Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 11 December 13 >

Purge server cache

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 02:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Haari

AfDs for this article:
Dil Haari (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)

Refunded following soft deletion, but all problems from the last AfD persist. The article's sole reliance on pre-release PR coverage is particularly egregious considering that it aired in 2016. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I don't see anything for this TV show, I see an album release by a musician that uses this name. I would assume there is coverage of the show somewhere, but I don't see it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Explicit relisted this earlier today at 01:08 13 December 2022. User:Liz, I am not sure of the double relisting (I might be missing something). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickKiang, I had the daily log page open and didn't refresh the page before I acted so I didn't see that the discussion had already been relisted 19 minutes earlier. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries (not sure if I can still comment here..., please revert if needed). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 13 December 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 redirect to Press Communications. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Metronews

Fresno Metronews (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)

Unsourced currently and I can't find anything fulfilling notability requirements. Nweil (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. WeWorkGuest (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) Strike CU-blocked user's comment [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It existed and appears to be the subject of an important court case that verified the right of newspaper companies to deliver door to door. CT55555(talk) 01:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment, I see editors below have looked into this robustly and still found nothing more, so I would not object to the redirect, even if I have a slight preference to keep. CT55555(talk) 03:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling confirms the case mentioned by CT55555 exists, but I can't find any sources beyond the one they added to the article. A review of a major law database brings up only two passing mentions in law reviews (not enough to meet SIGCOV) and ~20 citations in other cases. Googling the case name only brings up the text of the opinion. At any rate, even if the case itself were notable (which I doubt), notability isn't inherited, and my preference would be to merge and redirect in that scenario. Unless other sources can be found, this article doesn't appear to meet GNG.
    Talkback) 01:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Does this help?
  1. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/31/32.html
  2. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1758835.html CT55555(talk) 02:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I'd suggest redirecting to Press Communications as a good alternative to deletion. CT55555(talk) 02:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those links are just the text of the opinion, as mentioned above. They aren't indications of notability (i.e., significant, independent, coverage about the court case). Even if they were, you still have the issue of inherited notability. I'm fine with a redirect if you have sources confirming that the proposed target is the same company. Our article only discusses radio stations in New Jersey. -
    Talkback) 02:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The article mentions their historical newspaper work further into the article. CT55555(talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Press Communications and merge the couple sentences of content, without prejudice against recreation if more sources are found later. jp×g 02:48, 13 December 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 redirect to Fear, and Loathing in Las Vegas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoon for the Golden Future

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

Not finding any reliable coverage and everything on page appears to be either unreliable or mostly off-topic. QuietHere (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band page Fear, and Loathing in Las Vegas (forgot to write that above oops). QuietHere (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some further discussion at User_talk:JpPgn#Nomination_of_Cocoon_for_the_Golden_Future_for_deletion and Talk:Cocoon for the Golden Future#How is it off-topic? Can ignore the off-topic part, seems the sources are all unreliable except JRock News. QuietHere (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added two citation from Yahoo and Billboard, will search for more and clean up a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfj0719 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo is a news aggregator, not a publication. They repost other pubs' articles, such as in this case where they've just reposted Billboard Japan's which is the other source you added. That means you've only added one, and that one looks a lot like a press release which isn't very convincing to me. If there is more then I'd love to see it but I still have my doubts. QuietHere (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fear, and Loathing in Las Vegas. I am not seeing signs of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources, but that could be because of the langauge barrier at play here. I think a redirect is always preferrable in these cases where a viable redirect target exists as some readers may want to look up this album and outright deletion would take away from their experience at least somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:BEFORE aside from that. SBKSPP (talk) 05:46, 17 December 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! 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Robbins

Molly Robbins (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 GNG Roxy the dog 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a cake maker with the same name and multiple hits, nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads as SEO and PR Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a long-form resume. Kazamzam (talk) 13:42, 13 December 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 speedy delete per A11 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Lithua

The Isle of Lithua (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)

Poorly-referenced promo piece, suspected hoax. Speedy request was removed, so here we are at AfD. Sources are flaky to put it mildly, and a search finds nothing better. Fails basic

notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. A very small minority of these fantasy countries that people make up and pretend they are real get sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the
    general notability guideline, but more than 99% of them don't. This is a fairly typical example: both cited sources and other stuff that I have found on searching are just promotion on the "micronation's" own web site and on other websites run by people who are playing the same fantasy game. Not remotely notable, by Wikipedia's standards or any other standards. JBW (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete as sole editor has blanked the article twice now. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note Speedy deleted per
    WP:CASD#A11 (though a number of CSD criteria fit).-- Ponyobons mots 21:10, 12 December 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! 18:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkins Sylvain

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 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! 18:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Shearer

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 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! 18:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Shand Jr.

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 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! 18:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of snooker records and statistics

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

Fails

WP:NOTSTATS. We don't just post records in a list like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete badly written/formatted and vastly indiscriminate all-
WP:TRIVIA article. Dronebogus (talk) 05:32, 13 December 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! 18:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sokpoly Voeun

Sokpoly Voeun (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 filmmaker and producer. At most, subject must meet

WP:RS Jamiebuba (talk) 18:59, 12 December 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 redirect to List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Cub

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

I have found three references - all single paragraphs - to this in old motoring books. One says that it had a top speed of 15 mph, was made of plywood and few sold. This doesn't sound like a notable American car, given the page itself says that little is known about it. JMWt (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting an argument, referencing an encyclopedia is hardly ideal for another encyclopedia. There are references in various books, I'm not disagreeing there. It seems highly likely to me that these reference each other, given the information is often the same. In total, I think there's a paragraph of information at best, and if we take the oldest reference as the likely origin of the information in the others, that seems to me to be a passing reference which is simply repeated in the others. I can't even be sure that this wasn't a hoax or a joke that was just taken seriously by other later sources. JMWt (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect seems ok as well. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be ok.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Auto Cub is the model, Randall Products was the manufacturer, so I think this is not a good redirect target. CT55555(talk) 04:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see Randall Products included in the list (though a "Randall" from 1902-1903 is included). I don't support a redirect to the list when the target isn't mentioned in any capacity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A 'mention' is exactly right. Unless I'm missing something, it is an article about a different vehicle that literally only uses the words once in passing. There may be dozens of references, I'm doubting that any of them amount to more than a paragraph. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, if a suitable target can be found. Coverage is not suitably in-depth to meet
    WP:SIGCOV. I'm happy to reconsider if extra sources are discovered. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I support a redirect to List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States, as suggested by Bruxton. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - despite the improvements, simply just not enough sigcov to pass notability criteria. Although I agree that a redirect would be suitable if a proper one can be found. I even looked to see if there was enough sourcing for Randall Products, to see if an article could be made for the company, and this content merged to it, but couldn't find enough on Books, Newspapers.com, Google, etc. Onel5969 TT me 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 I can't fight the opinions of the many. But perhaps a good redirect target is List of defunct automobile manufacturers of the United States since the vehicle is listed there. I have also pinged the other participants here including the nominator. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 15 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Kingdoms

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

Seems like a non-notable card game. Other than a single paragraph review on a gaming site, I can't find much. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 12 December 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 merge to Hockey Night in Canada#Finding a new theme: Canada's Hockey Anthem Challenge. Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Scores

Hockey Scores (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 about a song, not making any strong claim to passing

ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotivity

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

No notability or useful sources to speak of. Robincantin (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is basically a DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that this is more appropriate for Wiktionary. There's not enough discussion of the concept to make it any more than a short definition. Epa101 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Environment. Skynxnex (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief
WP:TRIVIAL), so I think this should be deleted. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:16, 12 December 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 14:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrofits of Chuck E. Cheese animatronics

Retrofits of Chuck E. Cheese animatronics (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)

A

Fram (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Does not seem notable Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to acknowledge that this is an interesting read but the sourcing is not up to par. You play to win the game (talk) 15:14, 12 December 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 14:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sohrab MJ

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)

Zero independent coverage. Fails

WP:ATD as Sohrab MJ is not mentioned in any of the sources) was reverted by article creator, so here we are. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ddb5n/how-hip-hop-connected-the-iranian-diaspora-and-taught-me-to-swear-in-farsi Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/zedbazi/402049982 No No Not a published source No ✘ No
https://www.radiojavan.com/videos/video/zedbazi-documentary No No Anyone can upload a video here No ✘ No
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/iran-rap-i-farsi-021-music-tehran-490762.html Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-s-illegal-rappers-want-cultural-revolution-774943.html Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Rebels-of-rap-reign-in-Iran-3287827.php Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ddb5n/how-hip-hop-connected-the-iranian-diaspora-and-taught-me-to-swear-in-farsi Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8123046/Why-Iran-is-cracking-down-on-rap-music.html Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://brill.com/view/journals/jps/1/1/article-p102_6.xml Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://music.apple.com/us/artist/zedbazi/402049982 No No No As per ref #2 ✘ No
https://www.radiojavan.com/videos/video/zedbazi-documentary No No No As per ref #3 ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how can we use sources if the person isn't even mentioned in them? That's basic wikipedia, you use sources about the person. Sigh. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source review above. You play to win the game (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are credible sources in the wikifa article (several state media call him "renowned rapper"123). Honestly seems like a douche bag, albeit a notable one.Nightdevil (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable at all if those are the best sources. I've had to rescue the links through Internet Archive, as they were dead, but the coverage is nothing more than merely saying that he turned up to a memorial and then an extremely brief quote from him. No detail at all to build a biography from. At best, this is a redirect to Zedbazi. At best. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 13 December 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 redirect to Zedbazi. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza JJ

AfDs for this article:
Alireza JJ (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)

Following the previous AfD, this was redirected to Zedbazi. Vice mentions Alireza JJ but it's only really in the context of being a member of the band. I can't see any reason why this person needs to have a separate Wikipedia article. There have been attempts by User:Materialscientist, User:Onel5969 and me to restore the redirect from the previous AfD but this has been contested multiple times.

I am happy with deletion or restoring the redirect from the previous AfD a few years ago. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zedbazi per last AfD. Does not meet SIGCOV/Notability standards. You play to win the game (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zedbazi per last AfD. Then salt to prevent recreation without admin approval. Fails GNG.Onel5969 TT me 16:05, 12 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RadPHP

RadPHP (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

ping me!) 09:46, 12 December 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! 08:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aakanksha Bhargava

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. References are Interviews and passing mentions. Tictictoc (talk) 09:03, 12 December 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 Speedy keep, request withdrawn. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Humble

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

Fails

WP:GNG. zoglophie 08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep extremely sorry, this person passes GNG as he won the Commonwealth games medal. This is clear mistake from my part. I request to close this afd. zoglophie 08:52, 12 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Corrigan

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

I am not seeing what makes this fictional character meet

WP:BEFORE does not show the character receiving any attention from scholars, all we have is a tabloid here and there, mostly about the actress, with a bit of plot summary. If someone is a fan of the show, they could consider copying content to https://doctors.fandom.com/wiki/Michelle_Corrigan Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 12 December 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! 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bury

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

Fails

WP:GNG. zoglophie 08:03, 12 December 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 Speedy keep, request withdrawn. zoglophie 18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Boesiger

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 competed at Olympics, but no medal. Fails

WP:GNG. zoglophie 07:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Malo95: article appears to meet notability per the sources you mentioned. I should have searched some non English stuff about him. I will improve the article. zoglophie 17:42, 12 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Agusriadi Wijaya Amphie

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. zoglophie 07:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 15:35, 17 December 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison High School

Garrison High School (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)

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, not notable, merge or redirect to Garrison ISD. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - With the sources Grandmere Eugene added to the article, the subject meets both
    WP:NSCHOOL. - Aoidh (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Leaning towards a merge. I don't find the added sources particularly convincing. The most substantial one is this, which as far as I can tell is a self-published family history (perhaps I'm misreading). It might be good enough for verifiability, but doesn't carry far for GNG. The others are routine local news announcements, this source which doesn't seem to say anything of substance about the subject, and an unpublished master's thesis. Having a hard time seeing why we couldn't cover it in the district article, but not feeling strongly enough for a boldtext !vote. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To meet GNG, "routine local news" sources count toward notability. According to
    WP:NORG
    ,

    The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose 'with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.

    Non-profit schools are not required to meet
    WP:GNG, where the requirement for significant coverage is

    Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

    — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Has been substantially improved since the nomination.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources added.
    talk) 02:01, 14 December 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. I found the comments of editors arguing that there is a lack of

WP:SIGCOV more persuasive than those advocating Keeping the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Aindrila Sharma

Aindrila Sharma (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 fails

WP:SIGCOV. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 15:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi All. She has television shows and movies in Bengali,being a major regional language to her credit. There are many actors not with much notable contributions who has articles in Wikipedia. I feel she really deserve a space in Wikipedia due to her contribution in Bengali cinema and as a figher to a major disease. However will respect the decision of majority. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur, we all know that she needs that kind of space but the article is only with her death references. I think it would be greater if infobox and her birth or works related references would be added. Then, the article may be applicable. 卂卄卩talk 15:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
WP:NACTOR get satisfied, this article can be stable and will not be deleted. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi TheChunky. Thanks for your reply.I thought of adding some content and references later. However will do so now to make it more suited to Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Times of India, Indian Express, Hindustan Times [10] are the sources. Meets WP:NACTRESS per having roles in TV shows and having accolades. First, there are sources before death of the actress: [11] [12] [13]. Second, significant coverage does not need to be multiple times, which was demonstrated numerous times in different discussion. Considering that The Times of India write about her, I don't think that nomination is justified. I suggest somebody close it.
    talk) 20:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: First of all, as you said, she is covered multiple times, but I didn't find she was significantly covered except when she died. Before her death, most of the articles made passing mention of her and the Times of India article was about her while fighting cancer. That can't make sense for someone fighting cancer to be notable on Wiki. There are thousands of people who are fighting, and their stories are published in the news. She was covered at the time of her death, so she falls under
WP:SIGCOV. And you said significant coverage does not need to be multiple times, which is not true, but yes, it doesn't require that each event about her needs to be deeply covered, but passing mention doesn't make sense if she is covered multiple times but there are just passing mentions, except for 1 or 2 news coverages.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 02:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"She was covered at the time of her death, so she falls under WP:BIO1E which makes questions in her notability. " - no, she doesn't. There was a coverage prior death, that alone negates one event argument, and also she had roles and was notable for being actress. "And you said significant coverage does not need to be multiple times, which is not true" - this was debated numerous times, there are plenty articles based on obits only, for actors for instance. There are not 1 or 2 news coverage. There are plenty of articles on The Times of India and Hindustan Times alone. The articles are from 2021 and 2022, clearly one event is not applicable here.
talk) 12:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here. It would help to hear input from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've looked at the presented sourcing and performed a reasonable BEFORE and the only significant material about the subject covers her health issues and death. Her brief career as an actor doesn't seem to be well covered in RS. Her death does not by itself seem notable per NEVENT. Sad but not notable. An article exists on Bengali wikipedia so the subject is not without coverage. If after three relists, this is all that's been found? Delete. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 15 December 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 redirect to Abahlali baseMjondolo. I'm guessing that this is the redirect participants were thinking of since no one here specified a particular target article despite my request to identify a target page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abahlali baseMjondolo (membership & structures)

Abahlali baseMjondolo (membership & structures) (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)

Deprodded without actually addressing the concern which was "this page seems redundant given that there is a full page on the organisation"

Delete or redirect at the very least Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make into redirect and merge The article in short enough, no need for another article that can be a section.
ping me when replying) 09:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please specify the redirect or merge target you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, per above; no indication that this topic is separately notable from the main article and the volume of content does not seem to warrant a spinout page. jp×g 06:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re "Deprodded without actually addressing the concern" - well I did say "needs fuller discussion given most of page was deleted last year" when deprodding it Mujinga (talk) 11:06, 15 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Anastasia Karakatsani

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

Fails

WP:NTRACK. her best achievement is in a Under 23 event. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 12 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mühlacker Water Tower

Mühlacker Water Tower (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)

Seemingly

WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Seriously?
  1. The the source you added supports that some guy had a heart attack there and it was tough to evacuate him. That hardly makes the tower notable.
  2. Literature? It's mentioned in a book that seems to be a catalog of water towers in Baden-Württemberg. What does this book say about this tower that makes it pass
    WP:NOTABILITY? Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 12 December 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 merge to Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology. As an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers (Dickson)

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

Fails

WP:BKCRIT. Also no results in google or news `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 00:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Why? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Did you see the bit where it's from 49 years ago? Do you have a CSD criterion in mind that really applies to this, or do you want to refactor? Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting an old book is still promotion, copyright for it lasts until 2071 and I'm sure someone is trying tos ell it.. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Xx78900 (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDNOTAVOTE Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Those are more about the author than this book. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge to Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology - I can't really see a reason why we need individual pages for short stories from an anthology. The WP page for the anthology is not long, it could give a brief synopsis of the stories there. Unless the story itself is notable, there is no reason to keep this page, and I can't find anything to suggest it is. JMWt (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A better target for a merge/redirect might be Childe Cycle, since this story is part of that series. Joyous! | Talk 17:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this story meets GNG. Of the sources offered, none have more than a brief mention of the story. For books or stories to meet GNG they have to get much more press. Lamona (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gordon R. Dickson or Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology (or Childe Cycle, but that article is very bad and could be deleted if not improved). Even if this is notable (sources User:Jclemens seem decent, each has a paragraph with some analysis of the story), it cannot be kept in this sorry state (pure plot summary, no refs). Ping me is someone takes a stab at making a reception section and I'll reconsider my vote. Note that I object to outright deletion, this has a potential to be rescued, and the existing content may likely be useful as a plot summary section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either G11 as above, or regular delete as it doesn't meet GNG. No reviews found, no critical discussion of the work. I don't see any mention of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:NBOOK, but a long synopsis is not unambiguous promotion, and the other short description appears to be neutral and factual enough IMO: "Brothers" is a science fiction short story by American writer Gordon R. Dickson. It was first published in Astounding: The John W Campbell Memorial Anthology. The story is part of the incomplete Dorsai cycle. If it's possible can you tell me which line you think is spam? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect/Merge to
    WP:ATD. I would disagree with a G11, this is an article that is entirely a synopsis, which is not ideal, but I just don't see what's unambiguously promotional here, it's an obscure book that's been on Wikipedia since 2007 and not really improved, but there's little IMO that is exclusively promotional. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 14 December 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 redirect to List of Test cricket umpires. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Copeland (umpire)

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

Fails

WP:BIO, no significant coverage. Unremarkable umpiring career only umpired 1 Men's Test and 1 Men's ODI. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 12 December 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. There was a lot of debate about how to interpret

routine matters. A few participants supported merging to Pike Place Market as an alternative to deletion, but they were not able to build a consensus for that. RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

AfDs for this article:
Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (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)

Brochure advertising article for generic doughnut shop. Fails

WP:DEL14 scope_creepTalk 03:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@Scope creep:I'd suggest striking "admin" from the above as it is not relevant to the source analysis, which should stand or fall on its own merits. Jahaza (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to say but I did not expect for this to happen when I nominated this article for DYK. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! EEng 20:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am partly to blame for 'poking the bear' KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It's all your fault. Off with his head! EEng 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Off with his head!
Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
The Greatest Places to Eat in Seattle’s Greatest Tourist Trap Eater Jun 5, 2019 Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: The promise of hot mini doughnuts means a constant queue at Daily Dozen Doughnut Company in the Economy Market. It’s fun to watch the little pale blobs float along a river of hot oil in the automatic Donut Robot fryer, two by two — getting flipped halfway down the line — until they’re golden brown on both sides. Sharing a brown paper bag of sprinkle-topped or powdered sugar doughnuts with someone is cool, especially if the doughnuts are hot.

Per

WP:CORPDEPTH, this is an example of trivial coverage
, i.e. inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of"

✘ No
Seattle's Best Donut Shops Thrillist Feb 8, 2016 Yes Yes No one of a list, entry reading in its entirety: All day long inside a tiny stall in the heart of the always-teeming Pike Place Market miniature rings of dough are plucked from a bath of hot oil by an aging Donut Robot (Mark II!) and served almost immediately, still hot and deliciously greasy. Sure, they only come in four flavors -- plain, tossed in sugar or cinnamon, and chocolate-sprinkled -- but they are so good you'll want at least... wait for it... a dozen!

Per

WP:CORPDEPTH, this is an example of trivial coverage
, i.e. inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of"

✘ No
Delightful Doughnuts in the Seattle Area Eater Seattle Sep 23, 2022 Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: Right in the center of Pike Place Market is the iconic Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, slinger of mini doughnuts fresh out of the onsite fryer. Market shoppers lured by the ubiquitous smells of fried, sugary dough form long lines to wait for a bag of these doughnuts. Grab a half or full dozen of powdered, plain or rotating seasonal specials while they’re hot.

Per

WP:CORPDEPTH, this is an example of trivial coverage
, i.e. inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of"

✘ No
Fodor's Seattle [16] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: If you're visiting Pikes Place Market, Daily Dozen Donuts has adorable, made-while-you-watch minidonuts dusted in powdered sugar.
 • Comment by EEng: (This one's especially interesting because it doesn't even suggest you go out of your way, but if you happen to be visiting Pikes Place anyway, well then sure, since you're already there...) 		✘ No
Hole-y-grail: A taste of Seattle’s best doughnut shops, Sunset Sept 22, 2004 Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: Owner Barbara Elza started making doughnuts at this lively stand in Pike Place Market 15 years ago, and she fell in love with the job. “It’s a big family here,” she says. “We know how to have fun.” Locals and visitors have a great time watching the “Donut Robot” ― a machine invented in the 1930s―turn out fresh, hot miniature doughnuts in plain, sugar, and cinnamon-sugar. The frosted “fancies” tend to disappear quickly. “Kids are stronger than you think,” Elza says. “They can really muscle their way to the front.”

Per

WP:CORPDEPTH, this is an example of trivial coverage
, i.e. inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of"

✘ No
Serious Eats [17] by Ed Levine Yes Yes ? Reads in its entirety: While much of Seattle may have a soft spot for Top Pot Doughnuts, with locations all over the city, we prefer this little Pike Place Market stall. Sure, you can get fresh doughtnuts at plenty of shops --- but at Daily Dozen, mini doughnuts are actually plucked from the Donut Robot II conveyor belt. (That may mean a little more oil, but we won't complain.) Tossed into a brown paper bag with sugar, sprinkles, or cinnamon,, they're handed over the counter. They're so hot that when you bite one open, steam pours from its interior. Moist, squishy, crunchy with sugar -- the little guys tend to disappear before you've even walked to the next stall. (Skip the frosted ones. Straight up sugar is where it's at.
 • checkYuser:Cielquiparle Context of this paragraph: Inclusion in the chapter "A Half Dozen Donuts We Love" about 6 of the best doughnuts nationwide. Listed second (which may or may not be a rank, but it's prominent). Each of the six companies gets one sizeable paragraph. This one is 8 sentences long and includes a detailed description. Facts we learn:
  • *One popular competitor in Seattle is Top Pot Doughnuts, a chain, but Serious Eats prefers Daily Dozen
  • *DD's differentiators include the fact that its doughnuts are "mini" and plucked from a Donut Robot conveyor belt
  • *Its process may result in a little more oil
  • *Mini doughnuts are tossed in a brown paper bag with sugar, sprinkles, or cinnamon
  • *Mini doughnuts are served so hot that steam rises when you bite in
  • *Texture is "moist, squishy, crunchy with sugar"
  • *Not uncommon to end up eating them before you walk to next stall
  • *Serious Eats recommends sugar-covered mini doughnuts over the frosted ones
    EEng not approved: So laughable as a proposed source of notability that words fail.

    Note: Notable author Ed Levine
 ? Unknown
A market full of fresh experiences, Vancouver Sun Sept 16, 1997 Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: It's home to such venerable establishments as the Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., where owner Barbara Elza processes 16 kilograms of flour daily in her doughnut robot. Children crowd round Elza's booth to watch as the tiny doughnuts travel along an oily road in rows of four before plopping down at their destinations -- a tin display plate. ✘ No
Seattle's best doughnuts, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Apr 11, 2016 Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: The famous Pike Place Market post is a family affair that serves up miniature doughnuts to countless tourists and the locals who know to flock to this gem. ✘ No
The Stranger Yes AGF Yes AGF No Reads in its entirety: To mark to occasion, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company is giving away free doughnuts and hot beverages to the first 115 people who stop by their special tent in Pike Place Market on Wednesday, August 17. ✘ No
Seattle Weekly Yes AGF Yes AGF No Reads in its entirety: In such a paradise, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company in Pike Place Market (93 Pike Place, 467-7769) would be trumpeted as the essential snack of the Emerald City. The hot, freshly made little gems are so deceptively nonthreatening and bite-sized that you tend to eat them like popcorn, which, in the ugly real world, can be the cause of a disturbing revelation when you look down into your paper bag and realize you’ve mowed your way through 12 doughnuts without so much as a burp. Powdered, chocolate-iced, sprinkled, or—our favorite—plain and golden, the goodies are a steal at a couple of bucks per dozen. But don’t say we didn’t warn you. ✘ No
Bon Appétit america-s-best-donuts-part-2 by Andrew Knowlton Yes Yes No one item in a list so long it was created in two parts Not on the list of best donuts, rather a subsequent list of 57 donut shops one or more readers wrote in about, angry their favorite shop wasn't on the first list.

Note: Notable author Andrew Knowlton 		✘ No
Pike Place Market Recipes [18] Yes AGF Yes AGF No Two isolated bare mentions reading: If there's one pervasive morning smell in the Pike Place Market, it's cinnamon. The Daily Dozen Doughnut Company douses hot miniature fried orbs with cinnamon sugar, to the pure thrill of kids and adults alike and After a bite (or six) at Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, the Economy Market stall that churns out piping-hot cinnamon-sugar mini doughnuts all morning, you'll get a quick tour of MarketSpice ... ✘ No
Report: Microsoft, Boeing stash money offshore to dodge tax bills, KOMO-TV Feb 6, 2013 Yes Yes No really not even a bare mention, just identifying shop owner commenting on a completely different topic: "This is cheating. When you misrepresent yourself, you're cheating," said Barbara Elza, owner of Daily Dozen Donut Company, a Pike Place Market mainstay for nearly 30 years. "I don't even have enough to meet my expenses this month, let alone stash something offshore."
 • Side comment by EEng: Putting this source in the article is cheating. When you misrepresent a source like this, as if it has anything at all to do with the subject of the article, it's cheating. 		✘ No
The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin [19] Yes Yes No Page 72 reads in its entirety: "In Seattle’s Pike Place Market, a tiny donut stand called Daily Dozen sells the freshest donuts you may ever buy.They drop down in a continuous stream from a Belshaw model little bigger than a toaster oven. They’re hot, greasy, and addictive."Page X adds this comment which seems more authentic: "check out the warm-from-the-fryer mini donuts sold at a little stand in the Pike Place Market (a little overhyped I decided after eating a half dozen of the plain and three or four of the bacon-topped variety"). ✘ No
Food Lovers Guide to Seattle by Laurie Wolf Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: A doughnut shop that has been around for over 20 years and still has a line almost all day long, the charm of this place is in its simplicity: fresh, hot mini doughnuts served in a brown paper bag, heating the roof of your mouth on a chilly day, the aroma taunting you as you wait in line. The doughnuts come in dozens or half dozens. The flavors are plain, powdered, cinnamon, or sprinkled (chocolate fudge with sprinkles). The powdered sugar and sprinkled come cold, but the other two come hot.

Note: Notable author Laurie Wolf 		✘ No
100 Things to Do in Seattle Before You Die [20] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: And don't forget to indulge snacky sweet cravings on the way out with minidonuts from the Daily Dozen Donut Company. But they're fun-sized, so go crazy with at least a half dozen. Better yet, make it a dozen, because when they're made in front of you, self-deprivation loses. And, they're cheap! ✘ No
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Have you tried all 26 of these iconic Seattle bites? [21] Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: USA Today mentioned this place as a foodie stop in the Pike Place Market, affirming that hot doughnuts in a paper sack are sublime. ✘ No
Thrillist Daily Dozen Doughnut Co Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: Perfectly fried-up and crispy, the mini donuts at Daily Dozen are a famous staple of Pike Place Market and ensure you'll be anything but mini after you've made them part of your morning routine. ✘ No
Where to Get Some Delightful Doughnuts for Takeout in the Seattle Area Eater Seattle Jul 8, 2020 Yes Yes No Reads in its entirety: When one just won’t do, it’s easy enough to nab a whole sack of hot mini doughnuts pulled from bubbling oil by a vintage Doughnut Robot at this famous Pike Place Market stall. ✘ No
Our flag at the Market: Doughnut vendor ruffles feathers displaying pride banner Seattle Gay News Oct 26, 2012 Yes Yes ?  • Comment by EEng: Completely disagree that this is sigcov, which requires that sources address the topic directly and in detail. The only thing this article says about the subject of this article is: For 23 years Barbara Eliza has been serving up warm donuts at Seattle's biggest, busiest tourist spot, Pike Place Market. Her business, the Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, caters to locals and visitors alike, as well as other market vendors who open in the early morning. Period. Everything else is details of the flag dispute. If there was more coverage of the dispute, then it might be notable, but even then that doesn't make the firm notable 'cause, ya know,
WP:NCORP
). The flag dispute *is* the story! Yes, we need to discount Elza's quotes (direct/indirect), but in addition to that, the Seattle Gay News includes its own reporting on the controversy, based on fact-finding and sources including neighboring businesses and the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority, which lend additional perspective to the controversy (which was also covered by The Stranger, in this case both a primary and a secondary source).)
EEng says: Unfortunate that you invoked NCORP, which specifically lists, under Examples of trivial coverage, coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies. Oh well, try again. 		? Unknown
The heart of Seattle: Pike Place Market brims with great food options Chicago Tribune, Aug 4 2013 Yes Yes ? Reads in its entirety: You'll see many cameras pointing through the foggy glass here. They're all trained on the "doughtnut robot", a mesmerizing contraption that plots rings of batter into the oil. Watch as the batter morphs into doughnuts as travels down the oil river like the Jungle Cruise at Disneyland, flipped once, and again a minute later, golden and bulbous onto cooling racks If you get a batch of these mini doughnuts hot from the fryer, dusted with cinnamon sugar, bite in immediately and experience an act defying physical law -- fried dough collapsing unto itself, into nothing.
 • checkYuser:bluerasberry approved
 • User:EEng not approved -- the idea that this description of a machine found in every donut shop in the world constitutes significant coverage of this particular shop that owns one is preposterous
 • checkY user:Cielquiparle approved
Strongly disagree with EEng. I will add this to the article now, but the point is, a key argument for notability is precisely this: That Daily Dozen Doughnut Company is one of the key examples of the classic early model Donut Machines, per at least two of the donut-focused books.
EEng still not approved, and it's always amusing when sources are preposterously misrepresented It's not a "classic early model donut machine", but merely (as already mentioned) the manufacturer's current bestseller [22], and there's nothing to indicate that Daily Dozen is some "key example" -- above (as already mentioned) is the entirety of what the source says about the company. 		? Unknown
Donuts by John T. Edge, pp. 30–35 Yes Yes ?  •
checkY from Cielquiparle. Chapter 3, "Man and Machine", ~6 pages mostly focusing on Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as a key example of the Donut Robot Mark II from Belshaw ("an American icon") in action, that is not being used in a prison. Also includes a description of a key employee.
 • Above strained hyperbole thoroughly demolished below at #edge. 		? Unknown
Pike Market merchants have theatrical flair The Gazette, co-author Monique Polak Yes Yes No The part focused on Daily Dozen: Originally the stable for farmers horses, the Economy Market Building earned its name because it was the discount or day-old section of the market. Today, it's home to such venerable establishments as the Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., where owner Barbara Elza processes 35 pounds of flour daily in her doughnut robot. Children crowd round Elza's booth to watch as the tiny doughnuts travel along an oily road in rows of four before plopping down at their destination - a tin display plate. This is not
WP:CORPDEPTH.

Note: Notable co-author Monique Polak

Per

WP:CORPDEPTH
, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent.

✘ No
No Pride At Pike Place Market The Stranger Blogs (Jun 24, 2009) Yes AGF Yes AGF No This 5-graf blog post is trivial coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies. ✘ No
Doughnuts + Punks = Love The Stranger (Feb 7, 2008) Yes AGF Yes AGF No There is a graf with a brief description of the donuts, a graf briefly mentioning employee hygiene, and 3 grafs focused on one employee (e.g. "The object of my affection, more so than the doughnuts, is a punk."). Per
WP:CORPDEPTH, this appears more focused on trivial coverage
of the upcoming departure of personnel, (e.g. "When spring hits Seattle, J-Sin will be one step closer to attaining his dream, and I'll be out of a seven-year crush") without significant coverage of the company. 		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • I'll vote keep again (disclaimer: article creator). In my opinion, there's enough coverage in a variety of reputable publications to draft an entry about the business and its history, operations, and public reception. I'm a bit surprised a couple editors seem so determined to delete this article, which doesn't seem particularly harmful or problematic, but that's fine. Coverage spans 20+ years in notable publications, which are similar to those I've used for the dozens of other restaurant entries I've promoted to GA status. (shrugs) ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note, SounderBruce identified a couple additional Seattle Post-Intelligencer articles which could be added, including one which confirms the name of a former owner not currently mentioned. Editors might want to search the Seattle Times archives (I don't have a subscription), and I wouldn't be surprised if time spent in libraries would yield more book returns. I scrambled to expand this article because of the first deletion nomination, so no doubt there's more sources to fold into the mix. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The P-I sources mentioned are not focused on the stand in particular, so they would not satisfy the significant coverage criteria of GNG. SounderBruce 05:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming. I guess my point is there are other sources which don't appear in this table. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the article isn't harmful. But we have policies around what is considered notable enough for inclusion. Not everything that is mentioned in notable publications is itself notable. When I look at restaurants, I look for coverage outside the local area and outside of industry-niche publications. This doesn't seem to have any at all that isn't simply as a mention on lists, some of which include 50 entries and not even any accompanying text. A restaurant that is locally notable isn't necessarily a notable restaurant. Food sections of any major daily revue hundreds of local restaurants every year. A New York City restaurant being reviewed in the New York Times does not make that restaurant notable. I want to see it reviewed in the Chicago Tribune. Valereee (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee I like the Serious Eats book review precisely for this reason. It includes Daily Dozen Doughnut Company as one of only six doughnuts in a chapter on donuts nationwide. Another key difference in our approaches, though, which possibly cannot be reconciled, is that you are looking at this as an expert in restaurant coverage, whereas I am looking at this from the standpoint of whether or not this organization is also a notable part of local history or even industry history. To me, it is, and the article should be kept for that reason. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 05:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I look at Valereee's very useful source analysis and if that's all there is, this fails GNG by quite some margin as SIGCOV just isn't there. Sorry. Schwede66 06:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said above, this table may assess the currently used sources but does not assess all available coverage. User:Valereee, User:EEng, what about this source? Could we say more about the "donut robot" based on this source? What about this list and this list? What about all the other book and magazine sources I/we can't necessarily preview via Google Books? My point is, unless editors are updating the table they may be reviewing an incomplete assessment in passing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For me the donuts book mention is about Jason and the machine. (The Donut Robot might actually be notable.) The Seattle Met source is again local coverage, and even that's again a single paragraph in a long list of similar mentions. The Thrillist is a list of 50 with a sentence about the shop and one about the robot. Valereee (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you at least mark the source assessment above as incomplete somehow? Feels disingenuous to have editors think this is ALL coverage. Clearly there are other sources not included. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I included all the sources you offered, and you'd said you'd made an exhaustive search. You can totally update the table with anything you find, that table doesn't belong to me and should be considered editable by anyone.
    The table is labelled "This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor." Valereee (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement then was re: pre-1989 history, and clearly there are many more sources to be considered. I've identified several, none of which are reflected in the table. Until someone's searched newspaper archives, online databases, library books, etc, this feels like a rush to delete an entry which is not egregiously problematic. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But, AB, can I flip that around to the other side of the same coin? Why the rush to move to article space before finding the sources that could prove notability? Valereee (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I created an article about what I figure is a notable topic. Someone nominated the article for deletion, so I had to scramble to flesh out the entry. Since then, the article has been promoted to Good article status. Now we're back at AfD. The only rush on my part was the rescue during first AfD. I'm not determined to force this entry down Wikipedia's throat. This is one of those close calls re: notability and I have no problem with the community assessing whether or not the page should be kept. All I'm trying to do is insist we assess all secondary coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize there were two different source assessment tables! I have now ported my comments from the other source table over to this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Now there's just one incomplete table for editors to review. :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, the sources breakdown above is pretty comprehensive. I checked Google Books but it seems like mostly passing mentions in food or travel guides there. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just for completion, the missing source The Donut: History, Recipes, and Lore from Boston to Berlin in Valereee and EEng’s source review reads In Seattle’s Pike Place Market, a tiny donut stand called Daily Dozen sells the freshest donuts you may ever buy.They drop down in a continuous stream from a Belshaw model little bigger than a toaster oven. They’re hot, greasy, and addictive. p. 72 Umimmak (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Umimmak, and that's the entire mention? Valereee (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: yeah it’s within a larger paragraph on Belshaw; these are the only sentences on Daily Dozen. I checked the index and Ctrl+F’d the ebook as well. Umimmak (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another reference has been added to the article [23] for this clickbait site Advertise with us. The reference is not-independent and fails
    WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You're saying Thrillist cannot be used on Wikipedia? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that its clickbait site with very strong links to social media, that can only exist via the online advertising dollar. The Daily Dozen Doughnut Company has paid them to advertise, so the reference is not independent, more so its not significant. In both cases its fails the notability criteria of
WP:NCORP. You might say something like "that you don't know for sure that they have paid", but nothing that on that site is self-generated. It is not a generator of textual content, like we are for example, or substack for example. Everything on that site has been paid, all of it. It is advertising platform, first and foremost to offer a service to those who want reach a mass audience. It very very light-weight content for those want to find somewhere quick to get some eats. scope_creepTalk 14:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Uh, ok? Sheesh, so much hostility for something as simple as "Naomi Tomky also included Daily Dozen in Thrillist's 2016 list of the 50 'best things to eat and drink' at Pike Place Market". (shrug) Unless you can point to where Thrillist has been deemed inappropriate for Wikipedia, I say keep the text/ref in the entry. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hostile, truly. I do a lot of these types of Afds and they tend to be the same kind of thing. I'm interested in a honest discussion. The refs are very poor, transient types with no real intellectual depth. The source table shows that. The article will be either kept by a mountain of keep votes with no interest in examaning the coverage or it will an intellectual discussion of the coverage and what it means and it will be deleted or possibly kept because they're is genuine coverage. That is what I'm aiming for. scope_creepTalk 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Well, this discussion will be most honest when the source assessment actually represents all sources used in the article as well as those which are not currently used in the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many doughnut stands in the world have "intellectually deep" (???) coverage? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AB, if you have sources that aren't used, use them and add them to the table. But honestly, why would you use sources that don't support notability and leave those that do out of the article? Valereee (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is been a concerted effort to add sources to the article since the last Afd, which has resulted in the source assessment table growing substantially, its now about three times the orginal size, yet there is still no decent coverage. scope_creepTalk 15:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is said 3-fold expansion? There's a source assessment above, and anther on the article's talk page, but I don't see any 3x expansion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I missed this. From the previous Afd. The table is now three times the size. It could be four times the size if I added those non-rs refs that you have added to the article. scope_creepTalk 10:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, could be much larger if the table assessed the other half of the sources used in the article. Never mind all the citations with inaccessible URLs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads as a polished up advertisement with loads of quotes to hide the actual lack of content. The Banner talk 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve the article's text or identify problematic quotes on the article's talk page. You've commented on the entry's text, but what say you about the amount of secondary coverage the topic has received? This is AfD after all. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is beyond rescue. And yes, there is not enough in-depth secondary coverage. The Banner talk 16:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this article is beyond rescue? You've done an exhaustive search of missing sources? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) My reasons are stated above. 2) Why should I do an "exhaustive search of missing sources"? You should have done that when writing the article. The Banner talk 17:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. The purpose of AfD is to determine if a topic has been discussed enough in secondary sourcing. If all we're doing is assessing the currently used sources, we're not doing a complete assessment. You can imply I've done wrong here but this article's already survived an AfD discussion so clearly I've not been alone in my thinking. Listen, this is a chance for the community to have a serious discussion about notability of this topic. I have no problem with this process. But if editors aren't willing to do an exhaustive search of missing sources then we're doing a disservice to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why should others do the research that you were supposed to do before writing the article? Effectively, you are now criticising your own work. The Banner talk 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think asking for a complete source assessment is an unfair ask at AfD. Also, I'm doing lots of research. I've expanded the article further. I've shared more sources on the article's talk page. I've noted the source assessment table is not complete. I don't see how any of this is criticizing my own work. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also
WP:CONTN KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak Keep for the simple fact that it was a DYK article. That has to count for something towards notability; otherwise, why make an article and get it upgraded to DYK if it's only going to get deleted. The author has to submit the article for DYK and has to make changes that various other editors suggest to make it DYK-ready. It's a frustrating process I've done myself a few times. I'm on the other side of the fence now, looking at deleting it. If we're going to keep doing this, we should really look at GNG criteria when the DYK nomination comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to add "Keep -- It appeared on DYK" to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. EEng 16:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, it's not "a DYK article". In fact it's because it was nominated at DYK that we ended up here. Someone during the review process raised the question of notability.
But even if it had appeared, why would that matter w/re notability? Neither DYK nor GA assess an article's notability. Even FA doesn't, but it would be highly unlikely anyone could write an FA without significant coverage. This seems like you're saying, "You can bulletproof your article from being AfD'd by nominating it for DYK". Valereee (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more to express frustration in Wikipedia policies, which isn't really what's being discussed here I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we're in agreement that your keep !vote is contrary to policy. EEng 19:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one policy, and it is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel like my request to evaluate all available coverage is falling on deaf ears. Does anyone have access to the Seattle Times archives? Does anyone mind searching databases similar to HighBeam Research, LexisNexis, etc? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the presented "significant coverage" table's assessment that single sentences are not significant coverage. When we are discussing complicated issues, then a single sentence is not significant coverage. In this case we are talking about a donut stand, and the global norm for media coverage of street snacks is that single sentence descriptions are rare. Of all the places in the world selling snacks, this place is 1 in a million for media coverage. This place is a counter with room for one single employee to stand and provide a few donuts at a time to a single customer. For what it is, the media coverage is extraordinary, as the world is full of shops like this which get zero media coverage. We do not need to compare this to the Wikipedia article on
    WP:SIGCOV - it is in prime tourist real estate, it has a weird donut robot, they serve unusual donuts in an unusual way, it has been operating for decades, and it is famous. This article passes GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
EEng 19:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of vendors at Pike Place Market, past and present. I can assure you some are more famous than others. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's true. It may also be true that none of them meets
WP:GNG. EEng 19:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
In theory, sure, but I'm confident some of the vendors are notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being confident some thing or things are notable, without having sources in hand to back that up, is why we're in this mess. EEng 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason those things are important is because reliable sources make them so by covering them significantly. It is outside the scope of Wikipedia editors to second-guess journalists for finding some things attention worthy and not others. Also, it is common sense to recognize that this particular donut shop is extraordinary among all the other ones in the world, as this one gets reviewed in many publications when others never do. This place is extraordinary and the sources establish that it is extraordinary. I confirm that you are accurately repeating the reasons why this shop is extraordinary, even if you personally seem unimpressed. I may be biased; I was in Seattle's competitive donut eating circuit for a few years and we were all crazy about this place. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
outside the scope of Wikipedia editors to second-guess journalists for finding some things attention worthy and not others – It's not whether journalists have given attention, but the level of attention that counts. For example, the many, many, many sources adduced fail, almost to a one, multiple of
WP:NCORP
's requirement that reviews...
Be significant: brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources. Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications.
You argument seems to come down to that we should keep this article as a gesture toward countering WP:Systemic bias against donut shops. EEng 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Yes, countering systemic bias against local culture is my argument. I do not know of such a thing existing in wiki policy, and I think it would be good to develop this donut shop as a case contributing to a general rule.
Here is what is unusual about this case:
  • I think this is a 1 in 1000 donut shop. There are 10-20,000 donut shops in the United States, and I feel this one is special.
  • Two sorts of evidence why this one is special - lots of sources about this one, absence of sources about others
  • The evidence that there is an absence of sources about the others is Category:Doughnut shops in the United States. I think everything in this category is a corporate chain with source coverage coming from their corporate PR machines. As you say, wiki has systemic bias against non-chains, because Daily Dozen Doughnuts is just a counter with room for one employee in the shop at a time.
  • We have sources for this shop. I confirm they are not all conventional
    WP:42
    with enough other conventional sources and there there are lots of sources which are short reviews.
  • About those short reviews - these are not routine travel or restaurant guide reviews covering all the places in a list, but directed personal reviews which chose this place while excluding the many other possible options. The reviews are not just local, but include profiles from cities far from Seattle, and also include several reviewers who themselves are notable by Wikipedia standards. The reason why Wikipedia does not have guidelines for recognizing such sources is that this is uncommon attention, uncommon reviews, for a 1 in 1000 situation
I think this donut shop would make a good test case for developing a 1 in 1000 rule for addressing systemic bias in general. The bias to counter is corporate marketing versus more natural journalism for remarkable local landmarks. Some possible rules for recognizing WP:RSs for "1 in 1000s" could be appearance in non list reviews (like we know there are 100 donut shops in Seattle, but this is the one that gets reviews, and the absence of reviews for other places is a factor in determining the RS), reviews by notable authors (notability is not inherited, but experts do have weight that unnamed freelance journalists do not), identification of bias in Wikipedia (here the category is entirely corporate, when this shop is independent), and someone making a case that a particular item is extraordinary (the existence of this article is not going to drive a flood of donut shop articles, because few are like this one).
Bluerasberry (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh I would love a 1 in 1000 rule! Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon and its subs have 451 articles and List of restaurants in Portland, Oregon lists 312 current ones. Tripadvisor suggests there are 2991 restaurants in the city, while this says Portland's metro has 24 restaurants per 10,000 households, which suggests about 2,000 restaurants. Hard to account for number of locations in a chain which TA counts separately, including national chains, and WP doesn't, but I don't think more than 1 in 10 dining establishments are notable. The real bias is suggesting that 1 out of 6 US restaurants is in Portland, and I don't think the solution is to make thousands more articles for the rest of the country based just on local listicles and routine local business coverage that lack the directed personal or wider-audience reviews like so many of these. Reywas92Talk 16:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, did you conclude there are 451 entries with or without duplicates? I understand and respect the point you're making, but many of the articles are in multiple Portland restaurant subcategories so your total might be slightly off if duplicates are being counted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources are reliable. Chicago Tribune is a small profile, and per long consensus doesn't meet
WP:SIRS. It is not signicant coverage. Changing the source table doesn't change that fact. scope_creepTalk 20:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
What are you talking about none of these sources are reliable? Can you please share where any of the sources used in the article have been deemed unreliable? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think scope_creep really means they're not significant. EEng 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care which way the AfD goes, but this !vote just makes me think we maybe don't need that many articles about donut shops. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD goes the way of the deletionists, then no donut shops would have any articles, save the likes of Dunkin' Donuts! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me that I wrote the Duck Donuts article a few years back. Good thing that's not been threatened with deletion KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit strange that you keep accusing other people of being deletionists, @Kingoflettuce. Your AfD stats show that for most of your delete votes, the result ended as keep. (But in fact your overall hit rate at AfD is less than 50%, so maybe it's just that you're not assessing notability very well in general.) Valereee (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol Valereee those are very skewed stats coz of a impetuous string of noms from 2016 (but just LOOK at the actual articles and tell me if we're comparing like with like here). Give me a break... It's a really a shame that you think dissecting a well-written article to DEATH and pulling out all the stats and blue-links in the world will actually make the encyclopedia a better place. No net good will come out of this AfD, and instead there'll just be lots of time wasted on both sides. Which is why I usually don't dabble in AfDs, it's a cesspool of teeth-gnashing wranglers. Congrats on deleting this article, hooray. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your hit rate from 2017 forward isn't much better. The article isn't deleted yet, and I don't take any joy in AfDing someone's good-faith work. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then so be it:
WP:N. Of course, you can always make a proposal for WP:NDONUTSHOP if you wish. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bluerasberry, one sentence just simply isn't sigcov, and unless that sentence provides some indication of cultural importance, it doesn't support notability. I get it; I write a lot about food and restaurants. It can be frustrating when you just know a place must be notable but you can't prove it to WP's satisfaction. This shop is definitely locally notable. I suspect in the end -- maybe not now, maybe later when someone can get to a library -- we'll be able to show that it's notable. But the only way I'd accept a single sentence as an indication of notability in the absence of sigcov is if some super reliable source was saying, "The Daily Dozen's donuts have traditionally been served at Seattle weddings and bar mitzvahs since 1970; the absence of these donuts is typically considered insulting to the guests." Or something like that. And in the case of a US food, it's exceedingly unlikely that something like that wouldn't have generated actual sigcov. We see that in the developing world, not in the US where food journalism and academic study is huge. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer this comment to your mentioning of "hit rates" as if that means anything. FWIW, I don't consider you a "D" (and didn't know it wuz pejorative, sorry, just thought it reflected obvious tendencies!) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Top Pot Doughnuts 2009 Eating Contest certificate
@Valereee: I agree with you about the mismatch between Daily Dozen Doughnuts and Wikipedia guidelines - our existing guidelines neither are designed to be inclusive of some of the sources about this donut shop, nor are they designed to discount or exclude the unusual sources that we have for this case. I make a case elsewhere in this discussion for Wikipedia to recognize "1 in 1000" items when the sources for such items exist and are not typical.
Thanks for trying to bring uniformity to Wikipedia articles on food and restaurants. Credentials do not carry so much influence in Wikipedia, but as a matter of personal attestation, I have experience in Seattle's gorging scene as demonstrated by the certificate here. Daily Dozen was not a place that needed to host eating competitions because so many people were already stuffing their faces with their donuts, and we fast eaters already knew that. My unpublished experience should not be an influence in Wikipedia directly, but indirectly, I can confirm that it is reasonable for anyone to look at the Daily Dozen reviews and find them meaningful, and also to observe the lack of reviews for other donut shops and to find that absence meaningful also. Wikipedia sometimes has trouble recognizing the significance of the absence of sources, and as a serious donut eater with local knowledge, I confirm that plausibly Daily Dozen is really getting more reviews than other places, and reviews for other places may not exist to be found. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage of times your !vote matches a reasonable outcome means a lot. There are times when a particular AfD doesn't get much attention, or that it is closed by an inexperienced closer who doesn't assess the !votes well, but unless those situations represent a majority of your AfD participation, matching the final outcome is what most people look at to determine whether you know what you're doing at AfD. Valereee (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this screams !VOTER SUPPRESSION KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to be patronised Valereee or have somone smugly insinuate that 'I don't know what I'm doing' based on some stats KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 11:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token....... Why isn't anyone mentioning AB's wonderful hit rate of 84%? Shouldn't he very clearly know what he's doing? Right, this must be a rare exception. It's rather silly, this whole 'hit rate' justification. Problem of induction, anyone? Let's just stick to talking about this article and its merits or lack thereof. There is absolutely no need to start invoking 'hit rates'...... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I suspect in the end -- maybe not now, maybe later when someone can get to a library -- we'll be able to show that it's notable." Gah! This is so frustrating to read... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AB, it shouldn't be. It's simply asking for the research to be done up front. I've occasionally moved to article space before I was sure -- Zhang Dongju is an example -- but there's usually a very good reason. In that case, it was that she was a Chinese academic and I suspected transliteration made a difference in how many sources I could find. Valereee (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Honestly, I'm on the fence about this one, I've re-read what's above and it's a split down the middle, I can see that the article is well-researched and fairly long, but most of the sources aren't extensive. I've struck both my !votes above, I'll remain neutral on this one, I'm not fussed one way or the other at this point, if it gets deleted or not. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not significant coverage per
    WP:SIGCOV, lots of references add up, but here all the coverage, its a great doughnut bar, eat there and that is not enough. scope_creepTalk 20:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article is beautifully written, but unless there is
WP:NCORP, it is a business after-all, then it would be non-notable. scope_creepTalk 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a lot wrong here which I don't have time to address right now. I'll just say the source assessment table above has 21 entries. The article has 32 sources and I've identified several others on the article's talk page, some of which require database access so I can't just paste URLs. I don't understand the point in presenting an incomplete source assessment in an AfD discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then the solution is obvious: add the sources to the table, with quotations so we can all see exactly what's said and judge it for ourselves. EEng 23:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. I wonder if there's a culinary culture difference here between America and Britain and maybe also a generation gap. Blimey - a donut robot! Two-a-penny here in the UK. Commonly found in seaside resorts and mobile "carts" (as Americans call them). The donuts/doughnuts produced are generally viewed disparagingly as typical junk food. It's unlikely such a business of this nature would be considered suitable material for an encyclopedic article. But, overcoming my bias, I ask whether such a business is now rare in the States, (though I would think common say, 50 years ago). If this business is one of the last of its kind; it could be notable and explain why it receives a lot of press attention. Just a thought. Rupples (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing: it did not receive a lot of press attention. What we see in the article is not a lot. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For some strange reason people in Seattle have never read Homer Price#Homer_Price and think there's only one doughnut machine in the world. EEng 03:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a classic case of 100 trivial not adding to significance. Almost every source is a faux "review" failing -- miserably -- the criteria spelled out in
    WP:NCORP
    for a review to be considered significant coverage:
    • Brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify.
    • Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product ... without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources.
    • Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources.
    • Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications ... For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage.
    Almost every source fails two or three of the above criteria, and many of them fail all four. EEng 04:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore
    HighKing++ 11:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:GNG takes precedence over all other specific notability guidelines. Even if this narrowly fails NCORP, it is without a doubt a generally notable doughnut stand. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going down the road of "GNG is the only guideline then you should be aware that the
    HighKing++ 12:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:GNG. Keep that in mind. If your going around saying it to folk, you need to stop doing it now. scope_creepTalk 13:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
you're*, since we're in the company of pedants KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no hesitation, at the point, in saying you're blatantly lying you appear to have examined the sources without benefit of your reading glasses, as you have elsewhere as well. Serious Eats says absolutely nothing about Daily Dozen being, as you put it, "one of its top 6 doughnut makers nationwide". All there is is a headline on a page reading: "A half-dozen doughnuts we love", followed by a list of shops. Period. And BTW, the book's description reads "A foodie's guide culled from the popular SeriousEats.com online community" -- in other words, it's user-generated content. Jesus, what poppycock. EEng 20:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's been edited by Ed Levine and the Serious Eats editorial team before being compiled in a book. So no, it's not the equivalent of straight user-generated content online. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. Well, unless you're contending that the Serious Eats editorial team flew to Seattle, Lexington (Ky.), New Mexico, Louisiana, and Salt Lake City in order to visit these reader-recommended shops themselves, this fails NCORP's requirement that Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product ... Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources. EEng 06:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is absolutely and patently incorrect. Highking has been shown many many times, that he has the correct interpretation of
WP:GNG, namely secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Its the same case as somebody talking about the subject to somebody else, who are not connected to the original subject. So what the company does, is much much less important than what people say about, as its self-generated information from the company. Stuff that comes from the company is primary. That attitude you have, regarding "major events" was the orginal consensus in 2017 but that is no longer consensus, now. So your essentially putting yourself outside established consensus which is the wrong place to be. Lastly, robotic machines are very common, all over the world. scope_creepTalk 13:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the context and your interpretation. Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not interpretation, it is experience, actually been and read and took part in thousands of Afd with Highking, so that won't wash. scope_creepTalk 13:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"thousands" KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's clear, I actually also often agree with
HighKing, and I think it's probably mutually frustrating when we don't agree, so I really did mean this in the most respectful way possible. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
HighKing = 3524 AfDs, 92% hit rate. Scope creep = 3750 AfDs, 88% hit rate. So yeah, not unlikely they've participated in a couple thousand of the same AfDs. Valereee (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should still welcome new participants to AfD, though. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we welcome new participants at AfD, just as we welcome them anywhere. What we'd like is if they'd learn policy. One great way to do that is to listen to the policy arguments of those who've done this literally hundreds of time more often than you have.
The use of the term "deletionist", unless someone describes themselves that way, is an assumption of bad faith, and accusations of it are counterproductive. This isn't a battleground, it's a collaborative project. There's also actually a pretty easy way to make sure your articles aren't AfD'd: find the sources to support notability first. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Who used the "d" word? I certainly didn't. What is this even about? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments re Donuts by Edge, my comment pasted from Talk:Daily Dozen Doughnut Company:
    As I read it the things we learn about Daily Dozen are: it's at Seattle's Pike Place Market, there's smells of frying dough and cinnamon, there are bright lights above, the employee uses metal tongs, snatching donuts from a glazing carousel connected to a conveyor belt cooker, there is an espresso machine, white paper bags contain each customer's order of doughnuts, it has a Donut Robot Mark II (and there's a bit about that, but this is an article about the Daily Dozen not the Donut Robot Mark II), and that the author views the Daily Dozen as a market shebang.
    There's also a bit of a profile of an employee who works there, we learn he's a one-man band who works the Daily Dozen stand, and information about how he wears his hair keeps his black hair long and spiky, what bands he likes he bops his head to the sounds of a favorite band—say local faves Hellshock or the irrepressible Dead Kennedys, what accessories he has a studded dog collar around his neck and longer amulet-style studded collars on each wrist, what stickers are on his boombox KEEP MUSIC EVIL, what instruments he owns I got a drum kind, but I don't know what to do with it, his relationship status and resumes a conversation with a friend. "Yeah, man, I'm engaged," he says., his plans for the wedding "I love her. But I'm pretty sure whatever we do for a wedding won't be legal. We're talking about having a goat sacrifice at the ceremony.", but that's all kind of besides the point, but I have a much better picture of this one employee than the business as a whole.
Umimmak (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So completly ignoring the source analysis that has done up to this point. scope_creepTalk 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is not my analysis, each of which will be seemingly different from those created above. I can analyze sources myself, thank you. ɱ (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. You have done exactly 7 Afd's and you don't have the experience, as yet. If you did, you would be railing against complete lack of quality here. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao sure call me, one of the most prolific writers in my field, inexperienced. Not like experience can disqualify a user from partipating in an AfD vote. ɱ (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MJ, but which would represent significant coverage? No one is questioning most of the sources as reliable. They're questioning the amount of coverage of the article subject. Valereee (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding the reference: "Donuts by John T. Edge, pp. 30–35" added to the table above. In the book at [30] it is clear it a "passing mention" and fails
    WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 22:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Regarding the Seattle Gay Times references, it an interview with the owner, putting up a pride flag. It fails
WP:SECONDARY reference. The best you can say, again, is that it verifies the company exists and that is it. scope_creepTalk 22:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A news article does not fail independence because the subject of the story is interviewed, even extensively. While the article largely presents the owner's views, it does not do so exclusively, incorporating quotations from others as well as third-person reportage. It's not simply an interview with questions and responses. Jahaza (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. This is a business speaking the conversation is held about this business.
WP:GNG applies here, and interviews have some weight, which is incorrect. Here, they don't because, it is the business speaking. It is not independent. The rest of it is incidencental. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge selectively to
    WP:NCORP guideline to support a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per source reviews in this discussion that show GNG has not been demonstrated. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pike Place Market appears to be appropriate. The puzzling thing about this article and notability is that there are so many laudatory references to the place as famous, well known, exceptional, etc. despite the fact that it seems to be a completely standard donut stand, with none of the sources saying anything about what makes it special or unique. Jahaza (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge (of perhaps a single sentence) would be a great alternative to outright deletion. However, the Pike Place article reads like a guidebook and needs a machete taken to it. Here's a sample:
    While one can easily graze one's way through the Market food stalls and shops, the Pike Place Market offers numerous other eating (and drinking) options. The once endemic workingmen's and sailors' taverns are gone; at roughly opposite corners of the Market, the Virginia Inn (founded as Virginia Bar, approximately 1908; operated as a cardroom during Prohibition, then Virginia Inn; passed into current management 1980 and slowly gentrified) and Place Pigalle (originally Lotus Inn, name dates from 1950s, remodeled 1982) retain their names, but both have gone upmarket. The Athenian Inn in the Main Market traces its history back to a 1909 bakery and is a relatively ungentrified bar and restaurant. Three Girls Bakery dates back to 1912 and may have been the first Seattle business started by women. While it is not in its original Corner Market location, no longer bakes on premises, and its current owner Jack Levy is a man, it still sells a vast variety of baked goods, does a brisk business in takeaway sandwiches, and has an old-style lunch counter.
    For a different type of dining experience, The Pink Door (founded 1981), entered by a nearly unmarked door on upper Post Alley, is a favorite first-date restaurant, with solid Italian food, a fantasia of a dining room ...
    EEng 03:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that section could be revised to mention a variety of food stalls with a weight
    proportional to their treatment in independent and reliable sources, including ones reviewed here. A subsection for food stalls might also be supportable. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note that rewriting from sources does not introduce an attribution dependency that precludes deletion, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pike Place Market having looked at the sources in the article and listed in this AFD, none of them constitute significant coverage, which is required for this to be a separate article. But perfectly fine to merge a few sentences about it into the article about the market. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added links to notable authors Monique Polak, Laurie Wolf, and Andrew Knowlton. Not sure if notable authors should be noted in the source assessment table? (which, BTW, still assesses only 1/2 the sources used or shared on talk page...) ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all !votes based on the "very useful source analysis" etc should be discredited until ALL the sources present in the article/talk are accounted for. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about you save everyone time and add just the ones that count as significant coverage, and point them out? Or -- easier -- just give a quick list of them here. The challenge to do that was issued long ago, and ignored. Meanwhile, what has been done is to add "sources" to the article such a TV station's blog post [32] "review" reading, in its entirety,
    Topping the list is Daily Dozen Doughnut, boasting 4.5 stars out of 883 reviews on Yelp. Located at 93 Pike St. (near First Avenue) in Pike Market, the bakery and food stand is the highest rated doughnut spot in Seattle. Enticing passers-by with the sweet smell of freshly baked and fried dough, Daily Dozen specializes in warm, bite-size doughnuts sprinkled with powdered sugar or cinnamon.
    Please, please tell me you can see that this "reviewer" simply copied phrases from Yelp reviews. No editor who understands what notability is about is going to waste his time plowing though the dreck that is this article. Show us the money. EEng 17:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mischaracterizing. The KTSW source was added on November 2, not recently. Actually (and unfortunately), editors haven't really discussed the more recent additions to the article. I'm so disappointed to see this discussion devolve into such a shitshow. I agree with KINGofLETTUCE, there are way too many references to the source assessment table which is maybe half complete (?) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. It was dreck already in the article, not dreck added recently. My bad, and thanks for the correction. Meanwhile, we're all still waiting for you to point out the specific sources that count as sigcov. EEng 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry, re: I can confirm that it is reasonable for anyone to look at the Daily Dozen reviews and find them meaningful, and also to observe the lack of reviews for other donut shops and to find that absence meaningful also. Wikipedia sometimes has trouble recognizing the significance of the absence of sources, and as a serious donut eater with local knowledge, I confirm that plausibly Daily Dozen is really getting more reviews than other places, and reviews for other places may not exist to be found: Approximately 30% of Category:Doughnut shops in the United States are in Seattle or Portland. I know you guys like your donuts out there in the PNW, but that seems a little high. (FWIW, I think you inserted that reply in the wrong place, it now looks like I was replying to you.) Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic
  • I doubt it really matters. You've convinced yourself and your acolytes that this must be non-notable, so even those sources that have already been pointed out as significant coverage have been instinctively rejected as insignificant. And whoever disagrees clearly lacks experience and a perfect understanding of our sacrosanct guidelines. You're even insinuating that Another Believer does not understand what notability is about! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been insulted many times the past few days. I've kind of become numb to it on Wikipedia, to be honest. Feels like a group showed up with pitchforks absolutely determined to delete this article, implying I have no clue what I'm doing. This is clearly an on-the-bubble case re: notability but there's no need for all the rude comments. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? I'm all for constructive discussions about notability but this has not been one of them. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    implying I have no clue what I'm doing – To be blunt, it's increasingly clear that that may very well be true. I picked a random one of your recent article creations, The Misfit (restaurant), and guess what? Of 24 citations, an astounding 16 are to Eater. For example:
    The Misfit’s avocado toast adds a layer of creaminess with fresh burrata, baby tomato, and crispy sourdough bread. If you’re gluten-free, The Misfit can accommodate that request, just let them know.
    That's Eater's "Contributor Keyla Vasconcellos" writing in 2015 on "13 Instagram-Worthy Avocado Toasts to Try Right Now in Los Angeles" [33]. Two years later Contributor Vasconcellos updated her readers with an expanded "17 Avocado Toasts Worth Eating and Instagramming in Los Angeles" [34], now reporting that
    The Misfit’s avocado toast adds a layer of creaminess with fresh burrata, baby tomato, and crispy sourdough bread. If gluten-free, The Misfit can accommodate that request, just let them know.
    Both of these are sources in the article. Let me repeat that: two utterly fucking trivial and completely identical two-sentence "reviews" have been stuffed into the article as "sources" to support the highly encyclopedic statement that "the menu has included avocado toast with burrata, tomato, and sourdough".
    Oh wait, sorry, correction: the second one leaves out the word you're. So I guess they're different. My apologies.
    So that's 2 of 16 from Eater. Hungry for more? OK, how about
    On Father's Day The Misfit offers dads any of the restaurant's 16 beers for just 10 cents. And, he can order as many as he would like at this price, no restrictions. [35] ("In 2011, The Misfit offered fathers select beers for 10 cents on Father's Day", the article gravely reports to Wikipedia's readers).
    I think that gives you the picture regarding the Eater. Of the remaining 8 sources, here are 4 in their entirety:
    • This darkly lit emporium of food, drink and fun is notable for the decent menu and phenomenal cocktails made from craftsman spirits. Set in a historic building decked out with a retro interior, it's busy from brunch to last call. [36]
    • The Misfit has a sprawling bar that begins its happy hour at NOON on weekdays and has both delicious food and drink menu offerings. If you're looking for a cocktail, try the Jumping Jack Flash, which is both what happens when you wear your short shorts to gym class and a concoction made with ginger, mint, and Buffalo Trace. [37]
    • Must-visit restaurants ... The Misfit for gourmet comfort food and signature cocktails [38]
    • "Local Santa Monica Restaurants with outdoor dining ... The Misfit Restaurant [39]
    That leaves this and this and this and this. I'll leave it to out esteemed fellow editors to judge whether those constitute sigcov.
    So yeah, it does actually look like you have no clue what you're doing. Sorry, but you asked for it. EEng 22:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I'm being trolled at this point so I'm moving on to other things. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But best not describe them as "deletionists" -- that is bad faith! (Well, looks like it's just been me who's been using the dreaded D word, although I will forever maintain that it's a perfect description of their outward behaviour, even if their intentions may be well and good.) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes when I see certain editors show up in my watchlist, I assume they've voted 'delete' before I even go to the page to read their comments. It is what it is. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the market. I love Daily Dozen, but this article has been fluffed up with quantity to try and hide a lack of notability. Business gets criticized for displaying a pride flag and the like are not in depth coverage required of N:CORP. This is a broader issue with restaurants and the like. They are "in the news" with Eater, etc. for a bit, but it's not lasting or depth. Same challenge as listicle type coverage. In the news is not corporate notability. Star Mississippi 17:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article now suffers a bit from "Rescu-itis" in that it is cramming lots of sources in parallel with this deletion discussion, also as multiple editors pass through and try to add what they find. But as with all deletion discussions, it's not the exact current state that matters, but rather the quality of the sources, and the discussion should remain focused on whether or not the bare minimum requirement for WP:ORG is met, which I think is also what you are saying. I just wanted to point out that we should assume good faith in terms of why the article looks the way it does now, and that it's not necessarily a "fluff" or "hiding" job, but to centralize information so that we don't create even more tables and lists everywhere, and waste even more of everyone's energy chasing the same articles over and over again. (In a normal editing process, if this article were to be kept, it would get trimmed for sure.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's questioning anyone's good faith. The "Rescue-itis" you describe (great word!) is just another example of the crap-magnet phenomenon you and I discussed here [40] i.e. the desperation to keep an article on a nonnotable subject induces would-be saviors to fill the article with crap. EEng 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No desperation here, yo. Peace. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean you -- you didn't add it to the article. I should have been clearer about that. EEng 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I've linked four notable writers in the article:
    WP:SIGCOV help me understand if the authors being notable makes any difference? Genuinely curious, much appreciated. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Another Believer: I would say that if those names are subject-matter experts or reputable journalists, it would bolster the reliability of their work and might even qualify self-published work; but it wouldn't change the extent to which they've written about the article subject. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Monique Polak is a Canadian novelist and journalist (source + current ref 18: "Pike Market merchants have theatrical flair: Much to the delight of Seattle shoppers" (August 16, 1997), The Gazette. Montreal, Quebec. p. H6. "Originally the stable for farmers' horses, the Economy Market Building earned its name because it was the discount or day-old section of the market. Today, it's home to such venerable establishments as the Daily Dozen Doughnut Co., where owner Barbara Elza processes 35 pounds of flour daily in her doughnut robot. Children crowd round Elza's booth to watch as the tiny doughnuts travel along an oily road in rows of four before plopping down at their destination - a tin display plate.)"
    Ed Levine is a food writer and the creator/founder of the American cooking website Serious Eats (source). Laurie Wolf is a food and cookbook writer (source) and Andrew Knowlton was the restaurant editor at Bon Appétit and a judge on cooking television shows (source). I would consider these individuals subject matter experts. Unless we're expecting donut experts? (I volunteer as tribute!!) ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (also a question, not a judgement or decision): is it the profile of the author or the depth of their coverage? I think it's the latter, but that's just my opinion as an editor. We'd trust Knowlton over a tire repair mechanic to talk about a donut shop, but that doesn't necessarily make the shop notable. Star Mississippi 02:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's elitist for you to privilege the opinion of some snobbish food writer over that of a tire repair mechanic, who probably spends far more time in donut shops. Same for police officers. EEng 18:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject matter expertise seems relevant to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Another Believer pretty sure @EEng left off the sarcasm tag. Or they're just writerist. :-) However I did not know you could ping in edit summaries so helpful! Star Mississippi 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, my writerist cleared right up when I started using one of those ergonomic keyboards. EEng 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in here (no opinion about the article itself), but a notable writer writing about something does not necessarily mean the writer is a reliable source, or that coverage by said writer is significant enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: If you've identified subject-matter experts, that basically means that you could use something they've published on their own to count towards notability – it makes questionable sources reliable. But for a source to count towards notability, it needs to be both reliable and provide significant coverage of its subject, and the identity of the author can't help you on the latter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one of Polak's articles to the source assessment table for others to review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy doughnuts, Batman! This discussion is huge! When I came across this at WT:DYK, I never expected it to be this big. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I do not have the time to go through all this, could someone show me 3-5 of the best (most in-depth) sources, and I'll base my !vote off of that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you should ask. A bunch of us have been waiting for an answer to that question since this discussion began. EEng 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - since this AfD started, numerous changes have taken place, including new references. It may not be fair to consider the evaluations early-on in this discussion, before such changes were made. ɱ (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd answer BeanieFan11's question immediately above, then we can all update our !votes. Since you !voted Keep, you should have no trouble doing that. EEng 18:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found many sources over 100 words, and even fewer over 200 words. But I've helped write FAs and GAs with as hodgepodged of sources, strewn together to form a cohesive narrative. For some businesses and for some historical topics, it's necessary, as there isn't a wholehearted focus on the subject until you get there. Does that make it any less important? I'd say no. ɱ (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See
WP:ITSIMPORTANT. So you're telling us that you can't list even three sources which individually qualify as sigcov? You have to string them together? Oy vey. EEng 19:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
See
WP:IAR. If you think one rule about in-depth sourcing should stop a long, detailed, neutral, well-cited, wonderful article from existing, you should re-evaluate your standards on this site. ɱ (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Huh. Your philosophy seems to have changed since the time you told Johnbod: Perhaps reevaluate your standards to align with Wikipedia's, as Wikipedia will not spontaneously align with yours. [41] EEng 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC) You sure like the word reevaluate a lot![reply]
There's surely one thing I don't have to reevaluate: that Sacred Cod is full of inane bullshit. But that is no longer important here nor there. ɱ (talk)
Indeed it's not. When you get over being butthurt, can you get us that list of sigcov sources? Just the three you judge best will be fine. EEng 21:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(←) You clearly didn't read what I wrote, and you're clearly just sticking around to call any support votes "butthurt", which seems to me a description of you.... Again, I've been involved in many quality articles that don't meet that one rule. One violation doesn't make this article unworthy of belonging on Wikipedia. Now kindly fuck off. ɱ (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temper, temper! For those playing along at home who may be wondering, the rule MJ wants us to ignore is
WP:SIGCOV. EEng 12:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And you've told at least one editor you'll "stop testing the limits of editors' willingness to make fools of themselves" here if they come vote (knowing their opinion already). This is canvassing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I call that a serious discussion about the usefulness and reliability of some sources. Not a call to vote and therefor not canvassing. The Banner talk 16:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for discussions about the appropriateness of specific sources, that's not the issue. Canvassing is "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate". In my opinion, asking editors to come vote a certain way in a deletion discussion is not OK, but whatever. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SIGCOV. It's a guideline, to start, so can't be a single be-all-end-all for determining whether to keep or delete an article. Secondly, that section talks about numerous ways to determine notability. Significant coverage is only one of many ways to ensure "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". It also is not a be-all-end-all. So while we can't easily presume notability based on sigcov, we can assess it to be notable based on the heavy reliable sourcing from around the country and even elsewhere in the world. ɱ (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi
notability guideline
includes:

A topic is

presumed
to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

For this topic, we can apply the

WP:NOT policy. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Yeah, you can go down a rabbit-hole of guidelines and sub-guidelines and explanations and definitions. In the end, it is just one small part of what establishes notability as written in a guideline. Not a policy. Not a be-all-end-all for whether to keep or delete. ɱ (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have !voted to
citation overkill in the article), but this does not appear to have happened. Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Meanwhile, there's a tag on Pike Place Market which says, "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings", so merging there doesn't seem ideal. I've started a discussion on the PPM article's Talk page to see how the tag can be addressed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the creation of a section for food stalls with a subheading [42], and this seems helpful for addressing concerns about readability. I also think the inclusion of content about other food stalls further supports a merger, because it creates a clear destination for merged content and can help determine how much merged content is
WP:DUE. Overall, the question of what to do with the Pike Place Market article does not seem to substantially impact whether a subsection about food stalls can be incorporated - if anything, the addition of independent and reliable sources about the food stalls may help with determining how to edit the Market article generally, perhaps by making it more clear that a split is needed or condensing of content would be beneficial. Beccaynr (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The idea that every fucking letter of a guideline doesn't need to be followed is certainly not fucking new. Didn't I tell you to stop bothering every voter? ɱ (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Temper, temper! EEng 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have obviously expressed myself very poorly. I am not for one moment suggesting that notability is optional. However, the guidelines by we assess notability are not perfect which is why they admit of occasional exceptions (such as in this case, I think). Do you think our guidelines, as written, are perfect or that they are mandatory on editors? Thincat (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines on obscure issues tend to be less well developed, and therefore it's not uncommon for unanticipated situations to arise that suggest making an exception. But WP:N isn't such a guideline -- it is, without a doubt, one of the most scrutinized, discussed, revised, and fought-over guidelines we have, and therefore the reasoning for any exception would have to be very well elucidated indeed. So far, the closest thing to coherent reasoning (and it's not, truth be told, very close) is (above)
I haven't found many sources over 100 words, and even fewer over 200 words. But I've helped write FAs and GAs with as hodgepodged of sources, strewn [sic, strung?] together to form a cohesive narrative. For some businesses and for some historical topics, it's necessary, as there isn't a wholehearted focus on the subject until you get there. Does that make it any less important? I'd say no.
AFAICT this is an argument that you can string 50 trivial sources together to add up to sigcov, even if not one single source gives sigcov on its own. But if such an exception is countenanced, then it would apply equally to literally hundreds of thousands of other restaurants or bars (and that's just in the US) that have what every restaurant or bar has these days: dozens five-sentence "reviews" and "list of" appearances. EEng 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the d*******ist game plan in this AfD is to 1) insist on an extremely tedious reading of notability guidelines, 2) invoke "hit rates" to discredit Keep !votes, but only when it's convenient and not when those !voting keep have what they'd consider stellar "hit rates", and 3) talk about a nightmarish slippery slope involving hundreds of thousands of random shoddy articles being created if this 7641-character article with 43 sources were to be kept. Discounting 1) and 2), which I'm sure are mischaracterisations on my part because I have a poor "hit rate" and am very inexperienced, please tell me more about 3): surely every AfD is judged case by case? Why would this "exception" apply "equally" to hypothetical articles that are obviously inferior (in terms of length or sourcing or whatever else that this article has that they wouldn't). Couldn't we still exercise some common sense? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a slipperly-slope argument. The question is merely, if this "stringing together sources" argument is actually valid, where are the half million additional articles that would qualify under that interpretation of SIGCOV? What you call an "extremely tedious" reading of guidelines, I call taking them at face value and asking for reasoning for an exception. EEng 00:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I simply cannot follow the logic of your statement. Just why would there be half a million additional articles? This isn't a blind or indiscriminate interpretation, it's one that calls for articles to be handled on a case-by-case basis with some COMMON SENSE. If someone wanted to write half a million more articles with at least 43 sources and 7641 characters too, by all means! It seems to me that you're just raising an objection for the sake of it (which is what I'd call "extremely tedious"). Nuff said, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingoflettuce, I wasn't referencing other people's better stats to discredit your keep vote. (The closer will assess the strength of your argument on their own, and whether or not you've got a good record isn't even something they'll take into account; even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and if your argument is policy-based and compelling, they'll give it due weight.)
I was referencing it to show you why maybe the people you're calling "deletionists" are probably just better at assessing notability than you are. It seriously is all about calling people deletionists. And asterisking out the word doesn't make it any less battlegroundy to use it. Unless someone is telling you they're a deletionist, you should just give that a rest. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if deletionist is a dirty word like you make it out to be, there wouldn't be too many people professing to be deletionists. The duck test applies to deletionists as much as it does sockpuppets. Going on a whim to nominate 30 AB-written articles at one go speaks for itself. Even you realise this is not the most acceptable course of action. Creep opnely admits to not caring about looking at each article individually to assess its unique merits/demerits & absurdly concludes that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable" and that all articles on defunct restaurants ought to be deleted. It's just bonkers! And you tell me to "give it a rest"? C'mon! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has spilled over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit House Saloon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sushi Kaneyoshi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro (bundle of 14 articles) and Fenouil (PROD). Feels like I'm being targeted, some would say for good reason and others might say unnecessarily so. Regardless, rescuing all of these within the time constraints of AfD has become too stressful and too much of a time suck. Please remember we're here to build an encyclopedia, there's no need for all of the hounding and mischaracterizing and mud-slinging. I'm incredibly disappointed and frustrated by these recent discussions, which feel like "punishment" for doing wrong to Wikipedia. I've used an article pattern which has yielded at least 50 Good entries. I don't think my opinion matters because I have these credits, I'm just saying my process has been vetted and praised enough times that I continued to create content using similar methods and patterns. I can't be blamed for repeating successful results! I'm well-intentioned but being painted as an evil moron who has no clue what he's doing. If there are issues with restaurant articles, then let's create a style guide. If there are issues with specific sources like Thrillist, then go here and start a discussion. This is about bigger issues, not me. I hope these entries will be kept, but for now I'm going to bow out and go enjoy the real world. Happy editing, folks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a clear case of
WP:WIKIHOUNDING to me. The second word in the nominator's username says it all. A shame! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is a very old trick to start bashing the nominator to hide the actual lack of notability. The Banner talk 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that it's textbook Wikihounding, The_Banner?! Give me a break... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a very old trick to begin a sentence with "It is a very old trick..." to make one seem like the wise editor who knows best, when in fact he's just muttering platitudes and ignoring the very egregious problem being raised (namely, that someone is CLEARLY engaged in the bad-faith act of WIKIHOUNDING, & it's almost impossible to give them the benefit of doubt). We can talk about the articles and their strengths/weaknesses if the nominations are made in the right spirit, and not to target the work of one editor. This shouldn't even need to be said! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 19:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my opinion a whole series of accusations of wikihouding on every page nominated is equally a case of wikihounding. I have checked those nominations and to my opinion they are valid. Mostly because the restaurants lack notabilty and in one case because it is a very poor article about a former restaurant with Michelin star (what usually gives a truck load of media attention but the article does not show that). The Banner talk 19:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable, are you even listening to yourself? In my opinion, calling out others for Wikihounding is not the same as Wikihounding (and notice has to be given at each of the few million AfDs Creep has happily started, just to let everyone know that they've specifically been targetting AB's works, or they might be none the wiser). What would be Wikihounding, for instance, would be nominating all the Creep-written articles that may be problematic in retaliation. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not retaliating but protecting Wikipedia from sub-standard and/or non-notable articles written by one specific editor. Every article should be judged against the same policies and guidelines. There is no policy available to protect an editor against application of the magnifying glass to keep policies in place. The Banner talk 12:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I can't disagree with this but it doesn't appear that due care and consideration has been given to each individual article if the nominator collectively nominates 20 of them with the justification that "99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable". IMHO this not "application of the magnifying glass to keep policies in place", it's trigger-happy. And if we really wanted to take that magnifying glass out, it doesn't seem prudent to do it in the midst of an AfD like this one! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, I have been advised that what SC is doing is not technically Wiki-hounding. I apologise for the mischaracterisation, even if I still believe that the mass AfDs were not the best course of action. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 13:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: Asterisking out the letters in deletionist was borderline, but that's a blatant personal attack on @Scope creep, @Kingoflettuce and you know better, which is why you're not getting a template warning. If there's a meta conversation to be had, you and @Another Believer can bring it to the relevant notice board without further clogging this discussion. Star Mississippi 21:26, 18 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Melanella angulata

Melanella angulata (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)

Subject is a taxon inquirendum and not notable. Although validly published, the species is not accepted, and not a synonym of another species that it can be redirected to, merged with, or moved to.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 02:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WoRMS lists Higo et al. "Catalogue and Bibliography of the Marine Shell-Bearing Mollusca of Japan" as the basis of their record. Download Higo's book here. In the first page of the introduction Higo notes: "One unavoidable consequence of basing a work of this kind primarily on literature rather than on independent field and laboratory research is that the number of species recorded will almost certainly exceed that actually present in Nature." On the second page of the introduction, Higo devotes several sentences to discussing the work of Arthur Adams, describing it as a "major problem" due to the "brevity and vagueness of many of whose descriptions was already the target of scathing criticism [in 1895]", Higo goes on to discuss some successes confirming species described by Adams, and conclude with "even the most optimistic reviewer of Adams’ work must concede that the types of many of his species are probably lost". This species was described by Arthur Adams. Higo's treatment of the species is minimal, but gives the distribution as "recorded only from type locality" (which is fair to interpret as "nobody has collected a snail identified as this species since Adams").
    WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES is predicated on an animal species having a valid name; many of the names authored by Adams aren't considered valid. Delete this and any other articles on Japanese molluscs described by Adams and with status as taxa inquirenda on WoRMS and with Higo as the basis of the WoRMS record. Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 15 December 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 merge to The Real Richie Rich. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Richie Rich production discography

The Real Richie Rich production discography (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 Real Richie Rich isn't nearly long enough for a stand-alone discography article to make sense; would be better merged and deleted. Rusalkii (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 12 December 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! 23:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonor Rosser

AfDs for this article:
Leonor Rosser (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)

One newspaper article falls far short of the sourcing required for

WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nominator. Not notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail GNG Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:03, 12 December 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 00:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Atheists

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

No evidence that this organisation has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization. Some limited trivial mentions are floating around, but nothing significant. There is one brief mention in an old newspaper, but only a sentence not addressing the subject in depth and detail. This organisation hence does not meet notability criteria set out in NCORP/NORG. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:01, 12 December 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 00:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus imagery in contemporary music

Icarus imagery in contemporary music (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)

Unsourced

indiscriminate list. Could see this working as a subsection of Icarus with proper sourcing, and maybe that section gets big enough to split off again, but I don't see much point in calling for a merge when there's only a single entry (Måneskin's "Zitti e buoni") which is properly sourced here. QuietHere (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete indiscriminate and absolutely trivial. Once again, we are not TV Tropes, and any article that could be renamed “list of media that mentions or alludes to [x] in any way, no matter how minor” should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just demonstrated why this list is not "indiscriminate". It is clearly not "every appearance of anything related ever"—it is uses of the Icarus theme in contemporary music. Not art, drama, cooking, antiquity, or 17th-century French poetry. Not everything related to Icarus—which would include Daedalus, the Labyrinth, the Minotaur, Theseus, Ariadne, etc. What is truly amazing is how I cannot recall ever seeing anyone correctly cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is only ever cited by people who clearly have not read what it says, or who have forgotten all of the examples, or who count on nobody else having read it. This article does not even loosely approximate any of the categories cited as indiscriminate collections of information: 1) summary-only descriptions of works; 2) lyrics databases; 3) excessive listings of unexplained statistics; or 4) exhaustive logs of software updates. Examples of the Icarus theme in contemporary music may or may not be notable—but they certainly do not constitute an indiscriminate collection of information. P Aculeius (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know whether this topic could be made reasonably encyclopedic, but some of the votes to delete are ignoring critical guidelines for the deletion of articles. First of all, articles should not be deleted because the content is not cited to reliable sources; they should be deleted because they cannot be cited to reliable sources. Thus, WP:BEFORE advises those nominating articles for deletion to make at least a cursory search for potentially relevant sources before nominating them. "Completely unsourced!" is not a Wikipedia policy. Then again, published works are considered valid and reliable sources for their own contents. Thus, while "(Just Like) Icarus and Daedalus" by the Reflections may not be a valid source for the psychological underpinnings of the Icarus myth, it is a valid source for the fact that it contains "Icarus imagery"—even if it only appears in a list, such as the one here, without (somewhat redundantly) an inline citation that contains the same information as the item in the list... but in theory every item here could be cited to itself, in which case the "completely unsourced" problem simply goes away. While ideally the article ought to have some sources discussing Icarus in contemporary music, it is not necessary for any such sources to include a list of songs or compositions, nor for any of the items included to be in such a list in order to be included here. The discussion should focus on whether the topic is encyclopedic—not whether it contains enough discussion, or is presently cited to good sources. Those things can be cured (and it does not matter that they have not yet been; as the guidelines for deletion specifically state, there is no time limit for improving articles); lack of notability cannot. The topic is either notable or it is not; I suspect it has at least sufficient notability to exist, however imperfect the article is now. It cannot be deleted merely because it needs more sources or ought to contain some discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: It's not obvious to me that the topic of "Icarus imagery in music" is notable enough to be a standalone article. It's the topic that seems unencyclopedic to me. It could be a really important field of study, but just being able to find songs that reference Icarus doesn't make it so. Unless the article was completely overhauled, the best thing is to delete add any meaningful info to the Icarus page. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was obviously encyclopedic—I said I suspected it might be, or could be made encyclopedic with some development. But my main point was that the article must stand or fall based on its notability, not on how poorly it's sourced, because sourcing can nearly always be fixed. P Aculeius (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you haven't provided any sources that would back that claim up. You may suspect something, but without evidence that's pure conjecture, and that's not gonna save the article. Caeciliusinhorto, on the other hand, went and found evidence of a lack of coverage of the subject, showing notability to be unlikely, which is the same reason I made the nomination in the first place. I do realise now I forgot to mention that in my nomination, my fault for working too quickly I suppose, but from everything I've seen I can say that Caecilius' point holds up to scrutiny.
And to your "this list is not 'indiscriminate'" point above, it should be said that while the topic of this list is not quite as broad as it could be, that doesn't mean it isn't still overly broad. "Contemporary music" could reasonably cover anything from the popular music era, meaning any non-classical work from the 1880s on. There are untold numbers of musical works, even notable ones, that have come into existence in that time, and some massive amount of those could make even passing lyric references to the Icarus myth. That doesn't make every one of those examples notable, and based on what's in the list so far, I suspect very few of them will end up being so. We need coverage that talks about these references in these songs specifically, and I wasn't finding much for most of the list. The fact that a list can be so expansive yet so thoroughly unsourced is what makes it an indiscriminate collection of random information. That's the issue at hand. Narrowing the scope alone hasn't fixed that, or else we wouldn't have this AfD in the first place. QuietHere (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to go back and read what was said about sourcing and actual Wikipedia policy. Articles are not deleted based on the state of sourcing—and each work listed is a valid source for its own contents. So it is clearly not unsourced. Please do not confuse sourcing with notability. There is nothing "indiscriminate" about this list—the topic is fairly discrete. That doesn't make it notable—but the notability discussion is getting buried under irrelevant arguments about the article's scope or its sources, neither of which are valid arguments for deletion.
As for its notability, Cecil in the Garden made a valid argument, but neglected to consider that if the influence of the Icarus myth in modern culture is a valid topic, and this list is too long to be maintained as a part of that topic, then it could reasonably be split off into its own subtopic—which is essentially what it currently is. You could, as he suggested, just blow it up and start from scratch, but I find that a particularly unproductive way of winding up back at the same place a few years down the road. Better to try to improve the article and better integrate it with the larger topic, even as a stand-alone list. You suggested that each of the songs or compositions in the list needed to be notable; this is incorrect. The subject of the list needs to be notable, but not all of the individual entries in the list. That is one of the main purposes of list articles on Wikipedia: including information about things which, while not individually notable, collectively form a subject with notability. It is also incorrect to say that the individual contents need to be listed in another source; since each song or composition can be cited for its own contents, all they need to be is something that readers can read or listen to in order to verify that they do in fact contain Icarus themes.
Since the theme of Icarus in culture generally is certainly notable, lists of individual works in specific genres are presumptively notable as subtopics. Of course that is my opinion, and others may disagree. That's what a deletion discussion is about. It may be that the article is saved, but individual items removed because they contain only passing mentions, with no special relevance to the works in question. But as a general proposition, it's usually better to save potentially useful articles than to delete them, only to have similar contents created from scratch in the future. This article needs a lot of work; but so do countless other articles, and I can certainly see some usefulness in this one, even as it currently stands. P Aculeius (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: I think that you're misreading some of the deletion arguments. Sourcing is just a symptom of the underlying problem, which is that there's no clear reason for this list to exist anymore than a list of songs mentioning Jesus Christ or heart imagery. Thousands of examples might exist, but that doesn't mean they need to be catalogued. An article about Christian music or the use of heart imagery in music is more apparently useful and informative. Similarly, either an article or a section about the reception of Icarus in popular music seems more useful than a list. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Started a pop culture section in the Icarus article with a couple examples pulled from the list. QuietHere (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @QuietHere:! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks from me - how long will that last there? Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not long, “in pop culture sections” are notorious crap magnets. In fact I might just delete it immediately per
WP:MILL (too common) Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted. "Crap magnet" or no, that doesn't invalidate the section's existence. Just remove unsourceable information whenever it's added. QuietHere (talk) 15:37, 16 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_12&oldid=1128356377"