Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 24 April 26 >

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 delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomores (TV series)

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

Does not appear to be notable, tagged since 2010 DonaldD23 talk to me 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am saving the sources from the article here:
    1. "Sophomores on IMDB". IMDb. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
    2. "GSTV New Shows". GSTV. Archived from the original on August 2, 2012. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
    3. Dean, Amber (March 2010). "Sophomores Official Web Site". Sophomores TV. Archived from the original on April 18, 2010. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
    4. Keo, Savanna (April 2010). "GSTV launches original comedy series 'Sophomores'". The Signal. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
    5. "Sophomores on Amazon.com". Amazon. Retrieved August 7, 2010.
    Cunard (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Mason

[edit]
Beth Mason (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)

Local elected official with no evidence of enduring notability found in the article or in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: In some of the coverage, she is referred to as Elizabeth Mason, as Elizabeth Abruzese Mason, or Elizabeth A. Mason. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Early

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict

[edit]
Views on the Arab–Israeli conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:REDUNDANTFORK from Arab–Israeli conflict. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basically a POV-ish WP:COATRACK for material not properly integrated elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Beth Hall

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

This actress does not seem to pass WP:GNG, mostly regarding WP:SIGCOV. The creator of the article removed the Notability tag from a couple editors (including myself), so I thought it'd be worth gaining a consensus one way or the other. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Not being sure" is not a good reason to nominate an article for deletion. You should be pretty sure before you nominate things for deletion. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are vanity articles or articles created for a flash in the pan. This isn't one of them. No one has even mentioned her 6 episodes on Happy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaving an opening for humility and acknowledging my ability to be wrong with "not sure". If you like, I "felt confident" that the lack of in depth sourcing was not enough to meet WP:GNG, and that her roles were not major enough to counteract that dearth of SIGCOV. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability test for actors doesn't hinge on the having of roles, it hinges on the depth and quality of reliable source coverage about her and her performances that can be shown to exist in WP:GNG-worthy third party media. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the fact that she has multiple notable roles on both the stage and in film/television. This is just deletionist silliness and needs to stop. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 20:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they all appear to be bit parts, not seeing ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd say that the Variety and Rolling Stone articles are Sig coverage. She also appeared in Bull, which the article doesn't mention. Her stage role was a leading role, and she appeared in it at the Mitzi Newhouse Theater, which is a major venue. Based also on her recent TV roles, I agree that she is already notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article used to mention that role. One of the people trying to delete the article removed it from the article. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to make sure I didn't accidentally remove any significant roles during my copy edits, and I couldn't find any revision where Bull was mentioned or removed. It seems maybe it was never mentioned before (though I could've missed it!), so I added in her appearance on an episode of that show. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Head of the Class (2021 TV series), which is her only significant role. - the Home Sweet Home Alone role is a minor part. The Rolling Stone piece "significant coverage" consists, in its entirety of, "young Kim (still played by Katie Beth Hall, with her hair pulled partially back, but not yet in the full power- ponytail of adult Kim)". The Variety piece is a nice one. But the only coverage which could be considered more than a trivial mention.Onel5969 TT me 21:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Those advocating for deletion have been denigrating Hall's role in Home Sweet Home Alone as some kind of bit part akin to "kid in the background" or something. So I just watched the film and noted her lines and screentime. Depending on how you figure it, she has 20+ lines of dialogue and 10+ minutes of dedicated screentime in the film. Her character is an important supporting character in the film and not some bit part. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 16:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call 10 minutes of total dialogue an an hour and a half movie as significant, it's about 10%. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would call it a significant supporting role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the inclusion test for actors does not hinge on the having of roles per se. The "significance" of a role is not measured by arguing about how much screen time she did or didn't have, or how many lines of dialogue she did or didn't have — it's measured by the amount of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that her performance did or didn't generate in reliable sources. A person can be the top billed star of a movie and still not pass NACTOR if the film itself doesn't pass NFILM, because an actor isn't notable if reliable sources didn't write about the film or the actor's performance in it — because it's not the amount of screen time the person did or didn't have that distinguishes an NACTOR-passing role from an NACTOR-failing role, it's the amount of media coverage that the person's performance did or didn't receive. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it appears WP:TOOSOON based on available sources to support WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC notability. A 2021 Hollywood Reporter review of the first three episodes of Head of the Class (2021 TV series) mentions "Eventually the group is joined by the seemingly more popular Sarah (Katie Beth Hall), daughter of the school’s terrifying principal", and "Escalona and the expertly snarky Hall — Young Kim Wexler from Better Call Saul — can sell any punchline, however broad" but otherwise states, "the show is probably more likely to offer select memorable elements — Gomez and Escalona, particularly — than to be uniformly memorable." Hall is not listed as having a starring role in a 2021 AV Club review, although she is mentioned ("by the second episode, viewers are introduced to Sarah (Katie Beth Hall), a.k.a. Principal Maris’ daughter and a possible love interest for one of the other students.") The Bleeding Cool review in the article also does not present her as a lead character. The Variety announcement noted above seems promotional and less supportive of notability in light of the reviews and how the show was cancelled after one season. As to her other work, a role in two episodes of Better Call Saul seems demonstrably not significant, and more so based on the limited secondary coverage - the sources in the article are the Den of Geek blog, the Slashfilm blog, and ComingSoon.net website. Reviews of The Hard Problem at the Mitzi E. Newhouse Theatre are collected by Playbill in 2018, and her role is mentioned in a Hollywood Reporter review without specific commentary about her performance, and noted in the New York Times as: "The cast — which also includes Nina Grollman, Tara Summers and Katie Beth Hall (as a little girl who looks a lot like Hilary) — exudes an easygoing smoothness even when plowing through the stoniest fields of metaphysics", but reviews otherwise seem focused on lead actors e.g. Vulture; Newsday; The Wrap. Beccaynr (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. Jack1956 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC. The Variety article is focused and in-depth, covering career highlights, and the article in its current state contains several quotes from independent reviewers commenting on her performances (e.g. in The Hollywood Reporter), which is just enough to establish notability beyond simply stating that she was cast or played in those roles. Suggest this article is expanded further with an infobox and filmography section. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG, given the weight of some of the sources - Variety being the pretty much enough on its own, but backed up with the others there's enough there. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Variety source announces she has been cast in the reboot pilot, lists the lead actress and other cast members in the show, briefly describes what the "rebooted series revolves around", has two brief sentences describing her role, one sentence describing previous "appearances", one sentence listing her agents, and two grafs about the show generally. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Variety article's headline proclaims her casting, followed by a gigantic photo of her, and three paragraphs about her. That's SIGCOV. To argue otherwise defies reality. 3 reviews praised Hall's work in Better Call Saul, one specifically ranking her scene as one of the whole series' "Best Cold Opens". The Cinema Blend article has a whole section about her. The Screen Rant article is also primarily about Hall, mentioning her name 9 times and praising her earlier work. Plenty of coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, It's generally considered good practice to ping people when replying to one of their comments - I only came back by chance and found you had commented.
I am entirely aware of what the Variety article contains: I read it before making my comment; it is also only one of several articles on which I have based my !vote, which I make clear in my comment. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is about a source discussed by multiple participants in this discussion, and generally echoes the comments above by Bearcat, because there does not appear to be support for WP:ENT notability based on having had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." From my view, there is limited support for WP:BASIC notability from e.g. 3 sentences in the CinemaBlend blog ("The actress might be best remembered for her one-episode guest spot on Better Call Saul, where she played Young Kim in the “Wexler v. Goodman” episode from 2020"), and Screenrant, which cites Variety as its source, repeats the Variety announcement in two sentences, describes her role "important" and later states "Hall has demonstrated her acting prowess in shows like Happy! and Bull. So now, her fans must really be looking forward to her take on the challenging character in the new show." From my view, without WP:ENT clearly supported, WP:BASIC notability needs stronger support from secondary sources than what appears to be available. Beccaynr (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) (replying to this version [1] Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, you've posted twice on the point now, and I don't think anyone is in doubt of your position. There is no right or wrong answer in weighing these up, but my judgement is that there are sufficient sources of sufficient weight. - SchroCat (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tekken characters. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (Tekken)

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

Zero commentary. None of the sources can be found that talks about him besides listicles or passing mention. Sources elsewhere are only trivial mentions in Tekken 8 announcements like this [2] "JaCk was inTroDuced with bIg raIl gUn, amazing". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP has only three edits, all on AFDs. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple 8

[edit]
Simple 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a theatre company had been tagged as unreferenced since 2009. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added one reference, but cannot find any more to add, so do not think this meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written my objections above, which still stand, as this theatre company is like thousands of others that have come and gone in small theatres all over the world. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have refactored and struck out text from my !vote in response to Ssilvers edits to their original comment which created a disjoint in the discussion narrative. Further clarification would be welcome on the relevant Wikipedia policy which states thousands of small theatre companies are worthy of deletion - in contrast to known policies such as WP:GNG which require multiple independent reliable sigcov references. ResonantDistortion 22:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is an essay, it has no status as a policy or guidance; and I disagree with your characterization. This theatre group is a verified recipient of notable awards, and been the subject of sustained coverage from reliable independent sources (at national&regional levels thus meeting WP:AUD) over a 12 year period. They also must be doing something right and notable for independent reviewers to state phrases such as "the always impressive ensemble simple8"[3]. The article now references 13 reviews of the groups productions - IMV meets multiple WP:SIRS. ResonantDistortion 07:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Moved original article "Simple 8" to "Simple8" as there should be no space in the name. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep in light of significant expansion and sourcing by ResonantDistortion per WP:HEY, as when the article was first nominated, it was essentially an unsourced stub with exactly one footnote. Notability is established per WP:CREATIVE, with multiple reviews in national newspapers for its body of work over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. Searches in Wikipedia Library and ProQuest turn up enough results that it seems very likely that adding all the content that belongs in the article (also from theatre industry publications) will take a lot more time (i.e., it's still a work in progress). Simple8 even has a significant differentiator from other small theatre companies, in that it had a stated commitment to sustainability from early on, as borne out by its productions (set design, power consumption in lighting, etc.). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (as nominator), per WP:HEYMANing of article. Thanks, and apologies for not finding these sources myself when I Befored. Tacyarg (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Healy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Matty Healy (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)

Nominating for a redirect again. I still don't see significant notability here outside the band. Karst (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing the rationale of Spiderone.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
POV and bias issues can be solved through editing and does not require deleting the whole article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need a whole new page cause none of what is currently on there works. So, I'd still say delete. Meetmeinthedaylight (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Cakelot1 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Based on this criterion, it's clear that this article should be deleted, since the rampant use of unreliable and low-quality sources (tabloids) demonstrates that there aren't enough reliable sources to back up most of this article. Which means, according to Wikipedia's policies, that there's not enough notability for him to have an article of his own.Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Iloveadgirlmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @Ilovesadgirlmusic, are you seriously trying to imply that, NME, The Times, Digital Spy, The Independent, Kent Live, The Argus, Pitchfork, The Guardian, Out.com, The National Paper, Belfast Live, Billboard, BBC News, Variety, GQ, Vulture, Los Angeles Times, NPR, The New Zealand Herald, are all unreliable and low-quality sources (tabloids). I'd love you to find me the WP:RSN discussions where all those where deprecated. WP:RSP might help you understand the sort of sources we do and don't consider reliable for the case of wikipedia articles. Cakelot1 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There ARE many tabloids used in the article, and even though there are also legitimate ones, that doesn't change the fact that there are also many tabloids used in there and those are the ones backing most of the serious accusations. I would also like to add that most of the legitimate sources are not written with a negative tone, the author changed it to turn this BLP into an attack page. Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm failing to see which tabloids you are talking about. The only yellow WP:RSP sources in the article ALLMUSIC (and Rolling Stone, though I think that would fall under culture not WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS). Most of the controversy sections comes from sources like independent, MNE, Variety, etc. WP:G10, which I think is what your gesturing at requires the biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced (emphasis added). This article doesn't qualify for that as it is sourced. Whether or not the article can be better balanced per WP:BLPBALANCE seems to be a question for normal editing (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Cakelot1 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had already said this in the talk section yesterday, but I feel like it's more appropriate to have it on here:
    After reading this, I can't help but feel that it does have a negative bias towards Matty Healy. While the information provided may be (in certain parts) factual, this page seems to focus primarily on Healy's controversies, even attributing him labels like misogyny, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, and even of "fan endangerment" (lol????). However, many of these accusations have been sensationalized and exaggerated in the media, and it's not clear whether they're entirely accurate. In fact, some of the sources used on this page seem to be tabloids (low-quality and unreliable sources) that are known for their sensationalized reporting and their tendency to exaggerate or twist the truth to sell a story. It's not fair to paint someone as a hateful or bigoted person based on these kinds of polarizing views. Moreover, I consider that it's important to approach any information or claims made on social media platforms like Twitter or TikTok with a critical eye and to verify the accuracy of the information before accepting it as true (which is clearly not done here). On the other hand, it is abundantly clear that this page HAS selectively cut, edited, and/or modified quotes and content from various sources to fit the narrative that it is, for some reason, trying to push. Which is both a highly unprofessional and ridiculous approach that is not only misleading, but also calls into question the credibility of the entire page.
    I also think it is necessary to differentiate between actual problematic behavior and harmless interactions. For example, banter with fans, peers, and friends should obviously NOT be presented as problematic or controversial.
    Furthermore, this page almost completely disregards The 1975's significant achievements as a musicians and artists, which are essential components in understanding and appreciating their journey. Instead, this page seems to selectively choose small things that are blown out of proportion or made up, potentially to cater to cancel culture, which is both disappointing and misleading. (Someone please explain to me how it makes sense that there are only TWO paragraphs dedicated to their career while the rest is all about their supposed "controversies") While it is important to mention controversies, it is also necessary to provide context and present the information accurately, without exaggeration or sensationalism. I think it's worth noting that if we are going to talk about his controversies, we should also mention what resulted from them, such as his apologies and efforts towards learning and growth. As a matter of fact, I find it quite interesting that every single one of his controversies, even the smallest/dumbest ones, are fully explored on this page, while barely any of his activism is given the same attention, and the few positive aspects that are mentioned are simply glossed over. (Even Donald Trump's Wikipedia page is more positive like... make it make sense!)
    Lastly, I'll like to add that this article's focus on negative criticisms violates many of Wikipedia's policies. (You don't see any other artists' Wikipedia pages being like "this person did this AND this is what their haters thought about it!" about every single thing.) Therefore, I suggest that either the whole article is edited, or the page is removed altogether. This article should not be made public for consumption due to its potential to mislead the reader, as it does not serve its purpose of presenting accurate and objective information.
    (tl;dr: This article is completely ridiculous, awful, and incredibly biased. The writing is atrocious and all over the place. Most information is edited/cut/modified to fit an agenda. Many sources are not credible and/or were deliberately chosen to support the author's opinion.)
    Violated core content policies that can be found in this article:
    • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
    • Verifiablity (V)
    Due to the following violated content policies that according to Wikipedia a biography of a living person should have, this article can be considered an "attack page" which is why I think it should be deleted immediately:
    • Writing style: tone (WP:BLPSTYLE)
    • Writing style: balance (WP: BLPBALANCE)
    • Gossip and feedback loops (WP: BLPGOSSIP)
    • Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
    Etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's evidently sigcov with the amount of sources in the article. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 05:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multitude of WP:RSs in the article are more than enough to demonstrate WP:GNG. This article, as well as this discussion, has been posted about in a sub-reddit dedicated to his band ([4] Edit: archive for deleted comments Cakelot1 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)), with the gist of discussion seeming to be it should be deleted because it is to negative. To all new people coming here, it being negative isn't a reason to delete, when we are accurately representing the view found in Reliable Sources, which this seems to be. Cakelot1 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being negative IS a reason to delete according to Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. The article should remain neutral (which is not) and be balanced (which is also not, there are only two paragraphs that don't contain any criticism). Ilovesadgirlmusic (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're new here(were you canvassed here?) and may not fully understand our policies. If there is only negative coverage of a person by sources, the article about them is going to be negative. That doesn't mean the article should be deleted. If there is more positive coverage of this person that is missing from the article, the solution is to add it, not delete the article. Tone issues can be fixed. If the sources are not reliable or make things up, please discuss that at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that there isn't only negative coverage of this person. There's over a decade of also very positive coverage in more reputable sources than PopBuzz. When I attempted to suggest an edit to include positive coverage (with sources from NME, the Guardian, and the BBC), it was rejected. The issue is this article is unbalanced and there is clearly a bias towards only including the most negative and sensationalized things written about the guy. The other issue, is there is no "media career" as the article claims. Everything related to his media presence is related to the band, so it should still be a redirect. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then your admitting that the article could be improved with sources, thus making it ineligible for deletion. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. We don't delete articles because we think they are being held hostage by a cabal. I would recommend you take it to WP:BLPN which is the appropriate venue for such BLP concerns. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get to put words in anyone's mouth. I said in my comment that there is no "media career" The entire article is just a list of controversies, all related to the work within The 1975. Just like all the list of activism would be related to his work within The 1975. I agree with previous decisions to delete as there is not meaningful coverage outside of The 1975. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if we disregarded all the media coverage he's gotten in WP:RSs then he wouldn't pass WP:GNG. As far as I know that's not how any notability guideline work. Perhaps you could provide the policy and/or guideline you are using to make the judgment of about which sources you've decided we're not allowed to use. Also I'm sorry if I'm blind, but how are most of the controversies in the Social media section, for example, related to the work within The 1975. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage in BBC, Independent and The Guardian all covering different events and all giving Healy more than a trivial mention. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable person with WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or *Redirect. WP:CSECTION: "An article dedicated to the negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism." This article violates this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownadjacent (talk • contribs) 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Undecided / Comment - Since as far back as 2016 some very obsessive people have repeatedly created articles on Healy under several different titles, desperately trying to evade previous redirects to the band that had been agreed upon by consensus. See this, this, and this, among others. I voted to redirect in several of those older debates, and if I recall correctly, the previous attempts at separate articles for Healy were full of obsessive fancruft about his personal life. This time it looks like a different type of obsession, with an anti-fan going off on all the equally obsessive social media criticism that he has ever received. This time there are indeed reliable sources because Healy can't stay out of public trouble, but the article is poorly written and incorrectly focused. If it is kept, it should be severely cleaned up and then protected against haters. I'm skeptical on whether that would work long-term, so that's why I'm undecided. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520: The article is undergoing renovation. Please suggest more changes on the talk page. Probably, once the dust settles, some sort of CTOP|BLP page restrictions will be in order. Hopefully, Tobias will be able to change to ECP soon. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: -- I acknowledge your politeness, but enough with asking people (me and others throughout this discussion) to discuss things at the article's talk page, which assumes that the article will be kept and disregards the fact that this here AfD is still in progress and could lead to a non-keep consensus. I already made a suggestion here and it doesn't need to be repeated somewhere else. For now, the voting continues and this AfD page is where the action is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has clearly been written with malice. 2A02:C7C:E0E8:2E00:FCA5:7B90:C4C0:3A8E (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please offer evidence for the claim "written with malice". Are you saying the sources in this article are invented out of whole cloth? 331dot (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is written in bad faith and reads more like an attack page. You can easily back up almost any claim with a source, but when you list out every piece of dirt you can find on someone regardless of its relevance to their biography without balancing that with their actual career or the activism they're actually known for, it seems more than suspect. If kept, almost everything under "Media Career" should be moved to a controversies section as Healy does not have a separate media career outside of the band. And the controversies chosen need to be reviewed and balanced as it currently seems to be written by someone looking to vent their hatred for a person. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC) — Rosesinmymilktea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Yes. Please make specific suggestions on the talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. I had one that was backed up with multiple credible sources that was rejected because apparently it wasn't negative enough. So clearly there is an agenda with the way this page is being written, again seeming more like an attack page than a bio. That needs to be reviewed properly. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that the article is undergoing renovation. There is still some work to do there. The cure for its problems are editing. Not deletion. And no, fans from Reddit, it did not/does not meet WP:G10.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the current article is basically only a "controversies" section that's been broken up to look like a bio. There is no "media career" for Healy outside of The 1975, so I do see people's point for wanting it reverted to a redirect - especially looking at the history of past attempts to make a page. Also, while the band has a large fanbase, acting like people are only offering edits/discussing issues because of Reddit is lacking in good faith. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosesinmymilktea: I'm afraid you need to discuss that on the article talk page. That is not an issue for the AfD. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in my reply other than the first sentence is about why I agree with previous decisions to redirect. Stop trying to misrepresent someone's entire reply in order to discredit what they're saying. Rosesinmymilktea (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm here from reviewing the WP:DYK. What I'm seeing is a lot of !votes saying that the article should be deleted due to issues with neutrality. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup exists for a reason. Also, if most sources are negative, the article will have that bias naturally. By way of notability, WP:SIGCOV is evident, and the subject certainly passes WP:GNG by my interpretation. Note: Incoming Redditors would do well to avoid making arguements based on "I Don't Like It" and instead use a proper interpretation of our policies. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty coverage and also he meets WP:BASIC. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not familiar with why this person is controversial, but he apparently is. There is enough coverage to meet GNG. And the potential BLP policy issues wouldn't require the article to be deleted. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: whatever his notability in the past, Healy seems to have now won significant coverage in reliable sources, for better or worse. The article in its current iteration is barely two weeks old, so I'd expect it to have a few warts, but that obviously doesn't warrant deletion. As an aside, I want to welcome all our new friends and remind them to duly note our existing policies on recruiting editors to influence a discussion. That said, I'm hopeful the energy this article seems to have generated can be channeled productively. —Rutebega (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widespread significant coverage across a multitude of reliable sources concentrating on Healy as an individual (as opposed to the band's music) fulfils Wikipedia notabilty requirement of WP:BASIC. The delete arguments seem to be WP:NPOV content based. Such disagreement should be thrashed out on the Talk page. Rupples (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of animals that are extinct in the wild#Reptiles. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of extinct reptiles in the wild

[edit]
List of extinct reptiles in the wild (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)

Disputed redirect. Inferior, unsourced article with errors (e.g. why is Erythrolamprus ornatus included?) and commentary which topic-wise duplicates the existing article List of recently extinct reptiles. Fram (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Kyryn

[edit]
Vladyslav Kyryn (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:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Best source I can find is Kudrivka, which is not even independent of the subject and the coverage is trivial. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleutia

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS.Refs are routine business news, annoucements and PR. scope_creepTalk 21:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not trust you since you have only done 39 Afd. We will go through these references. They are PR at best. scope_creepTalk 07:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trust whoever you want. AfD is about building consensus, not taking one person's word for anything. PopoDameron ⁠talk 08:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify the precise paragraph in any of those references that contains in-depth "Independent Content" about the company (e.g. meets WP:SIRS/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND)? HighKing++ 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the precise paragraph in any of those references that contains in-depth "Independent Content" about the company (e.g. meets WP:SIRS/WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND)? HighKing++ 19:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like it to me, according to X-Tools.   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When he posted this, the editor was here for exactly three weeks. The editor is a WP:SPA. From their behaviour, it reads as though they have been here for years. It looks suspicious. scope_creepTalk 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Analysing the references provided here and whatever I could find, none contain "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Invariably the articles are either brief descriptions of the product (which isn't the topic of this article) or provide quotes from the founder/company. There's no real in-depth information about the company either. Fails our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give us some indication on your reasoning? Otherwise whoever closes the discussion will likely ignore your vote. But being new does not mean your opinion shouldn't count. Don't let people WP:BITE you away. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's an analysis of the sources mentioned here. Perhaps the Keep !voters can point to specific paragraphs/sections in some of these sources which they believe meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability?
    • BBC article from 16 Sept 2016 simply regurgitates company PR/quotes/photos with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND. At 6 sentences long (including quotes, etc) it also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • The Register article dates 10th June 2019 simply regurgitates the announcement of the same date, fails ORGIND.
    • Independent article from 28 Aug 2015 regurgitates the information available on the company's website from August 2015 and related PR which is repeated in other articles from August 2015 such as this in New Atlas and this from Good News Network which in turn is based on the article in Fast Company dated 4th August 2015. All highly similar/related articles, clearly based on company PR, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
    • PC Tech Magazine article dated October 2015, entirely based on an interview with the CEO, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
    • Alphr article from December 2016 relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from the CEO, no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND and not in-depth on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • Fast Company article from August 2015, already mentioned above, part of the August 2015 PR campaign by the company, relies entirely on information provided by the company and the CEO, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
    • Blog entry on Scientific American dated September 2015 may not be a reliable source as it is unclear if any editorial policies are exercised on the blog content, but leaving that aside it is a summary of the August 2015 "Solar Classroom" PR campaign by the company, nothing new, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
All of the sources here are based on PR with no "Independent Content" and/or in-depth information about the company. It would be helpful if some of the Keep !voters identified what parts of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 17:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources I linked above:
  • The alphr article uses quotes, but as far as I can see it is merely an assumption, that they just took company information without any review.
  • The fastcompany article makes some use of quotes, but again that they just took information from the company seems conjecture to me.
  • The Scientific American article is, as far as I can tell, no top-level quality source, but I would not dismiss something from Scientific American, even if it is a blog. Content is certainly limited.
  • The New Atlas article is in my opinion sufficiently independent.
I guess ultimately it comes down to a difference of opinion over what the threshold for WP:SIGCOV is/should be.
My basic stance is "when in doubt include", but I can certainly see how people can disagree on that. Ultimately that's why we have discussions for deletions. I don't think this is a case of this has to be in Wikipedia, but neither do I think this is a case of this has no place in Wikipedia. If the consensus ends up in favour of deletion I won't run to get out my soapbox. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ORGIND says (and I already quote this above) that sources must contain content that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So even if you say it is "conjecture" or an "assumption" on my part, it really isn't since the information isn't clearly attributable to any source and the context of the rest of the articles makes it clear that at least a good amount of the published information (e.g. interview/quotes) originated directly from a company source. In other cases, based on the timelines, we can see that the company issued PR and announcements on the topic at the same time or before the articles, and I'm unable to identify any new information in those articles. Can you?
For example, you seem to this that the Alphr article meets the criteria to establish notability. Lets take a close look. There are 19 "sentences" relating to the company (I counted periods even if they were multiple within a single quote) or their products. 9 of them are directly attributed to the CEO. Out of the remaining 10, 3 directly discuss the products, not the company. That leaves 7 sentences which we can look at. Even if you were to say that all of those sentences are original/independent (which I don't ... a number are either lead-ins or lead-outs from the CEO quotes), 7 sentences is insufficient in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH. Your basic stance of "when in doubt, include" is not in keeping with NCORP policy (e.g. WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as above). On the Scientific American article, in general blogs are not considered a reliable source (with qualifiers) but that isn't the reason it failed our criteria, instead it was because it and the fastcompany article regurgitates company PR (link provided above relating to "Solar Classroom") with no additional information included, therefore no "Independent Content" nor in-depth information that didn't originate directly from the company.
I've asked above if people can identify precise paragraphs/sections in particular sources that they believe meets our criteria for establishing notability. You've linked back to entire sources - it would be helpful if you could narrow it down further to specific sections/paragraphs. HighKing++ 20:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is as clear as day to me. scope_creepTalk 20:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. I didn't check your claims about the timeline of press releases in detail, but I'm just going to trust you there. And while I don't agree with everything you wrote I have downgraded my vote to "Neutral leaning weak keep". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TXT402

[edit]
TXT402 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Existed since 2011 with a single primary source. Searching google requires wrapping "TXT402" in quotes as otherwise you get all kinds of incidental results of "TXT" and "402". The news and book searches have zero results. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriy Zhoholko

[edit]
Valeriy Zhoholko (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)

For the majority of his career, played as an amateur. The article is currently a footballfacts.ru stats mirror and I can't see any significant prose coverage available about this footballer. Does not seem to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Best source I can find on him is Chernigiv Future, a local source that mentions him once in the text. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus‎. In addition to the canvassed arguments making determination of consensus difficult at best, there is a fundamental disagreement on whether this is or is not a subject appropriate for an encyclopedia, with neither position having gained clear consensus. There does seem to be a general consensus that the current state of the article is quite suboptimal, so perhaps those who argue that the article can be improved to a clearly encyclopedic standard could work on doing so, and then a future discussion may be able to come to a clearer result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

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

The page is currently a very long change log listing the verisons of firefox and the changes brought with them.

which goes against WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per WP:NOT. At the very least the hidden tables and crystal ball should be removed as done in these edits: [13]. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – for the very simple reason that there is no corresponding delete request for Google Chrome version history. All of the same arguments apply, but there is no corresponding movement. Yoasif (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    that is isn't a valid arugment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1keyhole (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Yoasif (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs) 00:38, April 25, 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete, we are not a hobby-site for those obsessed with detailed update histories of software. An encyclopaedic history of a major bit of software, drawing on a range of sources, is one thing. A database of updates cataloguing every announcement by the manufacturer, based almost entirely on these primary sources is quite another. And if the best argument that can be made for keeping it is that we have similar rubbish in other articles, get rid of them too. We should use the same test as we do for everything: is it significant and notable? Bill Gates is notable, but the fact he used the lavatory last Tuesday is not, and need not be catalogued in WP. Firefox is notable; every itty-bitty iterative change in Firefox is not. Elemimele (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a difficult issue. Firefox since version 4 has been an "evergreen" browser where the version doesn't matter as long as you're using the latest. Even Mozilla is moving away from wiki based software documentation to use a more dynamic database instead. Maybe it's time all the various version history articles on Wikipedia be migrated to a version tracking database project? 2A00:23EE:17C0:2F78:58CC:B76:4D26:29CA (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I use this article regularly. It goes beyond a changelog. Its a historical representation of the evolution of Firefox and combined with other article the entire browser field. If this article is against policy then all articles in Category:History of software (and probably more sections from countless articles) should be deleted and Wikipedia will become poorer because of it Chris Ssk talk 15:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ITSUSEFUL. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - such information is useful and other examples exist of such pages that concensus is to keep such as Google Chrome version history, if this page is to be deleted shouldnt the rest at the same time be submitted for deletion? Popeter45 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    just submitted that article for deletation since it's also violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG 1keyhole (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While i disagree with your proposal i commend you for your conistency, as this had expanded to the larger area of browser history may i suggest instead to revoke this AfD and instead raise one shared one as would lead to a larger userbase for discussion and a larger consensus? Popeter45 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As several others have suggested, this page in it's entirety is extremely useful. This page has been active for YEARS and is not bothering anyone. If you don't want detailed information, then simply don't click on [show] and nothing detailed will be shown. It's as simple as that. If we delete this page then where does it end? Are we going to delete all the other pages with Version History? This is Wikipedia, people come here for information! LESS is NOT MORE in this case. ShockingOutcome (talk)— ShockingOutcome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This reasoning falls into WP:ITSUSEFUL I'm afraid. Version histories are vulnerable to being targetted for AfD due to NOTCHANGELOG as others have mentioned TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Page contains useful information, and many other pieces of software have similar version history pages. I will also note that someone reverted the deletion of a huge (and possibly redundant) table just before this was nominated for deletion. Perhaps that’s just a coincidence, but a deletion nomination is not a useful response to a revert that you disagree with. Klausness (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a policy-based reason to keep? 1keyhole (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a policy-based reason to delete? Given that this is notable and useful information, the default should be to keep (as with similar pages for release histories of other notable software products). The WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue can be fixed with appropriate editing. Deletion is never an appropriate response to a page that just needs editing. Klausness (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of editing required to circumvent NOTCHANGELOG would turn this into a completely different page. It would make sense to delete this one, and make a History of Firefox or suchlike. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Klausness (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 00:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs) 00:38, April 25, 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, which editor would have expressed this concern, and what reason would they have for such concern? For the record, no one has asked me to contribute to this AfD. While I have not been as active on wikipedia recently as I have been in the past, I have contributed to numerous AfDs, so it is not odd that I chose to contribute when I saw that there was an (unjustified, in my opinion) AfD on this article. Klausness (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to have been asked directly to !vote or to participate in a discussion for it to be canvassing. Someone posted a highly non-neutral notice on a partisan, off-wiki subreddit about how the article was being handled and you followed it and participated in discussions about it. That arguably qualifies as multiple different types of canvassing:
    • Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
    • Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
    • Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
    • Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.
    JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No reason to delete this or any part of it, very valuable data that can be very useful for future references is here and the only "maintenance" required is adding new info for future versions, something that takes 5 mins at most. Moongrimer (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: Details button on Crash Reporter.
This is WP:TRIVIA, not a highlight for a major release, and it does not belong on Wikipedia. (Those who find the current, exhaustive release notes are free to host them elsewhere if they find that level of detail useful.) We can also probably condense the presentation of minor & patch releases. Perhaps each release within a major release can share a single highlights cell? Any highlights from releases after the major release can be explicitly labelled. bb010g (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bb010g (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelleJay (talk • contribs) 00:38, April 25, 2023 (UTC)
 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § WP:NOTCHANGELOG being ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I agree it needs to be massively shorter, the page is ridiculously detailed. Yes to all the main features ever introduced to Firefox, with the releases they were introduced in, in release order. No to exacting changelogs. Also no to merging into Firefox, having the features listed out on a timeline / version history makes it much easier to place them in context and history than trying to read it as prose. 147.147.154.61 (talk)— 147.147.154.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If you delete it, someone is going to create the site again (someone has to care for it since it's always up to date and including too many details). Besides that, if you want to clean it up (and yes, that is needed) it's easier to get stuff out than to start from a blank page. Qxyz123 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is very clear that this page cannot be kept and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it doesn't matter how many editors !vote to keep; we are forbidden from doing so and arguments that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't change this. However, it is possible that editors may find a consensus to adjust the policy to support keeping articles like these; to support this I prefer draftifying this article over deleting it, so that if such a consensus it is easy to restore this article to mainspace. BilledMammal (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment It is clearly against WP:NOT policy spefically the section on that states wikipedia is not a change log. The article is clearly a change log it list almost every change that is brought in when firefox updated. It was previously voted that the article should be merged. however when someone tried to perform the merge mutiple times it was reverted.
1keyhole (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1keyhole I'd suggest striking your delete vote given you are the nominator and from WP:AFDFORMAT: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can i change it to a comment or is that frowned upon? 1keyhole (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can use <del>'''Delete'''</del> <ins>'''Comment'''</ins> or similar to show that intent. Skynxnex (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for providing extact syntax 1keyhole (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree this does need to be merged. But why does it keep getting reverted? PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article because the subject itself is notable, and I agree with others that having it on Wikipedia is highly useful. (It's often difficult to trace the long-term development of a browser over time (info is scattered over many pages, links go dead, etc.) Having the information all in one place is invaluable for researchers, developers, and presumably users.) Moreover, Wikipedia has a long-established history of documenting salient changes in noteworthy software projects, and Firefox assuredly meets that standard — hence deleting the article outright would be a significant policy change. .... With that being said, however, the current format of the article is horrid and absolutely violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. A lot of it is repetitive, trivial, and looks like it was copy-pasted from blogs or release notes. Note that Firefox early version history has a considerably better presentation in its first sections. I think a merge and substantial cleanup would be a better outcome. (I'd also note that some early versions have their own articles like Firefox 3.0, which offers a good example of how WP can cover version history well.) – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 01:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The result last time was merge the pages when people to implement it was just reverted. 1keyhole (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I looked up the merge, since you've mentioned it a few times. It's only part of the story and somewhat misleading. I dug through the relevant article and talk page histories to understand how they've developed over time. I'll leave a summary below for anyone interested — please do correct me if I'm missing anything. (I'll use "FVH" to refer to Firefox version history and "HOF" for History of Firefox.):
    • 2011: The first substantial discussion about splitting up HOF occurred on its talk page, based on how long the article was becoming and lengthy loading times in current browsers.
    • 2012: In February, HOF was split. The table of release details was moved to FVH (which until then was only a redirect). The detailed descriptions covering Firefox 5 and onward were split into History of Firefox (Rapid release development cycle). In April, however, a discussion on the Firefox talk page reached a consensus that the rapid-release article should be re-combined with HOF, along with detailed History info from the main Firefox article at the time. This was done.
    • 2017 – 2018: sporadic chatter about splitting up version tables on both FVH and HOF talk pages. Objections were raised in October '17 to FVH on WP:NOTCHANGELOG grounds, but participants agreed that deleting the article entirely would be too extreme.
    • January 2019: the first AFD for FVH was proposed. The closer said it was a "complicated close" but also said that there was clearly no consensus for deletion. The closer decided to merge the article into the main Firefox article, which led to several objections on the talk page, and that merge was reverted. (I believe this is the one you've referred to.)
    • February – April 2019: an extensive discussion took place on Talk:History of Firefox about what to do with the version history information, mostly centering around merging FVH and HOF. An initial merge of FVH → HOF met with objections because of the size of the article produced, and was reverted as the user working on it lacked time to clean it up. Soon afterward a merge of HOF → FVH was completed, and has stood since then. This is the basis of the current article.
    • May 2019 – December 2022: discussions on the FVH talk page built consensus that the article ought to be split up to account for how large it had grown. This was started in September 2019 when Firefox early version history was split from FVH (revision link), but has not progressed.
    I'd like to make a few points in light of this history:
    1. The current FVH article is the outcome of a couple decades of work & discussion by dozens (maybe even hundreds?) of editors. I feel that one needs a very thorough argument to make a case for deleting that. "A prior merge went awry" and "some of the content doesn't fit WP policy" aren't sufficient in my opinion.
    2. Prior delete proposals failed to gather consensus. To again propose deletion now, one needs to show that the article has worsened, the subject has somehow lost notability, or WP policy has changed. I don't see any of those — if anything the article has improved since the 1st AfD due to the HOF merge (which was completed.)
    3. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I know this isn't a universally-accepted axiom, but in this case I believe it applies. There's a lot of good content in the article, all thoroughly referenced. It's by no means a hopeless case.
    I'll close with a comment. For this article and the other browser version AFDs nominated with it, the outcomes need to be consistent. In particular, I'd like to ask the closing admin to be careful making any large changes unilaterally (merges, redirects), given that the last time that happened it appears to have muddied/possibly derailed an ongoing attempt to clean up the article. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's clearly an encyclopedic topic for software such as Firefox. Should be cut down some but we can use Common sense as mentioned at WP:NOTCHANGELOG (same rationale as on the on-going AfDs: Firefox, Chrome, and iOS). Skynxnex (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes more sense to delete it is a just a list of software update changes that will continue to grow and we really don't need what changes were introduced to 30 verison when when we are currently past 105 verisons. 1keyhole (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those are reasons to delete this article, to be clear. The concern a page might grow bigger is a potential reason to split (like we could cut down the section of versions 5 through 9 and have that be its own article if they are notable enough) or a sign to make sure we cut out unneeded details. "we really don't need" also isn't a reason to delete since the general topic of changes in Firefox releases is an on-going encyclopedic topic given the amount of reliable, independent coverage many of its releases have received over the years. Skynxnex (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is this
    • there is Wikipedia policy against changelogs WP:NOTCHANGELOG
    • Simply defination of a change log is a document that lists changes brought in by a software update.
    • Firefox version history is an article that documents changes brought in by software updates and that is currently over 100 major verisons.
    • common sense says that will continue to grow if result is too keep the article.
    1keyhole (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual policy is not just "against changelogs". It's against Exhaustive logs of software updates and it assumes there are articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article and that we should use Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. So it's not a policy that absolutely bars articles like this. This article is probably, in good faith attempts at being complete, too detailed under WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The attempt April 14 seems like a decent attempt to get started but since it was reverted, discussion should be held on the talk page about what sort of version would be acceptable. Not just deleting the entire article since the history of Firefox versions is significant enough it'd almost surely justify splitting out from a main article by size alone, even heavily stripped down. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: because it’s an important historical record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KahnSchoonmaker (talk • contribs) 14:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm copying my initial comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS version history (2nd nomination) because the after reviewing the article, the rationale concerning this article is identical as that one. While the article does include some information that would perhaps fall under WP:NOTCHANGELOG, the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose that goes far beyond a simple changelog. Describing and detailing the version history of a given piece of software is not in itself a WP:NOTCHANGELOG issue. - Aoidh (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoidh, the vast majority of the prose is sourced directly to Mozilla -- out of the first 50 sources, only 8 are potentially independent. How much material directly on the topic can actually be written from secondary independent reliable sources? And how many of those sources are merely announcements or reviews for one specific version and don't comment on "version history" as a broader concept? JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues with the amount of primary sourcing currently in the article is a surmountable problem, one fixed via editing rather than deletion. Every issue raised by every delete rationale is solved by trimming the fat, not by deleting the article altogether. The question about "version history" as a broader concept isn't a concern. If a biography has independent sources discussion a person's history as an actor and others discussing their history as a singer, that still shows notability; we don't need to have specific sources that show the sum of their life to consider them notable. Likewise, sources discussing the version changes for a given version of Firefox is in aggregate more than enough to show notability for this WP:DETAIL article. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources aren't a concern, if we accept the premise that Mozilla is an entirely reliable source on what changes they make to Firefox (which has precedent in our treatment of plot summaries, which we implicitly source to the primary book/movie). Forcing a reliance on secondary sources has no benefit, yet risks introducing the inevitable minor inaccuracies that even the best secondary sources are guilty of.
    The few things that only secondary sources could provide, like contextualization or analysis, can simply be brought in in addition to the primary sources. But replacing primary with secondary is otherwise useless busywork, just like it would be at the entirely primarily sourced yet FA-class List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics. DFlhb (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. This is policy. Additionally, the article falls under NORG, which states that routine coverage of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance does not contribute to notability. Also, your example is a featured list, not an FA. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it falls under and meets WP:NSOFT, meeting WP:NORG is not also required; articles do not need to meet every applicable notability guideline, just (ideally) the most relevant one. Since this article is about a piece of software, that would be the notability guideline specifically for software. However even within NORG, the article already has non-routine coverage in the sources[15][16][17]. - Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline. The article has to meet NORG. Per NOT and NOPAGE, not every subtopic receiving sigcov needs a standalone article when it can be appropriately handled in the parent. Trivial content like the exhaustive detailing of each update doesn't belong in any article, and if you remove that + the primary stuff how much is left? JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ONLYESSAY; that criteria is not discounted just because it is an essay. Regardless, the article meets WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, and WP:NORG. That not every subtopic receiving sigcov needs a standalone article may be true, but no persuasive argument has been made to show that this is the case for this particular article. As for how much would be left if you removed the primary sources, that's a discussion for the talk page; the size of the article is not grounds for deletion, especially when it's speculation on a hypothetical size that might occur at a later point. When the issues brought up by those arguing for deletion can be solved via editing, there is no cause for deletion. The article has to meet NORG. Whether that's true or not is moot because it does meet the criteria of that guideline, so there is no issue there. That primary sources are being used heavily in the article does not affect notability, because notability is already clearly established by other sources. WP:NOTCHANGELOG concerns are similarly issues with the presentation of the data within the article, not an issue with the article or its subject as a whole. These are all concerns solved via editing. Are they valid concerns? Absolutely. Are they cause for deletion? Not in the slightest. - Aoidh (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Essay notability criteria absolutely are discounted because they are from essays. This is why WP:N explicitly states Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards. The article must meet NORG because NORG explains what types of source contribute to GNG (as explained at WP:N: SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the [...] strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies).
    And there is a persuasive argument for not having a standalone article: the fact that almost no content is sourced to SIRS, and what is is better served in the actual article on Firefox or possibly in a separate article on Firefox history in general that is not centered around documenting every single change in a release. NOTCHANGELOG says Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. This suggests that no content at all should be supported only by official sources. Bringing the page into compliance with NOT would require going through 550,000 bytes and weeding out all info not sourced to SIRS, which would be such a monumental task that TNT is wholly justified. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it does meet WP:NORG so whether it also meets WP:NSOFT and what NSOFT itself means in terms of an essay is ultimately not relevant. I have seen WP:TNT articles and this is nowhere near that level. What WP:TNT itself says rules TNT out as an option, because even if we accept your arguments on face value, even what little is worth retraining renders WP:TNT inapplicable. The reliance on primary sources is solved via editing so that itself is not grounds for deletion, nor is it so monumental that it can't be done; it's already been done on another article. IOS version history went from just over 481k bytes on December 29 to just under 27k a couple of days later on January 1. There's now a discussion on whether that's a warranted level of trimming, but not only is that not monumental but it is relatively simple to do and has been done on similar articles before. - Aoidh (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a phenomenally beneficial policy, whose point is to keep out self-promotion and enforce a bare-minimum threshold for dueness. Neither are issues here, since editors have been quite competent at respecting dueness (in the prose, mind you) despite relying on mostly primary sources. I'm arguing against WP:TNT here, since Aoidh already addressed notability. DFlhb (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you say DUENESS isn't an issue when it's impossible to even assess how DUE something is from primary nonindependent sources? Or that it's not promotional, when it's literally sourced to promotional material from Mozilla? OR is a content policy, not a suggestion that can just be handwaved away. TNT is absolutely applicable here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell you that DUE is largely respected because I've kept up with secondary news about Firefox for roughly the last decade, and the prose correctly highlights major changes and additions of noteworthy web standards, while omitting irrelevant changes and irrelevant web standards. Intelligent editors can (and mostly have) used primary sources in a judicious way that keeps factual claims and discards (most) promotional claims. TNT is not applicable thanks to WP:PRESERVE, since the prose is not covered by WP:CANTFIX nor NOTCHANGELOG. WP:MINREF also provides ample "policy cover". But I don't like linking to this many policies in one reply; the bottom line is that my common sense tells me that most of the text is good, and secondary sources are easy to find for most of the prose. DFlhb (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That you believe the article meets DUE with primary sources is irrelevant to whether the content in the article is actually DUE and PROPORTIONAL, which are dependent on how the topic is discussed within secondary sources. If a particular class of details is only verifiable with official documents (or straight repetition of those docs even in indy sources), that class does not warrant inclusion in the article at all. In fact, NOT clearly says that descriptions of version history must use only secondary independent sources: Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. All article content that is only sourced to the company should be deleted. PRESERVE does not exempt articles from deletion policy: If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. This article severely fails NPOV because almost all of it is directly from the company; extracting the remaining bits would be require sifting through hundreds of thousands of bytes and likely would leave us with essentially the same content found in the articles on each version/main article. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRESERVE does apply, is policy, and as of May 3, I haven't seen any comment so far convincingly rebut it. You cite WP:V and WP:NPOV, clearly referring to WP:CANTFIX, but CANTFIX is about situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article, not deleting the whole article. It does reference WP:V and WP:NPOV, but WP:V doesn't require that secondary sources be cited inline; merely that they exist. NPOV isn't a convincing argument either, since release notes are not "promotional"; they describe, in technical terms, changes that factually were made. Mozilla's changelogs are written by their engineers, not their marketing department.
    You seem to think that I, like other !keep voters, want the article to keep looking the way it does. I don't. It's a truly awful article. But it would be harder to make it GA-class from scratch, rather than from the existing content (hence, WP:NOTCLEANUP). DFlhb (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aoidh. ResonantDistortion 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aoidh's rationale "the article also contains history of the changes of the software written in prose" Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale by Aoidh. Mine is, that this version history is easier to find than the one at Mozilla, which organization is prone to move and remove historical information about its software as it pleases. -Mardus /talk 08:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG -- sources are overwhelmingly not independent. NOTCHANGELOG clearly applies to prose material as well, despite some nonsensical comments above. Avilich (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    despite some nonsensical comments above — My argument is identical to one Masem made in 2015, Masem being one of the early proponents of NOTCHANGELOG. I'll also respond to Sandstein here ("policy and cannot be overridden"): NOTCHANGELOG is about dueness. It states that changes that are not covered by secondary sources are undue. Here, the prose content would be substantially similar if all primary sources were replaced with secondary sources; hence, the prose plainly does not violate NOTCHANGELOG. WP:MINREF enjoys overwhelming consensus; all primary citations could simply be removed and not replaced, and the article would still not fall afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. To argue otherwise would be to wikilawyer: abiding by the letter without understanding the spirit. NOTCHANGELOG was clearly intended to avoid version history articles being filled with trivia; not to impose inline citation requirements that are higher than even GA-class (currently) requires. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Content based on primary sources is the same whether on list or prose form. NOTCHANGELOG doesn't make a distiction either. Avilich (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich And that's a severe flaw of the NOTCHANGELOG policy. It is overly vague, and that opens up the ability for it to be interpreted however editors may see fit with no regard for an article's history or the amount of effort put into it. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 07:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overinterpretation as you describe it is caused when there's too much to interpret, not in a case like this when the policy is two lines long. If the policy makes no distinction between prose and lists, that simply means none should be made. Avilich (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Based on arguments made by Aoidh MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is policy and cannot by overridden by local consensus. This article fails this policy because it is only a detailed change log almost only sourced to primary sources. That it is in prose rather than table format does not change this. Sandstein 20:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete What is the point of keeping release notes. It's like keeping used tissue paper. They have no value beyond the original release. After that they are virtually useless. They have no historical value and no encyclopeadic value. They can also be recreated anywhere you want very easily, so don't need to be WP. The sources are also primary. It also fails WP:NOT, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 21:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCHANGELOG seems to consensus agreed policy as well. scope_creepTalk 21:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and heavily rewrite the article. The current version suffers from WP:NOTCHANGELOG and even WP:CRYSTAL in some places. The presence of several secondary sources means that there is a reason to keep some of it, although the overwhelming majority of the >700 sources are WP:PRIMARY. Draftifying would allow to salvage what is needed while cleaning up most of the article.
I am also concerned with the amount of canvassed editors which appears to artificially tilt the consensus. Something that could be done to keep the usefulness (as WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't imply it should have a Wikipedia article) would be to have this article recreated on a more relevant wiki (maybe a browser-focused one?) rather than the general Wikipedia. Of note, most of the information can be found on https://whattrainisitnow.com/calendar/ Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I meant that the Wikipedia article should be draftified and rewritten, but that a similar article to the current one could be hosted on a more specialized wiki. ~~ Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i would agree with a Draftify concensus if not enough of a concensus for keep Popeter45 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could be salvaged by simply removing the release notes from the tables (i.e. keeping the prose, and trimming the tables to just the version number and release date, removing the third column) as a better alternative than draftification, since the prose is verifiable despite not having inline secondary sources. DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firefox#History contains the correct level of detail on the history of Firefox; this article, even after removing the collapsed tables, is still just an unencyclopedic play-by-play that violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and I suspect there's some puppetry going on here. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry if wrong but actually feel their may be pupetry or at least carvassing for delete now as been a sudden influx of the exact same arguments in last day or so since keep won out on IOS Version History Popeter45 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but NOTCHANGELOG is the foremost reason for deletion, so it's likely to be cited often. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i get that but multible posts saying exact same thing shouldnt be needed and feels like a attempt at WP:VOTESTACKING Popeter45 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which prohibits Exhaustive logs of software updates...Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. This is a list of every single release of Firefox, and for each one it lists most of the points which Firefox list in their own release notes, so it is near-exhaustive. NOTCHANGELOG also says Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. This article is almost entirely based on primary sources published by the developers of Firefox. The fact that some of the list information is presented in prose format rather than tabular format and that Firefox is a prominent piece of software doesn't change this. While it may well be possible to write an encyclopedic article about the development of Firefox over time (maybe called History of Firefox), almost all of this page would have to be discarded so there's no point in keeping it on that basis. Hut 8.5 12:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That the article is based on primary sources isn't important, because, as noted above, secondary sources are available. AFD is based on the availability of sources - not the current state of referencing. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not correct, notability is based on the existence of sources, but the rationale for deletion is not notability-based, so that's irrelevant. Hut 8.5 16:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - the rational WP:NOTCHANGELOG can be fixed with a tighter edit. The list is hardly exhaustive though - for then the article would be many times the length! This is an editing issue, not a deletion issue - see WP:ATD. Nfitz (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm familiar with ATD, thank you. Although 75% of the content has been removed since I posted that, the page is still not even vaguely compliant with NOTCHANGELOG, and it would need a near-total rewrite to make it compliant. The page is still a list of every release of Firefox together with details of at least the most important changes in every release. The fact this is presented in text rather than tabular format doesn't automatically make it policy-compliant. Yes, it's not every single change, but it's still a wildly excessive level of detail. For example in release 109 the page lists five different features, Mozilla list eight.
The page is still almost exclusively sourced to Mozilla's release notes and announcements (WP:NOTCHANGELOG: Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article, or for that matter WP:V: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources). Fundamentally it's not an encyclopedia article. I'm sure it's possible to write an encyclopedia article about how Firefox has developed over time, but that would consist of actual prose and not a mere list of features in every release of Firefox, and it would be based on independent sources. Anyone trying to write such a thing would have to throw virtually all this content away. Hut 8.5 19:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the page needs further work is an argument to apply WP:ATD and improve it - not to delete it. Nfitz (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This "further work" would amount to rewriting the page from scratch. It is entirely acceptable to delete the page in such cases. WP:ATD says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. A complete rewrite is not "editing". Hut 8.5 12:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Sceptre (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as noted above, secondary sources exist. So GNG met. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all AfDs are about GNG. Something can be notable but not have an article simply because it would be outside of the purpose of an encyclopedia (a phone book, for example). In this case, the rationale for deletion is WP:NOTCHANGELOG, not WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTCHANGELOG would be a good reason to improve and tighten the article. The changes listed are hardly exhaustive though - for then the article would be many times the length! This is an editing issue, not a deletion issue - see WP:ATD. Nfitz (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - basically per Avilich. No objection to a separate general history article for software articles where the original article becomes over-long, but Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, not a directory, and not a change-log. Version history articles are explicitly change-logs however they are written. WP:NOT is becoming increasingly worn away at the edges by what amounts to pure directory/index content included only because “It’s Useful”. FOARP (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTCHANGELOG literally states the exact thing this article is, an exhaustive software changelog. As others have stated, a History of Firefox article would be an appropriate WP:SIZESPLIT to have off of Firefox if merited; I suspect it's not (at least at the moment). Any encyclopedic history content that's on this page but not under Firefox#History should be added there. I noticed there are a lot of keep votes focused on notability; I don't believe the notability of Firefox is in question (nor do I think anyone is suggesting individual Firefox versions would each merit independent articles), so I don't think a notability argument matters here. What's left is a bunch of people who WP:LIKEIT. I'd love to encourage anyone who came here from Reddit or similar and has a passion for this stuff to help out on encyclopedic articles! Our page on mobile browsers is still Start-class, for instance. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    to reply to your last section, why would people stay and help wikipedia if anything they try work on is AfD'ed on repeated tenuous arguements and refuse to consider any other opinions? Popeter45 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "anything they try to work on", it's just that Wikipedia has a specific purpose. The only reason the arguments are repeated is because the problem stays the same: Wikipedia is not a changelog. It's not a question of opinion, it's the literal policy. The same way it isn't a phonebook, a blogging platform, a writing archive or any of many other things. As @Dylnuge mentioned above, working on the page on mobile browsers would be a good way to help without getting AfD'ed - in fact, we would be glad to see people help on it, even if it isn't perfect! Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is WP:NOTCHANGELOG. CastJared (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT is pretty clear here, and this absolutely falls afoul of an indiscriminate directory (with copyright issues to boot.) An article on Firefox's history could be notable and exist, but that's functionally not what these version history articles are, so I don't see a benefit to a draftification. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOTCHANGELOG is a poor policy, that holds no valid ground. Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles like these exist on the platform. Bringing up a discussion to delete these makes no sense, especially based on the article’s age and sheer amount of time these articles have existed on the platform. Losing this article would be a detrimental blow to software history, especially Firefox’s history. Therefore I am saying keep. There is no reason for this article to not exist, and WP:NOTCHANGELOG needs to be killed as a policy. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 04:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't just pick and chose the policies we like. If you want to try to kill it, go for it, but as of right now, it's still active. Unless/until NOTCHANGELOG is repealed, this isn't a valid rationale, it's just another WP:OSE stance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73 I still believe WP:NOTCHANGELOG needs to be removed as a policy, but I have gone ahead and removed the tables (which should hopefully get rid of the potential copyright violations as mentioned by another user), and I have added a couple non-first-party sources to slightly increase the article's notability, while using Mozilla's release notes as a secondary source. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Wikipedia is a project about building an encyclopedia, per WP:5P1, not a data dump or an archive. An abridged version highlighting significant versions that added features that attracted coverage should be included in Firefox, but a copy pasted version of the entire Firefox release notes is not encyclopaedic content. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG, make encyclopedic, do not delete but fix. Andre🚐 00:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This about WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:GNG is completely irrelevant in this discussion. 1keyhole (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is what determines whether a subject is notable. NOTCHANGELOG is a policy on the way in which articles on notable topics dealing with software updates should be written. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the kitchen sink.  // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG.  // Timothy :: talk  14:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Non-canvassed, non-OTHERSTUFF 'Keep' arguments are unconvincing to me. They essentially boil down to arguing that text in the article that documents version changes in exhaustive detail is not actually a changelog for some reason. The previous AFD closed as merge, but the article was "temporarily" unmerged a week later and has stood ever since. What's the point of AFD if people can just ignore the outcome? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is textbook WP:NOTCHANGELOG. This is not the sort of information an encyclopedia would host, it's the type of thing one would (and does) find in the company's own change logs and update history. Just go read it there. You don't need Wikipedia for this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The place to keep track of this would be at Mozilla, done by Mozilla. On Wikipedia, it's a violation of the policy against indiscriminate databases. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started an RFC over on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not linked here, regarding the removal of the software updates policy. There is precendent for articles like these to exist, as I found one version history article that has been on the platform since 2008. This policy is actively hurting information availability, and I hope that this RFC will be considered before this discussion is closed, because this nomination is a signal that information removal from the Internet is okay. Wikipedia is not a typical encyclopedia, it is a massive database of useful information, and that information deserves to be preserved not removed. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 00:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least WP:TNT to restart fresh with a version that is based only on secondary sources. Too much of this article is sourced to the primary change log source, and knowing what I know of Firefox's updates, very few of them are captured by secondary sources in depth (at least with iOS, incremental changes are covered in sourcing). So this fails the WP:GNG from that point. Nearly all keep !votes above are the type found in WP:ATA (like "it's useful", "it's been around for a long time", etc.) --Masem (t) 01:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being useful is the central purpose of this website's existence. Our articles are not written for each other, but for the hundreds of millions of readers who sustain our existence. jp×g 06:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP's central purpose is an educational resource above all. There are some things directly useful to that (like the periodic table) but things that are useful may not have a clear education purpose. Or if there is that purpose, it should be filtered through the eyes of third party or secondary sources and not interpreted against OR by WP editors. Masem (t) 12:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aoidh mentions that a good portion of the article is in prose, but I disagree. WP:NOTCHANGELOG doesn't mention a format that the changelog is in, and I would argue that it's good that it doesn't. A changelog can be written in prose. A changelog can be written as a poem. It's still a changelog, and it takes the form of Firefox x was released on date. (changelog text). Mozilla has better release notes than we do, so there is a viable alternative to those who said this article is useful. It's also worth contrasting this kind of page from iOS version history. They may both have the same title, but they are markedly different. The iOS page has a one-paragraph overview of each article, which have an encyclopedic tone to them. That page could do with more citations, but it treats each OS as a distinct thing, not changes between the previous one. SWinxy (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Not liking that policy or asserting that the article in its current form is useful does not change the fact that it is a violation of a Wikipedia policy. Rorshacma (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    a violation of a policy that shouldn't even exist.
    this page existed for over a decade. deleting this page now will kill a significant part of internet history. information should be preserved not erased / deleted. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then, its a good thing the actual version history of Firefox is fully preserved on the official Mozilla pages that make up about 700 of the citations. Rorshacma (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just removed all tables from the article in favor of purely prose - this article should no longer run afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, as the article now only summarises Firefox's version history and the major changes made in each version. Efforts will have to be made to further cleanup the article, but the changes so far should void the need to delete the article entirely off the platform on guideline grounds. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The policies were made for Wikipedia, not Wikipedia for the policies. Many people have quoted WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and WP:ITSUSEFUL, and WP:ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP, but nobody has explained why, or to what extent applying this specific interpretation of policy to this article would benefit the project in any way. "I would like the page to be deleted" is not a benefit. Reading policy pages in their entirety sheds some light on the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide accurate, verifiable, neutral, and well-written content that informs readers. Does this article do this? Yes. Wikipedia is not a creative writing project, or a MFA program; articles do not need to be interesting or fun or use clever turns of phrase. They need to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Has the version history of the Firefox web browser received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? The sourcing here indicates that it has. There are refs to The Verge, ExtremeTech, Ars Technica, TechCrunch, Wired, ZDNet, Engadget, CNET, VentureBeat, and ghacks. These are real factors to consider; the article being boring is not. The article doesn't even have a bunch of huge tables in it; it consists, as of writing, almost entirely of prose. It is perverse that "the article is useful" is a rationale to delete it: should we only aspire to write useless articles? jp×g 06:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a pretty savage strawman of both NOTCHANGELOG and ITSUSEFUL. nobody has explained why [...] Plenty of people have explained why NOTCHANGELOG applies---the article is manifestly an exhaustive log of differences between software updates. It was when it was full of tables and it still is in the form of just prose, prose which still documents software differences in exhaustive detail. It is perverse that "the article is useful" is a rationale to delete it: should we only aspire to write useless articles? This is such a gobsmacking misunderstanding of ITSUSEFUL that it must be willful. ITSUSEFUL, as an argument-to-avoid, is deployed in response to people who argue to keep on account of an article's usefulness. No one is saying that articles must be useless. That's a wild strawman. People are saying that articles should not be kept solely on account of their usefulness, because usefulness is subjective and many useful things are not appropriate encyclopedia topics (like lists of everyone's telephone numbers, among other examples listed at WP:ITSUSEFUL). Casting the entire 'delete' side as WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as you did with a piped-link for I would like the page to be deleted) is a shockingly bad faith reading of other people's arguments on this page. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I have been a bit of a prick here; I suppose we are all getting our gobs smacked tonight. However: being useful and informative to readers is the sole purpose of Wikipedia; why else does the hosting bill get paid? It is true that an article being useful despite pervasive and irreparable faults, like being unverifiable, or lacking notability, or having baked-in ideological slant, is not a reason to keep it. For example, a literal list of everyone's phone number who lived in a city would be intrusive, unmaintainable, unverifiable, and a massive liability. An article about "Why George Bush is a dick" would be impossible to write neutrally, and so on. But if an article does not have these faults, and it meets our content guidelines, it makes no sense to me that its being useful wouldn't be an argument in favor of it -- and it seems unreasonable that editors' arguments should be discounted on the basis of bringing up such an obvious factor. Second of all, I don't think that everyone is merely saying they don't like it; I am saying that this is what determining whether the "common sense" provisions of WP:NOTCHANGELOG apply boils down to. What exactly does it mean for something to be "exhaustive"? I wrote an exhaustive article once, about a subject which definitely nobody cares about (you can ask my friends who had to listen to me talk about it), and it was made a FA; there are 951 articles in Category:Moths of Madagascar. I would say that what this "common sense" provision entails is that it's not the case that we somehow value being "exhaustive" for islands and months, but hate being "exhaustive" about Web browsers. jp×g 07:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's a weakness in the language as written at NOTCHANGELOG, but that's neither here nor there. It's the only instance of the phrase "common sense" on the entire page, and I think WP:NOCOMMON applies in far more instances than people would expect. That being said, the fact of the matter is that there's no policy called NOMOTHSOFMADAGASCAR (or less facetiously, NOT-SPECIES-TAXONOMY) but there is one called NOTCHANGELOG. Sitewide consensus has decided that exhaustive documentation of species is appropriate for Wikipedia (implicitly, given a lack of this policy), but exhaustive documentation of software releases is not (explicitly). Arguing for a new policy called NOT-SPECIES-TAXONOMY or for repealing NOTCHANGELOG is above the pay grade of this AFD. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might be savage, or it might not be. Why does it matter? These policies do not reflect the views and opinions of newer Wikipedia editors, and even some older ones. These policies are relics of baby Wikipedia when it was a young encyclopedic platform. However now it has evolved into a treasure trove of useful information. I agree with most Wikipedia policies, but if many people find something useful, doesn't that defeat your whole argument of how "usefulness is subjective", if the vast majority of people find something useful or valuable? Also it should be noted that the vast majority of people who read Wikipedia don't edit Wikipedia themselves, so there's no way to accurately judge usefulness to begin with. That's another policy that needs to be looked at, but thats a topic for another day. And to a lot of people, articles like these have value and importance. They shouldn't just be sent to the dumpster as if they're worthless. The Internet is an immensely valuable information resource. Wikipedia contributes dramatically to this. Outright ignoring "its useful" comments is unacceptable, in my opinion, especially if the vast majority of people find something useful. There is no way to ever change Wikipedia policies if most people who edit Wikipedia are older editors who are firmly planted in their ways of "this is the best way and no other way works at all." Wikipedia is not purely an encyclopedia anymore, if it was, articles like List of AMD Ryzen processors, or List of Intel Core i7 processors wouldn't exist. Hell, there's even an entire article dedicated to crayon colors. Most people find immense value and importance in articles like these. These whole discussions scream "very vocal minority" because the vast majority of the 100,000+ active Wikipedia editors won't ever discover conversations like these, and the people who do, are typically older Wikipedia editors who are, like I mentioned, used to the way things work now. I barely ever see Wikipedia policies change, and I can very much guarantee that these strict guidelines are preventing people from deciding to invest some time into making Wikipedia better. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 08:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strawmen are logical fallacies that weaken your argument and you should not suffer your side to make them. These policies do not reflect the views and opinions of newer Wikipedia editors, and even some older ones.[citation needed] Just as you can make any assertions you want without evidence, so can I. "The vast majority of people like rhubarb pie and hate version history articles. In fact, 95% of them voted to erase them from existence in the 1917 presidential election of Venezuela." See how easy it is to support any argument you want if you can just make stuff up? Wikipedia policy is built on consensus, forged by logic, discussion, and evidence, not fabulism. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll slightly modify JPXG's argument. People are name-dropping a policy, but failing to apply it with common sense. The tables are now fully gone, so my arguments above become all the more relevant. In any other topic area, it would be considered invalid to AfD an article that's clearly notable (as many !delete voters admit), simply because it lacks inline citations. Those votes would be discarded outright under WP:NOTCLEANUP. Why are we treating software version material differently from everything else on Wikipedia? WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not require everything to have an inline secondary citation; that's what GA-class requires, and any policy that's interpreted as requiring articles to meet the GA criteria, is a policy that is being totally misread. NOTCHANGELOG requires stuff to be verifiable to secondary sources, not verified, as it doesn't override WP:V, and the verifiable vs verified debate has been litigated countless times and settled. These interpretations of NOTCHANGELOG also fundamentally argue "it's too detailed! too much trivia", but again that wouldn't be a valid AfD vote in any other topic area. That gets improved through editing.
A lot of the delete votes are just WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, and WP:UNRS, with almost no one asking themselves "what's most likely to result in a good article, long-term"? "The people who actually work on computing articles say it can be improved, so why don't we let normal editing processes take place, rather than force them to start over from scratch?". Also, the fact that canvassing happened made the !keep side look significantly less credible and I think incentivized !delete votes. DFlhb (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you and I disagree on what constitutes a changelog. You believe that by removing the tables, the problem is solved because the changelog is gone. I believe that prose that primarily describes the version-to-version differences of software in exhaustive detail is still a changelog. Please note that the specific text of NOTCHANGELOG is: Wikipedia articles should not be: Exhaustive logs of software updates. The text that follows (Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.) is explanatory advice, analogous to the non-bolded text in the other elements of the NOTDB list. It is not the actual thing that is disallowed by the policy. The thing that is disallowed by the policy is exhaustive logs of software updates, full stop, regardless of the amount of third-party sources. By analogy, the other things disallowed are "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", and "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", full stop, regardless of the amount of third-party sources. No amount of third-party sourcing will let us dump the full lyrical text of Psalms because the policy states that a lyrics database constitutes "an indiscriminate collection of information", and so is an "exhaustive log of software updates". Axem Titanium (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No; my point is that in no other topic area do we delete articles just because they contain undue detail. That gets fixed through editing. The prose contains due and undue details, like most of our articles, and that's not a valid reason for deletion. NOTCHANGELOG is somewhat poorly worded on this. (And despite what Joelle says, changelogs are not "promotional"; they're written by engineers, at least at Mozilla; so NPOV isn't a cause for deletion either). DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not the dueness or undueness of the detail that I have a problem with, it is the intrinsic feature of describing the differences between software version 3.11.17 and 3.11.18 that makes it a changelog, which is a type of indiscriminate database. I agree that NOTCHANGELOG is not optimally worded in its explanatory text, but it is still clear that changelogs in and of themselves are the offending thing, not the level of detail of them. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 3.11.17 and 3.11.18 are undue. So are many other things. But again, a lot of the material is due. Remove the undue stuff, and you no longer have an "exhaustive changelog". We can't delete an article just because !delete voters are unwilling to improve it. If you think the problem is the whole article, rather than just the undue detail, please read this discussion where NOTCHANGELOG's current wording was reached. Wholesale deletion of these articles was never the point. People there treated Android version history as somewhat excessively detailed, but fixable (fixable!). Guess what it looked like at the time? This. And it did get fixed, and now it's much better. DFlhb (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think originalism is going to be convincing to me, then boy howdy are you barking up the wrong tree. The text of the policy is how it's actually being deployed in practice, in this and other discussions. If that's not how the founding fathers intended it, then they should have written it better. The venue for that is a constitutional amendment (RFC), which must be ratified by a 3/4 supermajority of states (Wikipedia consensus). Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not apply U.S. government behavior to how Wikipedia policies are discussed? U.S. government behavior is not a staple of how things should work. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 09:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "past consensus", not originalism. Emphasizing the spirit, not the text, is how Wikipedia works. And if we go by "how it's actually being deployed", then look at the entire past decade, where AfDs found that NOTCHANGELOG didn't mandate deletion. But we're going down an argument that's not remotely relevant, valid, or even appropriate in AfDs, so I'll bow out now. DFlhb (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this, as well as the complete rewrite of the article to replace the tables with prose text, may warrant a ping of previous participants. Note to closer: at the time of nomination, the article consisted mostly of gigantic tables, and many !votes prior to then were based on this. jp×g 10:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even after the changes to the article, my position to Delete remains unchanged. Instead of the changelog being in exhaustive tables, it's veiled under prose. We can't paint over the cracks and say the problem is solved. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheInsatiableOne: This is a very wrong take. There is no reason to delete an article. There are other solutions, such as draftifying, that can solve this problem without outright deleting an article. And the tables covered the changes to Firefox a lot more indepth - the paragraphs only mention the *major* changes, not the bug fixes or anything anymore unlike what the old tables did. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying an article implies that an article is flawed but can be fixed, but this is not the case. And I am aware that the paragraphs only cover major changes, that still constitutes a changelog and therefore is against policy. No matter how the article is formatted and reworked the core problem remains the same. Why does it even need to be on Wikipedia? Are Mozilla's own logs not sufficient? TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheInsatiableOne Except its not against policy. Check the link I posted re: Archive 45. Version history articles can exist, and the policy was explicitly changed to allow Android version history and other articles similar to it to exist. Therefore, this article can be fixed. This NOTCHANGELOG policy needs to stop being so badly misinterpreted. It genuinely shows just how flawed and vague that whole policy is. A single sentence detailing a Wikipedia policy that doesn't go into enough detail opens the doors wide open for said policy to be wildly misinterpreted. And to answer your question, NO, they are not sufficient. They can be removed from Mozilla's pages at anytime if Mozilla were to ever decide to do a full on revamp of their website and remove old release notes from the Firefox website. It is ALWAYS good to have a secondary source of this information and to get additional sources. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I would want those articles to see an AfD discussion but that's a tangent. Perhaps NOTCHANGELOG should be expanded upon, but again, tangent. As for here and now, going by the letter of what is said, it's still problematic because of the use of primary sources, and the article nonetheless seems to fall foul of "indiscriminate collection of information". And I must reiterate, why must Wikipedia host this, when Mozilla has a changelog page as well? TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered your question with my edit to my comment. And there is no reason to open an AfD for the Android version history, it is already an article that has been heavily debated in the past. Leave it alone. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer to the point of Mozilla hosting their own logs is essentially ITSUSEFUL. I've yet to see any good reason for keeping these changelogs, it all seems to amount to some people finding it interesting. Wikipedia doesn't exist to hoard data for it's own sake. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@1keyhole, @Axem Titanium, @DFlhb, @Masem, @Sceptre, @Hut 8.5, @Nfitz, @Chaotic Enby, @Pppery, @CastJared, @David Fuchs, @Sergecross73, @Dylnuge, @MrsSnoozyTurtle, @TimothyBlue: I am paging all, or at least most, participants since the discussion was re-listed to read this archived discussion, and to reconsider their stance on this. And I am additionally requesting some additional time before this discussion is closed to gather more feedback w the article's recent changes. The sources need to be updated to be less reliant on Mozilla's first party site, and the paragraphs need to be less copy-pastey, but based on Archive 45's discussion, the ban on tables & version history articles was outright removed. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article rewrite is fairly self-evident as to what it is, but to concisely be clear on what's been linked to at the WT:NOT -- the actual section that constitutes WP:NOTCHANGELOG was added in February 2011 without discussion, and later subjected to an informal RfC (the one at the link) which found consensus for its current version. Said discussion was specifically started about modifying the policy's wording such that the article Android version history would not be in violation of it (all of which suggestions were agreed on unanimously); there was no suggestion that it should be construed as forbidding all pages about version history. jp×g 10:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a couple people have brought up that not all participants were pinged in the above comment... let's see if I can write some JavaScript to harvest all the usernames that have left signatures here. It turns out I can. I believe there is a limit to how many users can be pinged in one edit, so I will need to split up these 67 names. @1keyhole, BilledMammal, Elemimele, GA-RT-22, Moongrimer, Popeter45, Qxyz123, ShockingOutcome, SnickeringBear, 147.147.154.61, 2A00:23EE:17C0:2F78:58CC:B76:4D26:29CA, Skotishsky, 192.76.8.88, Bb010g, Dylnuge, Evelyn Marie, JoelleJay, Klausness, LinuxPower, Locke Cole, Yoasif, Andrevan, Aoidh, Avilich, Axem Titanium, Bilorv, Cakelot1, CastJared, Chaotic Enby, and Chris Ssk: jp×g 23:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daemonspudguy, David Fuchs, DFlhb, EH86055, Félix An, FOARP, Guerillero, Hey man im josh, Hut 8.5, JPxG, Lightburst, Mardus, Masem, MaxnaCarta, MrsSnoozyTurtle, Nfitz, Nosferattus, Old Naval Rooftops, PaulGamerBoy360, Pikamander2, Pppery, QuicoleJR, Rorshacma, Sandstein, Sceptre, Scope creep, Sergecross73, Shellwood, Skynxnex, Swinxy, Tengwar, The Fiddly Leprechaun, TheInsatiableOne, TimothyBlue, WhatamIdoing, Zxcvbnm, and ResonantDistortion: jp×g 23:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really necessary to do that? My position to delete remains unchanged, and it looks like everyone is firmly entrenched in their respective position. It would be best if we could get a closing admin on this and prevent it being dragged out any longer. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I'm being repeatedly pinged here. I've left another comment saying that I still support deleting the page even after some of it was removed. This archived discussion apparently did not lead to any change in the policy, and can't be said to reflect consensus. Hut 8.5 12:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ping me PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If mirroring Mozilla's data was in scope for Wikipedia, we should be mirroring it. The detailed version history really is useful and informative. But it's not like we can just copy it. And rewording the detailed history to make it acceptable for Wikipedia doesn't really make sense. Just use the Wayback Machine or archive.is to back up Mozilla's version history page.
But what certainly is fitting for Wikipedia, and avoids any WP:NOTCHANGELOG accusations, is an article only about major changes and development. Electrolysis, Oxidation (with mentions of Servo and Stylo), Quantum, JetPack, WebExtensions and breakage of traditional extensions, XUL removal, Picture-in-Picture, Pocket, various interface designs (Australis, Photon, Proton...), etc. These should be discussed in more detail; the current article only mentions them in passing. The less important parts should be left out entirely. --Tengwar (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there were some more I missed: @TimothyBlue, WhatamIdoing, Zxcvbnm, ResonantDistortion, JPxG, CastJared, 1keyhole, Evelyn Marie, Masem, Dylnuge, MrsSnoozyTurtle, Chaotic Enby, Axem Titanium, Nfitz, Pppery, Serial Number 54129, FOARP, User1042, Jauerback, Popeter45, Bilorv, and Ivanvector: jp×g 00:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but this article will Keep or Delete? CastJared (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it will Delete. CastJared (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly opposed to more time. This discussion has dragged on long for a time.
I think both sides have made their arguments for keeping or deleting this article, as we have all clearly had a very long debate over this subject. 1keyhole (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is proving very divisive. Nobody will come to a consensus, and its constant bickering amongst one another. This entire AfD process is IMHO a joke - the vast majority of these discussions always tend to draw in the most negative editors, and this has happened many times in the past with AfDs. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that there's signs of MEATPUPPET-ry going on - someone made a call to a reddit board about this and other change log lists being deleted, creating a rallying cry to keep the article. Now, this would be fine if they actually brought useful information and improvements - I've actually been at the center of such a case with the Old Man Murray article, which was saved by a number of new content articles that I incorporated when the fate of that article was made a topic by a few websites. But here, its a cry of "but its a useful list!" without supporting any policy-based arguments. That doesn't help make the distinction if NOTCHANGELOG is a bad policy or not. Masem (t) 12:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. These kinds of discussions do not magically coalesce in consensus when allowed to continue indefinitely. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Evelyn Marie. The discussion re-listing reason from 25 April doesn't say that it was "to read this archived discussion", instead it seems to be just a typical re-list where the admin feels that consensus has not yet emerged.
Regarding the request in your ping, the recent changes do not alter my opinion that this is a case of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides of this topic are unusually polarized, and end up talking over each other's basic premises. WP:NOTCHANGELOG shouldn't ban every information about Firefox's history (which itself is notable and verifiable by third-party sources), but listing every minute software update is tedious and impractical, be it in table form or (as it is now) in prose form.
The article should be rewritten and improved to a larger extant than a cosmetic "table to text" change, but deleting it is the lazy solution, losing important encyclopedic content. Deleting all of Wikipedia for not being perfect is just as absurd as making it a complete sandbox. Draftifying is the way to go, in order to bring forth a higher quality, encyclopedic and still useful article. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is unchanged. I still support deletion and I agree with FOARP that selective pinging and other canvassing behavior should cease. Trying to throw around as much FUD as possible between this page, the pings, and the RFC at WP:NOT is not productive and seems to be done with the purpose of drawing out a 'no consensus' result by sheer exhaustion. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that this discussion is getting drawn out way more than it should (and has been since the Reddit canvassing). The arguments are still the same, the people are more and more entrenched in their ideas, and meanwhile, the actual changes that could help the article work (not just rewriting tables as text) are still yet to be seen. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the archive makes me more convinced that NOTCHANGELOG is a good reason to edit and tighten the article - not to delete it. More than anything, this seems to be a content dispute - and the AFD violates WP:ATD-E which notes that Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it.. Nfitz (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is unchanged on both fronts - the fact that the aforementioned section of the policy has existed for 10 years is stronger evidence than trying to micro-analyze a 2013 discussion, and it is still the case that Firefox#History contains the correct level of detail on the history of Firefox; this article, even after removing the collapsed tables, is still just an unencyclopedic play-by-play. Finally These policies do not reflect the views and opinions of newer Wikipedia editors, and even some older ones -> I joined Wikipedia in 2016, long after the aforementioned policies were written, and stand by their merits, so this isn't just oldbies trying to hold newer editors hostage. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I joined Wikipedia last year, and I agree with these policies too. The fact that they're old doesn't necessarily mean only older Wikipedians support them, or that anyone is trying to gatekeep policies - to the contrary, they are able to stand the test of time (and to withstand multiple RfCs, like the currently ongoing one). Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it" refers to not deleting policies themselves, it says nothing about articles breaking these policies. Plus, the amount of changes needed to make the article comply means draftifying should at least be on the table - which is a perfectly sensible option for such a massive content dispute. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCHANGELOG was specifically written for the purpose of preserving these articles and limiting their size, not to excise them completely, as was the unanimous consensus when it was written (and indeed what the policy itself says). jp×g 23:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was not pinged. Pinging some, but not all, of the !voters puts us at risk of canvassing allegations. At any rate, simply changing tables to prose does not change my !vote. This is still a changelog. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a changelog. We do not include exhaustive lists of changes, we summarise what is said about notable subjects based on secondary sources. No objection to having a general history article about Firefox if suitable sourcing for it can be found. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing tables to prose makes the article worse in my mind. It should be a mixture of prose and tables. The issue, as far as I can see, it too much detail. And having so much prose about too many details makes the article unusable. Do we really need trivialities such as improved responsiveness on macOS during periods of high CPU load by switching to a modern lock? However, something like Firefox 12 is the final release to support Windows 2000 and Windows XP RTM & SP1 is useful, and likely well reported. But these are content issues - not AFD issue. Nfitz (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As presently written this is a changelog. The Keep !votes are arguing extensively for it to be kept as such, not re-written. Re-writing as a general history (assuming sourcing exists) would require WP:TNT at this point anyway - there is no version in the edit-history that is not a changelog. WP:NOT is most definitely a DELREASON, justifiable by preventing Wikipedia being used as a dumping ground for non-notable, non-encyclopaedic information about commercial products that should pay to host their own information-spaces. FOARP (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per most of WP:NOT, but specifically WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you may want to check Article 45 of WP:NOT as that endosed allowing such pages to exist Popeter45 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it still invoke INDISCRIMINATE, as "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" which the article fails to do. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That Firefox 37 started using HTTPS for Bing (sourced only to Mozilla) is excessive detail for a general-purpose encyclopedia. However, enough detail to justify a standalone article is appropriate for the version history of a browser that peaked at 32% market share and has 3–6% market share today. Buried under a pile of Mozilla primary sources are Ars Technica, CNET, TechCrunch etc. sources that offer the starting point for a better article on this notable topic. — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added all those sources just days ago, to prove a point (not WP:POINT!) that the prose is a good starting point, and that much of it is verifiable to secondary sources (despite what some argued here). Wasn't even hard. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice. We don't delete entire articles just because they contain WP:PROSELINE or excessive detail; that can be improved without much effort, as I've hopefully shown. DFlhb (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know if anyone actually looked at WP:NOTCHANGELOG beyond the title of the shortcut, but it does not say "delete all changelogs". It instructs to use reliable sources in compiling changelogs rather than official sources, and to use common sense. Besides the arguments about preserving information about one of the leading web browsers, this list is useful to checkusers (I can't get into why per WP:BEANS). I came here after seeing that the Chrome version history, which I consulted regularly for sockpuppet investigations, was deleted, and am basically making the same argument here as in that article's deletion review. WP:IAR is also a policy, which says to ignore rules that prevent maintenance or improvement of Wikipedia, which is exactly how NOTCHANGELOG is being invoked here. The arguments to delete are just that the policy exists, not that enforcing it will improve anything at all. This is a clear case where IAR applies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article is useful to checkusers because it is a magnet for certain LTAs". So wouldn't deleting the article mean one less target for disruptive editors? Don't we want to reduce editing by LTAs? JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't misquote me; that wasn't what I wrote and not at all what I meant. The information on the page is useful: checkuser data reveals the software version of the browser used to make an edit, and knowing when that specific version was released can be useful when comparing accounts. It's a weak indicator but still can be useful. As far as I know this page hasn't been a frequent target for vandalism, which would be neither a reason to keep nor to delete. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or to put it a slightly different way: deleting this page makes abuse mitigation marginally more difficult, a tiny bit more difficult, but since it won't improve anything at all even slightly, deletion is net negative and IAR says not to do that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" - Same reason as before. Daemonspudguy (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: This is a reaffirmation of a previous comment in response to the ping. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a simple question: Can some please summarize in one or two sentences why we should delete this page (except from WP:NOCHANGELOG, where I agree that WP:IAR still is a rule)? Because in the little time I took to read over this since I was here the last time (yes, I know it's weeks ago), I only find that one policy, and the argument of not enough interesting content. Yes, a version history isn't as exciting as an article about a singer or a country, but that doesn't mean that people don't want to know about it, and Wikipedia is still a top source for information. If you go by that, there are thousands of tiny articles that could be deleted too, and somehow nobody does that. Besides that: how much time and energy of how many people (myself included) went into this discussion that could have been used to get that article even better (thanks to everyone who worked on it instead of debating here)? Is this whole discussion really necessary? I personally think it is not. My opinion stays: Keep the article, get it better and get to other topics. Wikipedia isn't just this one article that needs work, there are thousands out there that are in way worse shape than this and we really should work on that, before we start having a discussion if WP:IAR or WP:NOCHANGELOG is more important (IAR is going to win). It's senseless. So, and now I'm going to follow my own advice and stop writing, and do something else. Qxyz123 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is not encyclopedic content and goes directly against the five pillars of Wikipedia the section that states, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" 1keyhole (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But is it indiscriminate? A lot of changes aren't even mentioned. With more tightening it could be a very discriminate collection of information. Sounds like an argument to improve the article (which does need doing), rather than deleting it. Nfitz (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not go against anything. If you read the link to the actual discussion that WP:NOTCHANGELOG is a record of, they were literally trying to create a policy that allowed Android version history to keep existing. In 2015, further discussion established that the purpose of the section was to reduce the length of version history articles (this time for IOS version history). Nowhere in these archives is there anything resembling a consensus that "all version history articles should be deleted". If the article sucks, fine: AfD is not cleanup, and someone can fix it. Deleting this article permanently prevents this from happening, under G4. jp×g 03:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Why prohibit hosting all the words in public-domain songs or books?" "Why can't I use Wikipedia to find the plasmid map for my donor vector?" "Why don't we have a list of every business for every town?" "Why doesn't Wikipedia have a built-in BLAST interface for me to use?" "Why isn't there a Wikipedia article for every word?" "Why isn't there a how-to guide on here for fixing the thermocycler?" "Why can't I learn every published detail on every Survivor contestant or Indian soap opera episode here?" "Why do I have to go to a different website for anything?" JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiversity indeed exist because providing this information is in the public interest (indeed, Wiktionary has articles on bizarre slang words like wikt:newfriend and wikt:malding). jp×g 03:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One would note that none of those sister projects are Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One would also note that Joelle implies that the page we're currently discussing, in its current state, is a verbatim copy/paste of every release note released by Mozilla. Which is not true. A common point among !delete votes.
The article should be completely reorganized so its main section headers follow topics, not arbitrarily-grouped version numbers; i.e. "Security", "Web compatibility", "Privacy", "Update delivery", etc. We already have a "CPU architectures" and "Release compatibility" sections, which are a step in that direction. The article should also be moved to "History of Firefox", as should every version history article. It should also be trimmed of proseline, cruft and excessive detail, so it gives a proper high-level overview. None of those are arguments for deletion. DFlhb (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be removed, the problem of "indiscriminate information" and primary sources still exists, and no amount of reworking is going to solve that. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A baffling statement. I explain what I mean by "reworking" (trim indiscriminate info, add secondary citations, recontextualize & give a broader overview), and you assert that the article would still rely on primary sources and have indiscriminate info after a rework took care of it. DFlhb (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article inherently relies on primary sources, as Mozilla is the source of the changelogs which the article is based on. The only possible recourse is to TNT and recreate as a "history of Firefox" but even that is tenuous. In its current form, the article is by nature problematic, and is likely to attract further negative attention in the future. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've demonstrated that this can be done, by "reworking" the first two paragraphs of the article. I'm grateful not to have had to do that from scratch. You assert, below, that the existence of secondary sources covering Firefox history is "hypothetical". That is untrue; it's received wide, properly-contextualised secondary coverage. You may also wish to read WP:STUBIFY. DFlhb (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to TNT and recreate. The article in its current form has a major issue of INDISCRIMINATE. A history of Firefox article with good secondary sources is a possibility, but this article in its current form shouldn't be kept. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to re-create it? As I said before, it would be far easier to improve the current version than to recreate from scratch. There's a reason WP:NOTCLEANUP exists, I'm not merely namedropping it because I feel like it — DFlhb (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's getting difficult to process this AfD. Let's think about our readers. There are two sorts of people who might want to know about the history of Firefox: There are the technical people, those who need specific information about which updates came out when, and what they covered. And there are the generally curious, the people who just want an overview of how Firefox developed, but who don't want to digest the entire primary sources. The former group need a detailed database of changes; the latter need an overview. We are an encyclopaedia, so our role is to cater for the latter. Take railway accidents as an example; the UK has a wonderful database of railway accidents at the accident archives, which provides a primary source for those in need of full technical details[18]. But we have a list of selected, notable accidents at List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, where we give a condensed view to the reader who can't digest the whole primary literature. I agree that a full change-list of Firefox should exist somewhere, just not here. Having it here is a wasted opportunity, because it occupies the space where a general reader should have found a condensed form, preventing us from having a properly sourced, selected history. Further, we have a golden touchstone of notability: that someone, other than those immediately involved, should have felt motivated to write about the subject. I really don't feel comfortable abandoning that touchstone.

There is never going to be any agreement on this. But we can't let the whole Wikipedia project change its raison d'etre to satisfy one pressure-group's requirement for a place to host a database. Elemimele (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a database though. It is a version history of Firefox's major versions. The prose needs to be rewritten to not be such a reptitive mess, but the article genuinely, in my mind, doesn't need deletion, but rather improvement. And if its deleted, someone will just more than likely reinstate it anyways. Articles like these have value. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it still falls foul of INDISCRIMINATE, in that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" which the article certainly doesn't do, and would be an inherent problem no matter how much editing and rewording is done. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheInsatiableOne This is a problem that could've been avoided if the original creator of the article didn't entirely rely on Mozilla's release notes for sourcing. Sources can be fixed and improved and replaced, therefore your argument is null and void. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, were it not for Mozilla's releasing their update information under a cc- license, much of this would have risked speedy deletion as a copy-vio. There are significant chunks that are word-perfect identical to Mozilla's text. But even without the copy-vio, you have to ask yourself whether it's necessary to mirror verbatim, and without any editorial input, information that's available elsewhere? Elemimele (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the supposition of a perfect source which doesn't cause issues with INDISCRIMINATE and use of primary sources, which the original creator didn't use (somehow). This hypothetical counters my argument. Am I reading this right? TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NOTCHANGELOG is not a prohibition against keeping track of version updates; it's just "don't copy paste every single minor version and bugfix." Suitably relevant software can absolutely merit such summary-style spinoff articles. A lot of the tone of the deletion argument is that this kind of article seems useless to them, but just as ITSUSEFUL isn't a keep argument, ITSNOTUSEFUL isn't a delete argument. Wikipedia has articles on lots of obscure topics. As long as there's suitable coverage and notability, that's fine, it doesn't matter how little another user cares. This article is just the computer equivalent of obscure lists of 19th-century mayors or winners of car racing tournaments held from 1900-1930 - not for everyone, but yes, sources really do exist. And Firefox has been around for so long that an article of significant length is absolutely merited to keep track of many years worth of changes. SnowFire (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a "summary style spinoff article". If it was, I'd say it should be kept. Even in prose form, it's an indiscriminate, context-free list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is written in good prose, seems well referenced, etc. It isn't a "changelog", it's a prose encyclopedia article. I'm fine with it. --Jayron32 19:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not written in good prose. I don't think it even counts as prose. Every paragraph in the subheadings of 'Rapid releases' always starts with "Firefox X was released on Y" and then lists the changes. That's what a changelog is. SWinxy (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect (and I hope he forgives the assumption) that Jayron just read the first two paragraphs I rewrote, and not the rest; but per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, here's what could realistically be done with the rest. DFlhb (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The prose can be rewritten, editors just need to step up and change it. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like bad practice to keep a page based on what might be done. All that does is kick the can down the road, and nothing actually gets done like a teenager saying he'll clean his room "later". TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is it not bad practice, it is best practice. "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." --Jayron32 12:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So yes, we kick the can while everyone waits for someone else to do it. Heartily disagree. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reality doesn't need your agreement, even heartily. It continues to exist in spite of your disagreement of it. --Jayron32 15:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider WP:BUILDER TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, deletion is cleanup. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it's not, in this specific case, Axem. You've done nothing except disregard everyone's points in favor of your own, and that is not how an AfD works. Multiple editors so far have made an effort to cleanup the article to fix its WP:NOTCHANGELOG violations. Yet you seem fully willing to let the article just disappear despite the effort editors are putting in to try and fix it. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 15:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the article is inherently problematic, the primary sources haven't been addressed as well as the only real arguments from keeping amount to argumentum ad populum, and hand waving criticism away by supposing a future, better article which someone will make. Furthermore, there is also INDISCRIMINATE which hasn't be addressed either. We can't hope the house will build itself.
    TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you realize the sheer number of sources in the article? It's over 280. Do you realize just how much effort that takes? Wikipedia is something people contribute to *in* their free time. And I have been trying my best to replace all the release note sources with non-primary sources. There are significant secondary sources to back the article up, if you bothered to check the first ~20 sources. Google just heavily priortiizes Mozilla's own website over independent sources - it seems the primary editor for this page, or most other editors, decided to only link to Mozilla release notes instead of finding indepdenent & separate sources to first-party ones, which can be solved. You cannot make up your own reasons to prevent the article from existing despite the effort being made to fix it. If that was the case we could delete any article with secondary sources & primary sources for any problem whatsoever an article has and not give any article at all a chance to succeed or be fixed. WP:BUILDER need not apply here because efforts are actually being made. Stop bringing up irrelevant policies. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 15:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a slippery slope. I am suggesting this be removed because the only possible source for an exhaustive changelog is a primary source. I'd be much less critical if it was high level prose, but those defending the article seem content to throw around ifs and maybes about the article being improved when the necessary changes to satisfy INDISCRIMINATE and NOTCHANGELOG are not forthcoming. As I have said, the article is inherently problematic, which is my (and others) reason for deletion. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not problematic when it doesn't have every single release note. Therefore, it is not a changelog. and by the way, there are secondary sources that exist that only list the high level / important changes to Firefox. I have rewritten a few blurbs already to reduce the excessive detail to only list the major changes.
    You're outright disregarding the ability for editors to fix this article just because you think it can never satisfy two arbritrary policies. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 18:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing: this article details several controversial changes to Firefox, and even hidden ones that were heavily controversial, that were never even listed in the original release notes to begin with. This article can be improved, and deleting it will mean editors have to start from scratch with entirely new content, as well as the article resulting in its entire history being lost. All articles can be changed and improved, and deletion should ALWAYS be a last resort. You are IMHO not even giving this article a chance to improve by sticking to your guns about deleting it, when deletion is even stated in policies as a very last option compared to article improvement. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 18:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largely per Aoidh. Any WP:NOTCHANGELOG concerns can be sufficiently addressed via cleaning up the article rather than deletion. Please refer to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Frank Anchor 19:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the table of releases, which were deleted by user:evelyn Marie, to their own articles. This is a practice implemented on the page windows 10 version history and, I hope, it would be implemented on Windows 11 version history as well. I personally attempted to split one version from its own section to its own separate page to prevent the overgrowth of the article, but were later reverted by bigheaded users as can be seen on special:history/windows 10, version 21H1. I assertingly suggest that those users, who have undone my edits, be seriously confronted for alleged misconduct.197.240.204.1 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not cleanup. The article is clearly not the general summary that articles should aspire to, but the topic seems eminently encyclopedic. Multiple 3rd party reliable sources exist, specifically covering changes to the software, not just the software itself. This article has WP:POTENTIAL and can be fixed: IOS_version_history shows that this is possible. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems surmountable. Schierbecker (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also haven't seen it addressed how this article (which is entirely about the activities of a commercial organisation) passes WP:CORP, particularly the audience requirements of WP:CORP. Is there any coverage at all that is not either Mozilla or industry/specialist press? I do not see any. That would make this article a notability fail on top of a WP:NOT fail. This discussion cannot over-ride WP:NOT or WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP: Mozilla is not a commerical organization. They are a non-profit, like Wikimedia, and several sources in this article refer to sites like Phoronix, omg! ubuntu, 9to5linux, neowin, etc, and they aren't industry/specialist press. you clearly haven't checked the references at all if you're somehow trying to bring this up. Don't comment unnecessary things without double verifying. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 12:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Double verify yourself. WP:CORP leads to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which applies to all types of organizations including non-profits. Notability requirements do not magically get waived if you claim not to make a profit. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see Mozilla Corporation, so that’s a triple verification they needed. Even with a non-profit, sales still are commercial activity anyway so I don’t see their point.
    Wp:Corp applies here, since this is ultimately entirely about a business, and I don’t see any explanation how this article meets its requirements. FOARP (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    additionally, saying stuff like this appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to how wikipedia's citation / source system works... - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 12:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to explain what you believe the misunderstanding is? I’m saying WP:Corp and particularly WP:AUD apply here, and I don’t see how this article passes. FOARP (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It passes because it has independent sources. Phoronix, OMG! Ubuntu, Neowin, etc aren't industry/specialist press. Yes they cover software, but they aren't related or affiliated with Mozilla, neither are most sources used in the article aside from the sources to Mozilla's release notes which can be replaced. Therefore, they are independent and neutral sources. So no, it does not fail either of these policies. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 23:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard for WP:AUD is that the audience has to go beyond a specialist or local field. Those outlets you’ve listed clearly are not media outlets with any kind of wide reach, but instead are specialist software outlets with no substantial audience outside them. Since this clearly is an article that falls within WP:CORP, failing WP:AUD means failing notability, which is a straight DELREASON. WP:AUD is important as it stops Wikipedia hosting what amounts to advertising. FOARP (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This discussion has obviously gotten very long. From my reading of the objections, it seems the primary concern is about the level of detail in the current article (and the quality of the article in general, e.g. overreliance on primary sources). WP:NOTCHANGELOG says: "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article." The subject of the article meets WP:GNG, and I don't see any issues with availability of third-party sources for non-exhaustive discussion of changes. I also don't see that the article has so little usable content that it would qualify for WP:TNT. Thus, editing (not deletion) is the correct remedy here. Suriname0 (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently this article is at a pretty manageable size. While the article is going to grow in size as long as Firefox is still in operation, it can always be broken into smaller articles/lists, similar to how lists of wars or lists of monarchs for certain countries are broken down by time periods. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Services

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fantastic Services (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)

Background: articles at this title have been repeatedly been deleted per A7 and G11, and there was an AfD in 2017 which resulted in deletion. More recently, Draft:Fantastic Services (also deleted multiple times per G11) have been the target of multiple socks. Someone very much wants this article to exist. This new recreation is different from previous versions however, and the author does not appear to be related to previous authors (as far as I can detect), so G4 and G5 do not apply. So, I have reviewed the latest version based on its merits. The article is written with a very promotional tone. That could be addressed, but it is supported by zero sources that meet the requirements outlined at WP:NCORP. There are a few impressive-looking sources (UK broadsheet newspapers' websites), but those are all interviews (WP:INTERVIEW), and do not meet the 'secondary' part of the requirements listed there. There are some obvious rehashed press releases, which do not meet the 'independent' criterion. And, there are some flat-out dodgy sources. I see nothing at all that meets all the criteria: reliable, secondary, independent and giving the subject significant depth (of the WP:CORPDEPTH variety). I have not found any better sources online, and I conclude that the subject is likely non-notable, and should be deleted. Girth Summit (blether) 18:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Blatant LTA spam. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt with extreme prejudice. This is PROMO, a home services company, ok maybe.... Oh they want to create millionaires with franchising? Nope. Blatant promotional, flowery language. They were mentioned in the sources, but aren't mentioned at length nor are they non-promo. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Oaktree b. Also consider wrapping the related article Rune Sovndahl up with this one as a poorly sourced BLP with same main editor (now blocked for WP:PAID editing), very similar writing style and issues as this article. Flip Format (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nomination and Oaktree b. User:Flip Format's suggestion of wrapping Rune Sovndahl in with this nomination is a good one. It was deleted once following WP:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur), along with a speedy and two prods. Its current incarnation was started at Rune Hoy Sovndahl, in what looks like a second attempt at flying under the radar of watchlists. Uncle Spock (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there is now a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl. Flip Format (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ABHammad (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Aubert

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

Fails notability guidelines for biographies. The French article cites two sources. One of them doesn't even mention Aubert, and the other only establishes him as a member of CIELT in a list of members. It also provides two external links, both of which cite Wikipedia as their sources on information about Aubert. Even the supposedly better French article fails to establish notability; there has been no significant coverage of this person in any reliable source whatsoever.

It appears that at least a handful of academic publications are associated with Aubert, but this is not sufficient to establish notability for academics. WP:NACADEMIC sets out a list of criteria, and there is nothing to indicate he meets any of them. Importantly, there is no coverage of his academic work in any secondary sources.

There is also no indication in reliable sources that Aubert won any kind of award or was repeatedly nominated for a notable award. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For same reasons listed above. -Hannahthom7 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The French article mentions a number of honours and awards that likely pass WP:ANYBIO #1 and WP:NACADEMIC #2. Likely also holder of an established professorial chair, which passes WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Necrothesp! The issue with those claims from the French article is that they are not sourced well, because they are not sourced at all. WP:NACADEMIC requires that a notable academic meet any of the criteria "as substantiated through reliable sources", which is not the case for the French article. For example, the French article claims that he has received the Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur, but there simply is no sourcing on this. I really think it's a bad idea to base notability on unsubstantiated claims from another article. Notability cannot be established without any reliable sourcing. Please let me know if you disagree, or if you find any reliable sources to actually substantiate the claims that would support notability. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely fails any notability check. UtherSRG (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more per WP:V than for notability reasons. The French version makes claims that look like claims of notability but that are so utterly unverifiable as to make me wonder whether this might be a hoax. For instance, what is this "Académie des sciences, arts et belles-lettres du Calvados" that supposedly gave him its prize in 1953? The academy of agriculture does have a silver medal [19] (supposedly given to him in 1955) but I can only find records of it dating back to 1984. About all that I can verify is that someone named Maurice Jean Desiré Aubert appears to have lived for the dates specified here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is incorrect to say that Aubert "fails" a notability check. There has been no notability check. A Google search, even in French, is not a "notability check". The material we have on him states that he was awarded, for example, chevalier de l'Ordre de la Légion d'honneur in 1974. The French government hasn't listed awards of the pre-internet era online, but lists of the awards from 1974 exist on paper: from p 4109 of Journal officiel de la République française: Lois et décrets, April 1974, ... grand chancelier de la Légion d'honneur , vu la déclaration du conseil de l'ordre en date du 7 mars 1974 portant que ... M. Aubert ( Maurice , Jean , Désiré ) , professeur d'hydrogéologie et de climatologie à l'école nationale according to Google books). No one here has looked for these physical copies or announcements of his other awards (dating from the 1950s) or printed biographical material about him. On the other hand, until someone has access to these sources and others we can't write a useful article about him. It's a shame that the French article is so poorly sourced. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein, definitely not a hoax. We pretend the academic world started with the internet. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the academy in question is Académie des Sciences, Arts et Belles-Lettres de Caen in Calvados. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Does not meet notability based on lack of citations. Hkkingg (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool Council

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

This would be best merged into the Borough of Blackpool article as that article talks more about the borough of Blackpool and this is quite a shortish article. Maybe it be best to be merged given the borough article covers the council as well? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:, @Eopsid:, @PamD: and any other editors, might wish to comment on this? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yijun (badminton)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Zhu Yijun (badminton) (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)

Really? Still TOOSOON. Zhu Yijun never won or competed in the senior tournament. Fails NBAD. Most sources came from social media platform (Wechat or Weixin). Can We wait until Zhu won any senior international title? Stvbastian (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and China. Stvbastian (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (creator) You don't seem to understand what WeChat is. Most news reports in China occur in WeChat, that's why you can't search for them on the web. WeChat is a big platform, it is not only a social media, so you have to determine whether a source is reliable or not. Removing all WeChat sources is equivalent to removing all Chinese local sources. I don't see why so many local sources providing significant coverage for him doesn't make him pass GNG and BASIC. NBAD is just a reference, I don't see why a World Junior Champion doesn't guarantee notability, just like how World Senior Champions doesn't pass NBAD! Quoting from NSPORT: "the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted", an article with four sources providing SIGCOV should not be deleted. Timothytyy (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a reliable source? Is it written by a professional journalist? I was hoping WeChat would have an entry at WP:RSPS but it does not. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is written by the secretary of the Shanghai Sports Centre, who I believe is professional. I know RSPS doesn't include WeChat, but if WeChat is excluded, no Chinese local sources would be reliable, which makes it quite unfair. Maybe we should start a discussion on whether WeChat is reliable or not, since no one has started one so far. I would suggest mark WeChat as "depends" because some WeChat articles are slightly biased, so editors should check the content. Yeah, I agree the source you provided was written quite biasedly, but can you comment on the other sources? Thanks! Timothytyy (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is why i mentioned about sources from Wechat. Seems like everyone can creating article and does not represent the editorial view. But, pls this article is toosoon for Chinese badminton player. Winning some junior titles are far from notability, especially China is a badminton powerhouse. It would be nice, if we wait until this player won any senior title then we can create a stand alone article. Stvbastian (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Winning some junior titles are far from notability"? Do you understand how notability works? Everyone is discussing about sources while you somehow give an achievement-based criteria? Also can you check other sources? Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any restrictions on opinion here?? pls don't be arrogant, by questioning my comments. Zhu Yijun achievements is not "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded in the stand alone article. There have been many badminton players from China who have won the World junior title, and they have at least won several international senior tournaments. Stvbastian (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you still don't understand how SNG works. SNGs (including NBAD) are merely suggestions about whether a player is likely to have SIGCOV. All in all, notability is still determined by amount of SIGCOV. Spiderone, can you explain "what is notability" for him? I explained a lot of times to him but he still thinks that I am wrong (and arrogant by questioning his non policy-based comments???). Timothytyy (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SNGs are not designed to be exclusionary so, if someone fails NBAD but passes GNG, the correct outcome is to keep the article. Whether or not this person passes GNG, though, is debatable, hence this debate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The training center that the subject trains at is not an independent source on him. Do you have RS that are not from his team, training center, or any other governing sports org? JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1, 4 and 8. Timothytyy (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 has significant coverage but I am very concerned by the line at the bottom of the article which seems to translate to Disclaimer: The opinions of this article represent only the author himself. Sohu is an information release platform, and Sohu only provides information storage space services. This indicates that the content is self-published and has not had any editorial oversight. 4 and 8 don't seem to have much about the player. Source 8 also has a warning The above content (including pictures or videos if any) is uploaded and published by users of the self-media platform "NetEase". This platform only provides information storage services. I have serious concerns about these sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of source 4 is "The first World Champion from Yangpu is only 18 years old", which is exactly the subject himself. The content is also about his junior training. But I agree that sources 1 and 8 might not be reliable. Timothytyy (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 seems like it could have been written by Yangpu District Sports Center (non-independent). Source 4 is a very brief tournament results recap, which is considered routine and not SIGCOV by NSPORT, and the author seems to be a badminton class promoting itself (not RS). Source 8 is also a routine match/tournament recap, and was by a content uploader named "Xiaolan watches sports" (SPS). I am not seeing GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NBAD. Why is this even a question? He's not a "World Champion" anything -- he's just a Junior Champion. Who cares if he is the first person from one of the 16 districts of Shanghai to achieve something? That doesn't make him notable on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your stance by sourcing policies (i.e. the discussion we are currently having)? Also if you think he is not notable due to his achievements would you suggest draftifying the article? Timothytyy (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender, NSPORT requires athletes meet GNG, which means meeting or failing any sport-specific guideline does not affect a subject's notability (or presumption thereof) and cannot be used by itself as a reason at AfD. If the subject has multiple pieces of SIGCOV in SIRS then he is likely to merit an article, and if he does not then he should not have one. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra women's national ice hockey team

[edit]
Andorra women's national ice hockey team (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)

Neither of the two sources mentions Andorra. I had moved this to draft, but user moved it straight back. No evidence of any notability for this national team of a very minor sport in a very small country. Fram (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Vigier

[edit]
Kenny Vigier (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 about former footballer who played a few games in Ligue 2 but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is some routine coverage available (e.g., [20]), generally in Q&A interview or signing announcement format, but nothing that is in-depth. Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 23:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Young (political operative)

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

A clear example of WP:BLP1E. All of the relevant information in this article is present in John Edwards extramarital affair already. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skylab Radio

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

I'm not finding anything for this radio station that would suggest it meets WP:GNG. All the coverage I can find is for an unrelated Australian internet radio station, and even that is pretty thin (passing mentions etc). The links in the article are either primary sources, passing mentions or directory entries on sites that list radio stations that WP:EXIST. The article is cleverly written, at first glance it looks like Slate (magazine) has written about the station, but on closer reading it's a general description of "chill out music". I just don't think this makes the cut. Flip Format (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing, the Slate article looks promising, but it's a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantios & Evripidis Trachoniou

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

Declined WP:A7: the page fits the no-claim-of-significance criterion but I declined because it's a 7-year-old article that passed new page patrol. However, it's an unsourced one-line stub about a football club that played in third- and fourth-tier leagues in Cyprus. According to WP:FOOTYN football clubs can be presumed notable if they play in a league eligible for the country's national cup or top-tier tournament, which for Cyprus is the first and second divisions, so this club has never been eligible. I also could not find any sources in English or Greek to support general notability. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the person who nominated it for speedy deletion, the article doesn't pass any notability guidelines or has any sources Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Minnesota State University, Mankato. Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

College of Business (Minnesota State University, Mankato)

[edit]
College of Business (Minnesota State University, Mankato) (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)

Promo piece on a non-notable bus school. The sources cited don't come even close to establishing notability, and a search finds only the usual social media accounts, rankings and directory listings, capsule profiles in course guides, etc. (and for that reason there is also no point in draftifying). Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources in the article.  // Timothy :: talk  08:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • TimothyBlue, could you expand on that please? Although there are a large number of references, only one is an independent secondary source, and it references a transactional event (staff change). I'd argue there isn't a single source on the article that speaks to notability. What am I missing? 69.92.163.38 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm ok with a redirect to the school's page here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above.  // Timothy :: talk  15:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just to say that I've no issue with a redir, I just can't quite see anyone searching for "College of Business (Minnesota State University, Mankato)". But I guess it will at least keep the place warm in case someone does manage to develop something notable in the future. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't either, but we need a consensus, redirects are cheap, and that is the direction this is headed. I'd support the closer deciding the redirect is unneeded and deleting.  // Timothy :: talk  18:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Godhead

[edit]
Back to Godhead (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)

Contested redirect by Venkat TL, who stated, "ISKCON propaganda magazine is not notable on its own. It fails WP:NORG the sources are self published sites and books. Article was created for promotion". And therein lies the issue, no WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Onel5969 TT me 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is lots of independent/non-Iskcon coverage of BTG: a quick Google Books search shows, eg, [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm the one who reverted the redirect. The magazine came up in conversation, and I came to Wikipedia to find out a few facts about it, dates of publication and so on. I was surprised to see the article had been removed from Wikipedia - surprised enough to come out of my self-imposed Wikipedia retirement to restore it. It may be somewhat obscure today, but there were times during its 80 years and ongoing history, especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when the magazine was very well known as the main publication of the "Hare Krishna Movement". There are certainly valid criticisms of the movement, I can understand that some people, perhaps like the editor who removed it, feel some antipathy towards it, and the magazine does not pretend to have a neutral point of view itself. Nevertheless, we don't delete articles just because we disagree with the subject. It is, or was, a significant cultural phenomenon in its time, both in India and the West, and the existing article does not appear to have any serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO, etc. I disagree that there is "no WP:SIGCOV". It's clearly notable enough per WP:GNG for its own article, there were already some reliable sources, and I added a couple of new citations, for example: "Bryant, Edwin; Ekstrand, Maria (2004-06-23). The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant. Columbia University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-231-50843-8". In addition to confirming the date of establishment of the magazine, that book provides numerous other details on other pages, that go beyond a mere "passing mention", and could be used to expand the article further. That's in addition to the several potential citations that Dāsānudāsa provided above. 77.183.180.87 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Sources in article are primary, mentions, nothing with SIGCOV; BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV FOR IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  06:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there's a three page (plus citations) entry on the magazine by Christopher Hudson in Popular religious magazines of the United States (1995)[27] Jahaza (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the coverage identified by User:Jahaza and others. Suriname0 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jahaza's source is a good one. But it's the only SIGCOV. And a single in-depth source does not equate to passing notability.Onel5969 TT me 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from same IP editor as above). I'm surprised at the comments stating there is "nothing that meets SIGCOV" etc., or only one source. There were already three reliable sources cited, and it's really not that difficult to find more, as others here have noted. I have added a new citation, from Columbia University Press, and expanded the introduction based on it and the one I added previously. The point of notability is not to show that a publication is of high quality, or has won awards, or is held in high esteem. It's only so that there exists enough detail in reliable, independent sources, such that an article can be written from a neutral point of view, which is more than "half a paragraph" or "only a few sentences" (WP:WHYN). There are now about ten paragraphs directly supported by multiple reliable sources. SIGCOV doesn't require coverage "in depth", but "in detail" sufficient to write an article, and "only that it's more than a trivial mention" (WP:TRIVIAL). 78.54.176.194 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single independent and in-depth source is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I'm happy to reconsider if additional sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per 78.54.176.194 Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Heat

[edit]
Niki Heat (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)

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to promotional content and/or press releases. KH-1 (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 . Having seen the request below, this can be closed as withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salsta Castle

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG in English (looks pretty marginal on the Swedish wikipedia as well - https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsta_slott). Only really seems to be mentioned on tourism bureau type promotion sites Gugrak (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominatorsee belowGugrak (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Streetonians Rugby Football Club

[edit]
Old Streetonians Rugby Football Club (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)

Obviously non-notable amateur club, playing a premier team once doesn't change that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 13:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bi'r bin Ghunayma

[edit]
Bi'r bin Ghunayma (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)

Another unreferenced Libyan "village" for which there is no Arabic Wiki article and where the co-ordinates are open desert. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE but mirrors of this page searching both with the arabic name given on the page and the Romanised version.

Based on the creator this was likely algorithmically-created based on GEOnet Names Server data which is unreliable. FOARP (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra - it is, very much so. In Blofeld's defence he admits that this methodology wasn't the best and also agrees that something should be done about his mass-created articles, though his favoured solution is redirection, which is unworkable in this case (are we supposed to redirect the names of all the wells in this district to the district article?). Additionally the articles were created before many of the standards that would have stopped them were decided on.
The question is what to do about the 181 other articles that were created on the same day as this one (see 18 May 2008 here). Clicking on a few of them (Oukredo - unreferenced, Taban, Libya - a checkpoint, Al-Jweideh - potentially just an unofficial neighbourhood or jail in Amman) it's just not looking good, and he was 'writing' hundreds of these articles every day for years. Had the Lugnuts Olympians RFC passed then that would offer a solution, but based on the close of that RFC I'm not sure what we're supposed to do here. FOARP (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I’ll think about that and maybe two or three of us can take it on as a project. Mccapra (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bi'r means "well". It's literally a well, which as far as I know is not notable. If anyone wants to find WP:GNG-worthy sources for a well in the middle of the desert, feel free to do it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Insufficient support to turn this article into a redirect. ✗plicit 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Athla

[edit]
Bu Athla (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 since 2007, no Arabic version of the name that can be identified so no way of checking Arabic sources (cf. particularly there being many different ways of Romanising Arabic), no AR wiki page, nothing found in my WP:BEFORE except mirrors of this page. The co-ordinates given in the article are open desert. How did this article survive for so long like this? I can only assume lots of people think that "populated places" just cannot be deleted regardless of issues because of WP:GEOLAND. Based on the creator, the article was likely mass-created algorithmically based on GEOnet Names Server data, which is unreliable. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources on the battle but found nothing. The word “battle” is probably doing a lot of work here. The one source I found says 241 Libyans were killed there. That was an average morning’s work for the Italians in Libya. Anyway the source says that the 2020 commemoration took place in Jikharra, the nearby town, so I’ll add the fighting to the article on that town and then we can redirect if that’s preferable to deleting. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
done. Mccapra (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fighting took place at Jikarra and not at the Bu Athla well? Can't read the link (which is anyway a blog of some kind). Eyeballing it on the map the Bu Athla well is about 40 klicks away from Jikarra so the locations are not closely associated. Redirects are cheap, but not simply random, so I don't see the point here. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a Libyan online newspaper. It says that there was a commemoration in the town of Jikharra of the battle of Al-Koz and Bu Athla “which took place in the Jikharra region.” I.e. the battle was out in the desert somewhere in the environs and Jikharra is the most appropriate place to commemorate it. So I don’t think it’s random. Mccapra (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. The arguments to keep have not demonstrated a need for a standalone article. Nobody has explicitly shown that there is encyclopedic content that needs to be merged either, but I would be willing to provide a draftspace copy to anyone who wishes to develop content toward a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-election pendulum for the 2023 New South Wales state election

[edit]
Post-election pendulum for the 2023 New South Wales state election (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)

Another contested draft without improvement. First, the sole source is not about this subject, which appears to be WP:SYNTH. Second, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Draft was contested with an WP:OSE argument. Onel5969 TT me 09:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is a split from 2023 New South Wales state election. That article is too long to include all of the article's content. More sources will become available as electoral analysis continues. ABC and NSWEC sources are sufficient for now. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Most of the list is at 2023_New_South_Wales_state_election#Post-election_pendulum, and I simply don't buy it that half a table will fit but a full table won't and that it needs to be duplicated in a separate article. Same goes for the Pre-election pendulum, and with a list of candidates and a results page, surely this can be consolidated somehow. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have other similar articles. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is not a valid argument Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babel II (short story)

[edit]
Babel II (short story) (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)

Contested redirect without improvement - While I love Knight (I have 8 of his novels in my library), there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. All the coverage is simply about its publication history. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG. The Michael Ashley source is nice brief piece on it, but even that is not that in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 09:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvi Rathod

[edit]
Tanvi Rathod (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 indication this is a notable person. Seemingly won an unremarkable pageant 2 years ago and no indication they are notable for this or anything else. Contest is not significant enough even for subject to pass WP:ANYBIO. Declined at AfC and drafted several times, but reverted by creator, so needs community consensus. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing approaching notability. She won and that's about all there is to her story in the media. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 06:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zurdo

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

Non-notable musician. A notable attempt at making them look as notable has been made by ChuchoVCJMusik, who has created other articles for non-notable "entertainers" recently deleted such as those of Sagcy, Aiona Santana, and may be involved in a potential COI. Bedivere (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Check The references and Awards (Dove Awards, Tu Música Urbano Awards, Arpa Awards, a Latin Grammy nomination). ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 05:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Airlines Flight 2691

[edit]
Porter Airlines Flight 2691 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some news coverage but I doubt anyone will remember this incident by the end of the year. Basically, a medium-sized plane overran the runway while landing and ended up in a grassy area. No injuries, no damage on the plane. I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Pichpich (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bearcat - 10YT is from an essay (WP:RECENTISM) not a policy. And in the essay that section is referred to as a "thought experiment". Although I agree with the sentiment - I hope we have better guidelines or policies! Nfitz (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 05:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Aaron

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

This seems like a fairly run-of-the-mill state court intermediate appellate judge. Not a statewide office, and nothing in the subject's short resume-like article to indicate encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 03:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. She doesn't seem to meet WP:JUDGE. Hannahthom7 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the retirement announcement, Judge Aaron held statewide positions on committees and won a state-wide award for her work. [29] -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that WP:NPOL is intended to refer to statewide service on committees. Many states have, for example, statewide bar committees with some members merely selected from the public. BD2412 T 15:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with BD2412T. The guidelines for judges and notability are pretty clear. -Hannahthom7 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 ÖFB-Frauenliga

[edit]
2021–22 ÖFB-Frauenliga (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)

Another contested redirect without a single in-depth source. While there are mentions of the team, obviously, there is no in-depth coverage of the season. Would have draftified, but that's no longer an option. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval for above:
Stat pages and game schedules do not show notability. None of the above is IS RS with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the WP:PERX comments address Timothy's analysis of the sources or provide any additional sources, more discussion seems warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per above & topic is relevant enough PalauanReich (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First relisting comment is still relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - top national league. BEFORE failure as there are sources out there - in the last few days there's been sources from the current season - so I don't know why there'd be any doubt about the previous season - 1, 2. Also the nominator - User:onel5969 - seems to think this is a team. It's not only a league, it's the top league in Austria! Can Onel5969 expand on the "team", or withdraw this nomination? Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per source analysis by Timothy. The league is notable (and already has its own article), but that is not inherited by this season in particular. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkesbury Village

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

The village does not appear to be of note, the article is heavily unsourced and relies on one website, some photos and mostly the wider N&B Borough statistics. I propose either deletion or maybe merging it into Exhall which is directly west of it. It has no civil parish, any real historical significance and lacks any realiable sources to warrant a standalone article under WP:Notability and WP:Reliability. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair most of the sources refer to it as just Hawkesbury. There is a much older Hawkesbury Junction nearby, so the name has some history. Maybe it should be moved to just Hawkesbury? G-13114 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its on the OS as just "Hawkesbury"[31][32]. Of which it is an OS settlement (which arguably means its legally recognized) and there is an 19th century mention of it but it doesn't say anything other than its location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a Hawkesbury Lane railway station serving the area from the 1850s to the 1960s. G-13114 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by WP:GEOLAND, populated places such as villages which are legally recognized (here, by being on the OS) are presumed to be notable. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a permissible rationale for keeping and potentially expanding and improving. BD2412 T 01:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Somalia

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

This small single table article should not exist and its content should be merged to Somalia or some other sub-article of the country. Gonnym (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- This single table article should not exist and its content should be merged to Somalia PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and similar articles for several countries exist and provide a better guideline for what to do with it. Should be heavily rewritten. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make list. People saying it should be merged into Somalia should note WP:SIZERULE Somalia is already over 16,000 words and is therefore in the "Almost certainly should be divided" category. i.e. this is exactly what should happen, forks should occur. This article seems more like a list than articles, so I checked if the items are dealt with collectively as a list and google books shows many examples, so I think this passes WP:NLIST even if it is not technically a list right now. I'd suggest making into a list, then it would seem very aligned with guidance/poliucy CT55555(talk) 23:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have numerous articles detailing the national symbols of various countries. When the parent article is so long, it's appropriate to have this separated. Joyous! Noise! 04:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Brooke

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

Non-notable local musician. Coverage is local only, with no charted singles. Typical coverage here: [33], rest is social media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Original author of the article here. I would argue she meets the notability criteria defined in WP:MUSICBIO with widespread national attention, touring, releases, awards, etc. However, I failed to include most of this information in the original article, which was just a stub. I've already added a bunch more content and refs, I'll try to get this fully polished in time for the deletion deadline. DallasFletcher (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If you share the best WP:THREE you are aware of here, it will enable people to make an informed !vote sooner. CT55555(talk) 05:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished another round of updates. The page is still a bit thin and needs more work, but hopefully this new content is enough to convince that she meets WP:MUSICBIO. DallasFletcher (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tall Hajar, Jarabulus

[edit]
Tall Hajar, Jarabulus (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)

Primary sources are not taken into consideration. A village I doubt that few outside Syria have heard of before. There is nothing noticeable about it in the news and the secondary sources that we rely on in the first place. Dl.thinker (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Assassination of Ziaur Rahman. ✗plicit 06:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Mohammad Fazle Hossain

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

As with Matiur Rahman (army officer), currently nominated for deletion, this satisfies WP:ONEEVENT. A redirect to the assassination article is indicated. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify redirect target so I can see that there is agreement on the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 05:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feras Bugnah

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

A one-hit wonder of the news cycle that doesn't meet notability outside of being detained once. WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS. Nswix (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 05:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Cavallaro

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

Doesn't meet notability. Main refs are an article she wrote and her wedding announcement. I also nominated her husband Matt Larsen. Nswix (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. If users believe that a redirect is warranted, they are free to create one. ✗plicit 06:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Larsen

[edit]
Matt Larsen (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)

Typical COI/vanity page with lots of promotional nonsense WP:REFBOMB'D with every single mention of their name. Nswix (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_25&oldid=1153288076"