Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

20 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 19	July 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Entertainment, and Turkey. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to ~~producer/~~network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide the reviews. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, redirect is better. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid

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

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Rolling Stone primarily covers HackMiami, mentions Heid in passing as an organizer of the event.
Financial Times quotes Heid in relation to the 2017 Equifax data breach.
Ars Technica doesn't mention Heid in the article at all. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Florida. Brandon (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per these two sources [1][2] which give sigcov but are not cited in the article. The RollingStone could also be of support because the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs. But almost all sources cited in the page fail notability requirement as the subject received zero mentions. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.

Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.

The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Vote to Keep:~~ The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.

The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to above, i vote for ~~Keep~~ Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX-K / RX-King 135

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Biewald

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

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic screwdriver

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

Most of this article is WP:OR. It is sourced to self-published such as wowstuff.co.uk or fan sites. A WP:BEFORE search brings up WP:PLOT summary or brief mentions and qualifies as a WP:GNG fail. If it were to be completely rewritten with proper sources it would still be at best a section in another article. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Budd

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

We do not need to have an article on every single person who has been convicted of horrendous local sex crimes. All coverage is rotm trial coverage from publications located in Palm Beach, Florida. After he got convicted it was seemingly never mentioned again. This is exclusively a local affair of one city. This is also a BLP, which is an extra sign we shouldn't have this. If the school still had a page I'd say merge there but we don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Florida. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT with no significant coverage outside local sources and no lasting effects. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage is not just local and there is a lasting effect, too. He was a registered teacher in Pennsylvania which revoked his registration in 2017. See these items [3], [4] which are not cited in the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more database listings than coverage so I find that it doesn't really help the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this news report. [5] from 2017. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Cambridge colleges

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

The list is largely unsourced original research. Most entries cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is not viable as a separate article and fails WP:GNG. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University of Cambridge#In literature and popular culture, but the target should be much shorter once unreliable information is removed. Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Oxford colleges

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

This is a poorly referenced list. It has deep issues with WP:V as most of these cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is a WP:GNG fail that is not viable as a separate article. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University_of_Oxford#Oxford_in_literature_and_popular_media. Jontesta (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Oxbridge colleges

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

This is poorly referenced WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article tries to describe three different ideas of what belongs here, without any reference to reliable sources. WP:GNG fail. Jontesta (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Missed

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

The article is almost exclusively cited to non-RS sites, and isn't even that notable to begin with (I may be wrong). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Politics. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Julius Ford

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

It does not appear that this individual is notable independent of the shooting to which most of the article's content is devoted. I'm not sure whether the shooting is itself notable, so am ambivalent between outright deletion of the article versus moving and refocusing on the shooting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont know, why are you requesting a delete? 2600:1016:B00A:CEAE:5186:245E:BC5B:563D (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both deletion and moving are appropriate outcomes for AFDs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NEVENT. I did a decently extensive search and while there are a decent amount of later mentions in books (because the motive was religious at least in part) and academic studies, not one of these mentions are sigcov, news coverage fell off the radar pretty fast.

I'm kind of surprised this article managed to survive like this for 18 years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT with no significant coverage or apparent lasting effects after the event. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab

Milagrosa may refer to:

Places
- a baranggay in Calamba, Laguna
- a baranggay in Carmona, Cavite
- a baranggay in Quezon City

Buildings and structures
- Church of La Milagrosa, a Roman Catholic church in Spain
- Puente La Milagrosa, a bridge in Puerto Rico --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think barangays can even be listed in dab pages unless there is an actual article, or that it is discussed on another article; mere mentions in lists of barangays don't count.

With that being said, Milagrosa in Quezon City is historical for being the first and still only place where a People's Initiative made it to a ballot. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 and HueMan1: Are you fine to convert it to a dab instead? See my suggestion above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support disambiguation as above: I don't see enough that would make this substantially notable enough for its own article, and there seem to be many similar places that would be better in a disambiguation page rather than picking one to be the sole redirect target. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry M. Rubin

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

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Video games, Entertainment, Games, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a CV. No notability. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Benedict Apugo

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

An article about a politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Endorsing politicians, and speaking on TV can make you appear on the news but the coverage may be your statements and quotes; same issue here. I want a community consensus on this. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Haukur (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Tiwari

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. Virtually no coverage in external sources that I could find. (Note: There is a professor at Cal Poly Pomona by this name, it doesn't seem to be the same guy.)~~ Withdrawn, see below Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article used to be about a cricket player, but was recently hijacked by an IP editor. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - should have checked history, that explains the weird format.

This can be closed in that case, I have no interest in calling the AfD cricket cops. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Nominator withdrew, and the non-hijacked article has been restored and appears to be a notable cricket player. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matir Asurim

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG.

There's two sources currently, one of which is the organization's own website, and the other is actually a decent source in Jewish Currents [6]. Unfortunately, the Jewish Currents source is the only source I've been able to find discussing this organization in any detail.

Before was a bit complicated, given that the organization shares its name with a more well-known phrase. Looking at the organization's social media accounts and linktree[7], however, and the Jewish Currents piece is the only piece of coverage (independent or otherwise) they feature. (Smaller organizations tend to list any mention of their group in mainstream/local press, so the fact they've only listed one piece is a sign that there is likely no further coverage.) I did do my own web search, however, limiting results to those published in 2021 or later. Doing that revealed one mention in an author bio on Google Books (obviously can't work), one passing mention in the Jerusalem Post [8], and one passing mention in a law student's paper [9] on Google Scholar. While this organization could potentially become notable in the future, it isn't now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Judaism. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur that the only significant non-passing coverage I can find is the Jewish Currents article. Only one good source doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Bintang Boys' Secondary School

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

Unnotable school does not satisfy WP:GNG, some editor decided to remove PROD with no improvements what so ever. N niyaz (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify the timeline here, the article was deleted on July 13 after User:N niyaz's PROD expired. User:Auyongcheemeng made an undeletion request, saying this is one of the few schools that predates the founding of Malaysia, and the request was fulfilled on July 17, restoring the article. The PROD tag was correctly removed by an admin as part of the undeletion process. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton High School

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are numerous detailed sources available for this school see this. I find it extremely hard to believe that any WP:BEFORE could have possibly been done. Nominator should withdraw this. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bootloop

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

There is no substance to the article. In its current state, it's little more than a dictionary entry, to which I feel the need to remind that we are not a dictionary. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a plainly crufty and publicity-seeking article for a random, low-profile redditor who was never notable, and certainly hasn't been even plausibly relevant in at least eight years. See the Google Trends for this user: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9&hl=en

Even when this user was receiving a bit of attention from blogs, their notability was highly questionable, and now - years on - it seems to me patently ludicrous that this, frankly, nobody warrants an encyclopedic entry. The tone of the copy is also the sort of overwrought interest common to writers trying to puff themselves (or their friends) up.

On a personal level, I can think of a dozen amateur fiction and fanfiction writers with greater impact than this user, and I wouldn't say they're notable either. Yes yes, Wikipedia:Other things exist, but I'm really shocked this highly unserious bio withstood an AfD the first time around. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles about Redditors require enough citations to garner notability. It would be worth movable to a Fandom wiki, however it cannot mix with CC-BY-SA 3.0 text, it should have been rewritten. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you didn't really provide any good reasons for deleting this article other than you considering him an non-notable nobody, but that's not how it goes. Notability is not based on personal opinion, it's based on if the person was covered by major notable reliable sources, which this person was. Bonus Person (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A forum fiction writer getting some blog press does not a notable entry make. There’s no way in hell this user passes the (admittedly non-binding) ten-year rule, and the whole page reeks of recentism and publicity-seeking. Without resorting to vulgar comparison-shopping, if every topic which merited a Gizmodo or Verge article was considered notable, the landscape of Wikipedia would look very different. This is not an encyclopedic article. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure calling The Guardian, Inverse, Vice, or The Verge "blogs" is a very strong argument. Also not sure recentism really applies when The Guardian article was written 8 (nearly 10!) years ago. C F A 💬 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publicity policy you linked says:

"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."

Sources like The Guardian and BBC News are independent and reliable, they aren't just random crufty press blogs. Obviously this article would encourage people to read the stories, but that alone does not make it publicity.

The recentism page also says
"Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in the next few decades."

This is not about an event or incident, the page is talking about published stories. People in 10 years will know that this is talking about a horror writer, even if they don't know what Reddit is. Bonus Person (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG. See this story in The Guardian, this article (and this one) in Inverse, this article in Vice, this article in the BBC, this article in The Verge, and this story by Gizmodo. C F A 💬 02:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tempted to vote delete WP:IAR. A weird-Reddit commenter doesn't become notable just because he has friends who are lazy journalists (and when there is a piece in The Verge about somebody who started posting weird comments 1 day ago, it is safe to assume there is a pre-existing relationship). There is no claim of sustained coverage. Unless there are sources from after 2016, this should probably be deleted, appeals to GNG be damned. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A strange argument, but there is coverage after 2016 if that's what you're looking for:

Westling, C.E.I.; Palmer, S.; McKinney, J.; Di Benedetto, S.A. (2020). Immersion and Participation in Punchdrunk's Theatrical Worlds. Performance and Design. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-350-10197-5.
Skains, R.L. (2022). Neverending Stories: The Popular Emergence of Digital Fiction. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5013-6493-8.
Stuart, Thomas M. (1 October 2018). "The vast and omnivorous cloud". Horror Studies. 9 (2): 151–160. doi:10.1386/host.9.2.151_2. ISSN 2040-3275.
Crawford, Joseph (1 July 2019). "Chapter 5 Gothic Digital Technologies". Twenty-First-Century Gothic. Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.1515/9781474440943-007. ISBN 978-1-4744-4094-3.

I have yet to see a reasonable reason to delete. C F A 💬 03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, that was the "sustained" coverage I was looking for to show this was something other than a forgotten publicity stunt. Keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, (edit conflict). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should stay because this article has a unique and important part of internet culture with a lot of coverage from trustworthy sources. Removing it would mean losing valuable information about a notable and interesting online event. Yakov-kobi (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]