Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 16	July 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Who's That Girl (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, this film should not have an article yet. This article has been draftified by KingArti twice despite the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, and the draftification has been reverted. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keiichi Misawa[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Previously deleted by PROD. C 679 03:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. C 679 03:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 03:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)[edit]

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

The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[1][2] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG - The article is comprehensive and there is commentary about the song in multiple reliable sources. Slant Magazine, Northern Valley Suburbanite, Alternative Press, Guitar.com. Additionally the song leads with an introduction from Jay Z which garnered much press like in the Los Angeles Times and other major media outlets.Note, as the article's main author I was not notified of this AfD. Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I would have said the same. The article itself is not the issue, but the sources are. They are all about the album, so the critics naturally write about the songs featured in the album from that perspective. For example, "I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers" is also mentioned by two of the sources you included and some sources included at Infinity on High, but that doesn't mean we should have an article for it. This was practically the conclusion reached at previous AFD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Hands. A good example of how this is reversed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song), a song that was marignally notable when it was released, but that gained independent notability after an external event created that notability; that is, being used in a TV series and secondary sources discussing it independently from the album. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (into Infinity on High) - it has good info, but I agree with the nom. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, they are not a reason to keep the page alone. Some sources are trivial and none of the sources present is about the song alone; they are about the album, regardless on how you'd like to word it. As I said before, just because the sources at Infinity on High#References mention songs like Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?, I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers, or Bang the Doldrums, we have to create their articles based on album reviews that trivially reviewed them from the album's perspective, like it occured with Thriller (Fall Out Boy song).

On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.

As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we can see more participation to come to a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil[edit]

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Iloski[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Driver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. 2 sources provided are primary. Found nothing searching ["Chris Driver" mauritius -wikipedia] LibStar (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Mauritius, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burr dilemma[edit]

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

Not notable enough. The page seems to have only one or two citations to a pair of closely-related papers by the same author, both mostly speculative. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with a related article. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a brief mention could be added to bullet voting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the citations in the article aren't the only ones that exist. Though, I wouldn't be against merging it with a related article if a sufficiently related one can be found. Loki (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [3], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Mannekkara[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NBIO - sourced to PR/puff pieces.
Earlier draft: Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor who wrote this article made a Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara on 08:13, 22 June 2024 and kept it and later made a new article with a slight change in the title, which is a wrong trend and does not prove WP:NBIO. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the editor who made this page did a mistake by creating a draft and then again creating it into the main space, maybe he is a newbie that's why....but if we look at the person's page, he was awarded the community Leader Award from the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation which is a state award from the person's home state which is in Kerala and the Fulbright Foundation’s Global Changemaker Award in 2023 which is a International award given by the US Government which i believe at least qualify the award category of the people's notability guidelines according to the guidelines written in Wikipedia. This guy also has a significant coverage in The Times of India, Economics Times , Ahmedabad Mirror which i believe is considered reliable in Wikipedia. So we have 2 of the 3 basic criteria except the national dictionary thing ....also While reading the content of these articles i don't see any kind of sponsored post written or a disclaimer in the news coverage these are just my analysis. SATavr (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be ignorance / new editor who wrote the draft and then made a new page, but destroyed the first edits in the first draft and deleted it in a completely unrecognizable form, added another person to it and added it to his date of birth and created a misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge?? Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara Difference between revisions [4], Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara 2nd Difference between revisions[5] Spworld2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you. It was a stupid mistake done by this new editor and i think he lacks the patience for it and just wanted to go directly with a shortcut way for publication. Thats why he change the draft content to a different person and he thought we would'nt know lol..... I believe he has learned a lesson not to do it again and i hope he has got to know that things doesnt workout like this. SATavr (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A before search comes up with many sources. (e.g. [1] [2]. Numerous articles featuring the names appear, the most of them in Hindi and English. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR/churnalism doesn’t count. Both articles are just advertorials for his car company.-KH-1 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles discuss his side automobile firm, yet his Wikipedia biography hardly ever mentions this information. The autogenerated nature of these stories is not disclaimed, as is typically the case. The name of the publisher, Sunil Chaurasia, is also mentioned in The Economic Times. His social work is the subject of major pieces that don't appear to be PR or churnalism. They include original research, such as his participation in and thorough coverage of the Sankesh Foundation and the Smiles Foundation. - [3] which is covered in the Ahmedabad Mirror. Another example is his relationship with Shyalash C, his mentor, which isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page but is confirmed as original research in Punjab Kesari - [4]. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to hear from some more experienced editors about whether sourcing is sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is currently serving as a Global Peace Ambassador under UN75. He has been awarded the Fulbright Award and a State Government Award from Kerala. He meets the basic criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. With regards to his sources the news articles on his social work looks fine but the same cannot be said for some of his articles written about his second-hand car business found in google but considering that his Wikipedia page does not cover his car business, overall, it looks fine to me. Master rollo (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am seriously asking for experienced editors who frequent AFD discussions to review this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only get two pages of Gnews results, most are by "staff" or puff pieces/advertorials. The Fullbright sounds promising, but without sourcing we can't confirm, nor do we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could find was this [6]; GTranslate seems to say it's a staff piece, so likely about as unreliable as the rest of what's already in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Connections[edit]

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

I follow this channel and had the redlink watchlisted, so I was cautiously optimistic to see it turn blue. But unfortunately I don't think it's reached notability yet. The existing sources are all primary links to the channel itself, and a BEFORE search for others turned up only interviews on other YouTube channels I wouldn't consider sufficiently reliable (e.g. [7][8], a one-paragraph entry at [9] that's borderline for SIGCOV, and short summaries of videos like [10][11] that either aren't SIGCOV or aren't RS or both. Sdkb ^talk 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Technology. Sdkb ^talk 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm a fan of his youtube channel, but it's hard to find things about it. This seems like a RS [12], a few hits in The Verge which is a RS [13], [14] and this which I think is also a RS [15]. We probably have at least enough for a basic article about this person, or the youtube channel he hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also a fan of his YouTube channel but the sources provided thus far are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]