Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

California

Al Gelato

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

This article on a gelato brand no longer in existence, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. A before search finds social media but not much else. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and California. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Whalen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tom Whalen

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

notability; apparent self-promotion LoveGermanLit (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see adequate sources here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Guy Finley

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no significant coverage of Guy Finley, his work or his teachings in reliable secondary sources. Most of it is blog posts and primary sources. A 2007 discussion ended with a Keep result, but the votes all relied on notability determined by Google hits, a Google featured link and Amazon sales rankings. These are outdated standards. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Philosophy, Spirituality, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a great example of a clear WP:NBIO fail. None of the sources are reliable as they are blogs, and I couldn't find any other coverage of this specific Guy Finley (there were other hits but nothing of interest). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!vote I think most musicians deserve a chance Natlaur (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Race Cars

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayelle

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

Non-notable musician. Nothing to indicate she meets any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO. Few WP:RSs-- most sources don't meet WP:RS as they are either not reliable (eg Medium) or not substantively about the subject (eg are about a telethon). Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry- would love to move this to a draft space to remedy this! Sovenfire3982 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John-Paul Tran

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article at the moment. This article should wait until there is some actual WP:SIGCOV of the subject, who is still a child athlete. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could not find any coverage besides a singular mention [1] (not including the 1 source on the article). Fails WP:NATHLETE. Sir MemeGod  21:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support draftification per the nomination until Tran gets more coverage. Sir MemeGod  21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found, and a long way from being a notable athlete for our purposes here. I don't even thing drafting would help, still a young competitor, not competing on the national level Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage found. WP:MANOTE talks about notable artists need to be at least adult black belts, winning junior events has never been considered WP notable in MA. No reason to draftify this article. When he meets either WP:GNG or an SNG, the article will need to be rewritten then. According to coverage, this event had less than 200 competitors ages 5 to 17 competing in over 40 divisions. Papaursa (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and Papaursa. WP:TOOSOON Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varrio 204th Street

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

Lack of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of criminal gangs in Los Angeles: While I did find a singular Washington Post article about them, I can't find anything else that prevents a failure of WP:GNG. A redirect would work. Sir MemeGod  20:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Shoop

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

Another dime-a-dozen TV weatherman article, with hardly any content since its 2008 creation that fails to establish why subject is notable. Sources before and after death are primary, with no viable third-party coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Murray

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

Nonnotable pastor. Lacking significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found a primary source [2] and that's about it. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Fire: The Illusion of Justice

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

One review (which is questionable reliability wise), nothing else found in a search. Self-published. Does not pass NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Sexuality and gender, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found this work used as reference in others: here, here and here. Scholar doesn't bring up much more. Also listed here. Not much else. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (company)

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

Article fails demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Both TechCrunch articles are about routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). And not that it matters but the article was created by a now-blocked SPA. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Softball, and California. Brandon (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emer

AfDs for this article:

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [3], [4], [5]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [6], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperBot Entertainment

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

Doesn't appear to be pass notability. Perhaps merging with PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, I am unsure where "iPad storybook app" CUDDLEFISH FRIENDS could be mentioned. IgelRM (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. IgelRM (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with PlayStation All-Stars as their only notable game. Does not appear standalone notable, and seems to have been made by a single-purpose account. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, their only notable game and what they're primarily known for. I can't blame the article creator for making this back in the day, as this was initially a big deal and it was easy to envision them becoming a major developer. But the game flopped and now pretty much everything noteworthy about them is tied to the game itself. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Organizing Committee for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games

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

Fails WP:NCORP, article is essentially just a list of people so nothing to merge. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Olympics. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be the standard style for OOC articles and the GNG is passed, and of course it's four years off so right now it's all planning and no actual events have occurred. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even see GNG being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JEDA Technologies

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

Non-notable company, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Tule-hog (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Fresh

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are annoucements,profiles and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, and California. – The Grid (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Serfaty

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

Not notable as an actress or a living person. The editing spirit (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a lot (I do mean a lot) of coverage mostly on her private life in more or less reliable sources (from Globo and People to, say, Page Six and Pure People or US Weekly) but not on a short period of time (2014-now, at least). Some people receive significant coverage because they create a vaccine, some for their private life. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The South China Morning Post article is fine, this is also coverage [7]. Source 7 is also a RS per source highlighter. Not super extensive, but it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b and Mushy Yank. SCMP, Elle, Vanity Fair articles are directly about her. Further we can expand using German Wikipedia article. Freriks (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research Superfund Site

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

Fails to establish notability. None of the article's sources appear independent of the subject, and are thus not reliable enough to support a claim of notability. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources with significant coverage which would help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for AfC reviewer Garsh2. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The following articles exist:[8] [9][10]. The first two constitute significant coverage. The third is a passing mention but worth noting nonetheless. Additionally, I would argue some the government sources in the article may be secondary, as well as number 5. Garsh (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garsh2: I saw the California Aggie article in my search but did not mention it here as that publication is a campus newspaper run by students at UC Davis; see their Instagram profile. The Sacramento Bee article looks good, but I'm highly skeptical of the reliability of ToxicSites (citation 5), and I'm not sure if the government sources are independent enough to count towards notability as the site seems to be managed by the US Department of Energy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Smith (entrepreneur)

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

Aside from interviews, sources are about Scribe (company), not the subject of the article herself. Brandon (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Computing. Brandon (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City News Los Angeles

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

I cannot find any mention of this newspaper in any source. While obviously it did exist at one time (their website is archived on the Wayback Machine), the lack of any third-party coverage means that it clearly fails GNG. Pinguinn 🐧 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sexuality and gender, and California. Pinguinn 🐧 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Trading Company, Inc.

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. No good sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve : Seeing the sources listed not sure where the subject is notable. Better to incubate in draftspace.Nirmalburlakoti (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment could be considered for deletion if it lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources that establish its notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. If the content primarily consists of promotional material or fails to demonstrate significant industry coverage --Moarnighar (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding any immediate SIGCOV sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. They apparently do business as E-FUTURES dot COM, and E-MINI dot COM[11] (which use annoyingly generic terms), in which case there may be reliable independent reviews somewhere to meet WP:NPRODUCT -- but it's likely not for us to do that level of digging). The sources in there with the exception of the Trader Planet award are either not independent or trivial, and the award is not sufficiently notable (and voting is definitely not properly selective). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Los Alamitos

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that could be found with a further in-depth search. Conyo14 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a WP:BEFORE. Aside from press releases, I couldn't find anything. However, I don't doubt the hospital had other names. Thus, if sigcov is proven, then it can remain. However, the sources there right now are better for a merge between the three articles.

Also, WP:AGF. Conyo14 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not enough to say "Keep", you should rebut the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Lakewood

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV nor WP:NCORP. I thought about bundling with the Fountain Valley edition. However, there might be something about each specific location that I wouldn't want to mix with the others. Conyo14 (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator did not do a Google Search. Catfurball (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the Lakewood hospital in particular, there doesn't seem to be extensive non-trivial coverage. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if we had a review of sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Health – Fountain Valley

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources speak of the majority of hospitals within the network but give no significant coverage of the Fountain Valley location Conyo14 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this hospital is notable, the nominator should have did a Google Search before nominating. Catfurball (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Kia Forum

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Kia Forum (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at Crypto.com Arena

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Crypto.com Arena (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. No specific statement of inclusion criteria. mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed a case of failing WP:NLIST. Also, notable entertainers and events are already discussed on the arena's main page, so having a list of each and every one is superfluous. TH1980 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainment events at the Golden 1 Center

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia complex

Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the Golden 1 Center (2nd nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST overall, as the content of the list is not notable as a group. Seems to fail WP:NOTDB. Significant referencing problems. mikeblas (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Events, Lists, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These three sources (all independent, secondary, and reliable) collate entries of this list topic together as a group, thus satisfying WP:NLIST criteria. Left guide (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are just schedules (and they only cover 2024), so they don't satisfy WP:NLIST because they're not significant coverage. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point; I hadn't previously inspected the sources in that manner, but now I have. In that light, delete. Left guide (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Storer

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

Being mistakenly reported killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn't make this sailor notable (unless he was supposedly killed by the Germans). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, California, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:BIO1E, despite some coverage. Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 06:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect coverage passes GNG: The Oregon Daily Journal 2 3, The Oregonian 2, Herald and News ~~and also meets WP:ANYBIO with the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. 1~~ but also a case of WP:BIO1E. The Attack on Pearl Harbor could be an appropriate place for a redirect, but the subject does have enough WP:SIGCOV at Newspapers.com to justify a standalone article.

Filmforme (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A low-level decoration does not confer notability. Only the Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, or multiple second-level awards do that. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally millions of Americans were awarded the Asiatic–Pacific Campaign Medal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. What about the Bronze Star? Filmforme (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blanket campaign level medal, but still well below the ANYBIO line which is generally the highest military honor awarded by the subject's nation. Additionally, it appears he was not actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal but rather had bronze service stars on his campaign medal which denote how many specific operations or campaigns participated in within the overall Pacific campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. He was involved in two events: the attack on Pearl Harbor and the salvage effort (which I consider deserves its own article even though it has not got one). WP:BIO1E is a guideline that provides advice but does not trump WP:SUMMARY, which says that sections of long articles can be spun off into their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t play a notable role in either event, though. And it is still an event and the aftermath of the event. All we have is quick (1-2 paragraph) snippets in local newspapers (ie: "local man re-enlists") except for his mistakenly being reported dead for six days (which still garnered only local coverage). This was incredibly common at the time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An ordinary sailor, doing ordinary things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been updating the article, including more information I've found at Newspapers.com. There's no question the subject passes WP:GNG, but it is my observation that some may not agree of the reason why he was written about, and not that this isn't a notable topic according to WP:NEXIST.

Storer was not the only one who was considered lost in the attack and later found alive. But it should be noted that his family and home state of Oregon was not notified he survived for weeks, only after they had a funeral service involving Portland's Mayor. The ordeal of Storer initially being lost during a heavily covered historic event is what likely triggered the WP:SIGCOV from media once it turned out he had survived. In addition, he has a first hand account and unique perspective of his own experience, and his involvement with the salvage afterwards.

As for WP:BIO1E, this is a unique case and I agree with @Hawkeye7 that Attack on Pearl Harbor is a long article to consider a redirect. The subject meets WP:NBASIC, though a shorter article covering Storer and others in similar circumstances would be suitable too. WP:PSEUDO applies here and there is coverage on the subject unrelated to the attack: to their expertise as a diver searching for people that were believed to have drowned. 1 2 3 –Filmforme (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rather routine military career (that is rather briefly described here) and after the war doesn't seem to be much more notable. Reported as passing away Pearl Harbour, then surviving is more of a trivia item than a notable item for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of additional sourcing was added since this article's nomination. I'd appreciate editors reviewing the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wizeline

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. All references are press releases and "top 10 companies" listings. Google News search returns no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Dan • ✉ 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveGiant

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb

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

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article text demonstrates that the subject's research has had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline and beyond.

Referenced articles state Al-Shayeb's role in having "led" / "helmed" (100+ year old magazine by the American Chemical Society) multiple major publications that have each received significant coverage, and cited by multiple reputable perspective pieces as having major impact or "shift our understanding" of how we think about viruses and other elements https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02975-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0341-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00574-z These discoveries are influential in the fields of microbiology and gene editing, as independently outlined by multiple different editors in the 2021 in science and 2022 in science pages, which highlighted major discoveries of the year. Several of these discoveries also have their own separate Wiki pages. Considering the Wiki reference search shows 3,090 results, and over 100 different news articles, I addressed only some concerns mentioned.
As referred to above by @Pantrail, Al-shayeb's work on new CRISPR tools is discussed as the cutting edge of genetic engineering technology in the 2020 Nobel Prize lecture with Al-Shayeb credited by name, and in the 2024 book Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl. To say "this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone" is a fallacious and subjective view of science. By that standard, nobody qualifies since nobody does science alone. The article and sources state that he led the work, not that he or any scientist did it alone.
Prestigious journals like the Nature Portfolio are known for their rigorous standards, only accepting "ground-breaking" research. These journals presumably similarly carefully select reviewers who are leading experts, and reviewing for said journals is a testament to the subject's significant authority and extensive record of impactful research in their discipline.

The person has also had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The published work is in development by major companies demonstrating real-world impact beyond academia. The work on RNA-guided therapies highlights how the research has translated directly into medical innovation by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Recognition from mainstream sources like Forbes Magazine (from which there are at least 5 different articles on subject) and other outlets also indicates broad public and professional acknowledgment of his influence beyond the academic realm. This shows substantial impact in both the academic sphere and the wider industry. The nominator claimed Al-Shayeb has affiliation with the editorial board of Forbes Magazine or the Daily Californian multiple times now and suggested that it diminishes their credibility, but provided no evidence, or that this presumed affiliation led to the coverage. He also conveniently dismissed the outlets or sources curated by industry experts such as GEN, c&en, CRISPR Medicine, Nature Magazine News, Science Magazine News, Futurism (credibility), LiveScience (rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by NewsGuard) or the work in TechCrunch, The Independent that corroborate the same reporting that the nominator claimed to be "non-credible or sensationalistic"

Xerxescience (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to "vote" or not, but I didn't see anything on the AfD guidelines page prohibiting me from doing so, thus:

Delete -

Wikipedia's criteria for notability regarding articles about academics are listed as follows:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

First of all, "significant impact" seems highly subjective, but that aside: what counts as a "significant impact" here, and does this person's research qualify? They were first author on a paper describing unusual archaeal extrachromosomal DNA elements; this is interesting, but speaking as a fellow microbiologist, it does not strike me as a very impactful discovery, but more of a niche curiosity. Another listed publication (I thought they were listed as co-first author, but I seem to have been mistaken? Need to double-check) describes some very small virus-derived CRISPR-associated genome-editing proteins; again, this is interesting, but did this really leave a lasting impression on the field? The CRISPR field seems to move quite fast, and my understanding is that other, smaller gene-editing proteins (e.g. TnpB) have been discovered since; moreover it's not clear to me that the proteins discovered by Al-Shayeb et al. were that transformative in terms of their applications, although this may just be my ignorance showing. Finally, the third paper listed (on which Al-Shayeb was co-first author) describes some of the largest known phages at the time; again, interesting, but is this really an impactful find? Was this a major addition to our understanding of microbiology, or is it just a neat addition to the list of already known large phages?

The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Has this person received a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level? According to the article, they were nominated for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship; the NSF website states that they plan to issue 2,300 GRFs this fiscal year. Does this qualify as a "prestigious award at a national level"? "Prestigious" is obviously subjective, but I was under the impression that this referred to something closer to the level of, say, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism, of which twenty-four are issued each year. As for their other listed accolades, being on the Forbes/Arab America 30 Under 30 lists does not constitute an academic award, and thus does not apply here.

The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).

I do not believe any of these apply here.

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Does not apply here.

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Does not apply here.

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

I do not believe this applies here.

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Does not apply here.

It seems like the only argument for keeping this article is that their research is "significantly impactful"; as I've said above, I believe this assessment to be highly subjective, but I personally do not feel that their contributions meet this threshold. At best, these seem like contributions that should be mentioned in the articles for Archaea, CRISPR-Cas genome editing, and Bacteriophages (as they already are); were any of these discoveries so ground-breaking that their (in some cases, co-) discoverer merits their own page?Xardwen (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To the closer: Please treat the now-blocked accounts Pantrail and Xerxescience as being the same person for the purpose of determining a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wayshak

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

The article and a WP:BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources for this comic artist -- just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Thus the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO; the subject also meets no criterion of WP:NARTIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Comics and animation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing vandalism from blocked user Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the deletion of Daniel Morcombe which did get undeleted. Kellpb93ke (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) — Kellpb93ke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What has this got to do with Morcombe? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellpb93ke What does Daniel Morcombe have to do with Jonathan Wayshak? Did you mean to comment on a different discussion? Unless this comment was posted mistakenly, there is no actual rationale offered to keep the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Poorly referenced. --Altenmann >talk 17:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jonathan Wayshak is a primary subject in the MTV News, Juxtapoz, and Fangoria, and more cited in the article. He has illustrated posters for Beetlejuice, and comics for DC, Halo, etc. Hexatekin (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we looking at the same sources?
- The MTV source is a WP:INTERVIEW and as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE cannot contribute to notability.
- The Juxtapoz source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Wayshak's name.
- Fangoria has a single paragraph discussing a poster Wayshak illustrated, most of it consisting of a quote from Wayshak.
None of these are WP:SIGCOV to qualify toward notability. And it's a complete red herring to say "he has illustrated posters...and comics." That doesn't establish notability at all. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per source analysis below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230317204837/https://www.mtv.com/news/ae6ax8/sam-kieth-and-jonathan-wayshak-make-the-chickens-revolt-interview	Promotional site for MTV		interview	✘ No
https://gizmodo.com/indie-artist-interviews-new-york-comic-con-artist-alley-1849640204/4			interview	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240822030049/https://www.circusposterus.com/blog/juxtapoz-teases-us-with-their-annual-halloween-issue/			blog posting about Halloween issue of Juxtapoz. No mention of other publications	✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/godzilla-x-kong-mondo-toys-poster-reveal/			passing metion of poster	✘ No
https://www.fangoria.com/mondo-beetlejuice-wayshak/			site selling poster	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220527121739/https://hifructose.com/2015/08/24/inside-the-sketchbook-of-comic-artist-jonathan-wayshak/	?	?	multple images	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20240416070823/https://www.dc.com/comics/the-ferryman-2008/the-ferryman-1			promo listing for Ferryman #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240416081838/https://www.dc.com/comics/the-ferryman-2008/the-ferryman-2			promo listing for Ferryman #2	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210224042407/https://www.darkhorse.com/Blog/2353/dark-horse-comics-deploys-justin-jordan-call-duty			promo listing for Call of Duty: Zombies #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240809132706/https://hifructose.com/2010/09/07/hi-fructose-collected-edition-vol-2/	?	?	Promo for Hi-Fructose Collected Edition Vol. 2	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240817205952/https://www.harvard.com/book/zerofriends_a_collection_of_art_passion_and_madness/			listing for Zerofriends at Harvard Booksotore	✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/godzilla-x-kong-mondo-toys-poster-reveal/			A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: "We are also super thrilled to debut a new timed edition poster by artist and illustrator Jonathan Wayshak, also for “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.” The 24” by 36” screen-printed poster is a striking black-and-white tableau featuring Godzilla and Kong battling the movie’s villain the Skar King, a ferocious ape from deep within Hollow Earth. The poster will go for $80. See it below."	✘ No
https://www.shelfabuse.com/comic-book-reviews/toner-5-comic-book-review/		ShelfAbuse is self-published by Carl Doherty (see WP:SPS). (https://www.shelfabuse.com/about/)		✘ No
https://www.popculturemaven.com/comics/new-comic-book-reviews-week-of-12016/			Review of Devolution issue 1; not WP:SIGCOV of subject	✘ No
https://theslingsandarrows.com/call-of-duty-zombies/			Review of Call of Duty: Zombies; not SIGCOV of subject. Review does not mention Wayshak's work.	✘ No
https://theslingsandarrows.com/devolution/			Review of Devolution issue 1; not WP:SIGCOV of subject	✘ No
https://www.youdontreadcomics.com/comics/2021/7/28/the-scumbag-9-review			Review of The Scumbag issue 9; not WP:SIGCOV of subject	✘ 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}}.

KEEP: Wayshak is well-known in the comic book/graphic novel world. I have added reviews from a number of sources within that world, which I would suggest indicates some notability. Guinness323 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources to the assessment table above. They don't show WP:SIGCOV, except for sources that fail the test of independence or reliability. The closest they get is a claim of notability under WP:NARTIST, but that's only if you interpret a single comic book issue with two reviews as "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." While the guideline does not describe comic books, it does generally exclude notability for individual works that are serial installments of a longer series (e.g. a TV show episode) and applying that principle to comic books would exclude this principle here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources added by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the save goes to Guinness323. Not a field I excel in but if the artist is well-known within it then notability becomes evident. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has improved with the new sources; was there really a WP:BEFORE? Tduk (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tduk, indeed there was. Read the source table. The sources added to the article do not support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the source analysis above and a BEFORE search. It is WP:TOOSOON for this artist, perhaps in a few more years there will be enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are fully independent of the subject to support an encyclopedia article. Being "well known" or having career success or "fame" is not the same as encyclopedic notability; this is not a reflection on the artist or their work, but simply a reality of WP's guidelines that have been crafted through consensus over a period of years. The article fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG at this time. Netherzone (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis appears to favor delete. The keep !voters need to remember that it is not a vote and would be advised to respond objectively and factually to source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the source analysis, there aren't any reliable, independent sources with enough WP:SIGCOV to favour an article at the moment. I agree it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but for the time being, the article fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bray

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

Fails WP:NACTOR because he’s only appeared in one film. The Film Creator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not at all relevant or useful, low quality article. Alon9393 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR is not met here either. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not going to !vote, but I must add that I saw the solo film he starred in and it’s gloriously bad, a true bomb that is a cult classic. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Let'srun - A very simple Google search shows multiple scans of articles that were written about him. What kind of search were you doing that missed all of those? See: 1, 2 and 3. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: can only fail WP:NACTOR as he played in only one film. But meets the general requirements for notability, see article and sources mentioned during the course of this discussion. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Newsweek. asilvering (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Davis (businessman)

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

All the references listed are about businesses and organizations that they were apart of and not about the person themselves and I can't find any other coverage about them. Does not pass WP:NBUSINESSPERSON or WP:ANYBIO. Propose to redirect to Newsweek. cyberdog958^Talk 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, News media, and Business. cyberdog958^Talk 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference Meet The Mysterious Duo Who Just Bought Newsweek is a profile of Davis, as is Faith and a media icon: Newsweek's unconventional new owners (which is characterized here as "a lengthy profile of IBT founder Johnathan Davis". --The Cunctator (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I would consider this source a profile of Davis as it’s more about his business partners along with most of the other references on the page. The second source is more promising but I don’t think that one source is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. cyberdog958^Talk 19:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. But if we want to change the goalposts, go forth. --The Cunctator (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newsweek, and add in there anything that seems vital. I don't see enough independent sources for GNG and I don't think we can rely primarily on Newsweek itself as a source. If, in the future, there is more written about him then an article would make sense. Lamona (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newsweek, and possibly a selective merge. There’s just not enough coverage in sources independent of him, about him, except for a couple of stories about lawsuits he’s been involved with. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 15 September 2024 (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.

Moon Kim (poker player)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant at the moment. Alon9393 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The winner of one of the most prestigious poker tournaments on the WPT tour. PsychoticIncall (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not provide enough independent, verifiable sources that demonstrate his long-term notability in the poker community --Moarnighar (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there an appropriate target article this one could be Redirected to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I'm not seeing any possible ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her career as theater actress and educator seems rather notable and her contributions to TV series/film might be seen as prolific. I haven’t searched for better sources so this is a weak keep. Would a redirect to the Personal life section in the article about her sister be an acceptable ATD? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and California. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. "Prolific"? Single TV episodes in about 20 shows and 6th billing in a film nobody's heard of denote a journeyperson actor. And being a high school teacher doesn't make her a notable educator. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a film nobody's heard of".....Except the critic from the LAT, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, practically nobody's heard of. In any case, not a major film, and NACTOR asks for multiple notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching newspapers I find her named in places like TV listings. These attest to the fact that she appeared on the named TV shows but those short sentences or two are about the plot and her character, not about her. These could be useful in recreating her career if there were also 2 or more substantial articles about her and in reliable sources. This I do not find. The sources given here are two short obits, an article saying that she won a student award (not notable), and a paragraph in a newspaper naming some roles she had in minor productions. I don't find anything longer than a paragraph, and nothing in major news sources. I can't find that she won a major award. I'll swing back by to check on progress, if there is any. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving