Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
 |
- Northpark, New Zealand ( | 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)
Not an actual suburb and not notable at all. I am fine with a redirect and merging the demographics to a suitable article. I'm not that fussed on which article it is redirected to. Traumnovelle ( talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle ( talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It does appear to be an actual suburb. See listings such as
[1] and mentions in
[2]. This is the third Auckland suburb to be nominated by this user and it's beginning to become disruptive.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
23:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- QV is a property listing company, they don't define suburbs and the fact you cannot spot an obvious real estate industry promotional piece is worrying. The second mention doesn't even state suburb. You haven't shown any notability here either. These are trivial mentions and cannot be used to develop an encyclopaedic article. Traumnovelle ( talk) 00:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment not sure if it is a suburb. Auckland City is broken into Local Board areas - North Park falls within the Howick Local Board. This local board is subdivided into three sub-divisions (Howick, Pakuranga, and Botony). See this
map of Howick. Northpark sits on the boundary of the Howick and Botony subdivisions.
NealeWellington (
talk)
09:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's clearly listed as a suburb in newspapers and is a census designated place. We've already seen that local boards are not official suburb boundaries.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- New Zealand doesn't have census designated places. Newspapers often get information from Wikipedia so
WP:citogenesis needs to be considered, which is another reason not to have the article.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Census areas are called Census Area Units - maps of these can be found here
Census Maps
NealeWellington (
talk)
08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Census designated place is a US term. We have census tracts, which is what Stats NZ records. Traumnovelle ( talk) 09:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Census areas are called Census Area Units - maps of these can be found here
Census Maps
NealeWellington (
talk)
08:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- New Zealand doesn't have census designated places. Newspapers often get information from Wikipedia so
WP:citogenesis needs to be considered, which is another reason not to have the article.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
19:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's clearly listed as a suburb in newspapers and is a census designated place. We've already seen that local boards are not official suburb boundaries.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete doesn’t meet WP for notability since there isn’t enough independent coverage about it. Yakov-kobi ( talk) 09:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- 2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado ( | 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)
Someone is bound to AfD this, so I'll just get it out of the way and see what the community thinks. My concerns:
1. This is
WP:TOOSOON, especially for a low-end EF4 tornado.
2. The entire tornado summary (and even part of the "post-anaylsis" upgrade bit) can be merged into the existing section at
Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024.
3. Does it meet
WP:NOTABLE? I'm on the line because it was a low-end EF4 but it killed nobody.
While I get that I have AfD'd a lot of these recent tornado articles, please understand that I'm just raising my concerns here, and would like to gain community concensus on these issues.
Sir MemeGod ._. (
talk -
contribs -
created articles)
05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Nebraska. Sir MemeGod ._. ( talk - contribs - created articles) 05:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pablo Lopez Luz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a photographer, not
properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass
WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published
primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Mexico. Bearcat ( talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: some coverage of this person [3] and [4]. The first mostly gives a critical explanation of his work. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: López has been covered by artistic scholarship [5] [6] [7], received media coverage [8], and interviewed [9] [10]. XxTechnicianxX ( talk) 01:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if these new sources satisfy the nominator's concerns. It would also be great if they were added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wayne Simmons (commentator) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg ( talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here.
Oaktree b (
talk)
00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- !Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [11]. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi ( talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Guru Vandana ( | 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)
Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is a dictionary entry. C F A 💬 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There are several sources that contain significant coverage of this topic: [12] [13] [14]. There are probably more sources that are not in English. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Belongs to wiktionary. No significant coverage of the concept, even in the sources cited above. - Altenmann >talk 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand ( talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It does look like a simple dictionary entry. No WP:SIGCOV and not much to discuss to develop an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 08:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is a dictionary entry at present, but Helpful Raccoon's sources show that it could certainly be expanded beyond that. In the meantime, we might want to redirect this somewhere - if anyone has an idea as to where, I'd be interested to hear it. If we don't come up with a good redirect location, the article should be kept. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom Lord serious pig 07:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect lacks of enough reliable sources to stand alone. Instead, Its content fits well within a broader article about Hindu rituals and the teacher-student relationship in Hinduism. Yakov-kobi ( talk) 15:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final redirect, if this page was Redirected, what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- Delete no WP:SIGCOV about the topic Warm Regards, Miminity ( talk) ( contribs) 03:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Worldwide Attack Matrix ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg ( talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg ( talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Danny Kennedy (speedway rider) ( | 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:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar ( talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar ( talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy's Place (2024 TV series) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON; short article Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify per WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity ( talk) ( contribs) 03:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shin SD Sengokuden Densetsu no Daishougun Hen ( | 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 has been flagged for notability and lack of sources since 2016. A search for sources has found nothing, I'm nominating it for lack of notability. Brocade River Poems 01:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa ( talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to SD Gundam#Musha Gundam series as an alternative to deletion. -- Mika1h ( talk) 08:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Same result for me, I found nothing fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity ( talk) ( contribs) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 01:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bruce Coville's Book of Monsters ( | 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)
First, I couldn't find any reviews for this book, including on the publisher's site. I checked Kirkus, Booklist, SLJ, and PW. Second, this article doesn't primarily focus on this book; rather, most of the article overviews Coville's "Book of" series, such as Bruce Coville's Book of Aliens and Bruce Coville's Book of Ghosts. If the book series passes NBOOK/GNG, we should probably move it... Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 01:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator: Two reviews found on ProQuest based on nomination in 2008. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 01:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- Jon M. Sweeney ( | 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 appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.
Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [15], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 ( talk) 06:54, 31 July 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 July 31. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep & fix article issues (or
draftify). Yes, the article has had extensive edits by CoI accounts. However, as noted in the nom, much of the promo text has been addressed. Poorly sourced is not the same as unsourced, and it also is different from "unsourcable". A quick look through JSTOR shows that Sweeney is an often referenced academic in his field, and I think that the subject would be found to be notable with a little bit of effort. Fixing an article's issues is generally preferable to deletion (
WP:ATD), and if that can't be done, it should be draftified.
ButlerBlog (
talk)
12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Butlerblog
- Hi, yes point taken. Just to clarify on the issue of sources...
- When I said "poorly sourced" above I meant that some of the material is entirely unsourced and some of the sources that do exist are either written by Sweeney himself or are to YouTube or are promotional links to where his books can be purchased on Amazon.
- With regards to your comment re: "unsourcable", I think it's worth noting that the only person to have contributed to this article to any significant degree is the subject himself. If the subject has been unable to provide sourcing for basic info like his date of birth, place of birth, and details of his family history and educational history, then I think it's reasonable to assume that those details are indeed "unsourcable". Adding [citation needed] to that sort of thing would just be overly optimistic.
- So, it seems to me that there are genuine issues on the sourcing here for about 50% of the material in the current article. That being the case, I would also support your secondary suggestion of draftify.
- I take on board also the comments below re: reviews and
WP:NAUTHOR.
Axad12 (
talk)
11:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Correcting myself, in my post above I said "The subject" but I ought to have said "the subject or someone editing on his behalf " Axad12 ( talk) 12:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and address issues. Sweeney meets WP:NAUTHOR as multiple books have been the subject of reviews in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. While there are COI issues it isn't TNT level bad, so there's no use deleting this when he is notable.
PARAKANYAA (
talk)
07:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the comments below, where is the evidence that the subject is notable? Axad12 ( talk) 19:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I did find a few reviews of his books (and added one to the article). But most of his books are un-reviewed because citing Publisher's Weekly merely means that the book was published - PW's role in the world is to provide one-paragraph "reviews" (often no more than listings) to everything they receive so that bookstores and libraries can see what has been published. Those "reviews" do not provide notability. And even if he has a few notable books, an article about a person requires reliable sourcing about that person. I went through many pages of search results and did not find any independent biographical information. I can change my mind if someone finds that information.
Lamona (
talk)
23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @
Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk)
16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria.
Lamona (
talk)
16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ Lamona: If they review "EVERYTHING", why haven't they reviewed all of Sweeney's books? ETA: Per NBASIC, "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' or 'Mary Jones was hired by My University') that does not discuss the subject in detail." I would argue that having a single article dedicated to a book is not trivial -- even if the review is only a paragraph or two. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- All of those are trade publications that review EVERYTHING. And their reviews are very brief. The policy says "non-trivial" and those are essentially the essence of trivial. Yes, they can be used as sources but no, they don't show notability. Aside from that, a review might show notability of an individual book, and this is an article for the author. "Wrote a lot of books" is not one of our notability criteria.
Lamona (
talk)
16:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @
Lamona: Sweeney's book have been reviewed by PW, Kirkus, Booklist, and Library Journal, which are often used to establish notability.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (
talk)
16:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)