Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 15: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:25, 15 August 2022 editBrigadierG (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers2,350 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Travel Insurance Direct.Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit Revision as of 01:50, 15 August 2022 edit undoNetherzone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers50,235 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerony (Musician).Tag: TwinkleNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__ __TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gerony (Musician)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Travel Insurance Direct}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Travel Insurance Direct}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Willoughby Kipling}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Willoughby Kipling}}

Revision as of 01:50, 15 August 2022

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      December 27 (Fri)      December 26 (Thu)      December 25 (Wed)     More...

Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

< August 14 August 16 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 02:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerony (Musician)

Gerony (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)

This musician does not meet our notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN. All the references are either trivial name-check mentions, music download sites, fan-uploaded YouTube videos, primary sources (the musician's own YouTube videos), or do not mention him at all. One award that he supposedly won does not mention him at all. It does not appear that significant coverage in reliable sources exist for this musician. See source assessment table.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
musicbrainz No User submitted content No Name checks in user-submitted content website where artists can create an account No name check only (trivial coverage ✘ No
AaceHypez Music download site No Not a reliable source No trivial mention of his name on a music download site ✘ No
Youtube No YouTube, anyone can upload to YouTube No Not reliable, does not contribute to notability No music video ✘ No
St. Johns, Canada Yes City in Canada website Yes It's a city site, like the Chamber of Commerce No Doesn't mention the artist at all. Fake citation, no mention of award or artist. ✘ No
Ghana Classic No Music download site/blog No ? not a reference No Name check only on a music download site ✘ No
Zack Nation No music download site No ? not a reference No name check, music download site ✘ No
Hip Radar music download site No not a reference No name check only, music download site ✘ No
Zack Nation No music download site No not a reference No name check only, music download site ✘ No
You Tube No User uploaded No does not contribute to notability, not a reference No YouTube of him on his religion ✘ No
YouTube No User uploaded video No not a reference No It's a fan YouTube ✘ No
YouTube No user uploaded YouTube video No not a reference No YouTube uploaded by the artist ✘ No
Kumikasa  ?  ? No Fake reference for an award that he did not receive, does not mention him at all ✘ No
NYDJ Live.com  ? Unclear if this is a music blog  ? No name listed as a nominee ✘ No
OkayAfrica  ?  ? No Does not mention him at all ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Netherzone (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Note:: Article is now at Gerony due to multiple confusing redirects by creator (now blocked). Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Netherzone - See Liz's comment below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Just FYI, Netherzone, most admins use XFDCloser to close deletion discussions and if the decision is to Delete, the XFDCloser will also delete talk pages and any relevant redirects that point to the deleted article. So, there is no need to tag these pages for deletion. Liz 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this info Liz, I was wondering about that. I've only used XFDCloser once, maybe twice (for non-controversial closes), so this is good information to know. Netherzone (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Travel Insurance Direct

Travel Insurance Direct (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)

Trying very hard to not be an advert, but still failing. News/Google shows no evidence of notability or WP:CORPDEPTH. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. However, a discussion on a potential redirect is encouraged to continue editorially. Star Mississippi 17:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Willoughby Kipling

Willoughby Kipling (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)

Topic fails WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable sources appear to be limited to trivial mentions and pop culture fluff articles. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes, minor fluff that brings absolutely nothing to the table:
  • ScreenRant: Literally nothing but an overview of the character for the uninitiated, covering what already exists in the article. No usable commentary on the character.
  • Decider: Another minor introductory overview with basically nothing usable.
  • CBR: Same as the above
  • Cinemablend: Same as the above
  • All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. TTN (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    • They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no commentary. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. WP:NOTPLOT states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per WP:DUE, so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • GNG requires non-trivial coverage. They are four cookie-cutter articles regurgitating the same basic clickbait information they probably got from Misplaced Pages in the first place. They don't even have a real place in the article because they bring absolutely nothing new to the table. If a source cannot be used in an article, then it is by definition trivial coverage. If simply being mentioned in a reliable source was enough, every single modern character from a semi-notable series would have an article because these sites do the same thing on a daily basis for probably literally every single character. That's not to mention that listicle-producing trash like SR and CBR probably barely skirt being RSs, if they even count. TTN (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You know what? That's perfectly circular logic, so devoid of actual policy support, that you've well and truly dug a hole: You're arguing that RS'es that confirm our article is correct don't contribute to notability, and that multiple RS'es saying the same thing is reason to discount all of them. ETA: Oh, and that multiple paragraph articles that are specifically about the topic are trivial. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • You keep ignoring the "significant coverage" aspect. You have to show what merit these sources provide, explaining how they constitute significant coverage. If they do not merit inclusion in the article, they are not significant coverage. One source is all that is needed to fulfill verifiability of the television role. Any more than that is simply refbombing. The bit about the character's origin is already attributed to a primary source, so it is primary information directly from the creators. It doesn't need any other sources to confirm, thus those are useless in that regard. Again, these are not unique articles. These sites make their money off of clickbait covering every single casting decision in every single semi-popular show. If you were correct in your assessment, nearly every modern television character would be notable, which is not the case whatsoever. You're just simply incorrect, which seems to be very common in these recent fiction-related AfDs in which you've participated. I think you simply don't understand how fiction should be treated. TTN (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    • No, I understand exactly what you're saying, and entirely disagree. "You know why Encyclopedia Britannica covered all those topics? Sheer profit motive!" sounds about as credible. Yes, almost every modern TV show character is notable, because we have RS coverage for them. You think this is a bad thing? Sorry that Misplaced Pages wants to cover more than you want it to, but the mismatch is between your expectations and policy. Trying to artificially and inappropriately raise the bar on significant coverage is fine... WP:VPP is that way. Until then "directly and in detail" is the governing definition. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
      @Jclemens There is coverage and there is coverage. When the coverage doesn't go beyond plot summary and mentions of which media a character appeared in, GNG is not met as the subject has no wider significance. Here's food for thought: Genshin Impact is one of many very popular new video games that has dozen of playable characters, with a new one released monthly if not more often. All of said characters have dozens of how-to game guide pages (sample). While we should have a List of Genshin Impact characters (I just found one at draft and will probably fix and mainspace it soon), as someone who plays the game and reads much of such coverage, I am pretty sure that none of these characters deserve a stand-alone wikipedia page, as there is no reception of them outside of how-to-play guides and plot summaries. (Which is still more than for many non-game characters, where there are just plot summaries, but no how-to-play guides, as they are not playable... case being this one, discussed here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
      You posit your "food for thought" as if a large number of notable characters is a bad thing. Sorry, but that's not anywhere in policy--not quite as bad as suggesting a series of multiple paragraph articles on a character all comprise trivial coverage, but still not policy. WP:NOTPAPER applies: if we can write RS'ed articles on a million fictional elements, super! Now here's my question for you: Why would this be a bad thing? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
      @Jclemens If they meet our requirements for GNG, that's a great thing. The bad thing is if they don't. A lot of good articles is a good thing, a lot of bad articles is a bad thing :P My point is that in this day and age we are seeing a ton of low quality coverage of, among other things, fictional characters, but that coverage is litle more than a noise - see the sample article I linked about one particular GI character. I do not belive it constitutes SIGCOV. Would you agree or disagree with this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • All trivial mentions that wouldn't even be worth putting in episode articles (of which none even exist), let alone a character article. I repeat that all sites do this on a daily basis for all shows. These are not sources that help anything meet GNG. TTN (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    I concur, but I'd be mildly interested in seeing how someone could waste their time trying to make a reception out if this. IFF this is kept such a reception section needs to happen first; in the current state the article is just a fancrufty plot summary with no value for our readers (I am sure fanwiki on the topic has a much better plot description anyway, with more links to in-universe topics, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different possibilities being discussed here, these doesn't seem to be consensus to Delete this article but opinions vary on whether this should be Kept, Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you feel this, based on your POV, is fine, why not let the closer decide whether the article will be kept or redirected? You state that I have a needelssly high bar of reliability and SIGCOV, but you are going against consensus both on this AfD through insisting trivial, non-RS refs are perfectly fine, and generally by denying consensus on whether refs are RS. Do you think the summaries on RSP and Wikiprojects are just wrong? I understand, as you are a more inclusionist, we won't agree on this, which is fine (it's after all part of building a consensus, and is arguably better than an AfD where everyone else agrees). Anyways, I am still interested in your definition of "trivial" and "reliable". Have a good day:) VickKiang (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I know you weren't replying to me, but personally, I've always thought that "trivial" mentions are mentions of a certain topic without any real substance behind it. For example, a source that gives a few basic descriptions of the character and maybe a one sentence opinion on them vs. a source that gives better analyses on the character and gives reasons why they think that way of the character. A lengthy source on the character helps, but it can still be significant without that. WP:TRIVIAL supports this point of view, which states "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections"
Then again, how "short" is short? And just how much is enough to write an article? That's a whole nother debate, but you get my point. Either way, my choice would be to keep the article, like I mentioned above.
As for Screenrant, it is determined reliable for entertainment-related topics, which this is, as the very page you linked to mentions. MoonJet (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses

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

Non-notable medical organisation. A quick search on news and books turns up only passing mentions. BrigadierG (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep It has 12,000 members, has an annual conference, publications, manages key certification programs, issues awards and receives coverage in the academic press as well as news.
News: Listed as a key nursing specialty group here and here. News coverage of the AMSN PRISM awards can be found, for example, here and here, as well as in a book here.
In Books, listed as the only US body for medical-surgical nursing here, "the professional organization for nurses practicing in medical-surgical settings" here, "the only specialty nursing organization dedicated to the practice of medical-surgical nursing" here . Their certification program is mentioned here and here as part of the general system of certification for Medical-surgical nursing in the US. Books are published on passing this certification (CMSRN), as can be found on a google books search here.
Scholar: The journal the Academy publishes, Medsurg Nursing gets lots of citations. Look at google scholar listings articles here. OsFish (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur with keep. A cursory search appears to support the idea that this is a major medical professional organization that plays a role in licensing and continuuing education. It needs to be substantialy expanded, but I don't think it meets deletion criteria.nf utvol (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
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.