Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 29

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 to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinbad Rock

Sinbad Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (

  WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location as 62°10'S 59°02'W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The precise coordinates of Sinbad Rock are 62°09'11.5"S 59°02'21.2"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a name of a tiny piece of rock of no significance whatsoever, may not even be above water if I'm reading that right. This only has "Rock in Water". Nothing to merge, as nothing significant has ever been written about this feature that I can find. When this can only be attested through trivial database listings, this is very obviously non-notable. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you’re not reading that right, according to the UK and Chile gazetteers it’s rising to 3 m above sea level; the “below the water rock” is another feature lying miles away. And it’s more than a trivial listing of name and coordinates. As your own reference demonstrates Sinbad Rock is part of a sailing directives narrative attesting to its significance in the course of navigation. It also appears in the US, UK, Chile and SCAR Antarctic gazetteers with details of the history of its surveying, charting and naming. Apcbg (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at delete here, even if it is 9 foot tall and above water. I wouldn't characterize any of the sources I've seen as anything further than "it exists, it's 3 m tall, and it's at coordinates". When it comes down to it, a lot of the rocks seem to be about the natural equivalent of a U.S. National Geodetic Survey survey disk - it's a minor feature at a known site that provides some directional/survey help, but about which nothing significant has never been written and probably never will be written. Hog Farm _Talk 00:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass

WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [11] [12] [13] [14] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:Five Pillars is the bedrock of all policy, and dismissing published academic encyclopedias as trivial supporting evidence at an AFD discussion seems like you have forgotten what wikipedia is trying to achieve; namely being an encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Wrong. Both

  WP:GEOLAND4 expect a level of substantive coverage that these sources do not provide. Existence with a name with a mere mention that it was "charted" isn't the basis for an article about a small rock. Even in a published book, a couple lines do not equate an article. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

WP:Fundamentals. If it's in a published encyclopedia it stays. Period.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wrong. It has never been our policy to throw away our notability guidelines so that anything merely barely mentioned in an outside encyclopedia is mandated to have its own article here. "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" does not mean any item that any such published work mentions without details is immune from discussion. The Pokemon Encyclopedia is a specialized encyclopedia covered by 5P1, but that does not mandate we have individual articles about each Pokemon. Reywas92^Talk 05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think comparing a serious academic encyclopedia on the continent of Antarctica to an encyclopedia of "fancruft" on a fictional universe is a bit disingenuous on your part. Further, your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally

WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an academic encyclopedia on the real world, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently; mainly because the authors and editors of a published encyclopedia are typically experts within that academic field and are more qualified to judge notability for encyclopedic inclusion in a particular content area than lay editors at wikipedia. In other words, we trust that the entries in an academic encyclopedia are in fact worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because experts have included it in their published encyclopedia. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have a copy of Encyclopedia of California Place Names. It has tens of thousands of entries, most just a few short sentences similar to this gazetteer. Someone mass-created several thousand articles on populated places from this book, but we have had to cull and delete many hundreds of them because they are not in fact notable (and populated places tend to be more notable than tiny rocks and hills and whatnot). This book was compiled by experts based on many historical and geographical references that are highly reliable. But you are nuts if you think anything needs its own article merely because there are two non-descriptive sentences about it in such a comprehensive gazetteer. You know damn well that

WP:GNG includes "significant coverage" as a criterion for notability, not that anything with a "bolded named topic" in a book is automatically notable and cannot be deleted or mentioned in another article instead of its own. BS. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I do think it would be possible to house the content of this page within another larger article where we can place a suitable redirect (potentially something like Rock formations of King George Island (South Shetland Islands) . However, at the moment there is no article currently in existence which makes a good target for merge/redirect. As such, keeping the article is the best option available per my reasoning above.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SIGCOV. Where is the signficiant coverage? Most importantly, this completely lacks any secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How is an encyclopedia not a secondary source?4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge - Really, this and the the other rocks and reefs mentioned in
  WP:GEOLAND, as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Suriname0 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", I agree that a redirect to a future South Shetlands' rocks and reefs article would be appropriate, when such an article exists. --Bejnar (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2021 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buzfuz Rock

Buzfuz Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (

  WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as 65° 28′ 0″ S, 65° 53′ 0″ W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The precise coordinates of Buzfuz Rock are 65°28′55″S 65°52′24″W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee.

WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Apcbg (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But it is irrelevant! A location is not notable by means of being a location! Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass

WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [15] [16] [17] [18] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:SIGCOV. Google books shows the topic is covered in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2021 (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 to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scend Rocks

Scend Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Small rocks mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (

  WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as -64.8, -64.25, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks they are! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning tiny, nondescript rocks on some other article merely because they exist. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The precise coordinates of Scend Rocks are 64°48′03″S 64°16′36 W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee.

WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Apcbg (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

But it is irrelevant! Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass

WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [19] [20] [21] [22] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated in the multiple sources above. More importantly, the subject has an entry in Antarctica: An Encyclopedia. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Which source is significant coverage???? There are hardly "multiple" sources when they all just duplicate the same note of existence. Your last statement is wrong when that gazetteer entry merely briefly mentions its location. There are plenty of specialized encyclopedias for which we do not have individual articles for every entry and 5P does not mandate that. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally

WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an encyclopedia, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (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. The policy-based arguments below clearly show a consensus to delete, based off an analysis of the sourcing. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Coudrey

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Michael J Coudrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Covert upe

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this article for a number of reasons and believe the subject does meet
  WP:GNG. #1. Subject has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News. This means the journalists reached out to the subject to request a quote from him to include in their articles. This indicates the subject is reputable in the particular topics, often biotech and US politics. #2. 5 MSM media outlets indicate him as the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for US Politicians." If he works with US elected officials, it gives credibility to the notion of reputability. #3. He is verified on his social media platforms. This indicates the subject has passed the notability requirements of social media companies. Yes, the article may need clean up, but no it should not be deleted. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:JalenPhotos2 has made few edits outside of the Michael J Coudrey article and this AFD and made their first edit at 12:44, 24 May 2021 (see here: [23] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2))[reply
  ]

• Comment — you are more than welcome to bring to this AFD any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Please kindly address the COI concerns as well. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Celestina007 Addressed on my talk page. Your comments appeared slightly hostile, RE: "I know you are online" etc. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I've pulled together a few more notability links that should meet the "significant coverage" requirement of
  WP:GNG. I intend to work these into the article to improve it. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. 1: https://patch.com/california/beverlyhills/marketing-ceo-michael-coudrey-threatens-author-over-defamation
2. 2: https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-camera-malfunction/
3. 3. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/it-s-nightmare-how-brazilian-scientists-became-ensnared-chloroquine-politics

@

WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Celestina007, You first nominated my article for deletion. Then you posted on my talk page asking if I was doing paid editing work, and I responded that I have never been paid directly or indirectly to make any edits, whatsoever. You then demanded I add a paid tag to my profile, when this would be inaccurate. You are now claiming I have a COI and I wrote an article masquerading as an advertisement, and then threatened an indefinite block. This harassment is not okay! Perhaps I am not understanding your line of reasoning, but what is the basis for these hostile communications/allegations? Please respond on my talk page. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, I have asked you five times what the connection is between you and the subject of your article is and five times you have been evasive about responding to that. Your comments imply that you aren’t guilty of anything, fine, so could you please explain how the image on the article is your own work yet you haven’t disclose a COI? How any why is that? Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, easily explained and posted on my talk page in response to your question. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BEFORE shows the subject of the article is blatantly non notable. I’m going ahead to log in a third warning on your tp. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Celestina007, We had a team of 3 photographers working the event. I was interested in learning more about the attendees as many have successes in business, and I run a small business. It is very probable, because its the truth. Really not okay that you're logging a 3rd warning. You've been nothing but hostile, instead of guiding and helping. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GNG if yes, then submitting via AFC should be the best course of action since you aren’t experienced or are having troubles understanding how GNG works. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Celestina007, It is not okay that you are making an allegation like that and then deciding it's the "truth", when it is not. It is not a promotional article, I tried my best to follow guidelines and believed the subject is notable. I still feel very strongly that he is notable and should be included in Wikipedia. Next time I will use AFC to avoid these toxic interactions/bullying. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COIN or even worse, ANI. Furthermore if(emphasis on if)you are evading a block now might just be a good time to cease and desist from such doltish behavior. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Looking through the sources, nearly all of them are only quoting him, which does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of
  WP:GNG. While it is good on him that he is CEO of a political organization, that doesn't give notability under GNG unless reliable sources provide significant coverage regarding that. Being verified on social media also doesn't give notability under GNG, it just means you're popular enough on that particular social media site. Also I would like to note that source 10, the only source that has significant coverage, allows you to buy an interview and decide what's written which makes it non-independent and thus unusable in terms of notability. Jumpytoo Talk 00:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Per
  accusation against JalenPhotos2 is baseless. He has no relation to the subject at all. Working hard to look for sources for a certain subject does not mean he is related to the latter. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment — I agree with your assessment of
  WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the entire source material. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. The sources are reliable but not significant coverage of the subject. Mere quotes of the subject do not constitute in depth coverage. Further interviews lack the independence necessary to pass GNG. This is not even close to meeting our notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment — @
  WP:GNG Reliable, Sources, Presumed criteria. In regards to Presumed, these quoted pieces (which are more than a trivial mention) creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Considering this would you reconsider or update your position? JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@4meter4 I would also implore you to examine two further sources from local news and Reuters News. Subjects comments are the reason both articles where created, with the former having the subject be the main topic of the entire source material. Again, Presumed criteria creates assumption that the subject merits its own article on Wikipedia. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/ Detailed source analysis I was asked to reconsider my opinion based on the sources, so I have decided to put together a detailed table, analyzing the sources:

As you can see, not a single source meets the criteria for

WP:JOURNALIST. Coudrey is essentially a political commentator on social media, and we would treat him much the same way we treat journalists. In these cases mere quotes are part of the routine job of a journalist /political commentator. We only consider journalists and political commentators notable when they themselves become the main subject of multiple sources in independent references. That hasn't happened here. This is a solid delete.4meter4 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment — @
  WP:SIGCOV. I do appreciate the time you took to analyze and create the table, but I stress to others that it is still an opinion and individual interpretation of policy. Curious to hear others thoughts. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

JalenPhotos2, and yet you are arguing for his notability based on his quotes which are all political commentary and have nothing to do with his role as a CEO of YukoSocial. You can't have it both way. Further, several of the sources in the article call him a "twitter commentator" when quoting him. Also, I fail to see how

WP:Original synthesis. That's why this article is a clear delete. 4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep The sources in the article are reliable. I agree the quotes in significant outlets like The NY Times merit the subject have its own article. Article needs slight clean-up, but it does pass
  WP:GNG. Pctweaks (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Pctweaks has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  Heavy.com, Imdb and the like. If you cut all that out, there would be very little left of content with a couple of citations from the Washington Post. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete – 4meter4 has set out very clearly that Coudrey does not meet the notability standards. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is quite the discussion and I somehow got roped into reading it. After reviewing this all though, I am of the opinion that he fails to meet notability guidelines. I generally agree with other people's reasonings on why this is to be deleted. It seems like he's trying to be notable and it's having some effect, but it does not cross the threshold of
  WP:BIO. Lots of very many brief mentions count for something, but not very much on its own and isn't enough. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article needs some clean ups and having reliable sources its evident enough that it has passed The sources in the article
  WP:GNG. It has reliable sources such as NY times, Washighton Posts, Fox News are reliable. ShaddyAmbani (Note: User:ShaddyAmbani has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here
  )
• Keep: Per
  WP:GNG. Appears the nominator has a personal bias against the article creator. Should not have been nominated for deletion. Physcho711 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Physcho711 has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply
  ]
• Note to closing admin. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Hi 4meter4, Not sure what is up with both of those entries, but this deletion thread has been a long and fruitful discussion with many members of the community contributing on both sides. I have zero affiliation with those two recent accounts. Should they be related, I'd suggest an admin remove their entries so that we may carry the conversation forward here. I've been on wiki for quite some time and have made a significant amount of edits for the good of the community. Your decision to bring me into the case is baseless. Looking forward to a CheckUser. Kindly, JalenPhotos2 (talk)

JalenPhotos2, I think it best that we not derail this AFD by commenting on the investigation here. You can make comments at the discussion page linked above, which I see you have already done.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to have had impact and plenty of references...not sure why the action to delete but I am no expert.CaliBuds (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:CaliBuds has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient
  WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: I see that Coudrey has had impact on this field and seems to be respected. Just my 2 cents.SugarHiller (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)— SugarHiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete:Per 4meter4's analysis. Seems like some random rich guy who has some internet clout within right leaning circles, but I don't think there is enough coverage to substantiate
  WP:STONEWALLING that is preventing consensus. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Seems like the author had good reason to create the article and was sincere. The subject has more citations that the more notable people I try to write about! TexasToasters (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)— TexasToasters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment — The influence of socks and spas in this AFD is indicative of the non notability status of the subject of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment —@Celestina007, I created this article and there has been fruitful discussion from both sides for the last 4 weeks without issue. This recent attention and potential socks (not yet confirmed) has now negatively manipulated this conversation. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2 and Celestina007 please refrain from commenting on socks or spas on this page. You may do so at the investigation page. Also, JalenPhotos2 please refrain from making value judgements;; as the investigative process and notifications at this AFD are policy based reasonable reactions that are necessary no matter the final outcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Street Real Estate

Harrison Street Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is the second AfD proposed for this page, the last AfD (done on 16 January 2019) had no consensus and no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation: WP:Articles for deletion/Harrison Street Real Estate. Since that time little has changed about the article, the main change has been removal of some fluff and puffery. There have been no new inclusions of sources. See diff. Of some parallel relevancy, an AfD has been opened (by me) yesterday on one of the co-founders of this organization: WP:Articles for deletion/Christopher N. Merrill

Edit: A note regarding

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet
  WP:SPIP; most are rewarmed press releases. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It appears to be some sort of
  REIT. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete definitely fails
  WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage, or any deep coverage. Billions sounds impressive, but doesn't grant notability. ---Bejnar (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2021 (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. There were some good policy-oriented contributions to this discussion, on both sides, and some average ones, again on both sides. There is no agreement around how independent & significant the coverage is. Thus, no consensus. Daniel (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields

The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am creating this AfD on behalf of an IP editor who requested it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion; I have not yet formulated an opinion on the case myself. The IP's rationale is: "Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly the notability of the book is entangled with that of the author, for whom the article was recently deleted through the appropriate process. I would restore that previously deleted article to draft, merge this article into it (and delete from mainspace), and let it gestate there in case additional coverage can be found or develops. BD2412 T 20:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability of any work will be entangled with notability of the creator of the work. Nevertheless, there are notable books by non-notable authors and non-notable books by notable authors. Your suggestion doesn't seem to relate to the particular case of this book at all. --JBL (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is anyone able to tell how much detail Phillips and Kara (2021) has about it? The Google Books preview I'm getting is not so helpful.
  talk) 20:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

XOR'easter I have access. Phillips and Kara write about her doctoral dissertation, but not the book. They are fundamentally different publications, and so it really can't be considered significant coverage of the book.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The book and the thesis are essentially indivisible. According to the review published in MAA Focus "The wise people of Birkhäuser ... will be publishing Piper's thesis, in its entirety, as one of their volumes." That is, the book is the thesis and the thesis is the book. pburka (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because the best reviews of the work as a dissertation are in context to creative writing in dissertation format as opposed to being a text for mathematics. There are key differences in publishing format which matter in the way the text is being discussed. I am not convinced that blurring the lines between essentially two different publications is appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I fundamentally disagree with that assessment of academic publishing, as I actually have personal experience in that area. For one, dissertations go through a local faculty panel process of review, where the panel usually knows the author personally. Books are put through a much more thorough and professional degree of editorial oversight and scrutiny where reviewers are completely independent of the author. Further, typically dissertations get transformed to some extent when they move into book form;; either through additions of new material or whittling down of extraneous material more appropriate for a dissertation than a book. Rarely, do dissertations get published as they are. Ultimately, it's too far of a leap to claim transference of coverage of the dissertation to coverage of the book. Lastly, the best review of the dissertation is specifically using it as a way to advocate for more creative writing in future doctoral dissertation writing. A clear distinction is being made here in publishing format in the cited sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editions can be "transformed" by the addition and/or removal of material, too. In the absence of sources drawing a distinction, we shouldn't do so either. Indeed, the best source we've got (MAA Focus) tells us to identify the two.

talk) 00:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I disagree. I fundamentally think taking sources reviewing the dissertation in the context of its impact on doctoral dissertation writing, and merging it with another source reviewing the later book as a mathematics book is veering too closely into

WP:Original synthesis. This wouldn't be such a problem if we had just one more quality source on the book itself.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. It is clear that the thesis meets
  WP:BKCRIT(1), with in-depth discussion in several RS independent of the author. The argument that a PhD thesis and a book that share the same author and the same title, and that are described as a single work in reviews of the book, are completely different works from the point of view of notability is just silly. (4meter4, it is not necessary for you to repeat your argument in response to this comment, the closing administrator will be happy to only read it thrice.) --JBL (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I won’t. But you didn’t need to be a jerk either.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough; I have struck it. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck mine as well. Let’s keep it civil.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I believe the
  WP:BOOKCRIT; the Molinari and Kamanos sources, while not per se reviews, I do find to contribute to notability.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. For anybody who wonders whether the author is a legitimate scholar of any kind: Her CV.195.50.217.92 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) You're the nominator, you don't also vote. (2) "Let me show off what an asshole I am" is not a valid deletion rationale on WP. --JBL (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Until further notice, I think that both of your rebukes are baseless. Also, ironic, given that this is the second time you've picked a fight on this page. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A CV page with a trace of personality may be unusual, but it's not a crime.

  talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  ...and indeed, as the current discussion regards the book, the CV of the author is not particularly relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Gosh, you guys, isn't that what I said? ;-p. --JBL (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that is not what you said. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's all try to stay on topic here. 195, if you have questions about notability criteria, please feel free to ask me on my

  might've been a more constructive way to phrase your intended message. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Books are clearly different than dissertations. If we do not have enough about the book itself to show that the article is notable, we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unusually, it seems like the dissertation version meets NBOOK even though the book version may not. (Not able atm to search thoroughly for a second book review). It strikes me as extremely rare for a dissertation to even be read by anybody beyond the supervisory committee, so having any published sources about it is impressive; the range of coverage is also enough for notability. Why not write the article about the notable diss and then mention it was also published as a book? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just throwing my two cents in - my personal recommendation here would be to create a page about the author, Piper Harron, and then have a section devoted to the thesis and book. This way it covers a wider span of information. Just based on a very short glimpse of the sourcing it looks like they're discussing her as much as her work itself. Part of this is also because I don't really like having an "about the author" section in an article, as it just feels too much like a publisher page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That would also help to give a landing page to other work she puts out, as many academics will put out work that would warrant a mention on their article (if they have one) but might not justify its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, I see that the page for her was deleted. I still think that if this is notable, then it would be best to have an author page than a page about the single work (so to speak). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We just had an AfD determining that the author is not notable but that her dissertation might be:
    WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep, the sourcing here is clearly enough to pass the GNG. I wouldn't go as far as ReaderofthePack but the current "About the author" section is too short and misplaced, it should be near the top (e.g. "Context") and give a bit more detail from some of the sources. Clearly if that material is in the deleted bio article then a merge from the recovered article would be sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I reviewed this article for DYK and one of the questions I asked myself was whether it’s about a book, a thesis, or both. In the end, I concluded that it’s both and when you look at it that way, sourcing is adequate. Schwede66 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it seems very pedantic/anti-common sense to me that we would consider coverage of the dissertation and book to be unrelated. With the two together, GNG is met; that this level of coverage for a PhD is unusual makes it more notable, not less. It looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron had the right outcome, but we're assessing some different sources with a different lens here. (I've not had much number theory education, but Harron has certainly captured what the inside of a mathematician's head looks like better than anything I've ever seen.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I participated in the previous deletion discussion where it was determined that the author failed
  WP:NPROF. That's where I first heard of Harron, and I created the current page as I believe that her thesis (which was also published as a book) is notable as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (as demonstrated in the article). As noted above, no sources distinguish between the contents of the thesis and the book, and even if they did the thesis would be notable on its own. I intentionally kept the "About the author" section minimal, as I did not want it to appear that I was trying to recreate the deleted biography, but if there is a consensus to expand that section I wouldn't object. That this page, too, would be nominated for deletion came as no surprise—Harron's message clearly upsets some people—and grumbles about the "legitimacy" of her scholarship are, frankly, amusing, since she herself writes that she "doesn't do math the 'right way'". pburka (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Normally, a textbook is not notable, but this seems to be the exception. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2021 (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.

Don't Let the Devil In

Don't Let the Devil In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The only claim to fame for this film was that it was last film for Conrad Brooks, but kind of thinking this doesn't show

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This film is likely notable - I found two reviews from RS, HorrorNews.net and Scream magazine, but I want to try cleaning this up more before making an official statement. The article definitely needs some TLC and cleanup for promotional prose and the like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The film isn't the most notable ever, but there's just enough here to squeak by NFILM for the most part. I'd have liked for there to be stronger (read, more) sourcing, however. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per ReaderofthePack's citations Donaldd23 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡).
  talk) 22:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Per above. Alex-h (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2021 (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 Loona. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choerry

Choerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

The only claim for notability is her single album Choerry - which is actually only a pre-debut single for her group Loona. There is no evidence of a substantial musical career outside of this, only featured on a few singles. Evaders99 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am very confused. So the album
  WP:NMUSIC, "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." But apparently it's not actually her album, it's her group's album which just so happens to be named after her? But the only two songs on it are a solo by her and a duet featuring her, so whose album really is it? I don't get it. Mlb96 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]