Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 22

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.

Sinister Beings

Sinister Beings (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)

Article written in advertisement tone C933103 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just how? In any case that would be an invitation to either slap on the appropriate tag or to strip out the muck oneself. Me, I love removing guff.TheLongTone (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be far more concerned about the skimpiness of the sources, brw.TheLongTone (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 22 April 2022 (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. source analysis refutes claims of NAUTHOR and there's no indication Berry passes NACADEMIC Star Mississippi 13:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Carson Berry

David Carson Berry (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)

clear COI, SOAP etc. insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Acousmana 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 12:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough secondary sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes
  WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his works: [11] [12] [13] which means he passes the notability criteria. However, material not supported by sources need to be removed. --hroest 21:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep:
  WP:AUTHOR. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment Let's be careful on our citations. Berry's publications are in the Online Journal of Music Theory of the Mid-Atlantic (Better known as Gamut). This is a peer-reviewed journal, but not as prestigious as Music Theory Online, published by the Society for Music Theory. As far as I know, there's no such publication as Online Journal of Music Theory. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• re:
  WP:AUTHOR
  claim, please cite reliable sources that support any of the following:

• [?] The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
• [?] The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
• [?] The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
• [?] The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Acousmana 23:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete: I don't think Berry meets
  WP:NACADEMIC
  .

Berry does NOT meet criteria two through eight that I can see, so the only grounds for inclusion would be number 1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." And... I think he's close, but no cigar. 41 citations for his book in 18 years doesn't do it - even in the low cite field of Music theory. He has a Google Scholar h-index of 8, which is borderline. His university profile only lists 9 peer-reviewed publications. Just doesn't quite reach the bar. PianoDan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete — like the above, its close, but I can't see any of the requirements for
  WP:NACADEMIC being confidently met. In addition, there just doesn't seem to be enough substantial and independent coverage on Berry himself. Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2022 (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.

Water (producer)

Water (producer) (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)

Non-notable music producer. Nothing like significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Florida. PepperBeast (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only one reference is reliable. Rest are 404 or primary.
  WP:BEFORE (web) brings nothing but water authorities, state water commission, regional water authority, state rivers and waters commission, like this. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 22 April 2022 (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.

Man Na

Man Na (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)

Unsupported, mass-created Geostub. No references other than Wiki-mirrors and a single fiction book found in my

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2022 (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 11:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Dexter, Missouri

List of mayors of Dexter, Missouri (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)

List of not-notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  SPEAK 17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete list of non-notable small town politicians. Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Biased Keep Yeah, I created this. I'll vote keep -- if a biased vote is even allowed. It's history. Most big city mayors, except a few very big city mayors, are rather non-notable. A few American mayors have been state representatives are something like that or perhaps the relative of a more famous person, but that's about it usually. Durindaljb (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional I am not sure why there is a sudden fury to delete several articles that I created and have been around in wikipedia for the past 7 1/2 years! I guess I really wasted countless hours of time with this project. Durindaljb (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate listing of information, which this article is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2022 (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 12:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilla Hermann

Kamilla Hermann (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 notability of this person is not substantiated, and the tone of the article is quite unambiguously promotional (self-promotional?). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources aren't really sources, not independent, not reliable, just bio listing types. No indication of notability, just another corporate cog. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it looks like much of the content is unsourced (ie education and professional activity). Coolcactus04 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge Seems to be notable per Forbes list of wealthy, we should drop the article down to bare minimum, and engage someone who can contribute from the hungarian language community, Sadads (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People who appear on these Forbes rich lists are often notable, but ultimately we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources to clear the notability threshold—not just a mere mention in a list. I've done a fair bit of searching (including for "Hermann Kamilla", which is the standard order under Hungarian naming conventions), and there doesn't seem to be any GNG-qualifying sourcing: I found a few passing mentions in the press, non-independent sources, and the like, but no reliable sources seem to discuss her in any depth. Her company hu:Indotek Group may well deserve an article, and if such an article is written Hermann might merit a mention in it, but she does not seem to be sufficiently notable for an article of her own. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Came across the article in the new page feed, there is some interesting elements that can help towards GNG. But I really don't see enough. Agree that the page is very promotional, puffy, there are other sources online, but I really don't see enough to qualify for an article at present. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2022 (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional fishing boat

Traditional fishing boat (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Transportation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This really is an article that needs discussion. I visited it, quite expecting to !vote delete. But what I began to see was a sort of fleshed-out list article of a sort that works very well in an encyclopaedia. It is not synthesis to present a whole range of small fishing boats from across the whole world in a single article. In fact that is almost a definition of encyclopaedic: an inclusive overview. Had the article stopped there, I would happily have gone for Keep. But having declared at the top that the article would be an overview of "boats used for fishing that are or were built from designs that existed before engines became available", it fulfilled its remit beautifully (and with references) down to Catamarans. It then wandered rather, and started to describe the constructional characteristics of boats, ropes, planking etc., which had it stuck to traditional pre-engine fishing boats might have been okay(ish) - except it couldn't resist the temptation to wander off into boatbuilding generally, and by the end of "Planking" was wiki-linking the diesel-engine, which is hardly in the spirit of ".. before engines became available". It then lost the plot completely, in "European boats", which abandons all pretense at restricting itself to fishing boats, and covers the Viking longboat, cargo boats, decked schooners and more or less anything else it felt like.
• My recommendation is therefore Keep up to the end of Catamarans, and Delete the rest of the material, which has nothing to do with an encyclopaedic overview of small fishing-boats the world over. If any of it can be usefully Merged to other articles, fine, but it doesn't belong here. And yes, that's three decisions in one AfD response, completely illegal and no doubt a headache for the bot that has to assess my viewpoint, but my defence is that the article itself is so mixed up, it requires a mixed-up response. Elemimele (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Elemimele: your view seems strange and unbalanced to me. The evolution of fishing boats cannot be put into any kind of perspective without appreciating something about the technology and evolution of rope, hull consruction techniques and methods of propulsion. In turn, much of this evolution was driven by what worked for fishermen. Further, if you read the final section on European boats again, you will find it is almost wholly about traditional fishing boats. I cannot imagine what you are seeing there that could lead you to think otherwise. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epipelagic: then the scope and arrangement of the article need redefinition. The scope is deliberately and explicitly restricted at the top to designs that existed before engines became available. Implicit in the article's arrangement (the fact that it begins with a set of sections dealing with coracles, canoes, reed-boats, rafts etc.; and the emphasis on undecked, open boats, with a statement that most larger boats have engines) is that the article is restricted to small boats of the sort used by indigenous peoples. This is a reasonable scope, because if you extend it to include all types of boats that could be used for fishing, it becomes a list of all boats. That's precisely what's happened in the European boat section, where we start with two paragraphs on Viking longboats, of a sort rowed by 30 men, probably not a routine fishing vessel - but these boats gave us the constructional techniques that evolved right through to 20thC fishing boats. The distinction between fishing and other boats, in Europe, is a bit artificial, because innovations in one sort of boat naturally influenced the building of boats for other purposes. If we then add details of the evolution of constructional materials and techniques, the scope of the article becomes "the entire history of boats and boatbuilding". In some way we have to restrict this article to a manageable field. That's why I'm suggesting trimming it to just the indigenous small boats as was probably the original intent. The history of boat building is pretty important, but we can't cover everything here. Elemimele (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  a long article on wikipedia. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Epipelagic: thanks for the clarification. In that case, I think the scope of the article is too big and ill-defined for its current title. I'd suggest removing the reference to fishing from the title. Look at the section on canoes and kayaks; it acknowledges (rightly) that they were used both for fishing and transport, it mentions canoe clubs, who don't have anything to do with fishing, and it mentions large historical canoes that were probably intended for 18 people, where we honestly have no idea what they were for. The European section mentions Viking longboats, which aren't generally associated with fishing. This has happened because it is impossible to separate the history and construction of small fishing boats from the history and construction of small boats for all other purposes; the same people were building all sorts of boats, for all purposes, using the same constructional techniques; a person who lives on the edge of a river might use their dug-out canoe to fish, to get to the other side, or to convey stuff downriver. In its current form, the article is analogous to Small cars used to convey children to school, an article that would inevitably get confused with Small cars used to go shopping and would much better be renamed Small cars and allowed to get on with the job. I'm not an enemy of the current article. But at the moment, it doesn't deliver what its title says it should, so either the article needs to be cut back to the subject matter of the title, or the title needs to be changed to reflect the subject matter of the article. I'm sympathetic to a change of title, because WP currently doesn't seem to have any other overview of the construction of small boats across the globe. Changing the title doesn't, of course, stop the article from discussing how the construction of small boats was driven partly by the need for fishing vessels. Elemimele (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Elemimele:: I gather you think the article should be deleted because all that is needed is an article called perhaps Traditional boat. The article Traditional fishing boat was written specifically to complement the article called Fishing vessels. It is not intended to be a list as someone suggested below, but a brief historical account of the evolution of fishing vessels. Following your reasoning, we should also delete the article called Fishing vessel – we need only an article called something like Aquatic vessel since fishing vessels float like other aquatic vessels, and there can be some overlap between them. If we continue to reason like this, we should be able to shrink the size of Wikipedia to one tenth of what it is today. Then all that will remain is to get rid of the rest. "Traditional fishing boat" is a coherent concept that is widely used, with 1.58 million entries in Google Search. According to Google Books the term is also used in 6,830 books, and according to Google Scholar in 929 academic publications. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SYNTH is irrelevant. WP:PLOT could of been argued but that wasn't brought up by the OP. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Actually this article needs some improvements otherwise it is meeting notability on a generic topic. But i just checked Copyvio and detected copyright violations, it is 80% copied from https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielmennerich/31297639612. If the issue can be resolved, I will change my vote. Jeni Wolf (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeni Wolf: the link you've supplied seems only to contain the text on coracles, and was posted to flickr long after the text appeared on Wikipedia. Here's the WP article, for example, on 8th March 2015: [14]. The Flikr article is dated October 15th 2016. Flikr should have credited taking the text from here, but there's little point in fighting this sort of thing, it happens all the while. Elemimele (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the Flickr url on the basis of this report. Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the two texts are near identical. But so far as I know, that tool merely looks for similarity, it doesn't check who copied who. You'll see at the top of the report, a comment "Be aware that other websites can copy from Wikipedia, so check the results carefully, especially for older or well-developed articles". In this case, it seems to me that the Flikr text appeared after Wikipedia's suggesting that Flikr copied Wikipedia, not vice versa. But I'm not an expert on this, so if anyone else cares to comment... Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be you are right, the tool is not always right. Jeni Wolf (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per above discussion i am changing my vote to Keep. Jeni Wolf (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge -- This would make a valid list article, which should be kept short, mainly existing as a means of finding the "main" sub-articles. It certainly should not have so many photos. Their presence upsets the balance of the article. This right place for them is in the main articles. About one photo per item would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the article should be kept as it is. It was originally written about 13 years ago to complement
  Fishing vessels, and could do with some updating. A section on catamarans and outrigger boats was added about 4 years ago. I have deleted the section, since it was not really about fishing boats and may have been the source of some of the claims here that the article itself was not about fishing boats. – Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Epipelagic: That deletion is, I think, perhaps a loss, because catamarans and outrigger boats have been used as traditional fishing boats. You've said above that I think this article should be deleted; please don't put words in my mouth. I think the article's scope's got a bit out of hand, but I think every single word of it is interesting and encyclopaedic. The only question in my mind is whether its title should enlarged to include all the interesting stuff it contains, or whether the information in the article that isn't about fishing boats should be moved to a more general overview on the history and construction of small, traditional boats. I really, really am trying not to pick a fight here. The aim isn't to win anything, it's to end up with a better encyclopaedia. I do, however, apologise that the way I expressed my views in my first comment was untactful and overly forceful. Elemimele (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC) (to make this clear, I'll strike the word delete in my original flippant 3-way decision Elemimele (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that deleting an individual article is the way to address this. If changing the structure of articles on boats and ships is needed then it would be better to have a discussion about that, probably at a Wikiproject, rather than a deletion discussion about just one article.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Keep . Hibernian (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2022 (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi Lambda

Sigma Phi Lambda (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)

Has been kept as recently as 2008, but WP:ORG is very different since them. I am unable to find independent, reliable source coverage to meet CORPDEPTH. It exists, but does not appear to be notable. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I don't understand why this article has been tagged with this unnecessary AfD, after twice winning the argument. Notability does not diminish over time, according to WP rules. It's far more helpful to
  Baird's Manual, which over its 20 editions stretching back 150 years had adopted the rule that to be listed an organization must have formed at least three chapters, OR be a local that owns property, and exist for at least ten years. Sigma Phi Lambda clearly meets this standard. The Fraternity and Sorority Project has adopted that model as a reasonable bar to meet for those articles we edit, create and monitor, in keeping with WP guidelines. There have been tens of thousands of non-notable local chapters that do not merit an article, and approximately 1,500 that do, which get tracked by our Project. This particular group has chartered 43 chapters and is over 40 years old. It is extensively referenced in Baird's and noted on the official university portals where it has active chapters. It has a functional national headquarters and website. It certainly does not merit deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs
  )
  • As I mentioned in the other discussion, that's not a speedy keep criteria and Baird's criteria has no bearing on Wikipedia's. after twice winning the argument certainly explains why you seem to be approaching these in such a manner. Our organizational notability guidelines have changed significantly in 14 years and just because something was kept doesn't guarantee future keeping. I'm going to ignore your ABF on the rest of this as I have no intention of getting in a back and forth with any voter. Star Mississippi 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, assuming good faith, let me explain. Please understand that over the past two weeks, after months of no AfDs, seven religious-based fraternity articles had been PRODed, one of which (an innocuous trade association of the groups) was outright speedy deleted without even the courtesy of an AfD discussion. One might conjecture animus toward these, because of the suddenness and what might appear targeting of these specific groups. Why would someone do this? Perhaps because the several OPs were anti-Christian, anti-religious, or anti-Black. It wasn't MY perception; I had been assuming good faith. I decided not to fight three of the AfDs, because they lacked references, lacked a Baird's notation and even a university portal, and I was unable to confirm further info as their websites were down. One of the AfDs I did fight, and I'm pleased to say was closed as Keep when a number of editors voted in its favor.

Strangely then, two more, similar articles were PRODed today, by you. I am concerned over the sudden focus on these particular groups - are you saying it is coincidental? As you know, it's easy to kill articles, and more difficult to improve them, but that is what experienced Wikipedians are extolled to do. I prefer to improve articles on valid, non-controversial subjects, instead of salting good work with random and harmful AfD PRODs like this. This rush to delete seems arbitrary, without adherence to the consistent, methodical approach used by the active Fraternities and Sororities Project and an example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism". To pick at one or two, and waste time in an AfD debate is, I think, ultimately harmful: Deletionism simply pushes away helpful new editors and opens the door to a broader, more inclusive competitor to Wikipedia. Neither are good outcomes. Finally, I note that the rules regarding Deletion require subject competence, and elaborate on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." (I'm not saying you are too lazy, as a volunteer with such a long track record of helpful work.) Simply that subject matter experts are helpful here. I am an SME in this little corner of the Wikipedia world. Thus, Star, Notability for these two organizations was reached long ago. You explained that notability guidelines have changed; yes, these changes are reflected in how the F&S Project limits the list of groups we support for articles: There have been perhaps 100,000 local chapters, regional, and national groups, but only a fraction of those, maybe 1,500, are notable enough to merit an article. I recognize you are an admin with a long tenure of service. I certainly could switch my vote to simply "Keep". But I hope this explains why I voted Speedy Keep, here. Jax MN (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context and background @Jax MN. Super helpful and I apologize for some slight harshness in my response. I cannot speak to the other seven you mention as I have been on and off line and didn't see those discussions. While I do monitor the AfD logs, this is not an area I frequently edit in. As for how I came to these two? I edited an article about Christian sororities and fraternities after it came to me via SuggestBot and/or one of the backlogs I work through and noticed these when I was cleaning up the table. I definitely think this subset of the fraternity & sorority (F/S for shorthand going forward) world is a notable one as there's a reason Christian, Jewish and African American groups had to establish their own F/S orgs. Unfortunately I think some of these articles were created without regard to what makes them notable, which is why we have the current run of deletion discussions. I have no intention of nominating any of the others in that table as they assert why they're notable. A few need clean up and other editing, but do not merit deletion. In my opinion, these two did not make a case for why they should exist as articles nor did some early AfD discussions on a variety of topics. If you (collective, it's no one's responsibility to do it all) can find sourcing that establishes that, it's wonderful. AfD isn't cleanup, but I think we both have the goal of a better encyclopedia than when we began our days.

You're welcome to leave your speedy keep. I think that's a narrower set, but not going to quibble is at your !vote itself is backed in policy. As an aside, I saw you fixed the table on the other AfD. Mind a look at the one on

Christian sorority (fraternities and sororities) if you have a chance? I tried to fix it, but table formatting is not my strength. Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 22:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Star Mississippi, thanks again for the engagement, and your review of several subsequent articles I've worked on. I believe my recent updates have answered your concerns with this page, and that of the AfD voter, below. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I found one RS mention in a Christianity Today article (paywalled), but there's not enough independent RS non-incidental coverage to show notability. To be honest, even given the small number of chapters, I'm surprised we're not able to surface more student newspaper coverage at least, but even that seems pretty sparse. --Jahaza (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. After the addition of the citation to Torbenson & Park, I'm revising to neutral. The article, however, is way to long and crufted for the amount of verifiable information available.--Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jahaza, thank you for the tip on the Christianity Today article. I cited it, and found numerous other references to add, along with other cleanup just now. Virtually all chapters are linked by their universities as official student organizations, and I have added several of these portals to the page. Our Project group normally does not link these pages directly to chapter-owned websites, as these are not considered RS. University sites undergo far more scrutiny. As to your comment, indeed, fraternities and sororities are typically not mentioned in newspapers very much, unless they are involved in some misbehavior or scandal. For the Project, an organization of 35 years tenure, with 44 chapters easily meets the standard bar of notability used for all such organizations here. Jax MN (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've revised my vote to simply Keep, striking Speedy for the sake of the discussion. The article has been updated to meet the concerns raised. Jax MN (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the Christianity Today article and reliable book sources pass
  WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments on whether current sourcing satisfies notability guidelines would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no reason why this has been nominated for deletion. It is thorough, lengthy, and on a notable subject: there is a list of chapters of this sorority across the United States. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're questioning my nomination's good faith despite the fact that I did in fact explain why it was nominated, I should point out that there's nothing in your argument that's policy based. Star Mississippi 17:57, 22 April 2022 (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!} 06:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lantana Usman

Lantana Usman (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 article has been PRODed and I did consider a G11 speedy request, but on balance, I think this needs an AfD discussion. Promotional article, that likely fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Nigeria, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails
  WP:MILL. Her h-index is 7, which indicates an ordinary mid-career academic. StAnselm (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The article is all primary sources, so I understand why it was AfDed. But searched on Google books show that she passed
  WP:AUTHOR
  on the basis of reviews of her work. As follows:

1. Indigenous Knowledge and Learning in Asia/Pacific and Africa: Perspectives on Development, Education, and Culture. (2010). United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan US. includes detailed analysis of her writing in page 10, of the quality of review that WP:AUTHOR calls for, this is the first of the two reviews needed to satisfy the WP:AUTHOR criteria.
2. YUKSE, A. Haluk. "Using Learning Technologies." Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 3.2 (2002). also includes an academic review of her writing. CT55555 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out my initial vote after seeing good analysis below. CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm not at all convinced of a
  WP:NAUTHOR pass on any of the four criteria, and certainly not on those two reviews - the second especially is both brief and poor quality (and is about a chapter she wrote, not a book!). Her citations seem low for education, which I understand to be a reasonably high-citation field. Furthermore, I'm concerned that the only references in this article are for her publications, but there are three sizable paragraphs about her - regarding the actual content of this article as it stands, this is essentially a BLP with no citations. There are some dubious claims in here too, like "the first Northern Nigerian woman to earn a PhD degree at the Department of Educational Policy Studies, at the University of Alberta" (if you drill down far enough into subcategories, "first" isn't particularly meaningful) and "during her graduate studies, she was awarded ... grants" (I would be surprised to find this was uncommon at UofA). "Prof.Usman is the first Black woman to obtain the position of a Tenured Full Professor since the founding of UNBC" is demonstrably false, unless the university's own website is in error: [15]. -- asilvering (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JSTOR 26419922. Or indeed like CT55555's second source, which is a review of an earlier edited collection for which this person has contributed a chapter. Reviews of edited collections are usually pretty thin for Wikipedia purposes, and this is indeed the case here. The article's creator is AstridMitch (talk · contribs) who has a deleted article about a literary agent, and the article's other major contributor 50.69.240.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) geolocates to the same place as this article subject's university. So it's fairly obvious where all of this unverifiable biography has come from. This is not independently and reliably sourced. This is autobiography, either direct or indirect. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the further analysis. I find this persuasive. I've scored out my "keep". CT55555 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (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.

Your PC Protector

Your PC Protector (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)

Early 2010s malware that appears to be non-notable as no significant media coverage sufficient to meet GNG exists as far as I can tell. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I found one mention, in a list of programs in a book, and a WWW site of unknown byline, but that does name its editors, most of which is generic malware removal instructions however. The article is sourced to the latter, and (of all things) a WWW forum post of pseudonymous authorship that states its author's inexpertise outright. This is hugely insufficient and bad sourcing. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2022 (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 14:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oomba

Oomba (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)

Startup that does not seem to have ever reached a scale to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The Icarus-like rise and fall of Oomba appears to have picked up enough reporting here and there to justify a Wikipedia page, in my opinion, although a lot of editing is required as of right now. It's worth noting that the likes of The Verge found the company's woes worth covering. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete rationale withheld. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's stuff about the CEO and his obsessions but there's no significant in-depth references that deal with the company. Topic therefore fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 18:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: as per nom. and
  HighKing. - Hatchens (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2022 (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.

Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks

Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks (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)

Non-notable show, no sourcing found. Apparently prodded in March according to main editor's talk page, but I couldn't find the prod in edit history Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've found something in Google Books: The Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows mentions the program and also notes that "It received an Emmy nomination in 2007". The same Google Books search brought up something that seems to be an Emmy nomination list that mentions the show. I've also found a review on the DVD of the show published on CHUD.com, so, I think the show actually might be notable. Soglasun (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IMDb says it was a daytime Emmy nominee. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One of this show's DVD releases also seemingly got an iParenting Excellent Products award in 2009 according to the Animation World Network website. Soglasun (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's a notable award though. The emmy nomination maybe, if we can find a non-IMDb source to corroborate it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An article on Brandissimo (one of the companies which produced the series) published on the same website also notes that it was nominated for an Emmy award: "On TV, their Harry and his Bucketful of Dinosaurs aired on Cartoon Network and their Emmy-nominated Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks aired on Discovery Kids". Soglasun (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another mention of the show and its Emmy nomination is in this article on Motor Trend: "And a whole new generation of monster-truck fans has made the Emmy-nominated "Bigfoot Presents: Meteor and the Mighty Monster Trucks" one of the most popular shows on The Learning Channel". However, it isn't related to children's television whatsoever besides this mention. Soglasun (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, on Animation World Network (the same website we talked about before on this page), there's also seemingly an article that mentions it alongside other 2007 Emmy nominees, thus making it a non-IMDb source that mentions it being nominated. Soglasun (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]