Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 3

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      July 10 (Wed)      July 9 (Tue)      July 8 (Mon)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

List of video games with gyro features

List of video games with gyro features (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 stealth WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway, as there are too many games with gyro features to reliably list without it being undue effort for editors, including games that use gyro controls for completely trivial things, like emoting in Bloodborne. It is also written like an essay. This is the kind of over-listification we don't need. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how it can seem like stealth WP:SPAM, since gyro is such a poorly documented feature, most sources will inevitably be from Jibb Smart, the (only) person who did the most amount of research about this topic. He is a trusted source who currently works at Epic Games, and he created the gold standard for modern gyro.

I don't understand how it can be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Explanations, and context were given for every section of the list, it's clear what each thing means, and having Wikipedia as a place for this list would ensure that people will find important information that wasn't extensively documented by the publisher of that game, as well as explaining how gyro works on most games, increasing the knowledge of the reader about this topic.

I agree that too many games use gyro controls for trivial things, I was thinking of a way to exclude such cases, while only including the cases where it was used for Aiming, Steering, Controlling a cursor, and minigames. So games like The Last of Us, where you need to shake the controller to turn the flashlight on, or emoting on Bloodborne would not be included. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, but nom should be incredibly careful about throwing around insulting terms like spam to what is, in reality, probably just an enthusiast - WP:AGF! That aside though, I don't think segmenting video games by feature is a good WP:LISTCRIT because it essentially ends up being a list of most video games on any games consoles that have a gyroscope - that's all VR games, pretty much all Wii games, and most Switch games. The sourcing here is also generally inappropriate - presentation slides from a "how-to" talk are primary sources, and lean towards articles violating WP:NOTHOWTO. This is clearly not an article appropriate for mainspace.

I don't think everything in this article should be blown up though, hence my vote. With a better LISTCRIT (perhaps just consoles?) and the removal of the OR, I think this could stand. BrigadierG (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly omitted VR games in the introduction because their use of gyro features isn't the same as traditional use on normal consoles, and the console's list states that the Wii remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, so only a handful of games on the Wii support gyro because gyro was only introduced later with the Wii Motion Plus accessory. The argument that there would be just too many games to list, and that would be just a "list of most games of certain platforms" shows how little information people have about this feature and what it does, and the importance of this article in the first place.

If the wording of this article leaves space for this kind of confusion, perhaps it would be better to simply change the name and specify in the introduction what is considered a game "with" or "without" gyro features.

If there's a problem with the sources, I can use different ones, but most of them come from the same person (Jibb Smart), with a similar format, because it is the only place and format where this information was compiled and tested.

I also don't understand how it violates the WP:NOTHOWTO because the article doesn't teach anything, it just shares information, the source of that information happens to be from a "how to" presentation. Also, I don't understand how it doesn't make a good WP:LISTCRIT, when a similar list for the Wii Motion Plus accessory exists: List of games that support Wii MotionPlus. This list essentially is "every Wii/WiiU Game that supports gyro features" and it's been up since 2011. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the subject of this list to "All games with gyro aiming", which would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section of this list can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library and clear up any confusion with the title of this page. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia - it is excellent to have more motivated editors working on fields that they have a lot of experience documenting. That said, there are quite a few issues with this article that go beyond the selection criteria and I think will require a major overhaul to rectify. This article as it stands right now is WP:SYNTH - and the research you've done on the topic (although thorough) is ultimately original. This article as-is can't stand in mainspace, and I would recommend submitting through WP:AFC rather than moving directly to mainspace.

I think you should take a real close read of WP:OR and WP:RS. BrigadierG (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list would be massive it was correctly populated with all the Wii and Nintendo Switch games out there. There's mobile games, VG games, etc etc. The scope won't work. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is anyone reading the actual page or any of my comments? The Wii does not have a gyro sensor. A very limited list of games of that platform would be included on the list, more precisely 54 of 2560 games. This is written in the "Platform" section. The Wii Remote Wiki page also states the same information. In fact, the list that is already there, already includes most of the games that would qualify to be on that list, and that is certainly not every Wii game or every Switch game.

  I would understand if the concern was that the explanation given on the article leaves room for this kind of misconception, so a solution would be to simply refine what's already there. But so far, the deletion requests are coming from people who don't know what Gyro is, this is a baseless concern, that is already addressed in the page itself, that only goes to show how people could benefit from the information contained on this article. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the term gyroscope peppered through the Wii Remote article, so I'm not sure I'm following how that's not a "gyro feature", but regardless, that was a relatively small part of my overall argument that would still stand even if the Wii is somehow not relevant. Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quick correction: Only Wii Remote Plus or Wii Remote's Motion Plus accessory has gyroscope capabiltiies. Actual usage of gyorscope in Wii titles are rare (obviously) and it's often a requirement for these titles, but on top of my head: Wii Sports Resort and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword.

  if you ask me: this entire "list" should become Gyroscopic control (gaming) while the *real* List of video games with gyro features should only be a list. and I have gave that feedback directly to Ivan in a separate social media site/group thingin. AL2009man (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wii Remote doesn't have a gyro sensor, uses only an accelerometer and an IR sensor. Gyro was indeed introduced later with the Motion Plus accessory, so the list of games that support this accessory is very limited. So no, not every Wii game uses gyro, Motion Controls (accelerometer) and Motion Controls (Gyroscopes) are 2 different things that lead to different results.

  Regardless, as I said above. I understand the concern with the scope of this article, I feel the biggest problem is in the premise being too broad. If this article was called "List of console games with gyro aim", would that help? It would narrow it down to a single widely sought-after feature and fit better into the categories on the list, although the concepts in each section can also be used for other things, like a steering and control a mouse cursor. This would also remove most of the Wii library, low effort mobile games and VR games, thus clearing up any confusion with the title and premise. Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, still multiple issues to address:

  1. This article uses a lot of unreliable/unusable sources. For example, any wikis would fail WP:USERG. That all needs to go.
  2. Every entry needs to be reliably sourced. See WP:VG/S for the sorts of sources that are usable or unusable. Are we really going to be able to do this with this subject?
  3. Lists should meet WP:NLIST. That requires better sourcing too. Are there WP:VG/S approved sources that do this?

  I have serious concerns about all of these points, especially since, by your own admission, gyro is such a poorly documented feature. That is absolutelynot a way one would want to describe the subject of their Wikipedia article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Usually everything about gyro is documented by the community, because the stigma around this feature is enough for it to not be listed anywhere in any official capacity. I can try to address these issues, but if I can't, I guess I will have to search for another place to do this. Thank you so much for your time and for being the only person to actually reply to anything I asked on this site. I sent multiple messages throughout the process to my "mentor" to make sure if I wasn't falling on these pitfalls, and no one answered. Anyway, Thank you! Ivan Iovine Monteiro (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify and move – after figuring out "gyros" isn't referring to Greek cuisine (somehow I totally misread the title at first), I think the prose section could be a good starting point for an article about gyroscopes in video games (after some major cleanup), but the list section is too indiscriminate. For the few games where gyroscopic features are particularly relevant, they could be discussed in prose. So I would support moving to draftspace, but only if the article is overhauled with a different focus and the article title is changed to the general topic instead of a list. AL2009man's suggestion of Gyroscopic control (gaming) would work, as would something like Gyroscopes in video games. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP: INDISCRIMINATE. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastport, Idaho

Eastport, Idaho (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)

Just like the Kingsgate article, I propose that we redirect this one into the Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing article. There's only a few sources, and I feel that a couple of sentences can fit in the border crossing rather than being placed in an article that feels like a stub with nothing interesting or pleasing to the reader. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See historic images here. See this United States government report: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/pnp/habshaer/id/id0100/id0128/data/id0128data.pdf More coverage of Eastport: https://bonnersferryherald.com/search/vertical/news.story/?q=Eastport From Medium.com: https://medium.com/@cheri_28877/canadian-border-crossing-eastport-idaho-69df61947348 Also, https://boundary.idgenweb.org/history/post/eastport-idaho Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Note that WP:MEDIUM is generally considered unreliable. No comment on the other sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• merge/expand The issue here is really that now the border crossing has basically co-opted the town. I think the latter makes the most sense as a section within the crossing article rather than as a separate article. Also, I have to point out that the only "good" source here, that is, the only one that has content which could be used as the basis for writing article text, is not likely to cut the mustard as a reliable source, given the lack of authorship info and citations. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed redirection, I feel it will make the page more useful. 24vikie (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)

Thriller (Fall Out Boy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[1][2] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Infinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG - The article is comprehensive and there is commentary about the song in multiple reliable sources. Slant Magazine, Northern Valley Suburbanite, Alternative Press, Guitar.com. Additionally the song leads with an introduction from Jay Z which garnered much press like in the Los Angeles Times and other major media outlets.Note, as the article's main author I was not notified of this AfD. Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the past I would have said the same. The article itself is not the issue, but the sources are. They are all about the album, so the critics naturally write about the songs featured in the album from that perspective. For example, "I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers" is also mentioned by two of the sources you included and some sources included at Infinity on High, but that doesn't mean we should have an article for it. This was practically the conclusion reached at previous AFD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Hands. A good example of how this is reversed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song), a song that was marignally notable when it was released, but that gained independent notability after an external event created that notability; that is, being used in a TV series and secondary sources discussing it independently from the album. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (into Infinity on High) - it has good info, but I agree with the nom. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can refer to WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:N A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, they are not a reason to keep the page alone. Some sources are trivial and none of the sources present is about the song alone; they are about the album, regardless on how you'd like to word it. As I said before, just because the sources at Infinity on High#References mention songs like Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?, I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers, or Bang the Doldrums, we have to create their articles based on album reviews that trivially reviewed them from the album's perspective, like it occured with Thriller (Fall Out Boy song).

On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.

As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin

Notcoin (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)

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11#Notcoin, as the redirect target of Telegram (software), or any other target, was not found suitable. The page had been moved to draftspace on the day of its creation, as not ready for mainspace, however the creator had rejected the draftification. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Games, and Software. Jay 💬 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telegram: Significant coverage in BBC Pidgin and likely in the non-English articles as well (which I cannot read). Telegram article is long but could easily accommodate a short section on the game, which seems to have drawn attention. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what is this? A game? A crypto-coin? A ponzi scheme? The sources don't say (and are largely about a related game called "Hamster Combat"), which demonstrates that there is insufficiently substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am opposed to a redirect to Telegram (software). If this content were on the Telegram article, I would remove it as WP:UNDUE and inherently somewhat promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Persian article has همستر کامبت (Hamster Kombat) as the article subject: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%AA Hamster Kombat and Notcoin seem like they are separate crypto games on Telegram? From machine translation and the images, the sources cited in the English article, like this one, appear to be about Hamster Kombat or crypto games in general, not about Notcoin. For a redirect, Telegram (software) seems an appropriate target. I'll abstain from voting, though, because I can't read most of the coverage on these games. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the first AFD discussion, the closure was Delete but this discussion is bringing up more possible outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Open Network (TON). The Persian-language sources seem to be primarily about a hamster-related game of a different name that employs the Notcoin/"Natcoin" token. But I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV for Notcoin itself, at least not in sources that clear WP:NCRYPTO; however, WP:TRADES sources ([3], [4]) do show evidence that it's a major game/token on TON, so as an AtD that redirect makes sense. Like Walsh90210 I would oppose a redirect to Telegram. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet more unimportant cryptotrash. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. fails general notability guideline. subject of article is also unfocused. ltbdl (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – what an unholy mess. Plainly not remotely suitably sourced, and the article content wanders all over the place. Draftify if the user wants, but since they don't seem to want that, deletion is the right option. Possibly salt so they don't do it again. Or block them, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (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)

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Evin Prison. This is a case of WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burr dilemma

Burr dilemma (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 enough. The page seems to have only one or two citations to a pair of closely-related papers by the same author, both mostly speculative. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with a related article. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a brief mention could be added to bullet voting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because the citations in the article aren't the only ones that exist. Though, I wouldn't be against merging it with a related article if a sufficiently related one can be found. Loki (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [14], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faris Mannekkara

Faris Mannekkara (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)

Likely to fail WP:NBIO - sourced to PR/puff pieces.
Earlier draft: Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The editor who wrote this article made a Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara on 08:13, 22 June 2024 and kept it and later made a new article with a slight change in the title, which is a wrong trend and does not prove WP:NBIO. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the editor who made this page did a mistake by creating a draft and then again creating it into the main space, maybe he is a newbie that's why....but if we look at the person's page, he was awarded the community Leader Award from the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation which is a state award from the person's home state which is in Kerala and the Fulbright Foundation’s Global Changemaker Award in 2023 which is a International award given by the US Government which i believe at least qualify the award category of the people's notability guidelines according to the guidelines written in Wikipedia. This guy also has a significant coverage in The Times of India, Economics Times , Ahmedabad Mirror which i believe is considered reliable in Wikipedia. So we have 2 of the 3 basic criteria except the national dictionary thing ....also While reading the content of these articles i don't see any kind of sponsored post written or a disclaimer in the news coverage these are just my analysis. SATavr (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be ignorance / new editor who wrote the draft and then made a new page, but destroyed the first edits in the first draft and deleted it in a completely unrecognizable form, added another person to it and added it to his date of birth and created a misunderstanding because of lack of knowledge?? Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara Difference between revisions [19], Draft:Muhammed Faris Mannekkara 2nd Difference between revisions[20] Spworld2 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I do agree with you. It was a stupid mistake done by this new editor and i think he lacks the patience for it and just wanted to go directly with a shortcut way for publication. Thats why he change the draft content to a different person and he thought we would'nt know lol..... I believe he has learned a lesson not to do it again and i hope he has got to know that things doesnt workout like this. SATavr (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A before search comes up with many sources. (e.g. [1] [2]. Numerous articles featuring the names appear, the most of them in Hindi and English. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR/churnalism doesn’t count. Both articles are just advertorials for his car company.-KH-1 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These articles discuss his side automobile firm, yet his Wikipedia biography hardly ever mentions this information. The autogenerated nature of these stories is not disclaimed, as is typically the case. The name of the publisher, Sunil Chaurasia, is also mentioned in The Economic Times. His social work is the subject of major pieces that don't appear to be PR or churnalism. They include original research, such as his participation in and thorough coverage of the Sankesh Foundation and the Smiles Foundation. - [3] which is covered in the Ahmedabad Mirror. Another example is his relationship with Shyalash C, his mentor, which isn't mentioned on his Wikipedia page but is confirmed as original research in Punjab Kesari - [4]. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to hear from some more experienced editors about whether sourcing is sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica International Encyclopedia

Britannica International Encyclopedia (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 sourcing that I could find besides sales listings and a single sentence mention in an issue of The Booklist from 2008, but there is a language barrier so my Japanese searches may have not been effective. Could probably be merged and mentioned somewhere if there aren't other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Global Edition (or create a separate section in that article for non-English editions). Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of the Encyclopædia Britannica#Global Edition seems most sensible. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nevin (diplomat)

Michael Nevin (diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. : [21], [22], [23], [24] [25]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]