[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Macxcxz (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 16 September 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (3rd nomination).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Internet. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Internet|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Internet. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: computer-related deletions.

Internet

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. Could easily close as no consensus if only going by the considerable number of responses both to keep and delete, but enough keep comments include clearer, more thorough analysis of the quality of the sources. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

AfDs for this article:
Junlper (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)

Lacks notability. The only significantly notable thing associated with JUNIPER is "goblin mode", which already has its own Wikipedia page (WP:BLP1E). Most information about JUNIPER could be added to that page. JUNIPER herself is not very notable. Many of the sources used as references mention her only in passing (usually because she responded to a more prominent person's post online) or are primarily about goblin mode. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I have become more experienced here, I am more open to a deletion. I knew this would come eventually, because it was never properly addressed in the other two AfD's. The article hinges on goblin mode for notability a bit, but it should be kept in mind that she created/popularized other memes, and had added notability after her suspension. That's not just one event. Still, this article could easily be deleted and separate memes and events go to their own parent articles, simply referencing her. Junlper herself does only have a few articles about her, so I'm open to any outcome.
    Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just to note, I do not think JUNIPER's other publicised things (her suspension and the Snickers dick vein meme/hoax) represent anything notable, certainly not to the extent of goblin mode. The Snickers dick vein hoax had a Wikipedia page which was subsequently merged with several other articles before eventually redirecting back to JUNIPER's, which makes its lack of notability for Wikipedia standards apparent. Its just an internet meme, not every internet meme is notable just for being popular or having an internet-culture website write an article on it. If that were true, Chris-Chan would have had a Wikipedia page long ago. Same goes for her suspension, not very notable and lacked sustained coverage, and most coverage it got was not focused on her specifically. Macxcxz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The example you chose is something of an exception. It is a BLP issue and not a notability issue. Toadspike [Talk] 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the obvious BLP issues, any Chris Chan article might qualify for a WP:G10 deletion even. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Bad example I suppose. Macxcxz (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the Snickers dick vein probably should not have its own page per WP:NOPAGE despite reliable source coverage. However, the bar for inclusion of individuals does not require them to be responsible for multiple things that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only significant coverage of them and/or their work in reliable sources. For example, Junlper's suspension would not meet WP:NEVENT and should not have its own page, but the reliable sources that did cover it lend to her own notability. The latest article discussing her suspension in any amount of depth was NBC in January 2024. Since she went viral in February 2022 for the goblin mode tweet, that is almost two years of reliable source coverage, which seems enough to avoid deletion under WP:SUSTAINED. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this person is not notable. Has not accomplished anything substantial. Looks more like a personal blog than a serious article 47.184.171.15 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I usually hate deleting articles but I feel that it should be done here. A good portion of the sources (Business Insider, The Focus, tweets, Forbes contributors) are unreliable; Outlook India and News 18 have been known to publish misleading articles in the past. Some others (Vox, Buzzfeed News) are interviews and therefore can't be used to establish notability. From what I've read in previous deletion discussions, Ms Junlper, has expressed wishes that this article be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider is marked as generally reliable for culture topics such as this one at WP:RSP. The Focus/Forbes contributor sources have now been removed, and the tweets are only used when the tweets are discussed in the article or under acceptable WP:BLPSELFPUB purposes. The guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA for Outlook India is primarily about hidden content, which is almost certainly not the case here, though the article subject is only mentioned in passingare multiple other sources that are far more reliable and in-depth. The previous deletion discussion happened amidst her ongoing controversy over the Twitter ban and seemed to indicate that she was indifferent about the page staying. Given that things have quieted down for her since then, do you have an updated statement from her on this? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A random shitposter on Twitter should not get a Wikipedia article. This is the very definition of non-notable. 73.225.173.79 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: non-notable person, all sources are either unreliable or interviews (which usually aren't counted as references), article is written like a personal blog or a Wikipedia parody. The person has done nothing to be included in an online encyclopedia. Necatorina (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the sourcing in my comment below, but in respect to interviews from reliable sources, it depends on factors such as the split between interview/non-interview content (i.e. a detailed introductory section vs. jumping straight to questions) and how probing the questions are (i.e. factchecking vs. softballs). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is non notable and is article is just riding off the "goblin mode" thing Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.
With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOVWP:BASIC.
As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd raise an eyebrow over a third nomination in a year but the first two were misfires so it is fair enough to raise it again. That said, I think Patar knight has it right. She makes it over the line for Notability. There are multiple sources covering her for multiple things. Yes, some of those things are silly but that's not what matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on the sources: There is the 2022 dedicated interviews by Buzzfeed News and Business Insider and the Rolling Stone article. That's three very solid sources where the coverage is substantial and primarily about her or her activities. OK, but is it sustained? It's not as intense as 2022, but we have The Messenger and The Advocate covering her in 2023 and NBC News in 2024. I think this is more than enough. Notability is not temporary. DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This looked like a unanimous Delete but there are two recent Keep arguments that should be responded to but those seeking a Deletetion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. Reading the previous AFD, it seems like some editors, especially newer editors do not believe the article subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. But we don't make these decisions based on our own opinions (or that of the article subject) but whether or not reliable sources establish notability. So, a source review, which one editor arguing for a Keep has done, would be most helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep My position is basically the same as the other people who have said it should be kept. Notability is based on the reliability of sources, and Junlper definitely has a lot of reliable sources who have discussed her. Daemonspudguy (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a person is not notable.Gauravs 51 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, repeating my position from the last AFD that on balance there seems to be just enough sources to scrape past GNG in my view. Obviously this passes WP:BLP1E as well. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:58, 7 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Not draftified, as there is no indication that the subject is likely to become notable in the near future. asilvering (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debangshu Bhattacharya

Debangshu Bhattacharya (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 inherent notability here. Subject fails WP:NPOL, and I've checked the cited sources, none could satisfy WP:GNG criteria. The regular WP:ROTM sources we get during election periods. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Sohom Datta: who reviewed and @Toweli: who previously redirected to Trinamool Congress said that the accepted version was better improved than that of earlier version before redirected.--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 11:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. The subject is not a major political figure and has not held international, national, or state/province–wide office. Subject was a contestant from West Bengal representing All India Trinamool Congress political party in Lok Sabha Elections 2024 from Tamluk and lost. RangersRus (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:THREE, If you kindly read its talk page that I provided certain sources that may pass WP:SIRS, following which the draft was accepted. Not always it is necessary to pass per NPOL case. I can even explain further if requested. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the talk page, Source 2 is from NDTV News Desk with no byline, probably a routine article. Source 7 and 4 are not independent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then I advise to draftify the page for now. Any new development will take place persisting to GNG criteria, that it seems fit for. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 08:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and RangersRus. Searching in English and Bengali (দেবাংশু ভট্টাচার্য), I can find only routine coverage of him as a candidate, not the sort of significant coverage as a politician that would meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Over the past week there's been a gossipy story in the Bengali press about him supposedly insulting someone online, but that's WP:BLP1E at best. I oppose draftifying in this case, since he last ran for office seven months ago, and isn't on the cusp of getting elected. If he does win an election, then WP:REFUND can be used to recover any content worth including in the new article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:13, 23 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Han Jiet

Lee Han Jiet (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 biography of a Malaysian YouTuber fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are tabloid coverage of his engagement (excluded for notability per WP:SBST) and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I couldn't find any other qualifying WP:SIGCOV in my WP:BEFORE search, but given the language barrier happy to revise my opinion if SIGCOV is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • A forum program by him invited deputy ministers had received coverage on newspaper headline.[1] His nickname always mentioned after the channel name 'BBK Network' in interviews of figures, such as this one with a movie director.[2] Despite on significant coverage, his channel seems not less notable than Keluar Sekejap with assumed smaller audience by locality, since only Malaysian Chinese watches it. Although most matters were attached to the channel, but as shown those news articles, his name was always directly referred to.

References

  1. ^ "政府太干预或国人须忍耐 经济专家政治人物经改不同调". 南洋商报 [Nanyang Siang Pau] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-03-17. Retrieved 2024-09-27.
  2. ^ "《五月雪》送审四次 张吉安曝电检通过关键". 中國報 [China Press] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-07-18. Retrieved 2024-09-27.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ong Kai Jin (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links include WP:SIGCOV of Lee/Lucas; at most a passing WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:22, 30 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psephos

Psephos (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 unfortunately doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG I was unable to find anything in a google search. A few results came back in a Google Scholar search but all the result I could see were onty citations and therefore did not provide significant coverage on the topic. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:38, 15 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 22:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Fever 2: Primal Fury

Jungle Fever 2: Primal Fury (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 initially PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable series. The article is completely unsourced, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage in reliable sources at all. The only biggest claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. Fails the WP:GNG." It was later de-proded with the reasoning of "At least consider a redirect, this being a sequel". However, I can find no article on the film that this series is a sequel to, so there is no eligible Redirect target that I can come up with. So, I am sending it to AFD with the same rationale as the original PROD. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, 48Hours is a New Zealand short film competition that the original movie was created for, not the name of the first movie. This article later states that the original film was just called "Jungle Fever" (which, of course, is unrelated to the actual theatrical Jungle Fever film). Also, despite this article claiming that the original was an "award winning" 48hours film, it is not listed on the competition's article as having won anything. Rorshacma (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other commenters. There’s next to nothing about this movie or the movie it is a sequel to online and even the few crappy sources that do exist disagree on what it is, with some calling it a movie and others a TV series. The article itself is also of very poor quality and seems to have been at least partly copy pasted from its short themoviedb.org entry. Archimedes157 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, clearly does not meet notability criteria. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. I agree with all the other Delete votes here and without sources it is very unclear what sequel is this of and this definitely has nothing to do with Jungle Fever film. RangersRus (talk) 22:05, 20 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Audacity to Podcast

The Audacity to Podcast (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 does not pass WP:N or WP:NPODCAST. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources when doing a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast received two awards and was a major factor in its host's being inducted into the Podcast Hall of Fame.
Additional notability and citations added. 8thNote (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Most coverage I find is promo, "how to start a podcast" and the like. Source 5 is a RS per Cite Highlighter, but I can't open a full version and it's only one source anyway... We don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 22 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Happy to restore on request as a pseudo PROD as there's zero sign of input forthcoming and no one is arguing for retention. Star Mississippi 02:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Methos Chronicles

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Note: there's a story by Don Anderson also titled "The Methos Chronicles", but it seems to be unrelated to this project, besides sharing the same character and name. And then there's also a "Highlander zine, "The Methos Chronicles," brought to you by Carol Ann Liddiard and Sheila Marie Lane", again, seemingly unrelated. toweli (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 28 September 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.
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 merge‎ to Chumbox. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One weird trick

One weird trick (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)

Seems to rely heavily on pulling together various articles on various people's ads that all use a similar format, but not necessarily proving that the phase "one weird trick" is notable. As an alternative we might be able to use the one weird trick of merging the article with chumbox, which is the ad format in which these usually appear. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:24, 13 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C&Rsenal

C&Rsenal (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 evidence this YouTube channel passes WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Its only WP:BEFORE "news" coverage outside of this article is on TheFirearmBlog (see WP:BLOGS). The other sources in the article are a Forbes contributor post (which is unreliable) and links to the subject's own channels. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 12 September 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonas Maynas

Yonas Maynas (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)

not reliable article per WP:BIO or General Notability Moarnighar (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:35, 26 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurveySparrow

AfDs for this article:
SurveySparrow (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 did a WP:BEFORE and did not find evidence that this company meets WP:NCORP. Mostly sponsored content/press releases/interviews. I'm not seeing any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:59, 10 September 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.
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 merge‎ to Blessing in disguise. There is clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and broad support for a merge as an ATD. Among the two targets proposed, Blessing in disguise received marginally more support than Silver lining (idiom), but the choice between the two can be discussed editorially on the Talk page, and changed if there's consensus there to do so. If no merger takes place within two months, any editor may blank and redirect the page to the target, or renominate. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burnt toast theory

AfDs for this article:
Burnt toast theory (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)

Unremarkable non-notable ephemeral Tik-Tok dreck. Perhaps worth a sentence elsewhere…maybe a slang dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that this is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page, and like I mentioned in the discussion to merge it into Blessing in disguise, I don't think that it belongs there either. Feed Me Your Skin (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have only discussed why it does not belong on the Silver lining page, which I agree with; you haven't argued why Blessing in disguise is unsuitable.
(@Feed Me Your Skin, welcome to AfD! In case you didn't know, these discussions don't give you notifications. Click on the star on the top of the page and install User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments here for Deletion, Keeping and Merging with two different Merge target articles suggested. Remember this is a discussion about the notability of an article subject, let's maintain civility. Some editors just want to present their argument and not get into a debate about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 17 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Monument Mythos

The Monument Mythos (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)

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Most of the article’s sources are student newspapers by the author’s own description. Could not find reliable significant coverage in my search. Has been previously deleted. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has been previously deleted.... when? Has been previously kept....Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:The_Monument_Mythos... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was kept as a draft. It was nominated for deletion as a draft by a non-good-faith actor. But that is not evidence that there was a consensus that the subject is notable after someone challenged its notability. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability so a draft being kept does not mean that editors thought that the subject is notable. —Alalch E. 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe, but the page was discussed and the then-draft found promising by some users, whereas deletion was NOT discussed, so that stating ’has been previously deleted’ here (an AfD venue, where consensus is what matters) is misleading imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's is misleading. The decision to keep the draft does not matter at all in either direction. —Alalch E. 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. The MfD. yikes. Babysharkboss2!! (No Life 'Til Leather) 13:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 14:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if, as one of the contributors to the page, you could find time to explain why you think deletion is not necessary. Thank you in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Babysharkboss2 (pinging you to increase chances you read this). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. Anyway, this has etiquette enough sources and there are still sources to be added. It survived MfD (Even after one very...passionate user wanted it gone). So i'd like to keep it. Babysharkboss2!! (Nomad Vagabond) 12:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page puts some major parts of the Monument Mythos right into the first segment. There should be an area marked "Plot" for that. - shJunpei :3 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in addition to the sources cited above it's an exemplar of the emerging subgenre of analog horror. The series just wrapped up last year. In "J-HORROR Y ESTÉTICA VHS EN EL ANALOG HORROR DE YOUTUBE" by Javier Acevedo Nieto,[4] The Monument Mythos is given as an example of the growing popularity of analog horror. There are several articles from reliable sources that are admittedly about ARGs, but give The Monument Mythos a key place in the genre.[5] There are some more niche horror publications that give the series more coverage.[6] The article needs to be cleaned up, but the sources are out there. Ted the Caver was an even more niche online horror series, and it is still being seriously discussed, Rjjiii (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, it all depends on the existence of reliable sources that can establish notability. Which ones do you believe provides SIGCOV? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Below are the approximate word counts for just the content explicitly about The Monument Mythos. I checked the sources mentioned here and cited in the article, and left off anything with less than a hundred words about the subject:
The Horror Fam page has about 1,400 words but is more of an editorial. Rjjiii (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to analog horror. there doesnt seem to be enough secondary sources notability for a seperate article, but it’s solid enough as an example of the genre which has notability itself. In fact, I see it is already given in that article as an example of the genre. No need for the split page. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok Dabloons

AfDs for this article:
TikTok Dabloons (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 my opinion- this article survived its last deletion discussion based more on rule technicalities rather than TikTok dabloons genuinely warranting an article. The article is essentially just "A bunch of TikTok users made up and joked about a fictional currency based on a funny internet image of a cat for 1-2 months"- hardly different from a Know Your Meme article covering any other similar brief trend.

The thin argument that this article could be considered significant is carried by the fact that the NYT, Verge, Mashable and Guardian all happened to cover the Dabloons meme during its 15 minutes of fame. As time has passed, there has been no sustained coverage and this article remains a stub. I think a deletion discussion should be revived- at best merge it into list of Internet phenomena Uelly (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 15 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Gosh

AfDs for this article:
Omar Gosh (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 on Omar Gosh should be considered for deletion as it appears to fall short of Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. While Omar Gosh is recognized as a YouTube personality, the article lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth analysis beyond passing mentions. The content primarily relies on self-published or primary sources, which do not adequately establish the subject's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Given the insufficient evidence of widespread recognition or influence, the article does not meet the criteria for a standalone entry and should be considered for deletion. Mjbmr (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mjbmr, if you wish to withdraw your nomination, please state that underneath your nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Gurley

Dawson Gurley (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 on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aware that the nomination has been withdrawn,but with an extant !vote from an established editor I think this needs more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep there are three articles about him in reliable sources... seems to meet the letter of the law with notability guidelines unless you stretch what is non-trivial coverage. I don't think we should go into whether we think the person should be notable, that's just personal opinion. --Here2rewrite (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know what the article looked like before today, but the Washington Post, SFGate and BleacherReport articles are definitely WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources -- that's a WP:GNG pass, regardless of whether editors here may like or dislike the pranks. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:
Abhishek Malhan (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)

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 18 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

Sonali Phogat (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:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:00, 16 September 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ (i.e., consensus against deletion but no consensus on whether to merge). No prejudice against a further merger discussion outside the AfD process. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online panel

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

Declined PROD. This article had no sources for the last seventeen years, but when declining the PROD, the declining user jammed three refs onto the first sentence of the article that do all mention online panels. One appears to be a research paper, which is fine for verification but does not establish notability. The others appear to be brief mentions of online panels in books about market research. I don't believe notability was clearly established by WP:REFBOMBING in this fashion, so here we are. It has not been proven that there is in depth coverage in reliable sources, I don't think we generally consider the <whatever> For Dummies series of books to really be something we should be basing encyclopedia content on, but that's ok because none of the content is actually based on it, it was just tacked on as a ref because a Google search showed that Online Surveys For Dummies contains the words "online panel" a few times. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first source is not a "research paper" it is an edited volume on the concept of "online panels" AKA a 500+ page book that is literally just about the article topic. The third source is not "brief" it has multiple pages discussing the pros and cons and methods of this kind of research. This appears to be a significant concept in marketing research, see here, here , here, here, dozens upon dozens more, etc. The prod said it had been unsourced for 17 years and therefore was clearly non notable which is nonsense. Also, in what world is refbombing adding three sources? My rationale for citing the less academic source is it provided a better explanation as to what the topic was and I didn't want to go jumping through hoops to find that in the edited volume to cite the first sentence. Probably not the best source but not unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on a merge, in any case that seems like one of many possible targets and a fairly arbitrary one - it doesn’t seem any closer linked to the focus group concept than many of the other marketing concepts discussed with it. There is a 500 page book about this and many many many articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book’s definition set out in its introduction is: “an online panel is a “form of access panel, defined in the international standard, ISO 20252 "Market, opinion and social research - Vocabulary and Service Requirements," as "a sample database of potential respondents who declare that they will cooperate for future data collection if selected" (International Organization for Standardization, 2012, p. 1). These panels sometimes include a very large number of people (often one million or more) who are sampled on numerous occasions and asked to complete a questionnaire for a myriad of generally unrelated studies. Originally, these panels were called discontinuous access panels […] Panel members can be re-sampled (and routinely are) to take part in another study with varying levels of frequency.” Not really a focus group since it involves many many more people while a focus group is small. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i’ll try to expand it to start class tomorrow so the article actually makes clear what this is (and also because I feel obligated to put my money where my mouth is after writing so many words) PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are now words PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more before potentially closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Focus group - per Hemiauchenia. These are a thing, but they are not really an independent thing. Focus group is where readers will find the related informatio that supplies the context for the online panel. This should be treated there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy The problem with that is that this isn't a focus group. It is a form of access panel, according to all of the sources that talk about it. If we're going to merge it anywhere it should be there but that article is worse. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Focus group is the correct target. I think access panel should also be merged or redirected there. Neither makes much sense as a subject divorced from the parent subject of a focus group. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. It being merged would just make the page worse. It is not the parent subject, they're related subjects but it is not the "parent". It makes more sense for it to be deleted than merged there, as it has no clear space in that article. There is a several hundred page book and several journal articles delineating the specifics of this concept. I think that is enough to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought it was clear that a page that already has a heading "Types" and a heading "Online focus groups" clearly has a place for this. As for space, that page has about 3,000 words of prose - half of the lowest threshold for WP:SIZERULE. So there is no problem with space. The reader is better served by having this aspect of focus group engineering treated in situ, rather than hived off to a page where there is little notable to say. Detailed methodology is not encyclopaedic information per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not online focus groups, though. We have an article on online focus groups already - which is what that section is on. I meant it doesn't have the space as in contextually, without it being made more confusing. There's plenty of notable encyclopedic stuff to say regarding its prevalence, usage, history, etc. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not online focus groups. Yes. Thus merge and not redirect. All other comments pertain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Access panel is a Redirect (it should appear as a green link) so it isn't a suitable target page. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think these topics are closely related enough to warrant merging. Almost all sources discuss them independently - while there are many hits for them together that's because they're two very widely used polling methods so they show up in a lot of academic studies, obviously. These are not the same thing, their only commonality is being "people you ask the opinion of" which is like, a poll. Focus group is usually a handful of people this is usually tens or hundreds of thousands. They are also established individual things (like, the individual panels) in a way that has no analogy in focus groups. By your logic, we should upmerge all of them including focus group to opinion poll. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:39, 16 September 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Gawin

Ela Gawin (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 is mostly based on primary sources, while the secondary sources are mostly unreliable, being as follows:

  • [21] prawdaoeligawin.blogspot.com is an attack site directed at the article subject, extremely unacceptable for a biography.
  • [22] celebryci.info is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
  • [23] dramki.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
  • [24] vibez.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
  • [25] Not sure if kobieta.wp.pl is considered reliable. Due to legal reasons the cited article doesn't disclose the subject's last name but only the first letter, so I'm not sure if this is compatible with BLP.
  • [26] truestory.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
  • [27] krakow.naszemiasto.pl is a local newspaper. It may be considered reliable, but like some sources above, it doesn't disclose the subject's surname, only the first letter.
  • [28] wiadomosci.gazeta.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.
  • [29] pomponik.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
  • [30] o2.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.

Overall, even if someone can show that WP:GNG is narrowly met, this article is still a glaring WP:BLP violation, so I believe it would be the best to WP:TNT it regardless. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 September 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.

Other XfDs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Internet&oldid=1246096312"