Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 5

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 00:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisulu Azimbayeva

Aisulu Azimbayeva (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 notable as WP:NACTOR or as a TV host. No reliable sources NortonAngo (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A lot of low depth coverage and mentions in Kazakh and Russian web media and non-RS but nothing in-depth or RS. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The subject doesn't show any significant neutral coverage.Kinkordada (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2023 (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.

Prabhadevi BMC School

Prabhadevi BMC 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)

Unreferenced and no coverage to meet

• Comment After a quick search on Google i found this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. But all these references either passing mention or do not pass
  WP:SIGCOV. Gothamk (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2023 (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.

Blake Aaron

Blake Aaron (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 the case for notability for this subject, nor the coverage in reliable sources beyond the one source of indeterminate utility currently cited in the article. It does not help that the article was created by an SPA named "User:Innervisionrecords". I note that this was PRODed by User:Vikipolimer last year, and deprodded by User:AllyD on the PROD eligibility grounds. BD2412 T 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not meeting any criteria, no reliable sources Citations101 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It was a BLP PROD which was placed on the article in June 2022; I removed it because the article was carrying several external links. "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. " So nothing in the placing or removal of the BLPPROD notice concerned whether the subject is notable or not (though obviously these various reviews should be taken into account for this AfD). AllyD (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AllyD: No offense intended. This could have been PRODed under regular PROD principles without BLP being invoked, but that was the choice of the editor adding the PROD tag. BD2412 T 22:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am unfamiliar with Aaron's music but a summary and some evaluation of available sources regarding this subject may aid evaluation here:

• 2002: Performed in ensemble for Steve Reid's Dream Scapes project (Tampa Bay Times, passing mention)
• 2007: Bylined review of Desire in Smooth Views (external link in article)
• 2007: Review of Desire in smooth-jazz.de (external link in article), includes summary of the subject's sideman / tv career
• 2008: Role in organising flood benefit concert covered in Jazz Review (external link in article) - wouldn't add to Musicbio notability
• 2015: Review of Soul Stories in Smooth Views [3]
• 2020: Bylined review of Color and Passion in Jazz Journal (reference in article)

This leaves open the question as to whether the record review sources in these particular media are sufficient to demonstrate

WP:MUSICBIO #1 notability? AllyD (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know of the reliability of sources reporting on this subject. Certainly nothing appears in more mainstream media, aside from that one Tampa Bay Times mention. BD2412 T 15:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This is the best I could find [4]; I'm not sure the rest given above for sourcing help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion would benefit from more participation. One of the Delete votes came from an editor who has edited one day and has 19 edits and the other participant is offering a Weak Delete. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on whether or not to delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 June 2023 (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!} 23:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Youth

Punjab Youth (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)

Does not comply with Wikipedia:Notability, only one citation provided and even that does not mention this topic. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it meets
  WP:GNG. Probably rename it if required. Refs: [5], [6]. BookishReader (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  These sources do not mention "Punjab youth" organization, they are talking about some laptops the PM distributed. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete failing to see the notability. Neither of the sources given above by BookishReader mention "Punjab Youth" or "Youth Development Programme". KylieTastic (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the coverage is about the laptop coverage scheme which was part the Youth Development Programme. I don't have time to look up again, but I believe coverage exists for the parent programme as it was run by the "government". BookishReader (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet
  WP:ATD, since it's not even discussed on Shehbaz Sharif. Suriname0 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2023 (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.

Ginta Toramizu (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Anime and manga. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. BEFORE does not only mean searching sources. I was referring to C4: the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggested redirect in my PROD already. I fear there's nothing to merge, as explained above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wayback machine seems to confirm the dead link is summarized reasonably accurately. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'll clarify that this (rather short) review of manga's 12th volume mentions the protagonist in a single sentence (a passing mention). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Wikipedia:A&M/CHARACTER as this character article lacks real world coverage. If this is kept, then it needs to be overhauled to avoid a fan bias and the fictional accounts should be cited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:GNG, though its content may be useful to expand the character list entry. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Just a note: if List of MÄR characters gets redirected or merged, then I would vote for redirecting to MÄR instead. Link20XX (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with his section at
  WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Why does List of MÄR characters even exist? This is a franchise of dubious notability that lasted about 5 years. Nobody is going to search for this stuff. This is why FANDOM exists. Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This information was compiled before the FANDOM was made. I also noticed you did started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MÄR characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    WP:REFACTORing the word retaliation above? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • @
    WP:OBSCURE). After all, no one outside of a few fans knows about The Heart of Thomas or Kaze to Ki no Uta, yet both of these are featured articles and most definitely notable. Link20XX (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Fancruft. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list of characters is headed for deletion too.
  WP:TNT threshold has been reached even if this character was notable, it has nothing usable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslisting. List of MÄR characters has been converted to a redirect so it is not possible for a redirect or merge to this page. Is there another target page that has any support or is this headed toward deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think anyone would object to a redirect to MÄR#Characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems like an alternative to deletion, and editors could selectively merge any content afterwards. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I think a redirect would be an acceptable compromise but I don't see a consensus for it yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to MÄR#Plot, which provides more information on him than any of the article's sections. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:33, 6 June 2023 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of free and publicly available university video courses

List of free and publicly available university video courses (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)

Wikipedia is not a catalogue, so this compilation of material doesn’t belong here unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear violation of
  WP:LISTN (none of these free courses are notable). Ajf773 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, not a notable list. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is here to learn from. Listing the free courses online from major universities, is something Wikipedia should have. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies here. Dream Focus 06:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just a link farm, and blatant violation of
  WP:NOTDIR --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and note attempted
  Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Well intentioned, but ultimately it is just a list of courses that are not independently notable. Also comes across as a link farm, as others have said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move it to another namespace I agree that it shouldn't be an article. I don't agree that it should be deleted. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about just archive it? Frzzl talk · contribs 09:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:NOT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete if you’re still making Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo in 2023 you probably subconsciously know your topic isn’t remotely notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Also delete because Wikipedia

WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, basically the scripture of AfD, exist. Dronebogus (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - a simple search for lists of free course videos show a lot of sources such that NLIST seems pretty well satisfied. On mobile now but will come back to this later (didn't want the backlash to jimboposting to result in a snow close, especially since several of the votes don't even address the actual topic). It's just a matter of finding the right inclusion criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the primary issues is one of link farming, which this list seems to fall foul of. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NLIST, etc.). If it can be fixed by editing, it's not an AfD issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Coming back to this now. There's clearly no shortage of sources about free online university courses, and clearly no shortage of sources which treat them as a group.

  WP:NLIST is satisfied. The relevant questions are (a) figuring out inclusion criteria, (b) figuring out the right presentation, (c) whether it needs retitling, and (d) how this fits with list of MOOC providers. If NLIST is satisfied and a bunch of notable professors at accredited universities decide to give away their course content and record their lectures apart from a MOOC platform, it does not strike me as problematic (quite the contrary) to include them in a complementary list. But it's more a question for the talk page than AfD. Speaking of which, I noticed the talk page is completely empty. That's usually a first stop to resolve issues like excessive linking. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "Clearly"? Based on what, the sources provided in the article and in this AfD? I don't think so...

  Fram (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Notability is about whether the sources exist. Nobody should be making a claim about notability based just on sourcing in the article and in this AfD. So yes, clearly, as based on even the most cursory effort. Are you really going to say that in your search to confirm the sources don't exist that you didn't find a whole lot of sources about free online courses and listing a bunch of free online courses? Does anyone really doubt such sources exist? It seems like most people are calling this a WP:NOT issue rather than a WP:NLIST issue, after all, and in that case the other part of what I said applies: the topic is solid, and the rest is fixable through editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Any reason why you can't then support your claims with the results of these "most cursory effort"s, instead of simply claiming that they "clearly" exist?

  Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  A claim that something isn't notable means sources don't exist. Any reason why you can't then support your claim with the results of your own searches? If we're being real, though, I'm just working on other things and don't feel like taking a half hour out of my day to performatively show you that -- shock -- people have written "free online courses" before simply because you can't be bothered to do so. I'll save that for the niche topics where coverage is actually controversial. If people looked at the amount of coverage for free online courses and decided to !vote delete based on that coverage, I can't see where my linking to a few sources is going to change much. Again, my presumption is that most people aren't going to be !voting delete based on NLIST. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In practice the burden of proof lies on the keep voter because lack of notability is presumed until proven othetwise. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream Focus and Rhododendrites. Sandizer (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  WP:NOTDIR. There are probably tens of thousands of such courses in the world, especially post pandemic. It's also a very US centric and English speaking world biased list. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well, it is English Wikipedia… Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I could puke up a bunch of alphabet soup about
  WP:LISTN (note that they do not say "every article that has this stuff in it must immediately be deleted"). What it essentially comes down to is whether Wikipedia exists as a resource for its readers to, yes, use. This page looks like ass, which means it is not useful as an encyclopedia article. It should be fixed, either by being split, having the course descriptions trimmed greatly, or by being taken out of a table and into a list. But when that is said and done, if it is indeed the case that we have a bunch of rules that say we should delete reliably sourced content on an obviously notable encyclopedic subject (I don't think we do, but let's say arguendo that we did), then fooey to the rules, and we should establish new ones. jp×g 09:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Why do keep voters keep baselessly insisting this is

  WP:USEFUL as if it’s a guideline for keeping? Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Your !vote literally did not address anything about this article, but you're badgering others? This low-effort non-contribution plus sniping/griefing seems to be a pattern. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My vote wasn’t very good, yes, but neither is “it’s just notable, you know it is, trust me on this, if you don’t believe me go on Google and slog through dozens of potential sources”. Dronebogus (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve since added an addendum. Dronebogus (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Overall, useful as a resource, and reasonable content for an encyclopedia. Improvement would be desirable to make less US-centric. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's essentially ITSUSEFUL, which, if anything, is a reason to not keep. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:USEFUL. Wikipedia isn't an academic enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2023 (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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T.J. Salts Lumber Mill Explosion: the story of the T.J. Salts Lumber Mill explosion of 1905 commonly referred to as “The Big Blowup”

T.J. Salts Lumber Mill Explosion: the story of the T.J. Salts Lumber Mill explosion of 1905 commonly referred to as “The Big Blowup” (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)

Clearly not ready for mainspace but the creator has already moved it from draft to mainspace so we need consensus on what to do with it. I’m assuming the underlying events are notable but in addition to questions of format and style this looks like a large amount of original research. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The events are covered in a section of
  Phil Bridger (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Can we move it back to draft space? There does appear to be a large amount of original research here, and notability's difficult to gauge with the article's citation format - not that you can't cite things the way you want to, but there are links to newspapers.com searches and not specific articles. It's also possible it's a notable enough event for a stand-alone article, though, which makes it a difficult discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Topic may be notable, but the article is not encyclopedic. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree sending to draft is appropriate for now until further work can be done on it.Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: It's potentially notable and could be a good article but it's not currently in Wikipedia format, in terms of citations, wikilinks, formatting, even the title doesn't meet style guidance. Tidy up and then we can judge the notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: while the topic seems notable (they wrote about it at the time, yes?) the way this article exists right now really does not seem suitable for Wikipedia. The citations are URL links, it's written like an essay, the title itself is extremely verbose... but AfD is not cleanup, so this should be worked on and improved. jp×g 03:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Draftify written like an essay/analysis of the text, needs rewriting to comply with

  wp:mos Karnataka (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2023 (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.

Phuthego Modipe

Phuthego Modipe (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's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The article lacks

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Botswana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Modipe has been cited/quoted in multiple Botswana media sources since 2016, including references the "nephew of the legendary Modipe" (paraphrase), and probably appears at times before web searching is possible due to the time at which he played for Botswana. So notability isn't impossible here, the internet's just not the most helpful for this one. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:39, 7 June 2023 (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.

David Gerard (author)

David Gerard (author) (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)

None of the sources are about him as a person and I can not find any which do. There are a bunch of passing mentions, there are things about his books, there are quotes from him in various pubs, but nothing that passes the

there are quotes from him in various pubs, having now done a WP:BEFORE, I don't think that is a good-faith comment. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment References don't need to be about an author "as a person" in order to satisfy
  the relevant wiki-notability guideline. Authors are noteworthy because of their books. An encyclopedia article about an author should discuss their contributions to the world, not their favorite ice-cream flavor. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You still need a minimal amount of biographical information to write an article. If there is coverage of Attack of the 50-foot Blockchain, we should have an article on it instead of shoehorning an article about the author (who we can say very little about). -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we could refactor the page to be about the book instead of the author, but we do have things to say about the author. Declaring that his activities as a Wikipedia contributor and administrator aren't "biographical information" makes no sense to me. We have one book that meets

  WP:NBOOK, another that has at least gotten noticed [8][9], and descriptions of other activities. That's at the very least a good start towards a biography. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Agree with nom that the sources don't provide coverage of him as a person. I'm on the fence with how much the book(s) contribute to meeting
  WP:NAUTHOR, but lean towards no. FWIW, I'm a fan of the book, and would vote keep if I thought the sourcing/bio info was there, but I'm not seeing it right now. CarringtonMist (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  His own website list of book reviews supports NAUTHOR (and I think the amount of high quality RS quoted his opinions (e.g. WPO, Guardian), supports NBASIC. In crypto, this guy is notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -
  WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied: criteria include The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). Just looking at Attack of the 50 foot blockchain, it's throwing up over 13,000 ghits for me, including mentions/reviews in the Financial Times, Al Jazeera, Wired, and The Guardian. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Even if this article subject is non-notable, some of the prose on the first book might be worth using in an article on that book. Is it possible to draftify with instructions to re-write under a different title? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Gerard is often cited as an authority on cryptocurrency in news articles, as to whether that makes him wiki-notable, i'm not sure, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think he had a good case for NAUTHOR. His book is being quoted in UK Parliament Select Committees, BBC Radio overviews, and Euronews. He does seem like a notable author in crypto? Aszx5000 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from article subject: obviously I'm not going to express an opinion on the discussion, but I'm delighted to have a second AFD. Here's the first - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The amount of good RS on you since the 2008 AfD is considerable. I think not only do you meet

  WP:NBASIC). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. The coverage of Gerard is already quite substantial, but here are some more sources: Profile in Decrypt; coverage of UK Parliament testimony by Yahoo Finance; coverage of uncovering crypto flaw in The Register; profile in Coingeek; book review; central commenter on BBC article on edit wars, including biographical info. Fences&Windows 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect to Decrypt and Coingeek, are they considered to be RS? I know that there's generally

  a presumption against using crypto-specific news sources for establishing notability of cryptocurrency and blockchain projects, but does that same presumption also apply to related persons? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep, per the refs I have added to the article (and those also quoted above), he meets
  WP:NAUTHOR in crypto, per here). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but I have a COI; Gerard is a friend. Seems clearly to meet NAUTHOR, and a page about the book not the person would make less sense given the person is often quoted in the press. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - are there any Daily Mail sources? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I cam here from DYK talk. The article was nominated there and I questioned the notability on the talk page. I now think the person passes
  WP:NAUTHOR. I have no relationship with the subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, meets criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here is a review of the sources. I am reviewing them solely for whether they confer notability, not whether they are usable sources in an article that's notable (obviously most of them are).

1. NgMiller, Joe (6 August 2014). "Wiki wars: Do Wikipedia's internal tiffs deter newcomers?". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted a couple times briefly.

2: Y Edelman, Gilad. "Welcome to the Zombie Cryptocalypse". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Interview with him. This could be something.

3: Ng Silverman, Jacob; Shure, Natalie; Pareene, Alex (20 April 2021). "Cryptocurrencies Are the Next Frontier for the Surveillance :State". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned briefly.

4: Ng "Don't be fooled: Crypto is going up because of market manipulation". Mashable. 17 January 2023. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

5: ? Kelly, Jemima (24 August 2020). "Who's been editing the Ripple CEO's Wikipedia page?". Financial Times. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Paywalled, I have no opinion.

6: Ng "Wikipedia child image censored". BBC News. 8 December 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

7: Ng "Wikipedia at 20: The encyclopedia in five articles". BBC News. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

8: ? Wark, Kirsty (26 August 2009). "Is the philosophy of Wikipedia now dead?". BBC Newsnight. Retrieved 8 June 2023. "Kirsty Wark :is joined by David Gerard, a Wikipedia Editor, and by Kevin Anderson from the Guardian" This looks like a podcast or something. The page is not loading properly for me, so I can't tell.

9: Ng Smith, Catherine (18 December 2007). "Wikipedia blocks users in Lehi neighborhood". Deseret News. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

10: Ng "Wikipedia bans posts from Qatar". The Age. 4 January 2007. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

11: ? Sonnenfeld, Daniel (9 February 2021). "IDF asks Wikipedia to edit 'Hezbollah' entry to reflect terror designation". The :Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 9 June 2023. Quoted at some length, along with some other people, but for more than a brief snippet.

12: N "Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: The Book". Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain. 22 April 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Well, this is his book.

13: Ng Halpern, Sue. "Bitcoin Mania Book review with a couple passing mentions.

14: ? "Blockchain and bitcoin: In search of a critique". LSE Business Review. 30 October 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Well, this looks like in-depth coverage (it's basically entirely about the book), but it's at "blogs.lse.ac.uk" and I don't know what the status of this source is (is it a blog, or a newsblog, or what?)

15: Ng "Tech Tent: What a year for Bitcoin". BBC News. 22 December 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned in passing and quoted from a bit.

16: Ng Jaffe, Aaron (2019). "Reboot Everything". American Book Review. 40 (6): 15–16. doi:10.1353/abr.2019.0094. ISSN 2153-4578. Mentions the book.

17: Ng "ENGL 391 :: Politics of the Digital". www.people.vcu.edu. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned in a curriculum.

18: Ng "Sam Bankman-Fried was hailed as a crypto wonder child. What happened?". The Guardian. 15 November 2022. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 30 May 2023. A byline by him, but not coverage of him.

19: Ng "Central bank digital currency – nine key questions answered". LSE Business Review. 15 December 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly. This seems to be the same site as the "blogs.lse.ac.uk" one from earlier.

20: Ng McCallum, Shiona; Vallance, Chris (16 November 2022). "Over a million are owed money by failed crypto exchange". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

21: Ng Brend, Yvette (19 November 2022). "Celebs like Tom Brady, Larry David did ads for crypto giant FTX. Now they're getting sued". CBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

22: Ng Castor, Amy (23 November 2022). "'Betrayed': FTX meltdown signals end to crypto's 'Wild West' days". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 8 January 2023. Quoted briefly.

23: ? Steer, George (1 June 2022). "The crypto plan to save our souls". Retrieved 8 June 2023. Paywalled, cannot read.

24: Ng Zeitchik, Steven (17 December 2022). "Crypto pulled off its big upgrade. Even larger ambitions await". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

25: Ng Zeitchik, Steven (7 November 2022). "Musk sees a big role for crypto on Twitter. He'll face a tall climb". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

26: Yg "Researchers, journalists and businesses questioned on blockchain uses". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 23 June 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Mentioned as having said some stuff to Parliament. I do not know much about how Parliament works, so maybe that is a big deal (it sounds like one to me).

27: Yg "2Blockchain and crypto-assets: advantages and limitations". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 19 September 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Same as before (note that, if you are trying to ctrl+f here, they misspelt it as "Gerrard")

28: N "Academic papers: Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain". davidgerard.co.uk. 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. His own website.

29: N "About the author". Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain. 8 July 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. His own website.

30: N Brown, Abram. "Inside The Reddit Forum That Wants To See Bitcoin Die". Forbes. Retrieved 30 May 2023. This is a Forbes contributor article, not reliable.

I am not intensely familiar with NAUTHOR outcomes, so I welcome anyone with more knowledge of this area to say whether these quotes contribute to a notability pass. jp×g 08:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrated

WP:NAUTHOR). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This person (and in many cases his book) is getting quoted in a long list of

WP:RS/P sources (e.g. Guardian, FT, WPO, BBC), and appearing on Select Committees, on crypto (NBASIC). A notable figure in crypto. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Quotes do not make notability -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just quoting him, they are contacting him for this opinion and repeating a summary of their discussion in their paper. That is NBASIC. You may not like him (per your comment in the nom), but he is a notable figure in crypto and is being regularly contacted by some of the most highly regarded RS for his views. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is 60 Minutes interviewing him in 2022 and calling him a renowned crypto sceptic David Gerard. That goes to NBASIC. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may come off as a stereotypical grumpy old person yelling "you young'uns gerroff ma lawn" but a twenty-second blurb saying who the interviewee is in no way shape or forms significant coverage, which is the basis of BASIC (the other part is "independent of the subject"). You might want to argue it counts towards the ANYBIO or AUTHOR parts, but BASIC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient independent coverage to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 09:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Now a pretty clear Keep thanks to improvements. I have met DG a few times, years ago. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the book reviews such as the one that says "the first real, 'no holds barred', attack on the whole bitcoin/cryptocurrency/blockchain movement" make me believe that the subject passes
  WP:NAUTHOR; being the first, or one of the first, or the first in a particular sense is generally associated with notability.—Alalch E. 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notable enough and properly sourced. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough and properly sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 02:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable author. Bruxton (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2023 (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 Southern Broadcasting Network#Analog. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DXSS-TV

DXSS-TV (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)

NN TV station UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Southern Broadcasting Network. -Ian Lopez @ 10:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]