Talk:Kade Ferris

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Dakota

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota.

thank you

thank you everyone that contributed to this page Calgaryleb (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus at AfD?

I'm completely flummoxed as to why the AfD was closed as no consensus based on "no P&G arguments by Keep !voters" (paraphrased). Numerous !voters argued it met GNG as well as HEY, and examples were provided. Are the Indigenous newspaper sources and academic journal obit and book review not being considered as reliable sources? Netherzone (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was weird timing to suddenly close a 20-day-long discussion before the nominator could answer your questions. Yuchitown (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the discussion was closed as "no consensus" which is laughable. Frustrating. PersusjCP (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just further evidence of an engrained bias against Indigenous subjects and topics on Wikipedia? Requiring more "evidence" in sources than is required to gain consensus on other topics. Effectively declaring Native owned sources to be less credible than other sources. Closing an AfD discussion as having no consensus based on no P&G arguments by Keep !voters when there was more than enough examples provided. I have literally seen articles kept with one !vote stating "Meets GNG" and the rest stating "what they said". Agreed with PersusjCP, this is both laughable and frustrating. --ARose Wolf 11:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC were also P&G rationales for Keep in addition to WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Now I am not only flummoxed, but bewildered, perplexed and confused. Did I miss something...did WP's notability guidelines and policies recently change? I know iVotes are not counted, but just want to add in addition to the above that numerically there were 2 Delete iVotes and 6 Keep. Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have four, yes four, policy and guideline rationales for a consensus to keep along with a numerical majority to keep but this all adds up to no consensus. Riiiiight, makes complete sense. I don't know why anyone would think there is a built in bias at play here. I mean it's not like there are literally thousands of examples of AfD's resulting in keep for other subjects with less sources than this article. Oh, there is. Well, silly rabbit, Trix are for kids. --ARose Wolf 14:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]