Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
- Li Xiang (footballer, born 1989) (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 had difficulty finding any sources in English. The current article doesn't even list number of appearances. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Would reconsider if there are decent sources in Chinese. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and China. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- One-upmanship (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:NOTDICTIONARY, with its content essentially just being an explanation of its origin that could easily be included in the Wiktionary page. I don't see evidence of the term having standalone notability or passing WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking merge to competition. Section on “competitiveness" could use it. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yun Il-gwang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Steve Tappin (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 subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS 💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. GSS 💬 13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in the talkpage of this article there are lot of significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 03:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS 💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
- The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
- Apart from those, I also see WP:SIGCOV in this, a South China Morning Post article.
- I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk 15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
- Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
- Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS 💬 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS 💬 03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk 21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
- https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/books-special-steve-tappin-tells-us-secret/article/845739 - book review
- https://timesnewsgroup.com.au/geelongtimes/living/renowned-authors-to-share-secrets-on-personal-development/ - Book review
- https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-85788-513-2 - The Secrets of CEOs - Book Review
- https://kimtasso.com/book-review-the-awareness-code-the-secrets-to-emotional-empowerment-for-incredible-leadership-by-wayne-linton-and-steve-tappin/ - Book Review (Even tough this is a blog, the original article is from February 2022 edition of Professional Marketing magazine, as stated
- https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-11/23/content_9103252.htm - Book Review, contains quotations, but about half the article is original journalist commentary
- In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
- https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/vGunLo5swZ5apoTkVPeZcK/Steve-Tappin--The-author-spills-his-secrets.html - very indepth
- Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of the newly discovered sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)- Weak keep the book reviews above and ones I found seem good for him to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Some of the other stuff looks promising but I haven't evaluated that as much. I found some more sources on ProQuest.
- hysterically, one of the sources accuses him of having his wikipedia entry edited. We have come full circle PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Amadour (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:NSINGER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Note tag added. Present coverage all PR. Introducing Amadour, EP being released soon. scope_creepTalk 16:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Visual arts, and Nevada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This promotional biography of an emerging artist. The article is trying to cobble together notability-by-association. It doesn't matter who or how many well known artists someone has studied with or interviewed or written about or allegedly curated into shows. The article has been ref-bombed mostly with things he's written about others; student newspaper profiles in the Daily Bruin(UCLA); blog-ish PR advertorials such as Cultbytes a "strategic communications agency" (PR agency "online publication"); and user submitted content websites "submit your music!". Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Restore redirect to Saint Amadour. I can't remember how this came to be on my watchlist, possibly due to a previous article of this name that got deleted. If so, that does not seem to have been about the same person. There are potentially four claims to notability made here: As a visual artist, as a musician, as a writer and as a curator. None of those are substantiated. The article seems to be trying to inherit notability from minor connections to notable topics. The sources are poor. Many are just their writing, which provides verifiability that they have written, but proves no notability. The music coverage is minimal and one of the sources is a Tumblr blog. The visual/conceptual arts stuff is even thinner, most are just a single passing reference in coverage of group shows, mere entries on a list. There is potentially a fifth claim to notability in that they are described as an art critic here. What we seem to have here is a person who is trying various different things in and around the art world and who has yet to become notable for any one of them. Getting redirected to a (probably fictional) saint might seem like a bit of a kick in the teeth but it is the right thing to do, at least for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. Would participants arguing for a Delete be okay with a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sam Forster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a vanity article for a little-known freelance writer. His only claim to fame is drawing widespread mockery and condemnation for his book about wearing blackface across the United States. Much more notable Canadian journalists do not have Wikipedia pages, and the achievements listed are negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Canada. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep - The critique overlooks the broader context of Sam Forster's contributions to the public discourse. While it's true that not every writer or journalist gains widespread recognition overnight, dismissing someone's work solely based on their level of fame or controversial moments is short-sighted. Forster’s book, which has indeed sparked debate, addresses sensitive and complex issues, and the ensuing reactions—both positive and negative—demonstrate that his work has provoked meaningful conversations.
It's essential to recognize that public figures who challenge societal norms often face harsh criticism, but that doesn't diminish the value of their contributions. Many notable figures throughout history were initially met with ridicule before their work was acknowledged as significant. Forster's willingness to tackle uncomfortable topics is an important part of his role as a writer. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a platform that reflects public interest, and Forster's coverage there simply mirrors the fact that his work, controversial or not, has sparked significant public attention.
Additionally, comparing Forster to other Canadian journalists based on fame is a false equivalence. The presence or absence of a Wikipedia page is not a measure of a person’s accomplishments, nor does it negate the relevance of their work. It's important to focus on the substance of what a writer has contributed to discussions, rather than focusing on how well-known they are or how their work has been received in certain circles.
---
This approach emphasizes the importance of intellectual discourse, the value of confronting complex societal issues, and challenges the assumptions about fame equating to worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daves598 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 20. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- UCI Health – Los Alamitos (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 meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that could be found with a further in-depth search. Conyo14 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Did a WP:BEFORE. Aside from press releases, I couldn't find anything. However, I don't doubt the hospital had other names. Thus, if sigcov is proven, then it can remain. However, the sources there right now are better for a merge between the three articles.
- Also, WP:AGF. Conyo14 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not enough to say "Keep", you should rebut the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- UCI Health – Lakewood (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 meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that I wouldn't want to mix with the others. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete For the Lakewood hospital in particular, there doesn't seem to be extensive non-trivial coverage. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if we had a review of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Bancroft Times (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)
Newspaper fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- UCI Health – Fountain Valley (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 meet WP:GNG. The sources speak of the majority of hospitals within the network but give no significant coverage of the Fountain Valley location Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator should have did a Google Search before nominating. Catfurball (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Drawer dishwasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The article solely discusses one manufacturers particular model, and has always been this way; it was renamed from "DishDrawer" to "Drawer dishwasher" early on, but its content has never changed.
- The focus of the article is ostensibly on dishwashers that open horizontally. That's nowhere near worthy an entire article.
- Very few pages link to it, only dishwasher, the article of the product's manufacturer, and a message to a contributor who was then banned for advertising.
- Much of the article's talk page discusses its status as an advertisement and its use of a trademark.
MarquisDonders (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- MarquisDonders, you nominated this article for deletion on your 3rd edit (you have a total of 5 edits) but judging from your nomination statement, you clearly know how Wikipedia works. What were your previous account(s)? Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm computer literate, sure. I've contributed to Wikipedia before anonymously. I read the guidelines for AfDs thoroughly as to not embarrass myself or waste anybody's time.
- I understand your concern (presumably) with a relatively new user trying to delete articles and wouldn't fault you for denying the AfD for that reason, but I'd hope my arguments were considered upon their own merit.
- MarquisDonders (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Marvel Super Hero Adventures (comic books) (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)
Comic series fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Phuttiphong Aroonpheng (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)
Thai film director fails WP:NBIO. This article has been redirected twice, but the redirection has been reverted both times by the article creator, who said in both edit summaries to nominate at AfD. GTrang (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Kim Mu-gil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto Insurance (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 business, promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Can't find WP:SIGCOV beyond regurgitated press releases. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This article was created based on its notability and the accessible news articles that support its notability. I found few references which are reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. BFS Stand (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently liveMint does branded content, but I can't tell what is branded content and what isn't
- second, sixth source is passing mention.
- third source is paid promotion.
- can't even find mention of ditto on 7th or 8th.
- Benzinga 9th is paid promotion.
- Delete Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- FK Sloboda Čačak (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)
Serbian football club fails WP:GNG. This article was deleted under WP:A7 almost 10 years ago, and it has only recently been undeleted. GTrang (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Lily Tang Williams (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 congressional candidate. Winning a U.S. House primary does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page, and I don't see how she passes GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, China, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per Asilvering Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire#District 2. Candidates rarely, if ever, meet the notability conditions of WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. If she wins in November, we can reassess. But for now, her bio should be merged into the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oof, I forgot that she has lost multiple elections. I don't know where the best redirect target would be, but if you think it's best for 2024, I'll defer to you. Bkissin (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom and Bkissin, eight of the 10 references are for her winning the Republican nomination for the district, and not really about her specifically. reppoptalk 21:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep
- There's quite a few sources about her immigration/escape from China, if that matters, such as:
- Interview with John Stossel 6 years ago:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMWs8RyLLI:
- https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/congress/2024/9/10/lily-tang-williams-republican-candidate-unique-perspective
- https://bunewsservice.com/lily-tang-williams-living-the-american-dream/
- https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/lily-tang-williams-growing-communist-china
- From UK (though the Daily Mail is marginal):
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146007/lily-tang-williams-congressional-candidate-republican-biden-border.html
- From Japan:
- https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/5f210f5b6a3e-focus-asian-americans-voice-reasons-they-back-republicans-in-new-hampshire.html
- And actually being in a debate with a sitting Senator as a Libertarian, which pretty much has never happened ("In a first, Libertarian candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race qualifies for major debate"):
- https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/lily-tang-williams-libertarian-candidate-colorados-us-senate-debate/
- https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/what-lily-tang-williams-said-colorado-libertarian-u-s-senate/
- https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10/15/lily-tang-williams-us-senate/
- Colorado Public Radio:
- https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/childhood-in-china-shapes-libertarian-senate-candidates-vision-for-colorado-country/
- I'm not sure if Fox News is considered a credible source, but there's more about her & China:
- https://www.foxnews.com/media/survivor-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-scary-history-repeat-college-campuses
- https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-immigrant-running-congress-fears-marxism-followed-us-witnessing-youth-indoctrination
- https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/survivor-of-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-history-repeat-on-college-campuses/
- More about China and the gun control debate with David Hogg:
- https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-gun-control-activist-david-hogg-torched-ccp-survivor-go-china-see-gun-control-works/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.125.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- "thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since when are college newspapers not considered valid supporting sources? Heritage Foundation may not be a news outlet but its not deprecated and a highly influential conservative think tank. "Generally" unreliable sources need to be analyzed in totality not in part, so if there are 3 "generally" unreliable sources, a rational determination needs to be made as to whether the small part of them that is reliable is strong enough to create notability. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Here's an academic journal reference where she appears: "Academic Marxism in the Crosshairs: What is at Stake in the U.S.?" in Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2024). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48771892 216.147.125.142 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- "thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep For the exact same reasoning as SineBot above. Plenty of independent coverage Wickster12345 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I assume they meant for the same reasons as noted by SineBot, as they also said: “…has enough news coverage as indicated above”.
- Do you, BottleOfChocolateMilk, have any response to what SineBot had to say, as they are the one whose argument seems to inspiring the majority of “Keep” votes Wickster12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Uh...yes? I directly replied to their message right after they posted it. Also, that message was not posted by SineBot, it was posted by an IP user. SineBot is the bot that automatically adds a signature to people who don't sign their comments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect makes the most sense to me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep is probably the best option, as she has recieved significant media coverage over numerous years and as a more minor side note, she is a major contender for a swing seat in 2024. NathanBru (talk)
- Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- But like a previously stated, that was a minor detail. She has recieved significant media coverage and does represent a district that very well could swing her way in 2024. Also, I know we’re not supposed to compare certain cases to each other, but there have been numerous other instances of less notable people in 2024 with Wikipedia articles. NathanBru (talk)
- Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep because she has recieved substantial media coverage from major news outlets for both her 2022 and 2024 runs and has appeared in a documentary (The Great Awakening). 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons listed above. She has received substantial media coverage for her 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns and for her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign as a Libertarian, has appeared in documentaries, and has been interviewed by national media organizations like Fox News and Newsmax. There's also precedent for people equally and even less significant than Lily Tang Williams having a Wikipedia article. George Hansel is a former small town mayor who unsuccessfully ran for Congress once and now hosts a regional talk show (the station that hosts Hansel's show is so small that it doesn't even broadcast to me, and I live in New Hampshire only an hour away from Keene); Hansel is arguably no more significant than any other local politician, yet considering his article has existed for nearly 3 years without issue, there seems to be no question that he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Lily Tang Williams is much more significant than Hansel and I would argue that she just as deserving of a Wikipedia article, if not more so, than him. Eureka640 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then ignore the Hansel argument. The fact still remains that she has been the subject of much media coverage over the past decade for her Libertarian activism and congressional candidacies, including interviews on major national news stations. Eureka640 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, WP:GNG is met through the sheer number of sources (per above). Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Reminder that deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and are also dependent on the quality and reliability of sources, not just the sheer number of sources. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reminder that she's been covered in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, WMUR-TV (ABC), The Denver Post, the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and an academic journal (noted above). All of those are considered "quality" and "reliable" per Wikipedia's criteria. 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reminder that those are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. reppoptalk 23:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_and_is_not_routine_coverage
- "Editors should be careful in defining what is referred to as "routine" coverage, especially when determining notability."
- ...
- ""routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability."
- ""routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline."
- Politics
- "Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also:
- "Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reminder that those are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. reppoptalk 23:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Reminder that she's been covered in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, WMUR-TV (ABC), The Denver Post, the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and an academic journal (noted above). All of those are considered "quality" and "reliable" per Wikipedia's criteria. 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as WP:GNG is satisfied with the significant media coverage over the years of the subject's political/electoral history. - Amigao (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source evaluation table would be really helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- McCoy, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another rail point that apparently someone hoped would become a town, but "platted" does not inevitably lead to "constructed", and there's no sign there was ever anything other than station that apparently held the first post office. McCoy is a common name so lots of false hits, exacerbated by a "Lake McCoy" to the northeast, which of late seems to have been the subject of local political problems which paywalls unfortunately block my knowledge of. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Lauren Fagan (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 makes no claim to encyclopedic importance. It should have been speedy deleted per WP:A7 but it was oddly declined. Being a student and in a program that trains opera singers does not make one encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sharon Christman (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 is sourced to the subject's website and to her employer's website. No independent secondary sources are in the article. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Barra Head (band) (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 credible claim of notability. Too underground to pass NMUSIC, and doesn't pass GNG either. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Europe, Denmark, and Germany. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. There are reviews and coverage from Gaffa ([1], [2], [3] + other coverage), Undertoner ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) Visions ([9], [10] + some information in [11], [12]) and Ox-Fanzine ([13], [14], interview) toweli (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the new sources brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alan Shefsky (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)
Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are mainly primary, and the ones that aren't are (1) an obituary, (2) Find a Grave, (3) an article about an exhibition of his letters to a pen pal, (4) a couple of notices about a tribute by one of his students. None of the sources are about him in any significant way. ... discospinster talk 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I should've submitted for review. There are three newspaper articles concerning his work or renditions of it, two concerning performances of his poems by Northwestern, and another about an exhibit of his work after his death. Though I can easily link others. He seems to be congruent with a notable academic or creative figure. Hypnosef (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I added further sources, let me know if more is still required Hypnosef (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Hypnosef (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would respectfully disagree that none of the sources pertain to him in any significant way.
- Source #5 fourteeneastmag.com details "the touring exhibition Poet to Poet: Living Letters, a 13-year correspondence between poet Abe Louise Young and poet Alan Shefsky. Their friendship was preserved in loose leaf papers of written word before Shefsky died from a brain tumor." The source explicitly pertains to his being a poet and his dying of a brain tumor. 2. #6 chicago tribune, details the two's friendship, their long correspondence, and his death from cancer. 3. prizer arts and letters, states that this touring exhibition travelled to Austin, Texas. 4. Sources 8&9 are his poems published in a well-known literary journal. The find a grave and obit were simply to establish birth and death years as they were less readily available than other information. I have also added ten different publications that thank Shefsky by name, though many more exist. These should be sufficient to establish his lasting impact in the academic community. He was a very well-known figure at Northwestern for years.
- Hypnosef (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Does anyone have any other input? Hypnosef (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors here and a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neo Geo (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)
In short: This proposal is to delete the Neo Geo page, merging the content into SNK and Neo Geo (system), then moving Neo Geo (system) to Neo Geo. Reason: The Neo Geo platform is notable, while the Neo Geo brand is not. This change also alleviates confusion for readers between two similar articles.
In long: Neo Geo was an arcade platform released by SNK in 1990. SNK also produced two home console variations of their arcade hardware so consumers could play the same arcade games at home (Neo Geo AES and Neo Geo CD). And in recent years, they have released several devices that emulate the original Neo Geo hardware (e.g. Neo Geo X, Neo Geo Mini). All these devices play the exact same library of 150 or so Neo Geo games. This hardware format is usually what people are talking about when they say "Neo Geo". This is the subject of Neo Geo (system).
Meanwhile, SNK also used the "Neo Geo" name for two completely different products:
- Hyper Neo Geo 64: A largely forgotten about arcade platform with seven released games.
- Neo Geo Pocket & Pocket Color: Handheld consoles with their own shared library
There is not much to say about Neo Geo as a brand name, bridging the original platform and the two products mentioned above. This is evidenced by the current Neo Geo page being mostly just a list of SNK hardware with little commentary on it as a brand. Sources usually do not discuss them together, unless speaking in context of the history of SNK. Even SNK themselves segregates Pocket Color games from proper Neo Geo games when it comes to re-release collections, as with Neo Geo Pocket Color Selection.
So, I'm recommending to take the Neo Geo platform content (MVS, AES, CD, and retro emulation devices) out of Neo Geo and merge it into Neo Geo (system). At the same time, any commentary of Neo Geo as a broader SNK hardware brand could be summarized in a section at SNK. Once that's done, delete Neo Geo and move Neo Geo (system) under that name. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support (delete + merge) per reasons you stated and I initially suggested. Sceeegt (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Star Dudes (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 because I do not believe it fits WP:GNG. TheHatster (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The nominator has not evaluated the sources already existing in the article. Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep seems at least two very good sources have mentions of it, which is close enough to call it notable. I have some pity on this, as it seems like a bit of internet arcana that should be noted somewhere. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Närkes Kils SK (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 tried my best in Swedish language sources but could not find significant, independent coverage about this sports club, only brief mentions in listings. Not enough to pass WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- St Maria Goretti's School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don’t see how the school is related to Maria Goretti so that could be a false move. No reference on the article to proof notability and while I decided to search and see if I could help there wasn’t any source to proof notability. Gabriel (……?) 00:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 00:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not suitable for academics and educators. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC).
- @Xxanthippe Would you mind explaining what you mean by that please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. This AfD page is for academics and educators, not for schools. Delete because sources are inadequate for schools. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC).
- Comment: From my research, this is not just a Port Harcourt school, it is an international school, this means that it is not only in Nigeria. Even in Nigeria, it is not only in PH, but also in Sagamu, Owerri, Benin, Lagos, etc. I found all these from searches. This looks likes what passes WP:NSCHOOL, still doing my diggings. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)