Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFD/Log/Today)
Shortcut
Purge

7 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< September 06 September 08 >

Purge server cache

Safavid–Aq Qoyunlu Wars

edit
Safavid–Aq Qoyunlu Wars (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)

ChatGPT creation (see [1]). It's already been moved to draft once. I tried to get the go-ahead from the author to draftify it a second time, but no luck. asilvering (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smarter Planet

edit
Smarter Planet (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)

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor topics which can fit in other pages like: List of IBM products
  • The quality was not improved in a decade or more
  • To generate discussion whether to try to improve those articles or go ahead and delete them.
Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Ojala

edit
Aleksi Ojala (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)

Nominated for the following reason: Fails WP:GNG. The article currently contains no reliable, secondary sources. The first 2 articles are sports aggregate result websites that alone do not establish notability. The third article is a bio on a team website that no longer links to the athletes page. An independent google search as required for AfD returned no significant non-trivial coverage of the athlete. Wibbit23 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He doesn't look notable from the article. If you consult Special/Whatlinkshere you will find a 14th place at the 2017 World Championships and a 13th place at the 2022 World Championships. The 13th best in the entire world... looks much more notable now. And look, there is lots of significant coverage about his upbringing, personal life etc. [2] [3], various competitions [4] [5]+[6] and finally an article from this July about him retiring. [7]. These are from the two first pages of Google hits when I searched within Svenska YLE (since I know Swedish) and for his name in conjunction with his home town (since articles that write about someone's place of origin tend to showcase more knowledge about the person). A pretty clear keep Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Low-level competitor with almost zero coverage. [8] is a brief mention, then nothing else comes up. This isn't a famous athlete, just an athlete in a group of many others. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will ask that you reply to myself and another editor who found lots of pages to take into consideration. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent, reliable sources found that show significant coverage as proof of notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least some Finnish-language coverage exists, with e.g. these two pieces by by Yle Uutiset discussing his troubles in the 2023 Budapest world championships at length: [9], [10]. The same event was covered by e.g. Ilta-Sanomat [11]. That said, I'd view these as essentially one piece of newswork for notability purposes. Other than that, it's mostly your bog-standard sports coverage [12], or tiny local newspapers [13]. There is a piece by Aamulehti [14], but it's paywalled and I can't say whether it's just the standard "we interviewed an athlete" fare that contributes little-to-nothing towards notability, or something more extensive. Iltalehti has a short piece about him retiring [15], but it's quite a short piece with lots of quotes. All told, not the worst coverage I've seen, but neither is it anything that would make this a slam dunk in my eyes. I'd feel much more comfortable coming down on the keep side of the fence if there was at least one more solid non-interview piece in relation to something else than the Budapest events. Based on my (very brief) search, I'm rather ambivalent. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just emphasize here, as both Habst and Alvaldi have referenced these news pieces in their !votes: I think the Finnish-language coverage is weak. The strongest pieces of content (Budapest troubles) are less about the subject and more about the events in which he got involved in: they say fairly little about Ojala himself, and thus do little to establish the notability of Ojala. Similarly, most of the other stories are either wholly or in large part interviews, i.e. the subject talking about themself. To my understanding, these have been traditionally held to have little-to-no value for establishing notability. Yes, there is coverage relating to the subject, but there is little independent coverage about the subject in specific. There is no encyclopedic value in a quote of the subject saying they had a tough competition at some event or another, and they plan to train hard in the future. Ljleppan (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan, I greatly respect your contributions to this discussion and have thought about what you said. I do disagree with your assessment about the Finnish sources. For example, in [16] it's mentioned in the free preview that his "life will change" (translated) due to his retirement. Surely life-changing events are worth covering if a news organization deems it fit to write an article about it? In addition, the subject is specifically the sole topic of coverage. Re: interviews, I don't agree with that assessment. I've spoken with other experienced editors about interviews and they can actually have substantial value in establishing notability. For an interesting admin comment about interviews, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pietro Farina (athlete). I also wouldn't anticipate the type of quotes mentioned to be in the retirement article, because it's about his retirement so he wouldn't have to train for anything in the future. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Habst: the significant problem with Urjalan Sanomat in specific is that it's a hyperlocal newspaper, serving a municipality of approximately 4.5k people. Having a piece (notably, of unknown length and depth as it's paywalled) about someone in it is hardly indicative of any kind of meaningful notability. Ljleppan (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I might as well mark myself down as a weak delete for now, absent further sourcing that provides intellectually independent and significant coverage about the article subject in specific. Ljleppan (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan, thanks for the response. I think that point is valid when the story is only circulated in physical print, but the Urjalan Sanomat is an online article so the potential audience is much wider. Also, just because we don't have access to a source doesn't mean it can't be used to assert notability; per WP:NEXISTS, simply knowing that sources must exist is enough to assert the notability of a subject and keep an article. --Habst (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This misrepresents the point of WP:NEXISTS: it points out that the notability-establishing sources do not necessarily need to be located in the article. But simply pointing at a paywalled article you have no access to (as far as I can see) is not sufficient: someone needs to be able to actually access the source and provide an assessment of whether it is the type of content we generally view as notability-indicative. Otherwise it is merely an unsupported assertion. Ljleppan (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan, I don't think that interpretation of WP:NEXISTS is backed up by the text or idea of the policy. Yes, sources don't need to be in the article – but that's simply not the only application of NEXISTS. Per Wikipedia policty the mere possibility of sources existing – a bar which I think has both been passed and not sufficiently rebutted in this case – must be considered by editors in deletion discussions. So of course, if paywalled articles can be found that are clearly solely about the subject, they should be considered regardless of whether we have access right now on the basis that a future editor could use it. I've seen articles about award winners kept in the past based on the fact that typically winners of their award have plaques written about them as part of the award, and that plaque could count as SIGCOV despite us not actually having a picture or the text of the plaque.
    With great respect, I would be eager to strike any unsupported assertions I've made because I think it's important to discuss based on facts. I don't think it's appropriate to imply that another editor would do that without pointing to a specific statement that is both asserted and unsupported. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was very surprised by the depth of coverage found above thanks to hard work of Geschichte and Ljleppan. I think any argument to delete needs to directly rebut the 13 sources found in this discussion. For example, the recent retirement article I would say is significant, independent, and reliable to challenge @Prof.PMarini in particular. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, you have to admit that the sources Ljleppan listed would not appear in a customary WP:BEFORE search. He/she himself said that despite the sources found it "would not make a slam dunk" and he/she is "ambivalent." Plus, the sources still do not quite meet WP:SIGCOV about the subject of the article, Athletics World is focused on the doctor and just mentions Ojala; yle.fi was cited three times, but they are a mix of interviews, so may count as primary source, not useful as proof of notability. So my comment is still a Weak Delete at best. And anyway, I am just participating in a discussion and would not in any way take it personally if the consensus happens to not be the same as what my interpretation of the matter is. Additional edit: Plus, I only read English Wikipedia. If Geschichte had to search in Swedish to find sources, perhaps it is better wriiten in the Swedish Wikipedia and later translated. If readers and editors need to expend so much effort to prove a subject's notability, maybe the subject is not notable enough. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a comment above expanding my view on the Finnish language sources (they are rather weak, in my view), but I'll just note here that there is no requirement for sources to be in English. See WP:GNG, stating "Sources may encompass published works in (...) in any language." and "Sources do not have to be (...) written in English.", as well as WP:NONENG. Ljleppan (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prof.PMarini, thanks for engaging, I think this type of discussion is what makes Wikipedia better. First of all, you have to admit that the sources Ljleppan listed would not appear in a customary WP:BEFORE search. -- I don't agree with this assessment, in Ljleppan's own words their search was "very brief". A WP:BEFORE should be able to catch any sources found in a very brief search. I think that the sources do meet the bar for SIGCOV -- I have looked extensively into Wikipedia policy on interviews in the past, and I've concluded that according to policy, they actually do not count as primary sources if they are published by news organizations because the news organizations have editorial processes and are staking their reputations on the veracity of the claims. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that interviews cannot contribute to establishing notability. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "[interviews] actually do not count as primary sources if they are published by news organizations because the news organizations have editorial processes and are staking their reputations on the veracity of the claims," this is blatantly incorrect. News organizations printing "X said that Y" does not indicate the news organization is vouching for the claims Y, but that X indeed claimed Y. Ljleppan (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ljleppan, that may or may not always play out in the off-wiki world, but according to Wikipedia policy that statement is certainly correct. I'm not referring to when cases where a newspaper gets a quote from someone – that's not an interview article but merely reporting that someone said something. An interview article is something more like that in the Pietro Farina case, where the article is written as a transcript as if the interviewee had written the article, without contextual framing around every quote.
    Per Geschichte's comment, there are many non-interview articles in this case anyways, so the point is kind of moot. --Habst (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are almost always primary sources w/r/t to the content directly attributed to the person being interviewed, as is the plain reading of "accounts (..) by people who are directly involved" and as is explained in the footnote stating "Further examples of primary sources include: (..) interviews", both from WP:PRIMARY. Interview articles can also include non-primary content by the journalist who authored the article (this is normal, almost all non-tertiary content is primary-in-part), but not all content in it is categorically primary. Ljleppan (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we agree, then, except for Interviews are almost always primary sources. It simply depends on context and framing, and I've not seen any evidence that the sources presented in this AfD are "solely primary" interviews. --Habst (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Marini - I searched in Swedish because Swedish is an official language of Ojala's country of origin. The YLE articles are not interviews though they contain quotes among other things. The comments about "expending effort" seem subjective and have little to do with policy as I see it. Geschichte (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned sources. Alvaldi (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Habst (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are comments to this discussion that have been made within the past hour. I'd also like to echo the request that editors arguing to Delete engage with the sources brough up in this discussion. Some editors have done this (thank you!) but all editors saying the sourcing is inadequate should review sources that have been found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Echoing Liz's last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Master Inventor

edit
IBM Master Inventor (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)

Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hopes of seeing more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom

edit
List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom (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:LISTN, very limited discussion about importance of MPs being landlords among indepdent RSs, with the whole list just being primary sourced from the UK Parliament. WP:UNDUE.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Epirote Insurgency In South Albania

edit
North Epirote Insurgency In South Albania (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)

Duplicate/WP:POV FORK of Northern Epirus Liberation Front, as well as WP:OR. None of the references have page numbers either and it doesn't seem like any of them actually verify the text in the article. Griboski (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (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 propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).
In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heimdall (software)

edit
Heimdall (software) (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)

Written somewhat promotionally. Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. I suggest restoring the redirect that was there before it was replaced. Rusty 🐈 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McDonald (academic)

edit
Richard McDonald (academic) (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:NACADEMIC. He worked for some important organizations in non-major roles. I see no sign of any influential scientific publication of his on a reputable journal, or any terminal degree for that matter. This looks more like a resume of a postgraduate student than anything else. Badbluebus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"