Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2024: Need help replying due to not having 30/500
This page received ECP, which was much needed, but because I don't have 30/500 I need some help to be able to reply.

Can someone add the following in response to @Jpatokal's keep recommendation and attribute it to me?

And this as a reply to their comment here ConcurrentState (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It seems that these concerns have already been adressed by other editors. If you wish for any other comments to be added, just | ping me and I can do so. GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 00:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Potential forked discussion
I initially hesitated to continue the discussion in the edit request, but I figured it would make it easier to just lift the entire thing into the AfD once the edit request is being processed. ConcurrentState (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024
Please add the following as a reply to Cunard's recommendation (Special:Diff/1211946233)

There's more to WP:RS than if an outlet it WP:REPUTABLE. Looking at the specific article that is to be used as an RS is just as important. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:RSEDITORIAL some of the things to keep in mind, as well other RS-related guidelines.

Similarly, WP:BASIC and stuff like WP:GNG isn't as straightforward as presented.

Specifically WP:BASIC states:

This means that at best a presumption is created (same applies forWP:GNG), but there are also exclusionary criteria in WP:NOT.

You did bring some good sources, however. No. 1 is genuinely great and might be the best one I've seen so far. No. 2 seems pretty good as well. No. 6 might've been great if it still existed. The archive link doesn't provide enough access to properly asses it, and it has been removed from the FP's website. I was unable to locate it in the e-paper archives of FP, which suggests it never made it to a hard copy. But if you could take a look as well with the same tools you used for No. 1, that would be great.

No. 8 seems to be from an outlet that some editors are uncomfortable with, per the perennial list in WP:RSPSS. I'm not familiar with that outlet, so I can't say either way if it's reliable or not.

The rest (i.e., 3-5, 7,9) have the issues mentioned elsewhere, where it seems the airline is the topic. There's also the issue that they don't seem to be intellectually independent as required under WP:BASIC and instead derivatives of the primary source, that being Cahill's own videos (which has WP:BLPSELFPUB implications).

The note in WP:BASIC clarifies intellectual independence as such:

Circling back to WP:NOT I see some issues with regard to WP:NOTNEWS (2nd clause) and WP:NOTWHOSWHO.

Either way, it's going to be pretty challenging to create a BLP article that meets WP:BLP and MOS:BLP with the small number of reliable sources currently available, especially if we're aiming for more than a stub. Which will probably lead to future AfDs.

So for now I maintain my recommendation to delete, it seems it's just WP:TOOSOON and that Cahill's contributions are better served on the individual airline articles.

That said, if we do end up keeping it, then I strongly support @Bearian's suggestion to start from scratch.

Thanks in advance! ConcurrentState (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @GrayStorm, could you add the comment above? ConcurrentState (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ GrayStorm(Talk&#124;Contributions) 03:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. Thanks! ConcurrentState (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024 (2)
AlexanderTian80 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you give me what you want to say verbatim, so I can put your signature on it? DarmaniLink (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to add a strong delete as well as I agree with the points mentioned above. Thanks
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unless you have something to add to the discussion, note that AfD is not a vote. popo dameron  ⁠ talk  23:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)