance List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a shortstop leaders is tagged for lack of notability and I suppose will be attacked sooner or later.)

Is this OK? Are outfield assists just garbage trivia not worth including among our 7.6 million articles? What about shortstop assists? What about doubles, strikeouts, GIDP, what? I'm not a project member, just a casual fan, so I don't know where the line is. I don't see anybody from this project coming to the AfD to defend the articles. Maybe you all also don't care for these articles, and fine, but if it's just a matter of not noticing this happening to baseball stat articles, consider this a heads up, thanks.

Left guide (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

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

Notability tag and BLP sourcing issues have been tagged for the last eleven years. No sources have been added in that time. Despite two previous AFDs, the article is still not referenced. Given the change in attitude towards needing sources on BLPs since the last AFD in 2009, it is time to look at this again. 4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Unsourced but external links provided. Subject to two previous AFDs (Kept, No consensus) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eichhorn Young

Susan Eichhorn Young (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)

Tagged for notability since 2013. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've found a couple of interviews in minor publications, one of which is already referenced. Beyond that, I've searched on the key phrases in the article and I'm not coming up with anything. Per 4meter4, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Knitsey (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Even without discarding the !votes that read as little more than a personal attack, the Delete arguments carry far more P&G weight than the ones calling for keeping the article. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Baby (franchise)

Rosemary's Baby (franchise) (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)

After consideration and researching the article myself, I can not find signifigant coverage of Rosemary's Baby as a franchise with a any serious depth. Despite the large amount of citations found in the lead and the amount of content within the article. MOS:FILMSERIES says series and franchise articles would "benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole", but we have only been pulling from individual film/tv/work reception and are lacking in material that discusses the entirety of the work. This is predominantly material repeating information already available on the unique film/TV/novel articles.

  • Two articles are primarily about the 50th anniversary of the first film. There is little discussion of it as a series or a franchise outside other briefs about the development of the film.
    • Woman's World has little discussion other than a sequel was made to the film, a follow-up was made to the first book, and a television series was adapted. But there is no real discussion of the franchise from a critical, analytical, or business matter. The articles does not refer to it as a franchise, series, or anything.
    • Mental Floss Similarly, is a list of 13 facts about the first film, some tangentially related to the other material related to either the film or novel.
  • Articles that praise the first film, and the announcement of a sequel/prequel/remake.
    • Collider and The Guardian articles primarily praise the first film, and announce a follow up is being developed. There is little discussion about the whole thing as a series/franchise, while boasting the quality of the first film.
    • Screencrush is probably the closest in detail to anything, but barely traces it mentioning the tv sequel and a miniseries version. No critical analysis, no history of the film's production as a series or franchise with just a brief mention of the cast returning or not returning for 1970s tv-entry.
  • Sources that call it a franchise fail WP:SIGCOV, as they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail."
    • Comicbook.com states "The movie successfully launched a titular franchise, which includes a 1976 made-for-TV sequel, an upcoming streaming exclusive prequel (2024), and a television series adaptation." this is the only amount of depth applied and like the Guardian and Collider sources, are presented as press releases for sequels to give them prestige, there is no context to it as a series.
    • Sportskeeda seems to fail WP:RSP, and can be seen here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sportskeeda.

The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the production of individual items. occasionally peppering in that Rosemary's Baby has been called the greatest [horror] film ever a few times and regurgitates material that is already available in the individual articles for the books, series and novels, and places them side by side with no commentary to why we are comparing them. This goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." In this case, we have barely anything discussing it as a franchise and run with content that is just discussing one film or another and places no information on why we have to know this info or how it relates to each or if it was even important to this group of works. The same goes for the film gross, which lists the first film's gross, then restates it as a "Total" for the series and has no information on how much the novels or TV series, in terms of cost, production or anything. This is just regurgitating information from the first article.

Beyond this, the article presents original research such as an "Official Franchise Logo". At the same time, the logo in question on [on Wikimedia] refers to it as just the films logo, not a series or franchise. From my search, I've only seen it used for the TV adaptation and the original.

On searching books, websites, and the Wikipedia Library, I have found tons of content discussing the novel and first book, but nothing outside spare mentions like the above. I propose that the article be deleted or merged with a legacy section on the first novel and first film respectively for their respective content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm surprised to have so many participants in this AFD given one of the longest deletion nomination statements I've come across. Glad it didn't discourage editors from voicing their arguments. I'm not chiding the nominator, it's just an observation. I see a lot of "Fails WP:GNG" or "Notability issues" deletion rationales so the fuller explanation is appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "franchise" enough. Plus one forthcoming. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperbolick: the deletion suggestion is not enough that it exists, the commentary is about if there is enough discussion on whether there is enough signifigant coverage of the topic as a franchise, which this topic fails per the discussion above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As there has been votes, but little discussion. I'm going to bring up the essay WP:THREE. This is not wikipedia standard, but I think it will help me address what I'm trying to get across, specifically reading WP:SIGCOV and understanding it, and lastly it suggests after to "Look over your list of sources and find the three that best meet WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and whatever other guidelines people are citing.". While the editors above have commented that there are "more than enough sources" or simply ""franchise" enough", they did not seem to address the points I was trying to make. On that, I would welcome @Mushy Yank:, @Hyperbolick:, @StarTrekker:, @Dimadick:, and @Trailblazer101: (even though they seem to follow my train of thought, they should be invited to discuss) to come forward and show me how the sources or content follows the WP:SIGCOV rules, specifically ones that "address the topic directly and in detail." per WP:SIGCOV. This is in terms of discussing it as a franchise, over individual films, which is my bigger issue. All other comments and editors are welcome of course.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To follow-up, I have tagged several editors and asked them to follow-up on their original response to keep the article on September 23. Outside ★Trekker, there have been no responses that directly comment on my initial issues of WP:SIGCOV. I would also like to bring up WP:SNG which again highlights that we require "in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing". While Wikipedia:Notability (films) exists, it only goes into detail about individual films, not franchises for notability or content requirements. Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises seemingly has no developed standards. No source within the article discussing the film as a franchise, goes beyond a brief mention, from this, the article delves into comparisons about budget, cast, crew, and critical response which fails WP:WEIGHT, (specifically "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.") as none of these topics are brought up within the context of a franchise in any article discussing it this way. As the only editor to regularly respond has been the one mentioned above who has not really discussed content of the article, I propose WP:SILENCE which states that when other editors have no commented after being pinged, "their silence will be construed as agreement." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the supplemental page you refer to applies in the case of AfDs (see its scope of application, please), especially if other users are only pinged. I personally often remain silent in other AfDs, even when pinged or even when I receive a reply or a comment is addressed to me, when I think all has been said or when I dislike the tone/spirit of the question or comment or when I think the question or reply is not relevant or is disruptive. In the present case, to clarify, if you really wish me to do so, I simply would like to stand by my !vote, in which I have said all I thought useful regarding the issue you have raised. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I haven't responded to that, I am curious what you would add/change to the article if it were to remain as a WP:SETINDEX @Mushy Yank:? I don't think your idea is necessarily a poor one, but without context, i'm not sure what it entails. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant cuts (including whole sections maybe) should probably be discussed, as should renaming the page, but, again, that can happen on the TP of the article. I probably will not make any further comments on the present page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. Thanks for clarifying as the brief "Keep" and rule discussion beforehand did not really clarify what you think would be the best step going forward. I appreciate you taking the time to follow-up @Mushy Yank:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any critical discussion of the franchise, a brief mention here [3], but a surprising amount of scholarly reviews of the Polanski film [4]... This appear to be a synth article, with little bits for each piece of media put together to build the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Strongly disagree with your proposition. Other editors are correct in pointing out that this has the stench of other situations you have done before (many are familiar with that history). There are a number or reliable sources that detail the franchise as a whole (see my talking points at Talk:Rosemary's Baby (franchise) #Sources for reference. With the release of Apartment 7A, there are additional sources that I will be adding there as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DisneyMetalhead:, a few points per WP:AFDEQ, I do not really appreciate of my editing has a "stench" of anything. As for your comments, I've already addressed your content, its not a lack of sources, its a lack of content within the sources. Per WP:SIGCOV, it fails to address the "topic directly and in detail", with an emphasis on the latter, all the information is pulled about the films individually. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Anish

AfDs for this article:
Kumar Anish (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:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Only 1 article links to this, the school he attended. A google news search seems to come up with mainly namesakes. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability, no new quality sources found in searches, citations in article are routine, promotional, self-penned, or 404'd, and not significant coverage. Even the book doesn't get more than one citation (and that paper isn't on GScholar). Oblivy (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony McCall: The Solid Light Films and Related Works (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)

Only one reliable source, I think. Only other thing I found is a few sentences from Reference & Research book news, which like that publication always does is more about the book's publication and carries no evaluative material on its content. There's also the kultureflash review which I am very uncertain of the reliability of, can't find any indications. If it is reliable I guess that makes two? Can anyone find anything else? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withhdrawn with no remaining delete proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Burt

Joanna Burt (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:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Iain Aitch. czar 02:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fête Worse Than Death

A Fête Worse Than Death (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 was able to find a single review from the Daily Mail on ProQuest and nothing else to pass WP:NBOOK. The Daily Mail is the Daily Mail and is not usable. This looks like a review but I can't tell how long it is, and even if it is that's only one source. Redirect to author Iain Aitch (his article is bad but from the sourcing I found while searching for this, is probably notable)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boma Obi

Boma Obi (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. The only source she was mentioned was this. Aside that nothing else. The rest are just school profile while some of the source like the 4th one has nothing to show about than a home page of the site. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Gallardo-Domâs

Cristina Gallardo-Domâs (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)

Unreferenced BLP. Not clear that subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is better than what we had, which was nothing. Thank you for your effort.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There might be some more refs I can find. Knitsey (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more refs. There might be more to come. I would really like for someone to take a look to see if they're suitable? Knitsey (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, I haven't really editied the article much, just provided refs for what was already there. I will re-work it a bit if this AfD results in keep. I need to check on the date order for all the operas listed. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Knitsey It appears you are eligible for access to Wikipedia Library. You should definitely take advantage of it, as it will save you an incredible amount of time. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to say, I completely forgot about that. Thank you so much for the reminder. Knitsey (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently added sources would be helpful. If they are adequate would the nominator consider a withdrawal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sober

Olga Sober (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)

Been tagged for sourcing issues since 2011. Not clear if subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is unsourced, reads like a resume, and relies on coattailing more notable acts ("She has performed with...", with nothing to back it up). Awards don't even meet notability. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 07:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok to delete. Technically there are archived bios linked in the "External links" section...but what we're missing which we would expect are reviews. Checked ProQuest, which had zero relevant hits. Searched Bing as well and turned up another (more recent) artist bio and a Novi List article about a three-day vocal masterclass she held in March 2024. By far one of the most interesting projects she has been involved in was in the world premiere of the cantata The Diary of Anne Frank, which was broadcast on TV Brasil in 2012, and there are some associated concert listings, but not finding any reviews. The subject of this article appears to be falling short of both WP:SINGER and even WP:BASIC due to the overall lack of substantive discussion about her in secondary sources. Please ping me if additional sources are found. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (company)

Scribe (company) (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 fails demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Both TechCrunch articles are about routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). And not that it matters but the article was created by a now-blocked SPA. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This situation is confusing as it looks like it was nominated before at AFD but now the previous AFD has been deleted because it was created by a sockpuppet. So, I'm unsure whether or not it is eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly both the creator of the article and the nominator of the previous AfD are both now blocked. Brandon (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Mok

Judith Mok (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)

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2006. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete

    as a likely GNG failure. BLP written by the subject of the BLP. While the article has been improved over the years, the goals of our encyclopedia were so alien for the creator to not provide her date of birth. User:Dr_vulpes says there are multiple reviews. I did not see true reviews. Happy to be pointed to such, if in existence! I see articles about her books, in which she tells about these. Also interviews and passing mentions. The author is accessible - kudos to her - but it does not assist the independence of the sources. gidonb (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Her date of birth isn't available but her year of birth can be found in multiple databases. I've also added another review of her book. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add the year of birth to the article and provide links to the real reviews here? gidonb (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my delete vote after improvements in the article. gidonb (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_September_18&oldid=1246307140"