Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 29: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:30, 5 February 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 28	January 30 >

Guide to deletion

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Crew

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

Barely referenced article and the references appear to all be wikis, facebook pages, or the band's own website. No reliable secondary sources to illustrate they meet WP:BAND. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Encyclopedia Mettalum used as sourcing is not a RS. I can't find mentions of this group online in RS (or in much of anything really. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark These Words as to why no AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More references added. Xray321 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't reliable sources. I had to remove some for being WP:USERGENERATED, WP:DISCOGS and WP:IMDB. The remaining appear to be random blogs that simply repeat press releases. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is independent coverage available online including news and reviews with significant coverage - see for example:

This is specialist music genre, and these are specialist online magazines. Some of these sources do appear fairly reliable - but input from editors with greater knowledge of the sources could be beneficial. ResonantDis_tortion 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ResonantDistortion: When posting links, please omit any that are clearly promotional, particularly when they use the same press release.
- Prog Rock Journal, Ghost Cult Mag, Metal Heads Forever Magazine, RAMzine: Mostly PR copy[1]
- Velvet Thunder: Possibly neutral and independent, but the website has no editor credits, code of conduct information, only has a single email POC, and PR copy is posted under the "News" category without being labelled as such.
- Radio Tangra: Author appears to be Bulgarian musician Stefan "Stiff" Yordanov, who was in turn of the millennium bands Insmouth and Redrum. Expert, and possibly neutral/independent, but the site has only an advertising POC, and no editorial policy or code of conduct.
- Devolution Magazine: The reviewer (Jo Wright) appears to have performed 100+ reviews for the magazine, also has a longer interview article with the band. Website has editor listed, but not an editorial policy or code of conduct. "Work With Us" section states "We are always on the look out for brands looking to advertise, contributors, stockists and affiliates/partners to work with on exciting opportunities" - unclear as to what disclosure is provided.
- rockfreaks.net: Looks reliable[2]. AZ is former reviewer Bulgarian Alexander Zafirov - large number of reviews[3]
- metal.de: Looks reliable. Reviewer is a regular.[4][5]
There's at least a marginal level of coverage in English Language sources, this is a band that has survived for 20 years under two names, and it is all but certain that there'd be more coverage in Bulgaria and probably elsewhere given their touring[6] (the rollingstone.bg article hasn't been archived, and it's tricky to tell what sources in the bg-wiki article are reliable). But the current article quality is terrible, and appears to have had significant connected contributions . I'm somewhere between a Weak Keep if someone cleans it up properly, and a Draftify/WP:TNT delete if not (yes, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP given consideration). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:21, 5 February 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.

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. Star Mississippi 01:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Ligorio

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

Local painter with minimal coverage in reliable sources. Non-notable. Broc (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Croatia. Broc (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least been several Slobodna Dalmacija articles on him. Could pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some links? --Broc (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As well as a 2006 documentary about him. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. He not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. https://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/?showSubscriptionModal=1 is behind a paywall. https://www.matica.hr/vijenac/366/Prodajte%20svoje%20tijelo/ is a passing mention. Croatian Wiki article isn't cited well. Nor is Serbo-Croatian wiki. No reliable source for exact dob. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:50, 29 January 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.

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 merge‎ to Starbucks unions#Strikes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Starbucks strike

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

As per WP:EVENT, there was a spike in coverage in June 2023 when it occured. There was also an unrelated strike by staff on a different issue in November 2023, so the title "2023 Starbucks strike" could also relate to this. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes. While it was in the news, it wasn't sustained coverage as the strike was mostly symbolic in nature. Star Mississippi 01:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename 2023 Starbucks strikes to include both major strikes. They both received significant coverage but are better handled together than separately.--User:Namiba 03:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the page creator, I have no objection to renaming the page and expanding the scope. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes per Star Mississippi, not extensive enough to need standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes, Definitely a case of no enduring coverage, at least in the current timeframe; may be notable in the wider context of Starbucks labor relations, but isn't on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. So, there sources on the matter, but in comparison to the larger scale of union strikes across Starbucks, I feel the smaller ones in 2023 don't amount to much SIGCOV. However, the section in Starbucks unions works well. Conyo14 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Rename per the above reasons. Both seem like reasonable options in my opinion. -User:LoomCreek 01:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Starbucks_unions#Strikes. A four-sentence article about a weeklong strike is not needed. Persingo (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per above. The article itself isn't too long and would be a good fit in the Starbucks_unions#Strikes section of the Union's article. i2n 2z 08:32, 1 February 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.

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 merge‎ to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pit (Kid Icarus)

AfDs for this article:

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

While I'm aware the previous AfD was voted keep, I'm nominating this again, arguing that the discussion was overlooking two issues:

The current sourcing in the article is not a case of "needing more to flesh it out", but outside of one singular IGN source near useless. Many are lists that barely discuss the character, and per previous discussions on Captain Falcon or Meta Knight or other Smash Bros. characters, these don't provide enough coverage to warrant an article.
So that leaves the two sources brought forth in the last AfD: "Aplicaciones didácticas de los videojuegos en el ámbito del mundo clásico", a published paper that offers some discussion on the character, though only a small amount, and "Women in Classical Video Games", which...doesn't actually discuss Pit, and is more about the series.

So in light of this, we have a situation where the character's whole coverage is built around one source that examines his character, and a paper that mentions him briefly while echoing the same observations as the IGN source.

It's just not enough to hold up Pit as an article, sadly. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The coverage in the article is substantially lacking, and there isn't enough to support its existence. This AfD and the prior one have already clarified very little else exists in terms of coverage, and thus the chances of anything else coming up are unlikely. Some of this might be worthwhile to discuss in Kid Icarus's Legacy section, but there's just not enough here for a whole article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kid Icarus. Virtually nothing in the article constitutes significant coverage, and it relies excessively on articles of a type that have been routinely rejected as typically trivial (Smash rankings, Smash wishlists, etc.). From the previous AfD, it also feels like people were just arguing that sources merely mentioning Pit passed GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Per my last AfD !vote. My view on the article hasn't changed at all since then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mostly were just passing mentions. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it is going to be redirected again, can we redirect it to Kid Icarus (series) instead? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters. I didn't get the chance to vote on the last AFD, but it is clear that the sources mention the Smash series moreso than even the Kid Icarus series. Also, the sources pinged in the last AFD showed no signs of improvement to the article and mere mentions than in-depth analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have a lot of the people who agreed with you back in July when this was nominated, seems unfair others aren't told the discussion started up again. @Haleth: @(Oinkers42): @KingSkyLord: @MoonJet: @Shooterwalker: @SnowFire: @Bduke: That's everyone who hasn't participated yet. Dream Focus 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus While I'm certain in my arguments, I'm going to say I feel doing this the way you are comes pretty close to canvassing, if not canvassing outright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith! I just found it an odd coincidence that the four who wanted to get rid of the article last time, happen to show up and try again. Seemed wrong to not include everyone who participated months ago, since you are just redoing the same exact argument. I do believe its gaming the system to keep sending things to AFD just because you didn't get the results you wanted the first time. Dream Focus 05:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend you WP:AGF, since you are assuming that they are doing this in an attempt to game the system. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can not assume good faith with this editor, who decided to ignore the previous AFD ending in Keep and eliminate the article himself and make it a redirect. [7] After being reverted, he then did it again. Then he brings it to AFD for a second time. Not getting the results you want, so ignoring consensus and keep trying until you succeed, is gaming the system. Dream Focus 00:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus has been warned to cease their blatant canvassing. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the message could have been a tad more neutral, this isn't a canvassing violation. Notifying everyone at a previous AFD is good form, and helps avoid a WP:DRV under the argument that an AFD simply wasn't noticed by the relevant editors. Per WP:VOTESTACK, "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances." This appears to have indeed been a valid notification of everyone at the previous AFD. SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's...difficult to believe that was his intention with his whole preamble there... Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I feel as though notifying users in a prior AfD is a good process, the reasonings behind doing so definitely don't feel like a good faith action. There was an immediate assumption we were working together solely because we voted "Merge" last time. The names who voted before the mass ping are all fairly frequent in this deletion sorting, so their votes aren't exactly a rarity, and it's also not unreasonable to assume that people will hold the same opinions as before, especially given that the article has not changed substantially since the prior AfD. There's nothing here pointing to any potential form of "rigging the vote" and it instead comes off as justification to call in other users for support instead of as a good faith notification of a new discussion. It's too late to really do anything about it, but this doesn't exactly come off as good faith practice. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there's a pretty bad faith argument put forth, implying that the people who participated in the discussion were canvassed into doing so. Of the five people participating, all are regular participants at AfD and merge discussions as they appear on the project banner, and both the nominator and I edited the article extensively, so I would have had extra reason to be aware. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is quality not quantity, no absolute limit set in the notability guidelines. So https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/27/you-dont-know-kid-icarus would be enough. But there is more, at https://www.thegamer.com/how-to-build-pit-kid-icarus-dungeons-dragons-dnd/ and many smaller mentions of him about as well in many other places. thegamer gets 1,077 results for Wikipedia articles its referenced in, so I assume its a reliable source. Dream Focus 05:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note that I did find these two articles in my BEFORE search. I just felt they lacked the substance to land Pit his own article. Conyo14 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamer is typically only used with articles that show significant coverage, and even in that case, whether they establish notability is contentious; on WP:VG/RS, it's noted that it shouldn't be used to establish notability. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I think some coverage from The Gamer is very strong. However, the D&D article is a dime a dozen, literally, as The Gamer has done roughly a dozen other articles about roleplaying fictional characters in D&D. Even if we took this as significant that Pit was chosen, what would we even use this source to say in the article? It just describes his personality, his role in the series, his skillset, and how he would fit into D&D. You speak of quality, but I would consider this extremely low quality as far as significant coverage. As far as the first goes, it is closer to significant coverage, but at the same time, what does it really say? It'd be great to use for, like, citations for information about Pit, but yeah, it's just a profile. There's nothing really we can take from it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say TheGamer counts towards things, but this is totally unrelated to Pit's appearance in his own games. I can't possibly see how Pit as a D&D character would be relevant to his character development in Kid Icarus. The IGN source has already been mentioned in the nom. I couldn't even find any magazine sources that weren't simply about the game itself. This is stretching it a lot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the character, not just his appearance in his official games. The character is notable because he's popular enough to get coverage. Dream Focus 00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IGN article specifically says that it's talking about him because of the announcement of Kid Icarus: Uprising. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does that make if that's the reason they said its "finally be time to try to get to know him a little bit better."? They gave him quite significant coverage as a character. Dream Focus 03:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason why "five characters Pit could beat (and five that he can't" or "10 things you didn't know about Pit" are not usable. Describing details about him is in no way, shape, or form significant coverage, and it doesn't show notability, as demonstrated in uncountable merge and AfD discussions. Further, my point is that the article exists for people to better understand the context of an upcoming game, not because Pit is an icon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. I made a neutral comment last time, because this was the protagonist from a historic game, and I believed there might be sources out there. But enough time has passed and I can't seem to find enough WP:SIGCOV. The character is more or less synonymous with the series, and the sources reflect that. Merge helps WP:PRESERVE the content and build a consensus.

Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect I agree that the sources used are press releases, listicles, or articles about the game not the character. The article from "TheGamer" is basically a joke that doesn't seem usable in any way. ApLundell (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content and redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think with the sources uncovered in the previous AFD, a keep is warranted. Quite the unpopular opinion in this particular AFD though. I wasn't even going to !vote here, because I knew my input wouldn't sway anything, but I went ahead with it. MoonJet (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing has changed since last AfD, which found sourcing sufficient. I agree. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nom; the sourcing here is just not sufficient to support a separate article. The Kid Icarus (series) article could probably support a paragraph or two under #Characters about Pit, since he is central to the series. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 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.

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 Ladonia (micronation). Should editors wish to exercise editorial discretion and merge content from this article, the page history remains available. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Shelby

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

Very little indication that subject is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent reliable secondary source is the BBC, and that's only a passing mention, which doesn't meet the notability criteria. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fascinating tidbit, but not enough coverage of this individual. Even what's used is one BBC story and the rest are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to offer an opinion on whether to delete or not, but I think the Dagens Nyheter article should qualify as a reliable source (I've been told it is "The NY Times of Sweden", but that could be not entirely accurate). The article is a decent-length interview about how Ladonia will continue to function after the death of Lars Vilks.

I was surprised the original article was never nominated for deletion before, so I added (what I thought) was a better written article in tone/style and added some additional references. There are quite a few more interviews and articles where she is named only as the "Queen of Ladonia" or "Queen Carolyn", like podcast appearances, radio interviews, an interview on Al Jazeera (with Prince Michael of Sealand also on the panel), and a 15 minute segment on a German TV program called Galileo. There is also a chapter on Ladonia in a Swedish book called "Mikronationer" (and she is interviewed as well as on the cover of the book), and Lars Vilks' last book before his death (Nimis) talks about her role running Ladonia. I can dig up the links to the references, though I'd rather save the effort if the article is destined for deletion anyway. Kulib (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dagens Nyheter is a strong candidate to be seen as the newspaper of record in Sweden. It qualifies. /Julle (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a Mapping micronations (Al Jazeera, 2014) interview source. There is also a 2023 WGN Radio 720 interview ("Her Majesty is the host and coordinator of the 2023 MicroCon."). The 2022 BBC source seems to be more than a passing mention because it includes biographical information with context. A redirect to Ladonia (micronation) where she is mentioned and pictured seems supported. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think with much of this article and available sources focused on Ladonia and/or the role of the monarch generally, instead of sourced information about Shelby, WP:PAGEDECIDE seems relevant to consider and further supports a redirect at this time. The Ladonia article 1) provides needed context to help understand Shelby, and Shelby is likely covered better there given the limited independent/secondary sourced information that appears to be available about her 2) the relationship between Shelby and Ladonia seems better appreciated in the context of the Ladonia article, 3) most sourcing does not appear to be independent or secondary, e.g. a book by Lars Vilks, interviews of Shelby. I am not able to access the Dagens Nyheter source but I did check the Wikipedia Library and only found a Spanish-language reprint of the BBC source. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Drottningen av Ladonien: ’Vår plikt att röra oss framåt’" in Dagens Nyheter, which has been added since this was taken to AfD (and after the first couple of comments) ha longer coverage of Carolyn Shelby herself. "Utopidiplomati i ett låtsas-FN" in Ping (former magazine for sv:DIK, 20 November 2015, has slightly more than merely mentioning her in passing, but not at all the same level of information as the Dagens Nyheter article. I think the additions to the article since this discussion stared makes it keepable. /Julle (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments about the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors mentioning Dagens Nyheter. Also, given the reativey large amount of people involved in creating Ladonia (most micronations are things like a farmer in a dispute with the authorities), I would argue being their nominal leader would likely make her presumptively notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Beccaynr's analysis. Based on what I can access, the Dagens Nyheter article seems like it's largely based on an interview? Even if it isn't, we still have NOPAGE for these cases when a topic is better covered in another page. An article on Shelby will end up being somewhat of a coatrack for Ladonia governance, so covering her at Ladonia would be preferable.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be almost nothing to say about this person, who "[serves] as the Queen and head of state of the Royal Republic of" something that's succeeded in being trademarked. Non-notable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. The Dagens Nyheter source is helpful. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage in Swedish newspapers, but it is by no means extensive or in-depth. This suggests that the proper course of action is to mention Shelby at Ladonia (micronation) and delete this standalone bio. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is ok by me. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions since nom, I think it would be a detriment to the Ladonia article to merge this article into it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation) with history intact to enable the merger of sourced information. The sources are marginal for a BLP, but there's no need for actual deletion when her coverage is as part of a more clearly notable topic. In particular I would rather see the article kept rather than deleted if those are the only two options, but view a redirect with a partial merger as the best ultimate solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation). This is a living subject and the article has very little in the way of reliable sources or direct detailing. I would prefer the page is deleted for BLP reasons, but can live with redirect as an alternative. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 20 February 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.

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 Tantric (band). (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sum of All Things

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

Subject fails NALBUMS and GNG. You can find retailers and press releases but nothing substantial. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tantric (band): Found those same announcements/press releases that Troutman mentioned; they are not particularly substantial. Found nothing else signifying notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:42, 30 January 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.

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 merge‎ to Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mendota, Kansas

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

Another 4th class post office in a house that we are pretending is a "community". It must have been very crowded in there. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: listed in Blackmar (p. 268) with the following description: "a country hamlet in Ellis county, is located in Hamilton township, about 20 miles northwest of Hays, the county seat, and 10 miles from Ellis, its shipping point and the postoffice from which it receives mail by rural route." Labelled on this old map^[1] as "Mendota P.O." Jbt89 (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And listed as a hamlet in Ellis County, Kansas#Communities, because I went through all of the ones that Blackmar had, as well as all of the post offices listed in the State Board of Agriculture reports. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.mapsofthepast.com/ellis-county-ks-kansas-everts-1887.html

Comment: Found this 1971 article in the Hays newspaper about Mendota.[8] --Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ellis Township, Ellis County, Kansas. It's pretty clear that this was just a "post village," with a post office and perhaps a general store to serve the surrounding rural area, not true town. Similar case to Elk, Kansas (also mentioned in Blackmar), which we merged into the article on the surrounding township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbt89 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge according to consensus or delete I checked the ellis county papers. I couldn't find anything that disputes what has already been said. But, in april of the year the post office changed names from Halton to Mendota, the person sending in the news to the paper from Halton, wrote that the name of the post office had changed. And just like that everyone started calling it Mendota. I think if it had a community identity, that would not have happened.James.folsom (talk) 22:57, 2 February 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.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puddle Lane books

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

De-PRODded by IP, who gave no rationale. PROD reason below:

WP:NOTDATABASE. Topic is discussed (briefly, but still in more depth than on this list) at Puddle Lane. No redirect required (unusual search term, no incoming links aside from Puddle Lane and Lists of books). asilvering (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Lists, and United Kingdom. asilvering (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Ashworth, Linda (April 1986). "Reviews: Puddle Lane". Child Education. Vol. 63, no. 4. ISSN 0009-3947. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "The free guide for parents is very good. The information is given clearly in layman's terms and the advice is sound. It emphasises the importance of story, shared enjoyment and choice. There is also good advice in every book in case parents haven't read the guide ... But what about the books themselves? The stories seem tame and don't stand up to reading aloud. They have been written to teach the children to read, not by an author simply wanting to tell a story. Aesthetically the books don't come up to the standard of picture story books by authors such as Anthony Browne, Pat Hutchins or Maurice Sendak. The Ladybird format kills any possibility of individuality or originality of presentation. Although the subject matter of the books-magic, fantasy, toys coming to life — usually captures children's imagination, these stories are just not up to the standard of Tim and the Hidden People. The language structures are not so artificial as to hinder children's anticipatory skills but some of the text is very stilted."
  The article notes: "However, the main market for Puddle Lane is parents with pre-school children. Where parents have bought the books, their children will come into school with Puddle Lane forming a significant part of their literary experience. And there can be no doubt that parents will buy it. A television series is always a high motivator to buy the books, both for children and adults. Books can be bought in a pack with an accompanying tape — always a welcome aid to busy parents and teachers alike. The books are cheap (75p each), durable (hardback) and readily available."
2. "Fantasy world of Puddle Lane, but rewards are real". Leicester Mercury. 1985-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The Puddle Lane stories are grouped in four stages (a fifth is on the way) and the books are colour coded at each stage. The programme is geared to children from three-and-a-half to six-and-a-half, and the early books are laid out so that the story is printed on the left hand page for the adult to read to the child. Illustrations, by a team of five artists brought in for the series are an integral part of the programme. ... The stories are set in the fantasy world of Puddle Lane in Candletown with a magician a family of cats who live in his garden, a strange but Friendly monster, the Griffle, who can vanish leaving only his ears and eyes or his tail showing, and four children — Sarah, Davy, Hari and Gita, who also have adventures in Puddle Lane."
3. Dakin, Bridget (1985-09-13). "Open a page to walk down Puddle Lane". Loughborough Echo. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "This week they launched the Puddle Lane series — a colourful and imaginative newcomer to the shelves designed to make learning fun. ... So tales from Puddle Lane are simple to follow with colourful illustrations to help youngsters create the imaginary world in their own minds. The programme is designed for children aged between three-and-half and six-and-a-half. It has five stages, each with several books of the same reading level. The story is printed on the left-hand page of each book for the adult to first read to the child. Below illustrations on the right-hand pages are words or simple sentences which the child is encouraged to read itself when the adult goes through the story a second time."
4. Hammerton, Geoff (1985-09-23). "Magic approach has them reading early". Derby Evening Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Puddle Lane, as its catchphrase says, is where children learn to read. Twelve titles, some at each of the four levels of the scheme, are out immediately at the standard price of 75p. Already there has been a tie up with Pickwick International, the record company, which has added Puddle Lane to its Tell-a-Tale bookcassette."
5. "New books aim to stem teaching cutbacks". Loughborough Echo. 1985-08-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-04. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Puddle Lane stories have a mystical setting guaranteed to capture infants' imagination and interest. They have also caught the eye of Yorkshire Television whose new children's series based on the books is due to be screened from October. Animals, a magician and even a strange, vanishing monster feature. And in case anyone tries to accuse Ladybird of being racist, the Puddle Lane children are Sarah and Davy and their ethnic friends, Hari and Gita. ... The first 12 books from Puddle Lane are launched on September 12. It will be two years before the whole series of 54 books is on the shelves."
6. "Trip down Puddle Lane". The Bookseller. No. 5218. 2006-02-24. p. 9. EBSCOhost 20214617.
  The article notes: "Publisher Mercury Junior is to bring early readers series Puddle Lane back into print. The publisher has signed a deal with author Sheila McCullagh, whose library of over 300 titles includes the Puddle Lane series, televised during the early 1980s with a series of tie-in titles published by Ladybird. Mercury Junior will target parents who grew up watching the series. The deal was agented by Annie Quigly."
7. Root, Betty (1986-03-21). "Alive and well and living in schools. Reports of the death of reading schemes are extremely premature, says Betty Root, who looks at some new examples". The Times Educational Supplement. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Puddle Lane. This new reading programme written especially for parents to use in the home, has already been reviewed on these pages. Though this review was unfavourable, evidence from a very wide spectrum of parents and children confirm the overwhelming popularity of Puddle Lane. Tim and Tobías have been voted by hundreds of teachers as some of the most popular stories to bo found in any classroom. The same imaginative flair is contained in the new Ladybird series and Puddle Lane is a world children will enjoy reading about."
8. Root, Betty (1986). In Defence of Reading Schemes. Reading: Reading and Language Information Centre. University of Reading. p. 8. ISBN 0-7049-0366-0. Retrieved 2024-02-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Puddle Lane. Ladybird 1985. This extensive new reading programme is aimed specifically at the parent market and certainly breaks new ground in many ways. All 55 books have been written by Sheila McCullagh, an established and highly respected children's writer. The books have a variety of support materials, all reasonably priced. Teachers, parents and children will delight in these stories which create, so successfully, an imaginary world yet contain characters both animals and human to whom the young readers can relate. With the provision of context support in the early stages — adults read the long story and children the shorter version — the books will tolerate reading over and over again. Thus building the confidence of children first learning to read. In everyway Puddle Lane has changed the image of Ladybird readers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Puddle Lane book series to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. Also, WP:NOTADATABASE says nothing about bibliographies. Toughpigs (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom): Cunard's sources do not address the purpose of this AfD. They are sources for a hypothetical afd against Puddle Lane, which is not up for deletion. The article for discussion here is List of Puddle Lane books. -- asilvering (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, should you be proposing a merge rather than a deletion? There's Reception information on the List of Puddle Lane books that could go on Puddle Lane. AfD is not cleanup. Toughpigs (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle Lane is about a television programme. List of Puddle Lane books is about the book series. The sources I provided are about the book series, not the television programme. Cunard (talk) 09:16, 6 February 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.

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 Martin Heidegger#Language. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language speaks

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Content only ever developed by one editor in March 2011. Does not explain the meaning of the phrase, which, to my non-specialist (but grad-level) knowledge is not considered especially important among Heidegger scholars. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: If anyone does turn up some good sources on this that establish notability (and, ideally, provide at least some clue to its meaning beyond what anyone might just guess), they might consider whether it would make sense to edit the article with an eye to merging it into the main Heidegger article. At present, that article says almost nothing about his work on language, which is a considerable omission; I'm not sure there's even anywhere that a wikilink would fit to an article devoted to narrowly expounding on this short phrase. Of course, to make up an example, if the phrase only becomes independently significant in being singled out by, say, Derrida, that would be a good justification for preserving a separate article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heidegger. A quick search in German returned two scholar articles [9] [10] decscribing Heidegger's tautologies, as well as a generalist article [11].

I am not a Heidegger scholar, nor a professional translator, but this is what de.wiki has to say on the sentence: [Heidegger saw] language as the foundation of being and the natural disposition that makes the human itself human in the first place. It is not the human who speaks, but "language speaks"[152] and it is only through language that a human becomes a speaking being.

While I am not convinced this deserves a page on its own (and if so, it should have the original title in German), it should be included in the main article about the philosopher, especially as his work on language is quite significant. Broc (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in an effort to be helpful, I have tried to find definitions to satisfy the above objections. This source seems to address this on page 6. This source seems to address it on page 29. This appears to be a whole publication on the topic. What they mean, whether they accurately interpret and translate Heidegger, I can't say. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this research! I can't see the second source, but the first one would be worth preserving as a reference on the talk page in the event that we do decide to keep. However, I still think we're a long ways from establishing notability. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a short section in the Heidegger article so there is now at least a possible target for a merger. It is still unclear to me, however, that there is enough content in this stub to meaningfully speak of merging—or that the phrase itself is of encyclopedia significance. (Heidegger's philosophy of language in general, needless to say, is another matter entirely.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:21, 6 February 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) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a redirect to the section created by @Patrick J. Welsh but it would require at least some expansion; ~~might get around to doing that;~~ even though I am a linguist and respect Heidegger's legacy in this area, this is overall too minor to warrant a separate article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All right, I'm working on it, as I said, but I have errands in between. To be continued. Working towards a redirect per @Patrick J. Welsh and @Broc. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine consensus for redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, I'm very confused as to why this was relisted, there's a clear consensus to merge to the newly created section. Mach61 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 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.

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 Keith J. Krach as a viable ATD. While there is not currently consensus to merge, the history remains should that eventuate. Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Previously soft-deleted, recreation was requested by the same editor, who has stated on their user page that their sole goal here on Wikipedia is to write an article on this topic, and has made no further improvements since restoration to the state of the last AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are a lot of sources, but I agree with the relatively strict WP:ORGCRITE. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Keith J. Krach, who appears to have founded this institute and serves as its chairman. There's some coverage here from independent sources, though I'm a bit doubtful as to whether this passes WP:NGO on its own. But merging it into the article on Krach (perhaps as a standalone section) seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as promotional It needs cleanup and many of the sources are weak, not independent, or about Keith Krach - but these three sources are fairly convincing: [12][13][14] . We could just end up back here each time a new article is published. I would support speedy deletion for outright promotion based on Rosguill's link to the article creator's own statement on his user talk page, and the poor quality of the article. Ben Azura (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources don't establish notability, they're press releases. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:59, 6 February 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) 15:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't understand why the deletion of this page is so important. I believe all the people here are well versed in Wikipedia and they can fix the page to help the readers and the Wikipedia community. I created this page to help people I don't know why its being portrayed like I committed some type of sin. I only tried to create a full informative page and why would I promote anything and what benefit I can get from it? I read and researched extensively about Wikipedia guidelines and tutorials then finalized the content, so I guess you can help by editing the page because I know it contains a lot of reliable sources and the subject is notable not sure why its being denied as something that is not notable, I feel maybe de to political aspect or I'm not sure. TBH I'm pretty disappointed at the moment.... Not a single person is interested in editing the page and fixing it to the level they think is fine... Anyway, I respect opinions and I won't mind the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickingtime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I read WP:ORGRITE the primary criteria already verifies its notability but I'll leave it maybe I'm knocking at the wrong door. Tickingtime (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to actually identify any, let alone multiple, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. The currently-cited sources have been dismissed as a combination of press releases and mere mentions in more reliable sources that do not include significant coverage of the subject; you can present a counter argument, but you need to make reference to actual, specific sources and make the case for their independence, depth and reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 11 February 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.

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. Consensus among established editors is clear. There may also be some paperwork incoming, but a relist isn't needed Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) ETA: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emma knows it well closed indicating all those arguing in favor were socks. However the consensus to delete is sufficient among established editors that a relist isn't needed. Star Mississippi 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baron

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all available coverage is work written by Baron or interviews of Baron, not independent coverage about Baron. The initial editor has disavowed a conflict of interest on their talk page but has not addressed the fact that they uploaded a close-range photograph of the subject to Commons in 2021. N.b., this subject appears entirely unrelated to prior articles created at the title Michael Baron. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Russia, and Australia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for highlighting the photo issue. I was translating the profile from Vietnamese + adding more recent info i could find and when googling for suitable photos (I later added the photo for the vietnamese wiki profile as well) I did not pay attention whether it was close-ranged or not just made sure it was for the right person. I will try to find a better photo as well as check for more coverage of Baron's work available in English Emma knows it well (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe unreleated to the AfD in question, but if you claim you were "googling for suitable photos", how come you uploaded it as "own work"? This constitute a likely violation of copyright. --Broc (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added link to his ORCID profile that includes over 200 research/academic works Emma knows it well (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/probability-and-statistics/9781439875919/

This is a Michael Baron book with another one being less Data Science Focused (using more ancient analytics techniques I believe :):

https://www.amazon.com.au/Integration-Marketing-Communications-Historical-Development/dp/383832272X

He was also representing Australia in The Data Science Foundation at some point apparently. DataScientist1986 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DS,

I've googled DS Foundation and Found it. I will add to his profile tomorrow. Emma knows it well (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Emma knows it well (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff counts for nothing. For notability the stuff has to be cited by others, which is not the case here. The ORCID profile just contains vapid puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I believe I've seen artcile or presentation referring to him as the creator or one of the creators of the Square Zero predictive analytics Model - It has been a while though since I looked into Predictive Analytics so I will probably need to google it up again. But his name is definitely familiar to some of those who are engaged in Data Analytics. DataScientist1986 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just produce some RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Inadequate RS as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep !, His contribution in Data Science is quite significant and I had a look at his involvement as referencing his profile in the COVID investigations in Australia as well as his articles, he is definitely a significant scholar ! Rapanomics (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to produce a better source than your unsupported opinion. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete lacks notability and no reliable sources have been produced so far. --Broc (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So my initial profile creation was translation of his profile from Vietnamese Wiki so I tried to simply translate content that was there at the time without adding anything (as suggested for wiki page translation) now on the basis of the feedback recieved I've tried to a) remove some references to his writings and interviews (I thought that being published/interviewed by well-known media outlets is significant) Now the English version looks different from the Vietnamese one. Also, the Vietnamese profile was created many years ago so, I've been able to locate (thank you DataScientist1986 for the lead) his activities as part of the Data Science Foundation leadership & new COVID-related work Emma knows it well (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Baron is notable enough to keep the profile in Wiki not only becase his textbooks are prescribed texts in colleges and he is being interviewed by some people to give his opinion but also because he has been invited to Parliament as a subject matter expert. I think this quite significant. DataScientist1986 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be quite significant as googling him does show some media coverage. BulgarianCat (talk) 10:14, 12 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephannie Vásquez

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Peruvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this 2020 interview with El Comercio. Everything else that came up were passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 30 January 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even Pizango

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Peruvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Peru. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 30 January 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.

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. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merge or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

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

The article is about Chera Perumals of Makotai and specially it covers Legend of Cheraman Perumals and it already covered about Thajuddin. But the current article is not give reliable source and some sources NOT directly confirm certain events. Splitting of the Moon is a believe, not historical and scientific event. Did Thajuddin lived during the time of Muhammad or after Mohamed? Legend of Cheraman Perumals already cover the topic and no need to have another non proven person. Antan O 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Antan O 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Thajuddin's page in Wikipedia is justified as it encapsulates a significant historical and cultural figure. While acknowledging the challenges regarding source reliability, Thajuddin represents a figure of substantial folklore and tradition, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultural narratives. Despite the debate surrounding the historical accuracy of certain events attributed to him, his presence in historical discussions provides insight into the socio-political milieu of his time. Thajuddin's purported existence, whether contemporaneous with or postdating Muhammad, offers a lens through which to explore the interplay of legend and history in the broader narrative of the Cheraman Perumals and their era. Therefore, his inclusion fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural heritage and historical discourse surrounding the Cheraman Perumals of Makotai. DonParlo (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: DonParlo is the same person as the socks below --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kings are automatically notable. Somebody moved the article to Draft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kings are notable. But, Why this duplicate page (Chera Perumals of Makotai and Legend of Cheraman Perumals)? Already this article was declined. User already mentioned it as folklore and tradition, and it already covered in Legend of Cheraman Perumals. There is no reliable source, and the reliable sources point to Cheraman Perumal, not so called Thajuddin who met Muhammad (from Kerala to Mecca). --Antan O 11:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about potential duplication and the classification of the topic as folklore and tradition, but the existence of a separate page dedicated to Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives. While it may be acknowledged as folklore, documenting such narratives contributes to the broader understanding of regional legends and their cultural significance. Moreover, although sources may vary in reliability, the presence of differing accounts underscores the diversity of perspectives and interpretations within historical discourse. As such, maintaining a distinct page for Thajuddin allows for a nuanced examination of this figure and his alleged encounter, enriching the discourse surrounding Kerala's historical and cultural landscape. The article in Legend of Cheraman Perumals does not cover this Legend in detail. DonParlo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives// Can you give reliable source for such claim? --Antan O 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ O. Loth, Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office (London: Secretary of State of India, 1877), no. 1044.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 95-98.

^ Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.

^ H. H. Wilson, Mackenzie Collection. A descriptive catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India (Calcutta, 1828), II, appendix, p. XCV.

^ Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 98. DonParlo (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scribd.com/document/519315791/Qissat-Shakarwati-Farmad-a-Tradition-Con DonParlo (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this objectively this wiki page does not do that much significant to anything. So what's the point of deleting it. I think people should keep this page. Is it gives a deeper insight into the legend. ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To begin with the subject of the page Thajuddin, there is no reference that it was formerly called Tamil King Cheraman Perumal. More so, there are contentious websites and some references that are just scraps as if someone did a Google search to find a word and used it as a testimony for a much larger paragraph. I find it impossible to verify the paragraphs from the references given. RangersRus (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legend of Cheraman Perumals. The legend of the introduction of Islam to India is certainly notable, but the present article presents this legend as fact. The Legend of Cheraman Perumals article can be expanded with the specific events in the legend (the vision of the split moon and the pilgrimage to Mecca) if Indian historiographic sources are sufficient to verify that this is, in fact, part of the known legend. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be good, but need to cleanup per RS. Antan O 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: It is a important to keep this page as it expands on the over all legend and story of Thajuddin putting it in other pages such as the Legend of Cheraman Perumals doesn't do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Keeping the wiki page on Thajuddin's existence is justified for several reasons. Firstly, Thajuddin is a figure recognized by Islamic scholars, lending credibility to his historical existence. Numerous Arabic texts, including works like the Qissat Shakarwati-Farmad, reference him, along with recorded hadiths attributed to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. Moreover, the presence of a tomb dedicated to Thajuddin in Oman serves as tangible evidence supporting his existence. Therefore, considering the scholarly acknowledgment, textual references, and physical evidence, maintaining the wiki page on Thajuddin is logical and warranted.
ManOfJusticekk (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per nomination and heavy involvements of SOCKS --~AntanO4task (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting did not establish any clear consensus, but only few sock votes. Relisting again for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a confusing mess. The discussion above is all over the place, the sourcing seems odd. TNT is probably best. Could draft it, but we'd need to start from zero again. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Edit: People should keep the wiki page of Thajuddin even if it is poorly sourced because it provides a starting point for further research and discussion, potentially leading to the improvement of the page's quality over time. According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, "Information provided in an article must be verifiable and cited to reliable sources, even if it is not actually footnoted in the article." This means that while poorly sourced information should be improved, the existence of the page itself is justified as long as efforts are made to enhance its reliability and accuracy. தமிழ் வீரன் ஜைத் (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending it to draft would better suit what you're describing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ID seems new and your edit patterns are similar as per above socks. Antan O 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am from India I use a VPN it sends me to random places I don't edit much as I just started this account I only fix spelling errors usually. தமிழ் வீரன் ஜைத் (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kings area always notable, and a first king to embrace a religion is absolutely notable. The article needs work for sure, but that doesn't justify deletion. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't see the duplicate page that already exist with primary name. AntanO 19:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Legend of Cheraman Perumals DarmaniLink (talk) 20:06, 23 February 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.

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 Charlie Puth. Sandstein 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard on Yourself

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

This song has not been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" as required by WP:NSONGS. As such, it is unlikely to ever grow beyond stub status and the content to present it as a standalone article does not exist. The New Zealand "Hot Singles" entry does not constitute a significant national chart, and it is usually relegated to a footnote on the discography page. N Ø 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. N Ø 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlie Puth: Agree with nominator about the chart and also couldn't find any reliable coverage (what's in the article is likely unreliable outside of the primaries, chart, and possible Stereoboard). Puth's article mentions the song, though only briefly, while Blackbear's doesn't, so I think the former makes more sense as a target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 6 February 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.

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 List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators. There is no consensus for a merge, but should one emerge the history is there to enact it. Star Mississippi 03:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1990s)

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. These lists are full of trivial WP:LISTCRUFT and are all sourced by YouTube videos or Twitter. I am also nominating these articles for the same reason:

Conyo14 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Update The three articles above have been redirected to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators with the exception of List of Hockey Night in Canada commentating crews (1990s). Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merged please. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators Khoa41860 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one should be merged Khoa41860 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for failure to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of Hockey Night in Canada commentators, which seems to be the parent list. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 5 February 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.

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. Kept per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Tudhope

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

Subject fails ANYBIO because a single nomination for an Oscar is not enough. Subject has to have won or have had multiple nominations. A BEFORE search showed ROUTINE coverage in Hollywood media like Variety and THR but it was either an interview (not independent) or it only mentioned subject in passing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Variety, Tudhope was also nominated for an Emmy in 2014. That may satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 nominations (ONE, TWO) for 2 significant awards. The veracity of the nominations, the importance of the awards and the fact that 2>1 being unquestionable~~, he does appear to meet ANYBIO indeed.~~-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ANYBIO:"has been nominated for such an award several times" (emphasis mine). "Several" is more than two; some people would say that several intones more than a couple (2-3) and more than a few (4-5). Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, yes. That's true, I had "multiple" in mind (and even then). Removing my !vote. Although I think that could be almost enough, the guideline states it otherwise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->and back to Keep but for slightly different reasons: I found MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation convincing (Thanks) and I therefore think an article about him is not undue and can be well-sourced with what exists.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee. There is also significant sources on him source 1, source 2, source 3. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be honest, the article is so sparse, it invites a redirect. But since he's been verified as winning an award for two different films, there's no obvious target to redirect to. Hence, the default is to keep as a separate entry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 6 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TB11Cs3H2 snoRNA

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

Fails WP:GNG, passing coverage in one source. Mass-created by one user in 2009. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing beyond the one cited primary source. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niche topic sourced entirely to one primary source; little else found. No secondary significant coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:30, 30 January 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.

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 merge‎ to Small nucleolar RNA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TB11Cs4H1 snoRNA

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

Fails WP:GNG; based off one source and WP:BEFORE was no help. One source has only very slight, passing coverage that I doubt even verifies most of the claims here anyway. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Small nucleolar RNA: unlike TB11Cs3H2, this one is actually referenced by a handful of academic publications. Not enough for an article, but enough for a one-sentence mention in the target. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - it's apparently a thing, but not an article-level thing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not enough content and potential to justify a separate article. 22:54, 9 February 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Thao Nguyen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Linen

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

not notable under WP:NALBUM; fails WP:GNG. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thao Nguyen: Found no significant coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thao Nguyen: little hope of finding SIGCOV to establish notability for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 29 January 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.

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 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ahmed-Chamanga

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comoros-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 January 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.

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Interactive Media Manager

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

I couldn't find sources to prove WP:N. No good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this software, hits are all about cloud stuff now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following sources for IMM: [15][16]book [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Oaktree. Amuckabak (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SharePoint as an ATD. Fails NPRODUCT. Regarding the sources provided above: 1 and 2 are press release, book is from a self-publishing press (CreateSpace), 3 is ROUTINE coverage of the product shutting down, 4 is routine coverage in a trade publication, 5, 7, and 8 are the same source, and is a technical manual about how the software implements Web Ontology Language, 6 is a brief mention, and 9 is also a brief mention. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 February 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.

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. No prejudice against a merge discussion at some later point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anointed One (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article has been unreferenced since its creation in 2004. Article was redirected to a character list in 2022 but the action was reverted. A "sources exist" tag was added but I haven't found those sources. There's Screenrant articles: [24], [25] but Valnet sites aren't considered reliable sources. Mika1h (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's a lot of brief coverage indexed by Google Scholar in contexts where this subject is analyzed alongside the symbolism of other elements of Buffy. The Girl's Got Bite: The Original Unauthorized Guide to Buffy's World appears to have the most coverage, but there's other examples as well (e.g. [26]). The preview for Celluloid Vampires on Google Scholar also looks promising, although I'm unable to access it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's worth pinging @Rosguill, who added the sources exist tag, and @Randy Kryn, who reverted the merge, to potentially see what their thoughts are. If either happens to have the sources on them, then that would be a big help to improving the article and avoiding its deletion.

In the article's current state, I'd definitely argued for a redirect. Valnet sources aren't unreliable, but they aren't exactly what you build an article on, and the nominator's BEFORE doesn't seem to have born much fruit. If any significant sources are discovered verifying notability, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. As it stands now, it's small and entirely unsourced, and thus there's nothing to merge nor is there nothing really worth keeping here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rosguill replied while I was typing. Sorry about the extra ping, mate. I'm unable to access Celluloid Vampires, so I can't speak on that one, but the first source has some bits, though Source 3 looks a bit weak, albeit usable. It might be enough, but I can't speak for certain yet given I can't access everything these have to say. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to merge. The sources provided appear relatively small, and given the character's minor role, do not seem to illustrate that there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article when the character list can easily cover the analysis the characters does have. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep As has been said, "but Valnet sites aren't considered reliable sources" is not consenus throughout. Screen Rant specifically "is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons." As this is an entertainment-related topic and not about a living person, Screen Rant is considered reliable. There is also brief commentary on the biblical nature of the name in The Afterlife of Genre: Remnants of the Trauerspiel in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, p. 18 and Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon, p. 15-16. So the suggested sources collectively are enough to establish notability for my part. While it is unfortunate that those secondary sources have not yet been added, this is not grounds for deletion. Daranios (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Screen Rant is a low-quality source whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source to be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, could you point to the WP:RSP entry and show me where it says that Screen Rant is not usable for analysis or notability? I certainly don't see it there, and I am sure we would both hate for people to confuse opinion with consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course I can't point you to where it says that on the WP:RSP entry; that's not what WP:RSP is for. But I can point you to discussions on what Screen Rant is suitable for, including WT:FAC#Would these pass a source review? and Talk:Priscilla (film)#Vandalism. TompaDompa (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, two discussions for specific occasions, without any wider input, admin finding of general applicability, or posting to any place with multiple eyes and routine referencing for the output of such decisions? That's fine... but it doesn't trump what RSP says. And to the second point, yes, that's precisely how RSP is used when such a determination has been made, e.g. WP:THESUN which notes References from The Sun are actively discouraged [...] and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll admit that I'm somewhat surprised at the number of sources listed at WP:RSP where there are explicit mentions of whether they can be used for establishing notability, but what I said it that it's not what it's for—what it's for is listing whether they are reliable, which is a different question. It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet, which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. (Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article). Using Screen Rant for establishing notability is at best questionable, seeing as it was seen as "marginally reliable" and its use for establishing notability was not discussed in the 2021 RfC that designated it as such (though it was at the most recent of the dicussions listed at WP:VGRS). It's not like its standing has improved. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        So, we're back to a specific case (Screen Rant) being at odds with the general case (Valnet sites). In other such discussions, the specific guidance is usually seen as normative. I think we understand each other and I have nothing further substantive to say on this. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure I understand your position. I've gone in the record as saying Screen Rant is a low-quality source whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source to be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. I stand by that. Do you want to go on the record as disagreeing with that assessment, or did you just want to talk about the bureaucratic aspect? TompaDompa (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an AfD outcome, per the above sourcing. Buffy and all related topics have been so over-studied by academics even the most lame related topics seem to have GScholar hits. Having said that, a merge discussion might identify this as a NOPAGE situation. That is, this character is basically a MacGuffin with no particular development compared to the series' other antagonists, and had no recurring appearances, e.g. First Evil never manifested as him. Covering him in a character list or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1) wouldn't be a terrible outcome, but sourcing this is at least as plausible, and deletion is right out. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to initially vote "Merge" when I looked at the article, but upon seeing the sources supplied by Rosguill, the sources show that the subject does meet notability standards and thus qualifies for an independent article. I think then afterwards, when the page is improved, there should be a discussion about whether to merge it, but I do not think it should be deleted, even though the article needs work and sources.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:22, 4 February 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.

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 Bantay Radyo. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYDD

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

No significant coverage in RS. Can be redirected to Bantay Radyo. MarioGom (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two source states that the station is licensed. The rest of the sources (including source 4) talk about the station's programming and updates. That said, though the station is off the air since 2015, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial sources are mere primary source records. They do not prove notability. Source 4 is not about DYDD, but about Bantay Radyo (my proposed redirect target). There is only a passing mention about DYDD, so it does not provide significant coverage. Everything else I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYHH applies here. Unless further reliable sources with significant coverage are brought here, I do not see how this article could pass WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astig, What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? // Timothy :: talk 17:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 to 7 are realiable and in-depth enough IMV since they're about the station's programming. SBKSPP (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides sufficient evidence of notability based on reliable sources, including records confirming the station's licensing and in-depth discussions about its programming and updates. Despite the station being off the air since 2015, the coverage meets the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. While there are differing opinions on the reliability of the sources, the majority of them are secondary and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of DYDD. Therefore, the article should be retained, pending any additional reliable sources that may further support its notability."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC) (Struck !vote by blocked account gaming AFD. MarioGom (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Bantay Radyo Delete per nom. Most of the sources I can find are passing mentions. Israel's Son 15:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the cited sources are passing mentions. There's no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as set out by WP:ORGCRITE. I would happily change my mind if someone finds in-depth Philipino or local coverage, though. Tserton (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Update: redirecting to Bantay Radyo, as others have suggested, would be acceptable as well. --Tserton (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Lilst of stations, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly an d indepth from independent sources	1. "2021 NTC AM Stations" (PDF). foi.gov.ph. Retrieved November 18, 2023.
Row listing in database results page	NTC Region 7
No mention of subject beyond that it was merged with another station. Fails WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ Vice guv to be back soon, daughters say
Name mention in listing, nothing SIGCOV	4. ^ Bantay Radyo moves to new home
Name mention nothing SIGCOV	5. ^ Radio news stringer shot dead in Masbate
Routine mill news, about Bantay Radyo not the subject	6. ^ dyDD workers ask for separation pay
Routine mill news, about Bantay Radyo not the subject	7. ^ CFI to take over Bantay Radyo

Sources are barely passing mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes above are nonsense. // Timothy :: talk 17:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, with no significant coverage found. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bantay Radyo per WP:ATD-R. Those calling for deletion haven't explained why this is an invalid redirect target; an analysis for sources towards notability is irrelevant for redirects, which just need verifiable information in the target article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to single you out specifically, but did you read my above comment? (And also WP:VAGUEWAVE) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of WP:ATD vs deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested seems like the best option. I'm not seeing sigcov about the station. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bantay Radyo per Ritchie333 and Oaktree b. -Ian Lopez @ 17:08, 31 January 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.

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. While a majority of editors have !voted for keep, editors in favor of deletion continue to maintain that strict organizational notability guidelines have not been met. The difference in evaluation comes down to differing assessments over the degree of independence of various examples of coverage cited in this discussion, as well as assessments as to whether coverage is of the organization, of its reports, or of its founders. A few keep !votes also made IAR arguments to the effect that this organization's reports' prominence in coverage relating to Israel-Palestine is sufficient to establish notability despite the fact that this coverage is generally not of significant depth regarding the organization. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage which is independent, reliable, and significant,

While there is a small amount of independent coverage of some of the initiatives it has launched and the reports it has published, this is not sufficient to establish notability per both WP:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself; Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization.

Note that this article was previously deleted under a different name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; it was then recreated by a Euro-Med HRM employee under a number of names (The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, etc) before finally "sticking" under the current name. The current article has also been edited by at least nine different Euro-Med HRM employees, mostly WP:UPEs.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181211-euro-med-hrm-saudi-arabia-has-forcibly-disappeared-3-libyans/			Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.marsad.ly/en/2021/05/19/euro-med-hrm-calls-for-disclosure-of-maps-for-mine-sites-in-libya/			Significant coverage of a "call" from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.euromedmonitor.org/en/About	About-self			✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718	Unclear where these profiles come from; whether they are from the organization		One sentence of coverage of their aims, and a list of its structure	✘ No
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine			No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian-8			No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israels-icc-rebuttal-admission-war-crimes-rights-group			Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/family-visits-imprisoned/	Republication of a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release	~	Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2890/Euro-Med-announces-changes-in-its-administrative-and-executive-structure	About-self			✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-targets-rights-defenders-un-council-hears/1992437		WP:RSP for Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics)	Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/author/ramy-abdu/			Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/ramy-abdu/			Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2019/08/27/as-mena-states-grow-increasingly-repressive-businesses-should-lead-reform/	Published by Ramy Abdu		No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/staff	About-self			✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/101164	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release		Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://imemc.org/article/euro-med-monitor-report-suffocation-and-isolation-15-years-of-israeli-blockade-on-gaza/	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release		Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200407104742/https://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/lisa-hajjar	Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees		No mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/tareq-ismael	Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees		No mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/michael-smith-uae-prison-mps-b1813663.html			Significant coverage of a letter organized by the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://exeter.academia.edu/TanyaNewburySmith	academia.edu page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees		No mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/authors/3/Maha-Hussaini	About-self		Maybe SIGCOV of Maha Hussaini, not sigcov of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/maha-hussaini/	Author page for a Euro-Med HRM reporter		Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/maha-hussaini-martin-adler-prize-win-rory-peck-trust			Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.una-oic.org/page/public/news_details.aspx?id=328294&NL=True	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release		Significant coverage of an official complaint from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/ngo914.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Libya	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo923.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo927.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo942.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo950.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo953.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo959.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain	✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo933.doc.htm	UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's		Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel	✘ No
https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/about-us/where-we-work/mena/palestine/	Funded (?) a Euro-Med HRM Project		No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2017/08/palestine-gaza-civil-society-women-leadership-incubator.html			Significant coverage of Women's Leadership Incubator project, passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/from_denial_to_defense_youth_for_rights#!/	A "go fund me" equivilent for a Euro-Med HRM project		Significant coverage of the project, not of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
http://www.ju.edu.jo/Lists/NewsLetter/Disp_f.aspx?ID=1175&Issue=August%202016&order=8	UJ Newsletter about a summer school hosted at UJ		Passing mention of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://thepoliticain.co.uk/middle-east/201/	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release		Significant coverage of a summer school set up by Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.bnreport.com/en/wikirights-2/			Significant coverage of a program by Euro-Med HRM to edit Wikipedia, no significant coverage of the Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://law.ju.edu.jo/Lists/AcademicNews/Test.aspx?ID=78&ContentTypeId=0x0100FB3DD40023178C409CDBAC99DB39D980	Copy of source 36, this time hosted on UJ's sharepoint			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211003105920/https://europebriefnews.com/2017/10/25/watering-the-seeds/		Not discussed at RSN, but I'm convinced that it is not a reliable source. The source is obscure and now defunct, and its "about me" page only said "Europe Brief News (EBN) provides our readers with latest news from across Europe such as news, stories, politics, tourism, travel, food, health diet and many more topics" which does not indicate any level of editorial control or reliability. The specific article also raises questions; it is labeled as "news", but it is reads as an opinion piece. Note that there is a current organization using the name Europe Brief News that does appear reliable, but they are not the same entity - the current one was founded in 2020.	It could arguably contain WP:SIGCOV, but I'm not convinced; it uses a lot of words but says very little about Euro-Med HRM, and WP:NCORP requires that the coverage is sufficient to "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". However, this is a lesser issue than the reliability of the source.	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3190	About-self		Significant coverage of a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/11/career-assassination-dws-scapegoating-of-arab-employees			Passing mention of a press release from Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/many_faces_wann	Appears written by We Are Not Numbers		Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/deported-israels-war-against-palestine-solidarity-activists	Written by the secretary of Euro-Med HRM		Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/128695	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release		Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
We Are Not Numbers: Junge Stimmen aus Gaza	A book written by We Are Not Numbers			✘ No
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/struggles-triumphs-palestinian/			Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160824141709/http://www.daysofpalestine.com/news/israel-bans-right-activist-entering-gaza/			Single sentence of coverage of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-fence-stories-hebrew/			No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/german-court-rules-palestinian-ex-dw-journalist-sacking-unlawful			Passing mention of a Euro-Med HRM investigation	✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5039/Euro-Med-Monitor%27s-We-Are-Not-Numbers-project-celebrates-graduation-of-new-batch-of-writers	About-self			✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5562/Euro-Med-Monitor%E2%80%99s-project-We-Are-Not-Numbers-launches-17th-cohort-of-writers	About-self			✘ No
https://news.trust.org/item/20210902130009-tk186/			Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM; syndicated from a Reuters article which is used seperately as a reference	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/they-told-us-they-hate-africans-hundreds-detained-deported-abu-dhabi-2021-09-02/			Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58446660			Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM. Appears to be identical to the two reuters and truth.org sources linked above, except translated into Pidgin	✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared	~ Most of the coverage related to Euro-Med HRM consists of quotes	WP:DAILYEXPRESS	Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/risks-refugees-disabilities-face-turkey-how-mitigate-risks-and-challenges-shape-apt	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release		Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://europebriefnews.com/2017/12/09/euro-med-monitor/		See earlier discussion of Europe Brief New's reliability	Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/world/middleeast/fleeing-gaza-only-to-face-treachery-and-disaster-at-sea-.html			Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared		WP:DAILYEXPRESS	Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-arrests-hundreds-of-teachers-after-violent-clashes-zzg7ppsvh			Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-survivor-commemorates-victims-paintings-2022-05-26/			Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ No
https://palestine.unwomen.org/en/stories/feature-story/2022/05/zainab-al-qolaq-a-survivor-of-an-israeli-airstrike-on-gaza-in-may-2021-tells-her-story			No mention of Euro-Med HRM	✘ 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}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this table was added on 28 January not 21 January and now there are two of them one here and one at the bottom. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was added on 21 January. And this one covers the sources in the article, the one at the bottom covers the sources presented in this AfD. If you wish, feel free to remove both of these comments per WP:MUTUAL. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Delete per nominator. JM (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The large number of sources obviously indicates notability even if some of them don't count. BilledMammal provides no evidence of the claim of 9 paid editors, and anyway a quick look at the history shows a large number of edits by experienced editors in good standing. Mentions that are not just in passing are frequently used as indicating notability: when an independent source discusses something done by the organization or cites and analyses (even in disagreement) something published by the organization, that counts. Zero^talk 07:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify which sources are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the organisation?

Regarding the UPE’s, conclusive evidence has been provided privately; I can’t provide it publicly as it would violate WP:OUTING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Wikipedia policy about evidence about paid authorship that cannot be provided publicly as being inadmissible in discussions about page deletion? I'm not sure, I'm just asking. Wickster12345 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot see the evidence how can we determine whether it holds up? Wickster12345 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article as well, I am not paid. Can we be pointed to the most recent edit by a COI editor? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late-2022; they come in waves every year or two editing a large number of articles, including this one, to publicize Euro-Med HRM's activities. There's an ongoing discussion about COI tags and editing on the article's talk page; happy to take this there if you want to discuss further, to avoid getting too deep into a tangential topic. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you said is clear evidence of paid authorship. Neither the discussion about COI Tags nor the contents of the discussion on the talk page. @BilledMammal Wickster12345 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree that there is sufficient consensus on the basis of established Wikipedia policy that a majority of the cited sources are unreliable in determining notability. Some of the sources listed are, in my opinion, not biased, some are able to establish notability, some are clearly independent of the subject matter, even if not all the sources are all of these three things. Wickster12345 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insofar as the claims made by @BilledMammal are factually accurate. The re-creation after an AfD in that way is also very concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the 2015 deletion was on the basis of only 3 delete votes and the 2021 AfD was closed as no consensus. So the story is more complex than that. Zero^talk 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read those, I am referring to the claims the sources (and secondarily on the paid editors) which appear accurate. I performed a cursory search myself and have not found other (better) sources (except the article by NGO Monitor, whose reliability is disputed per the RS Noticeboard). FortunateSons (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a very prominent human rights monitor that is abundantly covered well in excess of the requirements of WP:GNG. There are ample references to it in academic literature, as a casual WP:BEFORE search would have shown - and one has to question if one was in fact performed. In this paper published in The Lancet, the top pedigree medical journal, it is one of two esteemed sources referenced for basic on-the-ground information-gathering alongside UNRWA. In at least two recent instances: [27][28], UNRWA published press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, so this monitor notably operates in an ongoing capacity in UN circles. These reports are needless to say routinely picked up by RS. The evidence for notability is all over the internet, and overwhelming. This nomination is incomprehensible and the aspersions about paid-editing largely unsupported. I'm pretty sure I've edited this page in the last 12 months, and I certainly wasn't paid. The nominator has assessed the sources on the page, but could they clarify if they performed a proper WP:BEFORE or not? I suspect not, and the wise thing to do here would be to withdraw the nomination before it wastes any more community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I conducted a WP:BEFORE. Looking through your links, I don't see any that are independent, reliable, and significant coverage - and I don't believe you are asserting that they are. Perhaps you - or any of the other editors who support keeping the article - can provide WP:THREE sources they believe do meet that criteria so we can assess the opposition to this nomination on the basis of the evidence?
A small correction to your comment; UNRWA doesn't publish press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, they republish Euro-Med's press releases. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3) National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Scholarly Citation. Seems there are many more citations in books, so perhaps the "before" was less than comprehensive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) That's coverage of a report by Euro-Med HRM but I'm not seeing any coverage of the organization itself - if I have missed something, please quote it.

Per WP:NCORP, such coverage is not sufficient to establish notability of the organization; Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. As an aside, while Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable.

2) Coverage is The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based Human Rights NGO, reported that the law legitimized censorship and restricted freedom of expression (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 2020). Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization.

3) Coverage is PA Security also commonly targets opposition. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,274 arbitrary detentions in the West Bank in 2015 and 1,089 summonses by Palestinian Security Services. The human rights violations targeted mostly individuals affiliated with Hamas or who opposed PA policies, including about 35 journalists and human rights activists, 476 university students, and 67 teachers/professors (Euro-Med 2016). Again, not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. BilledMammal (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4) Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group Euronews. That's 4, I can keep them coming if you like, although only 3 were asked for.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5) Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza Politics Today Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#4 and #5 are the same as #1; maybe containing SIGCOV of a report from Euro-Med HRM, but not SIGCOV of the organization itself. If I have missed such coverage, please quote it; otherwise, can you please provide WP:THREE sources that comply with the requirements of WP:NCORP? BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor

2) https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920

3) https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718

That didn't take long, GNG established, methinks, this is also more than we had the last time this was nominated. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRUNCHBASE; that source is deprecated

Lobbyfacts collates and mirrors a number of other sites, primarily the EU Transparency Register (which is populated by submissions from the organization), but also Euro-Med HRM's website and a few others. It contains significant coverage of the organization, but does not contain coverage that is both independent and significant.

One sentence of coverage; Advocate for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict. Further, they normally provide a profile in the words of the organization itself. The coverage is neither significant nor independent.

Unfortunately, none of these can count towards notability; they are all indisputably unsuitable. Do you have any that are suitable? BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meets GNG, prove otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think BilledMammal has already done so above. Thoroughly, as usual. JM (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the last time? Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable journalistic outfit citing a report by an organization is not an example of a source describ[ing] only a specific topic related to an organization. A report is not a "topic." Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see things that have changed for the better since the last nomination by nom a couple years ago but I can't see what is worse? This just seems like a pointy nomination following the conversation at RSN Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I noticed the main thing missing in that list of articles mentioning Euro-Med was anything about it. Well I just put in a Google of 'Euro-mediterranean monitor review' and got a number if whoever started off this AfD wants a pointer on how to find something like that. Evaluation might also be a good word but about is liable to just lead back to an organisation. I have looked at it and the article about it and I believe it is definitely notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Here are the links for the first few things I got from the search [29] by Richard A. Falk, [30] by Reliefweb, [31] by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those sources are independent. Falk is the chairman of the Euro-Med HRM, the ReliefWeb article is a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ~~is a major donor to the Euro-Med HRM (about a million USD per year) and created the report in that context.~~ is about a different organization with a very similar name.

Further, the second two don't constitute WP:SIGCOV; they both fail WP:NCORPs requirement that sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Updated BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that EuroMed Rights one, and I'd already discounted EuroMed ones as they were something to do wit science. and thie one was originally the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. Talk about confusing. NadVolum (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear how bad. I suppose then you'd also find NGO Monitor's article [32] about it is trivial or unreliable? NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NadVolum, Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323:

Looking at the source, it might just scrape by the WP:SIGCOV requirements, through the paragraphs where it says Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not publish any financial date on its website, reflecting a complete lack of transparency and accountability and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med Monitor) consistently spreads blood libels and conspiracy theories about Israel, and accuses Israel of “apartheid,” genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “collective punishment,” and “war crimes.” The rest is limited to quotes from Euro-Med and affiliated individuals and thus doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV as the quotes aren't independent coverage.

I think it's too brief, but reasonable minds might disagree. The larger concern is whether it is reliable and thus suitable to both count towards notability and be used in the article. I'm not convinced that it is, but what do the four of you think? BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly should, considering you argued against it being a reliable source on the noticeboard about this question less than 48h ago? Or have you changed your mind? FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was interested in seeing what kind of response the people who push for NGO Monitor being counted as a reliable site would make when it is used to support having a site they want to remove! This AfD is even less likely to succeed than last time as they provide actual news that is widely cited even if it does have a bias, and they keep their opinion articles well marked. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met and situation improved relative to previous nomination.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NCORP has pretty clear criteria for what counts as SIGCOV of orgs, and I am not seeing multiple sources meeting all of SIRS. A few sentences is not SIGCOV, and that's all I'm seeing in the NGO Monitor site--everything else is just direct quotes from EMHRM and so not independent. The NGO Monitor coverage also contains some very contentious claims that would require far more than one source to appear in an article at all, let alone be the basis of one. And that's if the site is RS; given the lack of author details or editorial policy and the highly opinionated, activist tone most of its articles have, I'm doubtful it's reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well actully I wouldn't consider NGO Monitor as a reliable source for anything. The point of a discussion like this is to see if editors consider if an article should be kept even if it has some problems. Not following a guideline is a good reason for nomination but as WP:POLICY says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So we're here to apply our common sense, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we write a neutral article when the only substantive coverage comes from the subject's description of itself? JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe that the article is not neutral? Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zero, Selfstudier and others. And yes, the article has definitely improved compared to previous noms. --NSH001 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NSH001: I wouldn't place your faith in other people quite so easily, particularly when folk say silly things like "The large number of sources obviously indicates notability" which is complete nonsense and has no basis in fact.. When articles have that many references it often an indication that the people who are editing it are trying to make it appear notable when it plainly is not. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the first 15 references expecting to see a few at least that passed WP:SIRS, which is unfortunate as its a very laudable organisation. It seems it doesn't pass WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion appears to have been canvassed (five and a half days ago, as I write), in a partisan manner, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's now at AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty neutrally worded. It seems reasonable as a noticeboard considering there's probably lots of people who have a deep interest in the war. I don't know what UPE stands for. What is the problem you see? NadVolum (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPE - Undisclosed Paid Editor. Yes that is a major slur on the article's editors and canvassing and trying to bias who comes. If they have real reason to believe that they should report to an Admin board or otherwise shut up. NadVolum (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THere is a basis for saying that. The person who set up the page originally was connected to the organisation. They said that but didn't fill in the COI form. The page as it is now seems to have everything they put in removed and replaced with other stuff. NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely to have been paid but still connected so COI holds. NadVolum (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what it means, how can you assert that it is neutral? "Please see this AfD" is neutrally worded. "Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's", even if true, is most definitely not. Then there's the choice of venue... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was judging by the standards of other canvassing I've seen which have been pretty blatant. I believe any other suspected ones are by university students on this program [33]. Their edits seem quite reasonable actually so it must be a fairly good course even if most of hem have been heavily edited since. Wikipedia itself organises similar courses [34]. NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the ones I've identified have been board members - although it's possible that the ones that I haven't connected to individuals are those students.

Regarding Pigsonthewing's comment, I posted there because the editors who frequent that forum have experience reviewing COI editing, and such experience would be helpful here. I included that summary to make the relevance to that forum clear, and I didn't consider it an issue because it is factual and because COI editing isn't a reason to delete an article - it's merely a reason to review it more carefully. However, I'll be careful to avoid using terms like "UPE" in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep- they are currently providing the most accurate casualty data for the war, according to consensus on that page. Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iskandar323 et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of review by other editors and the closer, I've created a table of all sources presented in the AfD.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
ample references to it	A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided.	A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided.	A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided.	? Unknown
this paper published in the Lancet	Authors include the founder and chairman of Euro-Med HRM		Coverage is limited to detailing Euro-Med HRM's activities in preparing the report: "The field researchers of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor covered 338 (64%) of the total 530 children killed. They focused extensively on mass attacks because it was difficult to cover hundreds of attacks taking place at the same time for 50 days." No WP:SIGCOV of the Euro-Med HRM itself.	✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 1	Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM		Coverage of a primary report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 2	Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM		Coverage of a statement from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
Their reports are routinely picked up by RS			Coverage of a call from Euro-Med HRM to free a Tunisian prisoner; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams		~ While Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable	Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation.			Coverage is "The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based Human Rights NGO, reported that the law legitimized censorship and restricted freedom of expression (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 2020)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization.	✘ No
National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Schoarly Citation.			Coverage is "PA Security also commonly targets opposition. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,274 arbitrary detentions in the West Bank in 2015 and 1,089 summonses by Palestinian Security Services. The human rights violations targeted mostly individuals affiliated with Hamas or who opposed PA policies, including about 35 journalists and human rights activists, 476 university students, and 67 teachers/professors (Euro-Med 2016)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization.	✘ No
Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group			Coverage of an allegation from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza			Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself	✘ No
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor		WP:CRUNCHBASE; source is deprecated		✘ No
https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920	Mirrors other sources, which lack independence. For example, the significant coverage comes directly from the Euro-Med HRM's website, and other coverage comes from the EU transparency register, which is populated by submissions from the organization			✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718	They normally provide "a profile in the words of the organization itself"		Only one sentence of coverage; "Advocate for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict."	✘ No
3 by Richard A. Falk	Richard A. Falk is the chairman of Euro-Med HRM's Board of Directors			✘ No
4 by Reliefweb	Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release			✘ No
5 by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency			Coverage is of EuroMed Rights, not Euro-Med HRM - different organization, with a very similar name.	✘ No
NGO Monitor's article 6		Editor who presented the source has !voted for it to be deprecated	Two sentences of coverage containing highly contentious claims. The closest we have to WP:SIGCOV, but not good enough - particularily given how the source is about to be found unreliable at RSN.	✘ 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}}.

If any editor disagrees with my assessment, please say so - and for the ease of review of your claims by other editors and the closer, please provide a quote of the content that you believe constitutes significant coverage of the organization. Please keep WP:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself in mind when doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well since you're repeating yourself my I repeat that is a guideline and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Is the aricle well worth having in Wikipedia? That's what AfD discussions like this are about. NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal your source assessment is missing a column for Secondary, which is important because what a subject/those affiliated say is a primary source (i.e. an insider's view) even when reliably published (i.e. interviews, their statements or based on material provided by them with no analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others, etc.). S0091 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the template doesn't include a row for that; I'll see about including it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: number of sources does not show notability - those sources need to be independent of the subject and reliable and have indepth coverage of the subject. None of the sources appear to meet this criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Could use a good pruning, article suffers from bloat. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Based on the analysis of the sources, everything is either a passing mention, or implicates WP:NOTINHERITED, or is not independent of the subject. If some people think I have a conflict of interest, I disclose have long been a very public advocate of a two-party state, and literally wrote Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moneyhouse report on EHRM German Wiki page (not in sources tables) clearly satisfies GNG and contrary to what is written in the sources tables, LobbyFacts.eu, is a perfectly respectable source of info about EHRM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they're saying is that no reliable source has dealt with it as a prime subject of interest. There's no real drama or controversy about its projects or publications despite what NGO Monitor says and other sources are only interested in what it says or does, not the organisation itself. I believe the article should be kept according to IAR as having encyclopaediac value, I wouldn't normally call myself an inclusionist but this type argument is what meta:Inclusionism versus meta:Deletionism is about. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in Moneyhouse is not independent. The only sigcov there is in "Commercial register information", which is copied unedited from the swiss commercial register, and it is provided to the commercial register by Euro-Med HRM. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All information about an organisation comes ultimately from the organisation. Sources don't become non-independent solely because some of their information comes from the original. We rely on intermediate sources, in this case the EU Transparency Register, to process the information. Your argument would also eliminate a news story based on an interview on the basis that the information comes from the interviewee. It is perfectly obvious that this is a perfectly respectable source. Zero^talk 06:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure you understand; this is content written by Euro-Med HRM. It being republished elsewhere doesn’t make it independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I take an editor post that was deleted for say ARBECR and instead sign my name to it, I take responsibility for it. Get it now? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND, addresses this question directly:

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). 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.

The content being republished by an independent party doesn't change the fact that it was produced by an interested party. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you don't get it, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well there isn't anything that describes the organisation itself except that NGO Monitor or itself or blogs and they're not reliable sources. It has to stand on its own merits as being widely used by reliable sources and for its activities. That last Delete !vote above, I looked becaused they talked about COI, actually seems to support human rights articles for organisations that have far less written about them - I noticed Humanitarian Law Project and The Hague Justice Portal. That portal is much less likely to ever have stuff written about it but it is important and widely used. Their support for it cited WP:HEYMANN. It looksd like straightforward human rights organisations have problems that way - perhaps they should have more scandals! NadVolum (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two reputable sources I gave actually do describe the organization itself for the purposes of GNG. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they republish Euro-Med HRM's description of itself. Per the section of WP:NCORP that I quoted that isn't considered independent coverage and thus doesn't count towards GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the EU Transparency Register's linked "Guidelines for applicants and registrants" it states The information in the Register is provided by the registrants themselves, on the understanding that they are ultimately responsible for its accuracy. The Secretariat monitors the quality of the Register’s content and reserves the right to de-register ineligible registrants, including those found not to observe the code of conduct. Their disclaimer says information is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date.

Lobbyfacts acknowledges in their disclaimer about the EU Transparency Register As stated on its website, information on the official EU Register is provided by registrants themselves, making it the sole responsibility of those organisations. It is recognised that some entries in the official register are inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise misleading. Based on this information, the EU Transparency Register and those relying on them are not reliable sources because the register does not have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lancet is another example of a clearly independent source, by virtue of the peer-review process. An academic working at a university could write a paper specifically about their own activities at that university and by virtue of the peer-review process the resulting content would still be independently vetted by virtue of the peer-review process. This does not apply to all published literature ofc, but it certainly applies to peer review. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment about Lancet specifically because I do not have access but what you describe is a reliably published primary source, so reliable but not helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the arguably involved author is not the lead author and only one of four contributors, and the topic is not the author, but pertains to research findings, so the work as a whole is perfectly secondary (+ peer review). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR It was correct to nominate this for deletion and it probably doesn't meet a strict interpretation of wp:notability guidlines. But wih the preponderance of sourcing and information, and that having this article exist is more likely to serve the reader than the organization/ one which readers might seek to be informed on, I think that it's an article that should exist in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
To serve our readers it's not enough to present an overview of the organization; we need to present a neutral overview of the organization.

Unfortunately, that isn't possible if our only significant coverage comes from non-independent sources - and would be a violation of WP:V, which says Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Again, you were correct to take this to AFD. And per my previous post, I agree that it has not been established that this meets the wp:notability guidlines as written. As a preface, I could come up with strong arguments in either direction on this. I would also have several quibbles with the arguments in your past post. Setting all of that aside, at this venue, this is simplly a "should this article exist?" question, and I gave my opinion on that. I gave my rationale as wp:iar and the usefulness of the article. Another way to state my argument in wp:notability terms is that per the criteria described in Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works this topic is very enclyclopedic and has some importance / impact, making it something that people would be likely to seek an enclyclopedia rticle on, and pushing the wp:notability equation up into the edge case zone. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with Ramy Abdu. I simply can't find fault with the case BilledMammal has made. Yes, the org's reports are widely mentioned, including in scholarly literature, but there is indeed an almost complete lack of significant and independent coverage of the organisation itself in reliable sources. Happy to reconsider if or when new sources come to light, but we do have rules for a reason. We should follow them. --Andreas JN 466 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong under the founder Ramy Abdu and the content would look silly there. And it wouldn't fit under the current leader Richard A. Falk either. In fact much of the stuff from it wouldn't even mention them. NadVolum (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see HonestReporting has a longer spiel about them at CNN & Other Media Give Voice to Anti-Israel “Human Rights” Organization. NadVolum (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding sources that lack independence, that is probably the most significant coverage I have seen on this organization. We would need multiple such sources to keep the article, but before we count it - and thus add it to the article at a level of prominence that would be appropriate for one of the few sources that are both independent and contain significant coverage of the article - do any editors have any objections to it, such as on grounds of reliability?

@Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323: Comments? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to try and avoid the lie direct. We were just raising the question, we're so glad we were wrong - but that's a lot better than NGO Monitor.. NadVolum (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NadVolum: To be clear, you support using this source prominently in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do actually support putting it in, but I see it as a biased source that should be attributed and used with caution. To be quite clear since you like policies, and going to the opposite extreme from what you seem to be implying, see WP:N for what is required. In that '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline', I agree they satisfy that for the purpose of establishing notability. There's no requirement for a lack of bias in doing that and they do seem to have some editorial integrity as I noted just above. Later we have 'Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists', and 'Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article'. According to that just sticking a notability citation on the talk page so it could be found easily would be more than enough. NadVolum (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - RS about them exist!. I think people are not doing their homework. There are significant RS (reliable or relevant sources) out there talking about EMHRM, — they are important enough to be mentioned and described in:
- ReliefWeb, as service of the United Nations OCHA,
- to be condemned in detail by the pro-Israeli NGO Monitor on the topics of funding, alleged "ties to terror", stances on BDS, etc., funding..., and also a
- dedicated page condemning them.
- Pro-Israel group UN Watch has a detailed condemnation in this article
- This Jerusalem Post article talks about how Al-Jazeera uses EMHRM as a source, and
- this article in the Doha News talks about "The Geneva-based human rights group has been at the forefront of exposing Israel’s crimes against humanity committed in occupied Palestinian territories.".

None of the above are trivial. Keizers (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through those, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization - some of them contain coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, but per WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself that is not sufficient to count towards notability.

Could you provide quotes of the content that you believe consitutes significant coverage of the organization?

I note that the ReliefWeb article is not independent, as it is written by Euro-Med HRM, and NGO Monitor has already been dismissed as unreliable - and I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization

Did you not read the UN Watch article? How do you construe UN Watch claiming Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s leadership routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online as being coverage of a specific topic related to the organization? And what topic might that be, may I ask?

When Doha News says

The Geneva-based human rights group has been at the forefront of exposing Israel’s crimes against humanity committed in occupied Palestinian territories

and when they further report that

Israeli institutions... have attempted to spoil Euro-Med’s standing

...exactly what do you think they are talking about, if not about Euro-Med itself? What "other topic" are you alleging they're really covering, to which any mention of Euro-Med is merely ancillary?

I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article.

Reject it how? We are not flat earthers; we agree the article exists, we are not rejecting its existence. That we disagree with the article is besides the point. If tomorrow the entirety of the Israeli consent manufacturing machine started raving 24/7 about how (insert random human rights organization) is actually Hamas and Hitler in a trench coat, as they regularly do from time to time, we might not agree with them, and we would surely find them to be eminently dishonest, yet, nevertheless, the mere fact of such coverage would likely cause the object of their rage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if there weren't other coverage- and in this case, there most assuredly is. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The UN Watch article doesn't contain significant coverage of the organization. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell all it says about the organization is that it's officials, who include Richard Falk and Ramy Abdu, are notoriously biased and antisemitic, and routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online. That isn't significant coverage of the organization.

The Doha News article has similar issues; the only independent coverage of the organization, as opposed to coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, in that article is the two quotes you provided, and 29 words don't amount to WP:SIGCOV.

As for rejecting the UN Watch article, I've already seen one of the editors arguing to !keep this article argue it is unreliable, and I suspect if I tried to add it to the article it would quickly be reverted - I suspect they won't reply, but let's ping them to ask: @Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323: Any objection to including content from UN Watch in the article - and if no objection, any objection to including it with the level of promience that one of the few WP:SIRS sources on the topic would warrant, assuming you don't dispute that it contains SIRS converage? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Doha one looks like it was written by a journalist and is about the organisation. NadVolum (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post is clearly RS about EMHRM and Doha News while not objective, also clearly writes about the importance of the organization. And ReliefWeb is reliable because the site is operated by the UN and clearly thinks EMHRM is important enough to mention. I am not a guru on Wiki policy but there must be some WP:COMMON SENSE applied here? Third party journalism about the organization cannot be the only yardstick of notability.Keizers (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various reasons have been given above with links to the various policies. Community discussions like this are part of the commmon sense mechanism of Wikipedia, it can agree a consensus exception from a rule. Those rules - policies and guidelines however are the result of a lot of prior editing decisions and discussions so good reasons have to be given for exceptions. The rest of what you say is your presentation of that type of reason. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! You've been on Wikipedia since 2006! You'll know far more about all that than me! NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yes but I've never come across this exact degree of stubbornness re original research v. coverage. No doubt because Israel/Palestine is an emotional topic, particularly right now as its victims are livestreamed to our phones every day.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post contains a small amount of coverage of a claim that Euro-Med HRM has made; it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself. If I am mistaken, can you please quote the coverage?

The ReliefWeb source is written by Euro-Med HRM; it doesn't matter whether it is reliable or significant, as it isn't independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Iskandar323, Keizers, and others. Absurd we are even having this debate, and if the main subject that this organization covered were anything other than the situation in Israel and Palestine, I suspect no such discussion would be had. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those points above... exactly what I was trying to express.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this organization covered any other subject it would have been an uncontroversial deletion; no compliant coverage and COI editing by the organization usually makes for an easy AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I miscount, you have now made 24 comments in this AfD, many of them very long and many of them repetitious. This is what WP:BLUDGEON is about. You should stop. Zero^talk 06:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing.

Can I ask why you feel so strongly about deleting this article, @BilledMammal?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were concerned with addressing, in considerable detail, unsuitable sources that editors bombarded the discussion with; ideally, editors would have ensured the sources they provided aren't obvious WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP failures, but since they didn't I had to detail the issues. However, since you're here, do you care to comment on whether you consider HonestReporting and UN Watch sufficiently reliable for use in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Now 25) I have stated my opinion that this organization is notable. I still hold that opinion, and believe it is obvious on its face and does not rest on the reliability of either HR or UNWatch. I also find your repeated pings to border on harassment. Zero^talk 07:00, 13 February 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.

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemisi Ransome-Kuti

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

Does not meet with Wikipedia notability guidelines for biographies Semmy1960 (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify for improvement. I see press coverage stretching back years in a Google news search and a Google book search, enough to suggest a strong GNG pass. Our current article is not well written but deletion is not cleanup and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BEFORE suggests that this passes GNG, also, indeed, AfD isn't for articles that just need cleanup. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:31, 4 February 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.

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. Star Mississippi 01:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanshah Javid

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

Non-notable journalist. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Iran. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both of the article's references were written by the subject, and the subject has a history of editing the article. There are some other sources in existence (such as https://www.jstor.org/stable/20343473) but I do not believe they will add anything to the article. Redtree21 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing discussing this individual that isn't a primary source. This is a brief mention [35], but nothing else for GNG found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As others have said, the article presently relies entirely on primary sources directly or indirectly created by the subject. A search on Google News reveals two more sources which refer to the subject. One ([36]https://iranhumanrights.org/who_we_are/]) identifies the subject as a senior researcher for the Center for Human Rights in Iran and the other ([37]) briefly appears to mention the subject only by name as a signatory to a letter calling for opposition to Iran's nuclear policy. There might be a marginal case for notability if the subject's work as part of the Center could be identified but otherwise it does not seem as if there are adequate sources to meet the WP:N standard. Pseudoname1 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reliable sources have made him subject of their coverage. Sources are in Persian but reliable including BBC and Radio Farda: [38] [39] [40] --Drako (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sicaspi: the first two of those links are the same URL. All three are interviews with Javid, which don't count towards establishing notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the error, here are more correct links: [41] [42] [43] iewse[44]. In all these sources and interviews, interviewer is independent of this person, is a professional journalist and these sources are highly prestigous and reliable media with editorial oversight. In all of them he himself is the subject, he is not being interviewed about some third-party subject. As per WP:INTERVIEWS, interviews can also be counted towards notability, it says interviews that "show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful." The sources here are like that. Also, according to Radiofarda he has founded Iranian.com which is one of the oldest and (at the time) most popular Iranian websites [45]. That is also an example of the second item in WP:ANYBIO as he has had a significant contribution to Iranian and Persian internet history by founding one of the earliest Iranian websites. More evidence on that from the BBC [46]. Drako (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: neither the sources cited in the article nor those found by Pseudoname1 and by Sicaspi offer the SIGCOV we need to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I presented not only cover this person "directly and in detail", he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him, which is above the standard in WP:SIGCOV . I do not know what you mean by insignificance of their coverage of this person. Drako (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this friendly interview can be seen as "covering this person directly and in detail". The entire interview is about the website, not the journalist. No hard-hitting questions or criticism by the interviewer; all slow-ball pitches straight to his bat. Yes, interviews can provide SIGCOV. This one does not. Owen× ☎ 20:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PBS is a reliable media platform, and is independent of this person. The required standard is for the interview to be deep and investigative which is what this interviews is, he is being asked specific questions about his work. Being friendly or hostile is not a requirement.

As per WP:ANYBIO :"a person who has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" is notable. His widely recognized contribution is starting one of the most popular websites in a country, hence contributing to the Internet history there. If you agree that website is widely covered and recognized as such, that makes him notable.

Also, How about the multitude of other sources? BBC and Radio Farda are highly reputable sources (and independent from this man) that have covered his person in depth as mentioned in the above links. Even in their interviews, in these sources material you see is "interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts as mentioned in wp:interview#notability. Drako (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really consider the PBS interview to be "deep and investigative"? What exactly is the interviewer "investigating" there? You seem to be the only one here who considers it anything but a puff piece. Owen× ☎ 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to judge interviews to be awarded Pulitzer prize. Sources should just meet a bare minimum. Also I do not get why you are stuck on this particular source. Almost ten other more thorough sources have been presented in this AfD, for example:
Radio Farda [47] goes in depth exploring the guy and his contribution, his website

BBC has dedicated an entire episode of the programme Chamedan to him [48], depicting details of his life.

First persian podcast [49], another BBC production, has made an entire exclusive programme on him and covered him [50]

Mahdi Falahati has hosted him on his Hard Talk style show on Voice of America and has done a thorough, deep and investigative interview with him [51]

Drako (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we will not be playing this game. You said, All the sources I presented not only cover this person 'directly and in detail', he is the main subject of their coverage and they exclusively cover him. And by All you were referring to all six of the sources you presented above. The PBS interview was one of those sources you presented, therefore sufficient as a counterexample to disprove your "All" claim. Your options at this point are either (1) show us how the PBS interview meets your description of "directly and in detail"; or (2) retract your original claim. If not all your sources provide the required significant coverage, please amend your original claim to state which of those sources are the ones you believe provide SIGCOV. WP:REFBOMBing and playing Whac-A-Mole by shifting your claim to a different source whenever one is challenged will not work here. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 5 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 06:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jenisch

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are profiles and passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for the links. I'll review and see if there's a path forward with resolving this issue. I initially created this page because he's been heavily featured in the press, but I understand your perspective.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no WP:SECONDARY newspapers sources here. It is all either him or the companies he's working for. You will need evidence he is notable per WP:THREE. The article is just WP:PROMO with no illusion to being notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. Working to resolve issue!--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article and added relevant sources. I hope it works. Lusa131313 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA and a WP:UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first two block, 19 in total.

Ref 1 [52] Profile, likely written by himself. Not independent as profile are generally written by the person themselves.
Ref 2 [53] Routine annoucement that arrived to lecture. Not independent.
Ref 3 [54] Passing mention
Ref 4 [55] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Not independent.
Ref 5 [56] Routine annoucement. Not independent.
Ref 6 [57] Passing mention of new job. Routine annoucement. Not independent.
Ref 7 [58] Same ref as above. Routine annoucment of employment. Not independent.
Ref 8 [59] "the building materials giant said on Sunday" "The U.S. operations were "simply too successful to be run as a subsidiary," Jenisch said." Not independent.
Ref 9 [60] "Jan Jenisch: “I am very pleased that the Board has appointed Miljan" Not independent.
Ref 10 [61] "Holcim Ltd., the world’s largest cement maker, said Sunday it plans to separate its fast-growing North American business" Not indepenent.
Ref 11 [62] "Our North American business is a real rock star. We doubled the company just in the last four years by strong organic growth, by acquisitions. And we have leading margins, the EBITDA margin is already above 27%," Jenisch told CNBC on Monday" Not independent.

I'm not going to do anymore. It is a waste of time. None of these reference constitute reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. They all come from the company. They prove he is exists and that is it. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." It fails that criteria. WP:BIO state three criteria to be notable. He fails every criteria. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree & have moved on myself. Having added as much sourcing as possible, I'm not sure if there is currently anything more out there.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:00, 7 February 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) 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTPROMO And his achievements were ... WHAT? Reads like a self-promotion résumé, the kind you put out there for publicity purposes. But it lists absolutely nothing about achievements. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [63] is a profile page, [64] it is not in-depth about Jan Jenisch, [65], [66] Again PR announcement other shared sources are also same. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:59, 18 February 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.

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 Jamaica–United States relations. Star Mississippi 01:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Kingston

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

The article says nothing about the Embassy of the United States in Kingston, and whatever it says about Jamaica–United States relations can be added there. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Jamaica, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can be a standalone article given that it meets WP:GNG and that there is coverage specifically about the embassy (as opposed to the bilateral relationship): JO, Radio Jamaica News, JO 2, Jamaica Gleaner, Caribbean Journal, The Washington Post. The article can be further completed with descriptions of the architecture from the architect's website KCCT. Pilaz (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the architect’s self-praise, there really isn’t coverage about the embassy building: we have a couple of routine articles about its guards going on strike, one about some colored lights being flashed onto its exterior, another about it closing for a Federal holiday (like every single non-essential Federal building in existence) and one about a guard who admitted taking bribes. None of this in any way amounts to significant coverage of the purported topic. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pilaz – Kjerish (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  see WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 January 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, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jamaica–United States relations: the thorough source analysis carried out by the nom has not been refuted--or even addressed--by the "Keep" voters or the PERXs. Fleeting mentions do not add up to SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 29 January 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.

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. ✗plicit 13:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar Verma

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

The person is not notable enough for a standalone article. The position of High Commissioner of India to Canada does not confer any notability, and his previous positions as ambassador to multiple countries didn't confer automatic notability as well.

Outside of routine coverage of him doing his duties, there is no special notability about the subject. His involvement in Hardeep Singh Nijjar case is routine. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet passes WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 09:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 08:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage, does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 3 February 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.

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. Kept per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asuna (Sword Art Online)

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

Just like Sinon and Leafa, the article was still not improved and has no commentary exceot the anime news network source from the concept and creation section about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings. Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying "that it just exist" (again). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Question But what about the Creation and conception and Critical commentary sections? How are they no commentary about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings? Daranios (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually refer mostly from reception only. Re-edited my rationale, but that along isn't enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sword Art Online characters. Sources are largely about the anime's storyline, rather than Asuna as a character in particular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the Critical commentary is neither trivial nor based on passing mentions. Together with the Creation and conception section this constitutes a non-stubby article fulfilling WP:WHYN, which is further rounded out by the other sections. So I see neither a policy-based reason for deletion nor how deletion of this article would benefit Wikipedia overall. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you, and vote to keep this article as well. Historyday01 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least one sentence long scholarly analysis in this book. Not seeing much else, sadly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the findings above. Also, this is just a reminder that Anime News Network has links below some of their articles to WP:RS in Japanese. They are only reporting the news in English as per this example "via AmiAmi News". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. From some quick searching I found further sources in IGN, a chapter by Steven Foertsch entitled "Metamodernity, American Transcendentalism and Transhumanism in Japanese Anime" (description of Asuna on page 94) [Chapter 3 of Anime, Philosophy and Religion (2023) (ed. Kaz Hayashi & William Anderson, Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press), pp. 73-98 as noted here ], description of Asuna throughout the article "Lost in communication: The relationship between hikikomori and virtual reality in Japanese anime", small mention on page 532 of Zachary Samuel Gottesman's "The Japanese settler unconscious: Goblin Slayer on the ‘Isekai’ frontier", small mention on page 65 of "Getting into the Schwing of Things: Hunter x Hunter’s Progressive Gender Depictions and Exploration of Non-Binary Possibilities" (Masters Thesis). And that isn't even including articles from CBR here, here, here and here. So there are undoubtedly various sources about her. I wish the OP had worked on improving the pages rather than an AfD. As I say over and over in these discussions, such issues could be resolved through editing, rather an AfD. This AfD seems highly unnecessary in more ways than one. Historyday01 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TRIVIAL. Significant coverage is more than just a trivial mention. What are the WP:THREE best sources I'm supposed to look at to prove that she has significant discussion, and not in CBR, which is a content farm that does not indicate notability? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBR featured a listicle... with Asuna as the focus, not an entry. Plenty of RS commentary for arguably the second most important character in the franchise. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Websites like CBR and IGN never counts as a part of Asuna's character ability. All of them are just a bunch of people's point of views, But not as a character written by a production stuff. Other references are just a merchandise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.143.241.121 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP notes that There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. It has no articulated opinion in CBR, but we have repeatedly used it in pop culture topics like this one, so your perspective is essentially unsupported and deviates from working consensus. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the extensive sourcing discussed by Historyday01, clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Also the "listicles/rankings" can still be a contributor to notability, WP:SIGCOV is unequivocal and clear that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Creation and conception" and "Critical commentary" sections have decent sources and demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of this character, and a lot of valid information in the article. Wouldn't work to just merge it over to a list article. Dream Focus 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna burst a bubble here, This seems bias that Asuna is always a favorable character, People saying she's "canon" on every arcs. But she's not a core or main character on some arcs like Phantom Bullet. 103.143.241.125 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why keeping Asuna? If Leafa and Sinon are just "Nobody's Characters" or minors being removed their entries 103.143.241.125 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on whatever random group of people notice and show up to participate. I own the Sword Art Online Progressive novels, the writer stating the two main characters should be together at the start, she a main character there. In the anime as well she was in most episodes. Anyway, its about what coverage can be found and if that convinces people the article should be kept. Dream Focus 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current sourcing is competent enough to warrant notability and the references provided by Historyday01 surmount any doubt I have in spite that I admittedly don't care much for Sword Art Online. Doesn't help that the arguments for deletion are either broad or ignore the other sources established within the article. Yet another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SAO is one of the most popular anime ever created, there is MORE than enough coverage to deem this article notable. I agree with Historyday that this AFD was highly unnecessary and could have been avoid with a WP:PEERREVIEW. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a whole lot of WP:ITSPOPULAR here. What are these examples of "more than enough coverage" in your opinion? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Once again, there are entire articles devoted to the character that are used as existing references, most of which are at least reliable enough to demonstrate notability. There are also scholarly articles that can range from passing mentions to having entire paragraphs dedicating to the series and the characters roles within it. The fact that is consistently used as an example regarding trends and tropes within anime demonstrates at least some academic notability. Again, most of the arguments for deletion are really only vetted against the use of Valnet sources and either ignore or completely omit any mention of the other reliable sources already within the article and I have yet to see an actual and reasonable argument for a merger. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridhi Arora

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

Completely unreferenced except for a LinkedIn profile and YouTube playlist, a quick WP:BEFORE doesn't show up anything at all. Furthermore, the amount of unreferenced BLP statements and need for complete rewriting to make it encyclopedic mean that a WP:TNT is needed in any case. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, Finance, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Zero coverage I can find about this person; only hits that come up are for a fashion show or designer. Could be a hoax for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full of promotional language but no reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing I can find to show notability. This could also be deleted as a webhost violation or moved to a draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much guessing these are likely the same person. Userpage appears to have already been speedy deleted twice but quickly recreated, I'll tag it again. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References of press articles, press interviews, imdb profile, and YT links have been added for notability Ridhi Arora (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews, IMDB and YouTube do not establish notability. Press articles only do if they're from independent reliable sources. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:32, 1 February 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.

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 12:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pero Defformero

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

I may be missing something due to not reading Serbian, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, or that there is a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 January 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.

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 Aviation Week. Given the ongoing lack of interest in the topic, this ATD is probably the best outcome we're going to get. Star Mississippi 03:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.aero

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. As this has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, I really hope we can now get this resolved. It exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a WP:RS, but there isn't much coverage on the publication itself. feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aviation Week: Defunct website, with little notability found per the sources used. I don't find mentions of them beyond passing mentions. I'd be ok with a selective !merge into the same article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 29 January 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.

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 and redirect‎ to Amoud University. This result should be considered a soft deletion. ✗plicit 12:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman Ahmed Gulaid

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

Delete and redirect to Amoud University. Fails WP:GNG. The only SIGCOV I could find of the subject is in local Somalilander outlet Horn Diplomat [67]. He received routine coverage due to his involvement in Amoud University, but not enough to establish sufficient notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Somalia. Longhornsg (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: an award he received, and a speech he made, both reported on by national press. Still not sure about notability. BhamBoi (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 29 January 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.

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. I see a consensus among editors to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressors–oppressed distinction

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

Stub politics article, the criteria for it being nominated are as follows: poorly sourced Content Fork WP:CF covered else where by Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict... but also Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT.

Examples of poor sourcing are as follows: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) [68] by Gordon & Gordon, does not contain the terms on 145 as claimed, likewise "Specters of Marx" (1994) [69], by Jacques Derrida, and "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) [70] by Niilo Kauppi both do not contain the terms "Oppressor" and "Oppressed" at all. This leaves four disparate sources (two from Marxists, one from a conservative, and one about Israel Palestine) which technically pass verifiability, but don't seem to be discussing a unified concept or theory at all. Besides which, as mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT DELETION: There does not appear to be a unified topic here to merit an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 17:19, January 22, 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am unconvinced that the article's topic is notable. However, some of the statements made by the OP in support of deletion are not entirely accurate. For example, while Derrida doesn’t use oppressor/oppressed terminology, he does employ the dominant/dominated distinction (see page 68). Same goes for Kauppi (page 61) and Gordon & Gordon (page 71). XMcan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reasoned nomination: None of Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict mention oppressor-oppressed or dominant–dominated as opposing categories/concepts; valuable sources: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) by Gordon & Gordon, states on page 145: But again and again I am inspired by Freire’s saying, "It is only the oppressed, who by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors" [71]; "Specters of Marx" “At least provisionally, we are placing our trust, in fact, in this form of critical analysis we have inherited from Marxism: In a given situation, provided that it is determinable and determined as being that of a socio-political antagonism, a hegemonic force always seems to be represented by a dominant rhetoric and ideology, whatever may be the conflicts between forces, the principal contradiction or the secondary contradictions, the overdeterminations and the relays that may later complicate this schema—and therefore lead us to be suspicious of the simple opposition of dominant and dominated, or even of the final determination of the forces in conflict, or even, more radically, of the idea that force is always stronger than weakness (Nietzsche and Benjamin have encouraged us to have doubts on this score, each in his own way, and especially the latter when he associated “historical materialism” with the inheritance, precisely, of some “weak messianic force”’). Critical inheritance: one may thus, for example, speak of a dominant discourse or of dominant representations and ideas, and refer in this way to a hierarchized and conflictual field without necessarily subscribing to the concept of social class by means of which Marx so often determined, particularly in The German Ideology, the forces that are fighting for control of the hegemony." [72]; "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) by Niilo Kauppi "In its present meaning, the term “field” was partly created as a reaction to Marxist political-economic definitions of social phenomena and represents the systematization of Bourdieu’s structural approach. The field is composed of capital, an illusio, and consists of certain pertinent features. The concept contains some very Marxist elements: for example, the opposition dominant/ dominated. In accordance with yet another use of homologies, a field will be divided into dominant and dominated groups, and the dominant groups will themselves be divided into dominant-dominant and dominant-dominated (a:b; b1:b2; etc.). There is a definite tendency to construct a system—not surprising for a French intellectual who has been trained in philosophy.” [73]: sources do contain the dominant-dominated opposition, which is referred to as synonymous to oppressors-oppressed distinction in the lead of the article. No reason to delete. Phil from somewhere (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done there is unsourced original research. Which is what the article is doing. The creator of the article User:SummerWithMorons has had many such articles deleted on those grounds. But you're correct, perhaps I should have nominated this one for those reasons (eg. WP:OR).

Making the special case that this (the usage in those three disparate sources) is a unique meaning or usage of class politics (without a source), is a form of special pleading. That's not how Wikipedia works. We're not a catalogue of specific words and usages selected without any sources linking them. We're not an authority in of ourselves, capable of linking sources just because an editor says they're linked. That's more the work of a dictionary. The article should obviously be deleted as it is WP:OR regardless of how it's been nominated. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you call quoting the article's original sources original research?? Good joke to start the day Phil from somewhere (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I called the idea that all three of those sources/usages are related; Original Research. Not the sources themselves.

Either all three are related (despite being from drastically different people, countries, areas of thought, and eras) because this is a general dictionary entry (and hence not appropriate encyclopedic content), or they're related because this is some unique and noteworthy usage (which would require a source OUTSIDE of Wikipedia saying so), or they're not related because this page is Original Research stringing unrelated sources together to construct an essay as if it's in Wikivoice.

So we should Delete as per WP:NOTDICT, OR find the imagined source as per WP:RS and WP:NN, OR Delete as per WP:OR. This is what I'm saying... and it's my view that the page should be deleted. RecardedByzantian (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion - although my nomination was perhaps not as thorough as it could have been, the article is still WP:OR. We can't just decide that two usages are linked, and then construct an article/essay around that opinion. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways this might be approached:

The article is all about Marxist theory and responses to it, not the distinction itself, which is surely as old as the practice of forced labor. There might be a good WP:merge target to an existing article on Marxism. Otherwise, if it kept as its own article, "(Marxism)" should be appended to the title.
One might ask – in addition to, or independently of, other articles on Marxism – whether there is anything in this article that is not already covered at oppression. If this article is to be about more than Marx's usage and its legacy, that is another possible merge target.

As it stands, however, while harmless, the article fails the WP:notability criterion. This distinction itself has not been shown in the existing article to be significant enough have generated its own literature. Hence it is not a enough of a topic to merit coverage in an encyclopedia.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google Scholar search shows that this is a very notable concept in Marxian political theory. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether those sources are cited in the article. And although I agree with others that this article is not in the best shape, deletion is not cleanup. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in such poor shape that deleting it and letting some interested party re-write it from scratch would more than likely produce an article of better quality. But they'll have a tough time separating it from Marxian class theory in my opinion. 194.223.27.216 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's covered by Marxian Class Theory. Part of the problem is that none of the authors are seeking to define or specifically talk about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" so it's disingenuous for Wikipedia to decide the terms are some how pivotal or important just because they get a mention here and there. Perhaps if there was a source focusing on these terms, or even a chapter, section, or subheading. But there's not. There's passing usages - the authors don't focus on the topic, so why are we?.... well it's because the American right are using claims about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" in the campaign to bolster and spread the conspiracy theory Cultural Marxism - here's right wing conspiracy nut Andrew Breitbart using the phrasing in his description of what cultural Marxism is: [74]. Here's the far right American think tank The Heritage Foundation using it for the same purposes: [75]. Here's American Conservative Think Tank Foundation for Economic Education using it in that same way: [76].

So one side of politics IS focusing on this phrasing - Conservative American Think Tanks. Here is Andrew Lynn, a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture debunking the attempted twisting in 2018 [77]:

"Flash-forward to the present. According to conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan, today’s cultural Marxists are deeply invested in toppling power structures of patriarchy and white privilege. They do so, according to this version of history, by following the Frankfurt School thinkers in transposing the oppressed-oppressor conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into the cultural realm, assigning oppressed status to various nonprivileged identity groups. Emergence of a victimhood culture follows, as groups laying claim to various identities articulate grievances against dominant groups and the structures that serve their interests. Rational adjudication of truth then becomes subsumed under demands for the subversion of power, patriarchy, and privilege across unjust social institutions, perpetuating continual identification of conflict within the established social order." [Emphasis added]

"There are many problems with this narrative, of course, and here’s one: Such a vision of an ever-in-conflict social order is only loosely “cultural” and could be constructed entirely independent of anything “Marxist.” You can find it in Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand, to name just a few. Indeed, today the most popular accounts of society as groups in perpetual conflict over resources—whether material, symbolic, or political—are found in best-selling books by evolutionary psychologists and biologists eager to apply their disciplinary insights to questions far outside their field. It is more the diffusion of Darwin—not Derrida—that underlies popular conflict-grounded accounts of morality and culture today."

This is a sound DELETE from me. Unless we can find leftist marxist theorists using it as at least a subheading - I'd even settle for just someone bolding it on the page. But in actual fact, they don't use it that often, the sources use it once or twice in passing IN WHOLE BOOKS, and it's the American right wing, and far right who are trying to bolster its usage as a paradigm of explanation for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Wikipedia shouldn't go joyously romping into a political minefield just because a particularly prolific editor who has had many of their essays deleted before carelessly wanders into one without asking "Is this really making something out of this particular terminology?". 194.223.27.216 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the concern is valid, I'm not seeing any of that in the article as written, which cites to Derrida, Hegel, and Lenin, who are hardly right-wing thinkers. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and what do you make of my statement that they're not particularly focused on the topic of the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" but are instead using the terms infrequently?194.223.27.216 (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP and turn into a disambiguation page. This is a unifying thread and key aspect of a lot of political philosophy, as well as various political ideologies. As such, I do not think that the reasoning provided here justifies a complete deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this entry is of encyclopedic value, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Welsh pointed out that the concept and corresponding article on Oppression already includes the distinction, so any disambiguation or linking should happen there. I no longer think retaining this page would be useful, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep notable concept in various contexts. Phil from somewhere (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - there's a lot of people saying "keep" then saying "Oh this is a thing in politics" - but then not offering any substantive sources that discuss the topic, which is apparently (according to these voters) substantial and well known in political discourse. I would like to remind whoever closes this discussion, that on Wikipedia, voting is done by the winning arguments - not by tallying the numbers (see WP:POLL and WP:Consensus). Demanding that an article be kept because it matches someone's personal viewpoint or their own original research, is not the same as having enough sources to substantiate the claims of the CURRENT article in it's current condition. Currently, this article should be deleted, as the sources don't substantiate it as a notable topic WP:NN. No one has presented either a policy or source based argument against that fact. Just because a word appears in many texts, doesn't warrant Wikipedia creating a dictionary entry or stub article for it. Without sources, the keep claims are just adding to the original research that creeps into Wikipedia because we don't delete articles like this one. 194.223.63.134 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - We have several articles already about adjacent philosophical/academic/activist traditions that focus on (leftist) identity oppression. This isn't the name of something that needs an article on its own, I think; I wanted to say this is an unsourced neologism, I'm not sure that's right, maybe as OP says not a dictionary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reviewed the above and continue to support deletion. The concept of oppression includes within itself the distinction between the person/group/system oppressing and those oppressed. (Hence the hits in Google Scholar are entirely unsurprising and not in-themselves relevant.) It is possible that somewhere there is a dissertation deconstructing the meaning of the dash in "oppressors–oppressed", but this has not been established – and is not at all likely to be established – as an encyclopedic topic.

If, as some comments above suggest, this is actually about covertly correcting current American political discourse, I would submit that this is not the appropriate use of an article with this title. If that is the point, it should be made explicit in a fresh article to be assessed from scratch for inclusion in Wikipedia. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my earlier !vote and changing to merge whatever can be salvaged into oppression. I'm persuaded by Patrick. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
1. The article transgress Wikipedia:No original research
2. The article may be a pov-fork of Oppression or Marxism.
3. The idea that Marxists (and only Marxists) divide population between oppressors and oppressed is a variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative, a far-right conspiracytheory with roots in nazi Germany so ping @Volunteer Marek, Doug Weller, and Horse Eye's Back:
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn’t look like sources actually support the text except in some vague, original research-y, way, never mind establish notability. Volunteer Marek 19:22, 10 February 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.

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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Singh (civil servant)

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

Non-notable mid-level civil servant, mentioned only in passing (or not mentioned at all) in sources cited, which are on the whole about a 2015-17 jurisdictional dispute at a university, so WP:BLP1E at best. Couldn't find anything better than the sources cited in a WP:BEFORE search. Previously soft deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Kumar Chauhan under this article's original title Manoj Kumar Chauhan; moved to current title by article creator in 2022. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Wikishovel (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 29 January 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.

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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinh Khuat

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

Sources don't show how this person is notable. ¹⁴¹ Pr {contribs} 13:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Vietnam, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources in the article might not show notability, but a Google search brings up a ton of results in Vietnamese media. Unfortunately, I do not speak Vietnamese so I cannot assess the reliability of those sources, but it's sufficient to presume multiple reliable secondary exist, thus fulfilling the notability criteria. [78] [79] [80] [81] @Praseodymium-141: have you checked the sources in the Vietnamese page ? --Broc (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 29 January 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.

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 List of international animation festivals. ✗plicit 12:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Animation Film Festival

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; sources are either WP:SELFPUB] or a *very* small mention. TLA (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources used meet WP:GNG, and I can't find anything better after searching. Only brief mentions on unsuitable websites.Thebookstamper (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion at WP:REFUND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for relisting and restoring the British Animation Film Festival page. I have added more secondary/tertiary citations to the page with new information and images as well as redirecting the URL website link due to previous links being discontinued because of website and Film Festival Guild rebranding. I hope this helps and many thanks again. Chaddy711 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a redirect to List of international animation festivals?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mushy Yank. Most of the sources added are blogs or other non-RS so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 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.

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 12:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Rauf Mehdi

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

Lacking sources and not very well-known. Historianfox (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Engineering, Afghanistan, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he doesn't seem to be very significant. Could be insufficient for Wiki Rapanomics (talk) 03:38, 4 February 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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntas necandi

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

Obscure legal term. Uncited for 14 years. I can't find any significant coverage discussing this concept (quite a few very brief mentions). I would prefer a merge (amounting to a mention given the article is two sentences) and redirect but I can't think of where to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to animus nocendi, where it is already discussed. The term is used in Italian books that seem to be discussing the intention to commit homicide [82] [83] (see especially the section heading on pages 726 and 1679 respectively). Cf the expression "animus necandi" which certainly means the intention to commit homicide [84] [85]). I think it would probably be a good idea to add "animus necandi" (which seems to satisfy GNG) to the article as well. We do not presently have an article on voluntas [86]. James500 (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am apparently stupid, because I somehow did not notice that article existed (despite the fact this one links to it...). Yeah that's a great target. Should I withdraw this then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to you doing that if you wish. I have no objections to you immediately merging the article if you wish. James500 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyah Romeo

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Trinidadian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:55, 2 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 12:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Ratan Singh

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Being the National President of an organization alone doesn't establish notability. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone is able to show decent non-English sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources available on google which establishes the notability, only the news of surrendering to the police, release from the jail and welcoming by the supporters. -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:10, 31 January 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.

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.

There is consensus that an article should not exist at this title. There are several conflicting suggestions as to where to merge or redirect to. I would consider "no consensus", resulting in an effective keep of the article which nobody seems to favour, to be a poor option. I have therefore slightly arbitrarily decided the closure should be to redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas as it seems to have slightly more support than others, but nothing should be taken as preventing editors from retargeting if it transpires that there's a better choice, nor from merging any content they may wish to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easdale, Kansas

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

A blatant example of a 4th class post office not being a town, as it geolocates onto a farm that is still there. And no, redirecting to Pfeifer, Kansas is a bad idea as they are not the same place. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment The local paper indicates this is a real place. I'll have to dig more tomorrow and vote.James.folsom (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pfeifer, Kansas. They're two miles apart and might as well be the same place, plus the post office that is the only basis for the existence of this article moved there. I am unable to find any evidence Easdale was ever more than a post office.Jbt89 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pfeifer is a documented hamlet that is in the Blackmar Cyclopaedia, as can be seen at Ellis County, Kansas#Hamlets. Easdale is not in Blackmar, and not in Gannett's Gazetteer either. It is not a documented anything except the former name of the Pfeifer post office. Everything in this article except that one fact is unsupportable; and all the stuff in the infobox and elsewhere is boilerplate copied into numerous Kansas articles. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to where decided It's a location that people refer to as a place, there no articles in the papers that say anything about the place. I know there was a post office there, and that might be all. There is an Easdale school mentioned many times, that was likely there. Your not going to find enough significant material for an article on it. Its probably worth mentioning that it existed on the the county and or township pages.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the Hayes Free Press of Oct 10, 1900 it makes a reference to A.N. Horn selling his home to "Jim Grippen of Easdale".[87]. A few other stray references to Easdale like that in the late 1870s until about 1900 also exist. A 1905 atlas of Ellis County shows a Jas Grippin and Wm Grippin with land around the geographical location we have for the former Easdale post office.[88] When this article was created in 2018 it was not correct to term it a "small settlement" based merely on the existence of a post office; but us veterans on these AfDs are aware that midwestern U.S. post offices were set up in many places in the 1800s that never became towns. The article got worse in 2021 when edited to say it was a "ghost town". In my opinion, "ghost town" is way over-used on wikipedia on articles on little place names like this, it really should be used for abandoned settlements that have or had some remaining buildings and infrastructure. I know Pfeifer, Kansas is not understood to be the same place (but I don't know where the GPS coordinates for Easdale first came from?), but that article's discussion of Easdale makes a decent case for a redirect there. And the 1887 newspaper mentions say the post office name was changed, not moved (though perhaps it was moved).[89]. Apparently the Easdale PO was in Rush County when it was established in 1878.[90][91] There seems to have been a border change between the counties of Rush and Ellis at some point.[92] --Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me add, I found this 1963 article in the Hays Daily News on the history of Pfeifer, and it describes the community as moving in 1884 to its current location. It says the former location was "in Section 25-14-17 of Freedom Township". You can find the township map of 1905 here[93]. Pfeifer is plainly now in the northwest corner of Section 36, as depicted in the 1905 map here [94]. The new location definitely seems to be south of the original location, since Section 25 is north of 36. The settlers (who were Volga Germans) first came in 1876, so it seems no surprise that the Easdale PO was established as needed in the area by 1878, and it made sense to move/rename the PO by the time that happened in 1887. "Easdale", of course, it not a German name, but a Scottish island. Before the Volga Germans started arriving in Ellis County in 1876, a George Grant is said to have brought over 300 Englishmen starting around 1872, but a "grasshopper scourge" in 1874 caused many to leave, and eventually the Volga Germans took their place.[95] The first postmaster of the Easdale PO was "Rollo A. Burnham", not a German name.[96] A "James A. Maine" took over late in 1878.[97] Looks like he was still there in 1885.[98] So it makes sense that a name like "Easdale" wouldn't stay on when a German majority took over the area.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellis County, Kansas#History has the grasshoppers already, notice. And the coördinates come from two GNIS computer database records. The first set is the coördinates in the article at hand, which is a "locale". The second set is an "Easdale, see Pfeifer", which is a "ppl" and repeats the (different) coördinates for Pfeifer. Alas, the same person who gave us the false ghost-townery in Special:Diff/1058765611 and other articles is the same person filling these Kansas articles with every-article-has-the-same-boilerplate-junk-history at Special:Diff/721974070 and the like. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can find the second set of coordinates which matches Pfeifer at nationalmap.gov, but not a link for the coordinates used on this article in a GNIS search. The original citation upon creation was just to "http://geonames.usgs.gov", and searching "Easdale" there only leads to the Pfeifer reference you note. I was just wondering where it came from, because I've run across this issue before.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's far from original. That's just a WWW interface that the USGS set up to access the computer database. Not everything is "a link".
      Back in the 1980s, this database was available on magnetic tape and was even printed out on paper, bound, and sold in book form. Ironically, Google then digitized the books, so it's possible to find out what the feature classes, which were squashed a few years ago, used to be years ago. This has confused several people in past AFD discussions who don't realize that what's available on a WWW site was once available as this "National Gazetteer of the United States", being exactly the same thing and exactly as bogus, before the World Wide Web was invented, because the GNIS was invented in the 1970s.
      Things to remind yourself about the reliability of GNIS data: It's a government computer database that is an index to where words occur(ed) on government maps, mostly maps as they were in the 1980s. Like other government projects it was ambitious but was de-funded before the all-important fixing-the-errors-from-state-sources phase of the original plan kicked in. The "historical" records were dropped from the database tables quite a while ago. More recently, all of the feature classes, which used to make distinctions amongst cemeteries, locales, populated places, flats, tanks, summits, gaps, and so forth, were largely squashed.
      For an article that explains the rural post offices, see the one that I cited in Bulloch County, Georgia#Further reading a couple of days ago. It does a fair job of explaining, with that county as a case study, how actual history happened, and thus why a lot of this "ghost town" and "unincorporated community" synthesis that people do, in desperation at trying to flesh out crap from the GNIS, is utter tripe. Rennick has documented an entire state full of examples of how post offices moved around with people's private homes and stores that they were run from.
      Schools were the same, and there was no rule that school districts were coterminous with post office service areas. Adding them together to make places is synthesis, just as the still fake ghost-townery of Monroe, Kansas (AfD discussion) is. This is "settled" land, but these were and are rural places without population centres. "At Monroe" is how the mail is delivered and (when it's a store) the general store supplies are shipped.
      And in several of the midwestern states the "communities" were the (civil, not survey) Townships. (In Rennick's state they were the Creeks.) The Townships were the legally recognized populated places, for people wanting that rule, with census figures and legal authority. The Fifth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture doesn't give a population figure for Easdale post office, because the post offices aren't the legally recognized populated places despite what the desperate Wikipedia synthesizers and false ghost-townery writers think; nor does it give populations for the 44 school districts that it mentions; but it does say that 451 people lived in Wheatland Township in 1885, which you wouldn't know from our every-article-in-Kansas-is-the-same crappy boilerplate article on the place.
      Equally as sad as the Monroe ghost-townery synthesis is the fact that if Kansas editors had been any good at this then rather than a bland sweep of boilerplate across loads of Kansas articles we would have for years now known a lot more about the Germans from the Ellis County, Kansas#History article, and it wouldn't be lopsidedly placed in Pfeifer, Kansas (because, for starters, they didn't just settle in Pfeifer), and we'd even know a tiny bit about Hog Back, Kansas (AfD discussion) and why it's not a settlement (the German settlers choosing not to settle it), because it's all in Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas.
      Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to set out all that background info, Uncle G. Re the last point, I'm sure others have noticed this too, but I think there's a bias in wikipedia towards including more historical details in smaller geographical unit articles. Moving details into county and state and regional articles requires a more deft understanding of historical context. E.g., knowing that these immigrants weren't really Russian, as some sources may say. The bias towards calling things "ghost towns" that aren't isn't a wikipedia-only problem. Indeed, the 1971 article[99] I just cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendota, Kansas-- which is definitely a moving rural post office -- calls it a "ghost town". I understand the frustration of folks like you and Mangoe, we are fighting inherently irrational human behavior here which seeks to imbue place names with more history and meaning than perhaps they deserve. For the mercy of whoever closes this discussion, i'm not saying "Easdale" should be kept. I'm just interested in confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer (which also wasn't really a town) was.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer".

Recognizing that not every GNIS point was a village does not mean one has to interpret that GNIS data is full of error. The choice of some locations, like Easdale, does seem to be based on local primary sources at the time the point was set. Want to feel old? Try having living memory of landmarks that GNIS points were set on, but destroyed later, and have editors thereby question veracity. Yes, any truth of a GNIS point does not inherently convey WP notabilty.

Living memory is not RS, but I feel there is room for improvement in bedside manner. Consider that the postmaster of one of these village post offices took care of me after my mother died, and Dad would say I would call her "Mom". Fr. Burkey wrote on Easdale as a post office that served early Pfeifer, but was then replaced by the Pfeifer post office, which once "really existed", even if maybe no one in Pfeifer today can remember where it was. Careful saying Pfeifer is not a town, people live there on platted streets; it is at least a village with a beautiful Fencepost limestone cathedral. Let us be careful in the tone and words we use as we necessarily delare locations as non-nontable.

I see ECHS maps an Easedale Cemetary. About a year ago I was going over the perenial Hays Daily News Autumn lists of 1800s cemeteries; so I might go back and look what was said about Easedale Cemetery, if anything. What I recall was that some of these prairie cemeteries were family plots and others were just where a wagon load of travelers died, and the typical caretaker was some old man with no realtionship to those buried. I make no suggestion now that "Easedale Cemetery" had any connection with "Easedale PO", or any settlement.

Regarding any merge, I would suspect, though, that Easdale, as a topic, is closer to Pfeifer than to Ellis County. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The little we know about this place simply validates that it was a PO, and barring a surplus of Stella-Rondo-type family dynamics in the surrounding areas, no one lived at this PO.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This was a real place, it is listed on the Kansas state Map: https://www.macpl.org/atlases/1903/Kansas%20State%20Map.pdf 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know it was a place, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎, i.e, a post office in someone's house. But if this is your inclusionist method to cause Mangoe and Uncle G to have a stroke and stop nominating articles like this, it may work.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, from a geologist perspective, I honestly enjoyed this map for the canals around Dodge; I did not know that. And I had not thought of South Fork Pawnee River as an old channel of the Arkansas. Thanks. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not a town, sure, but a known community in the papers 1880 to 1904. Several mentions of meetings at the Easdale school house, mostly a hotbed of Socialists ... (so they called my Republican grandad).

1887 All Aboard for Munjor, Easdale, Pfeifer, Hutchinson and Wichita ATSF RR proposed to run through these backwater Podunks. This line was really built, but only got as far as Galena, Kansas.
1890 Methodist circuit preachers meeting at Easdale. Well, there you go. Methodists were an exceedingly rare bird in southern Ellis County.
1894 Fencepost limestone was quarried for sale at Easdale. Well, of course .... just miles south of the Basilica of St. Fidelis, all built of fencepost limestone.
1922 A cemetery marked in Section SE 24-15-17 that the ECHS reports for the community.
1899 "EASDALE The executive committee of the Sunday school association will be at the Easdale school ...." Probably them Protestants again ...
1888 "The Sunday School convention at Easdale last week was a grand success. They return their thanks to those from Hays who attended ..."
1892 Peoples Democratic Parties political meeting at Easdale.
1893 Peoples Party meeting at Easdale and other Southern EL CO schools.
1891 Easdale had a committee, at least three named officers.
1888 RePUBlican meeting!?!?
1902 School closed?

To be fair, I never knew of Easdale until this week, but then, I had never been in Pfeifer until last April. The first election I remember was Dad taking me with him when he voted at one of the sister schools to Easdale. I make no claim of notabilty, but I acknowledge the community of that time. IveGoneAway (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just adding what I've learned since I voted. Studying other of the post offices since has made it clear that in a lot cases the newspaper mentions are simply using the post office as a point of reference, and when people write into the paper from these postal places, they are simply denoting where they get their mail. It's not necessarily where they live.James.folsom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in the sense of "in the vicinity of". In the case of the many classified adds mentioning Easdale, it is really the closest thing to an address. With the dozens of post offices in the county, I don't need to speculate that people would want to walk further than the closest one. The presence of a post office and school do not prove the existence of even a rural community, just that there were enough people around. Interestingly, the Pfeifer farm plots were originally laid out "Russian style", 44 feet wide by 1/2 mile. But across the river, more Jeffersonian quarter sections. Just another tempting suggestion of different groups of settlers. When you get to Victoria/Herzog, there is a big cemetery of hallowed ground for the Catholic parishioners and a tiny one across the road for "everyone else". I see the same thing comparing the Easdale tiny cemetery with the Pfeifer cemetery, a mere two miles apart. Well, don't underestimate the difficulty of crossing the Smoky Hill. No RS for any of this, just fascinating to me. Even in my lifetime though, there was strong coercion in rural EL CO to not sell land outside each parish membership, the same with marriage. Easdale might have been squeezed out, eliminating the need for a separate PO and grocery store and non-parochial school. I know editors have suggested that Easdale was an early site of Pfeifer and/or that the sites merged, but thinking about the parochial communities of the time, I am prone to disagree. I might be wrong. The "Meders of Easdale" were original Easdale settlers; Meders own the old Easdale section today. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I am chatting with a historian who's family founded Victoria, Kansas. As completely German-Catholic the countryside and the town is today, he had to remind me that the founding name is not. Queen Victoria directly funded the original Protestant settlement there. Ahhh, Meder is an English/Irish name and Easdale is also English. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to OP Mangoe: I propose Merge with Victoria, Kansas instead of Pfeifer on the basis (to be confirmed) that Easdale was a part of the British Victoria Colony of 1873 and was and still is separate from the 1876 Volga German Pfeifer parish. Easdale settlers were in part if not wholy British and the location is proximal to the Victoria Colony founder ranches; Grant's Villa and the "Scotty" Philip Ranch. The Meder family was among the orginal Easdale settlers, still holds the land, and is a name consistent with the colony. We have names of the Easdale settlers and I have asked for comparison with the registered British colonists. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll go out on a limb and infer that Easdale and Norfolk were nostalgic post office names for the British colonists who concentrated their "estates" on the low ridge between the Smoky and Big Creek. The number of Victoria colonists was capped just over 200 and they had no real interest in town building, apparently. After the collapse of the British colony, the German villages had little need for little post offices or one-room Protestant schools on the prairie. What is on the EL CO page is good enough, probably. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential Merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ellis County, Kansas based on a preference for redirecting rather than outright deleting post offices/rural areas rather than deleting them outright when usage of the name as a place can be demonstrated. I think the county is the best target for a redirect because the relationship between Easdale and the neighboring communities of Pfeiffer and Victoria hasn't been confirmed by an sources that I can see. Probably worth a line in the county article; something like, "In the 1880's a rural post office and school were located at Easdale about 8 miles south of Victoria and 2 miles north of Pfeiffer." Eluchil404 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, why the county and not Wheatland Township, Ellis County, Kansas? Jbt89 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons, first because Uncle G had mentioned the county article above in the discussion, and second because when I made the comment I was not aware that Kansas counties had named townships with articles that might be an option for a redirect. I have no objection to the township as a target, my primary goal is to help create a consensus to preserve the limited sourced info while removing the incorrect appearance that this was ever a formal settlement or ghost town. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404 You can't find a connection between the Easdale PO, school, store, and cemetery and Pfeifer because Pfeifer had their own school, store, and cemetery (especially) and really wanted no connection at that time.

The evidence of association of Easdale with the Victoria Colony is largely geographic. The Victoria Colony was a concentration (between the Smoky and Big Creek) of estates from Norfolk, to Grant Villa, to Easdale, to Philip Ranch. The south boundary of the Victoria Colony was the Smoky Hill River. source The Duke of Norfolk was a sponsor of the Victoria Colony. George Grant might be from the Grants around Easdale, Scotland. ... the point being, Norfolk and Easdale were born and died with the colony, not Pfeifer, not EL CO.

@ Jbt89 Two reasons, first, Easdale was in Freedom Township, two, township boundaries in this county are wibbly-wobbly over time ...

Here is a good map of the remnants of the colony shortly before the Easdale school and PO closed. There's that railroad that ATSF advertised as building through Easdale.

Ellis Co Townships have been significantly restructured recently. I could dig into that with over time.

I have some name lists now, but I can't work with them over this weekend.

IveGoneAway (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas. Most of the above discussion of the Victoria colony seems like original (though sensible and relevant) research, so I don't think a merge with Victoria, Kansas makes sense. It has convinced me that Easdale (the post office and associated rural area) likely has a different origin than Pfeiffer, though, so any merger or redirect should go to an article about the surrounding countryside (the township being the obvious candidate), not the town of Pfeiffer. I've gone ahead and added a history section to that article and given it a couple sentences about the Easdale post office, so deleting this article won't cause the information in it to be lost. Jbt89 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might add the home of the Victoria Colonist's founder, George Grant's Villa, to the Freedom Township article. By RS, it is in Section 8 of Freedom Township. More notable to the township than either Duck Creek or Eagle Creek, and critical to the British colonists there, Big Creek clips the township (Grant's Villa faces Big Creek). There is also the Norfolk "hamlet".

Merging Easdale with Freedom Township is practical, as the least resistance path. I don't deny that as presented the establishment of the Easdale PO by the Victoria Colonists is "OR", I did say it is circumstantial and needing confirmation, and I have not added it to any article. I do have some citations to support it, but failing a colonists name, even Grant's, on the post office application, there is no certainty that the Victoria Colony founded that PO. (Even then there is some synthysis, I suppose.) IveGoneAway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Adding it to the Freedom Township history section now. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, (after another 3 mile hike-think) this is the best redirect target, thanks. If I ever get into the Grant Folder in the basement of the Hays Public Library and come up witha few more solid RS, and want to change the redirect, that would be a good problem. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:38, 11 February 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.

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 Ellis County, Kansas. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Back, Kansas

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

A Union Pacific passing siding/station, not a town: even the only real source in the article says so. Mangoe (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sorry but I can't even imagine what you're talking about. There are three sources, all of which say it is or was a town. Even if it wasn't, deletion isn't remotely necessary or appropriate, and you could have proposed a redirect to Yocemento, Kansas or Ellis County, Kansas. Either way, you've blown past the existing sources and past the extensive plans detailed by the illustrious expert editor IveGoneAway on the Talk page. Anyway, this is not what AfD is for. @IveGoneAway: Hi. — Smuckola (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly have not looked at these "existing sources". The first is the GNIS, which project:Reliability of GNIS data deals with. And the third is literally a name on a map with zero information, that has been interpreted by the article writer. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yocemento, Kansas. This was the name of the old railroad siding in Yocemento and retained that name when the railroad moved the siding three miles west. Reference (1) says as much, reference (2) says the former Hog Back is now called Yocimento, and reference (3) is just the name of the siding shown on a map. Content of article (including additions planned on the talk page) can, and should, be merged into the article on Yocemento. Jbt89 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having a great deal of trouble with this, as it seems to me that all these claims about moving the siding are based on original research in examining old maps, and it does not seem to me that those maps are inconsistent with the Hog Back siding never having moved, and Yocimento having been put in later some three miles east. The first map in particular does nothing to resolve the matter, as it places the siding at a spot midway between the two modern sidings; but it is also, shall I say it, a bit vague, and the other map is even more so. The other thing is that, however long Hog Back may have been the original name of the Yocimento siding, it wasn't so very long, and they have been two distinct places for well over a century. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I might have it backwards - the siding may have remained unchanged while the town of Yocemento grew up just east of it. Still, shared history and geographic proximity makes Hog Back a feature of Yocemento rather than an independent place IMO, and there are plenty of sources stating as much. Note that this edition of the National Gazetteer lists the map location for Hog Back Station (historical) as Yocemento on page KS125.
    Reference (2) in the article appears to originate from page 480 of the Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society [100], where it states that Hog Back is "now Yocemento." Jbt89 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That National Gazetteer is merely a paper printout of the GNIS from the 1980s, note.
      In 1906, I. M. Yost and Professor Erasmus Haworth met in Hays and decided to build a cement plant at the hogback.
      — Cable, Ted T.; Maley, Wayne (2017). Driving across Kansas: A Guide to I-70. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700624140., p.85
      Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mangoe : Sorry, if the statement of seems OR, and given the curious citation, I don't blame you. I would have to relocate the newspaper article that mentions the siding relocation corresponding to the platting of Yocemento, which is the actual needed citation. From Beneke, we see the original siding was located west of the future quarry site, while the cement plant was built further east. When Haworth bought out the location and had a new siding installed less than a mile east, the redundant spur siding was moved or demolished and the name was reused on the other passing siding. Certainly by 1923 there was justification for the passing siding (removed in the 1980s at the earliest). IveGoneAway (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jbt89 and Mangoe. Per the sole reliable source in the article this is Yocemento, Kansas and these are duplicate articles. Most of the article is copy-and-paste boilerplate that is in numerous Kansas articles, including the merger target. There are 2 sentences of potential merger content here. The first sentence is outright false, as it falsely claims this railroad siding to be a town. That leaves the second sentence, which is already discussed in the merger target at far greater length. There is actually zero merger to do, and a redirect suffices. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This newspaper clipping sheds the most light on the matter. https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-hogback-a-town/139276060/ I have skimmed most of the prior mentions of Hogback prior to this point in time. Bear in mind you need to read other material to get fullest feel for the story. But, Essentially before there was Hogback siding/switch there was Hogback ridge. The rail switch was built near there and the area seems to have been known as Hogback. There were ranches there when the switch was built and the local paper published news for Hogback. In 1887 the area was described in the above article as basically nowhere. The article is essentially declaring that investors are going to build a town called Nichty at the site of the switch. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the town of Nichty was actually built, so this site should be where Nichty was. Which is pretty definitive that there was no town called Hogback there. I also read that there is ridge pass at Hogback ridge, so you can likely imagine why it's called hogback. The train probably passes through the pass there. The pass probably makes a good place settle too. James.folsom (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The background is correct. I think I can lay hands on the plat, but the town was never built. The Nichty plat was a historic hoax, like the gold rush a few miles south on the Smoky Hill River. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This site is not Yocemento, but a distinct location roughly halfway between Yocemento and Ellis.
- Yes, the siding at present Yocemento was originally named Hogback but the name was later given to this location.
- Present Hogback is not as notable as Yocemento, but has some notability.
  - While there was no platted town, newspapers record that the community did have an identity with social events under that name.
  - The first settler there was Erasmus Disney, Walt Disney's grandfather. Walt's father left there to start his family in Florida. The land is still under the Disney name.
  - The passenger station in Ellis never had a passing track, so as long as the Portland Rose section met twice daily at Ellis, the Westbound section had to stop at Hogback if the Eastbound beat it to Ellis.
  - ~~Famous Kansas Marshal Nealy captured Coxey's Army of Commonwealers hijacked train at the Hogback siding.~~ Hogback Becomes Known to the World. About ten years before the relocation of the name, so this would have been the earlier siding of Beneke's picture.
  - Because of the namesake geology, the name became a synonym for "poor farmland" in Ellis County.
  - ~~A provisional plat for Hogback was created by conmen pushing a coal hoax. There is Dakota Formation coal there, but too deep, too thin, and too poor quality to mine.~~ Actually, this, too, was at the present Yocemento site; not at the later Hogback Siding.
- There was a Granary there as a matter of record.
  - (OR, I have found the building site. Not that it matters, I have found Valentine Sandstone gravel there as the pavement or concrete aggregate at one time.)
I started a DYN improvement to the page, look here for the citations of the above, but I ran out of WP time for a while.

IveGoneAway (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSHS has a non-free image of the 1950's Hogback telegraph shack with present landmark shelter belt in the background. I'll get the link, later. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UP Shed Depot at the later Hogback passing siding, 1954, Kansas Memory, KSHS. This is the site marked on the maps halfway between Yocemento and Ellis. Natually, this siding was removed later but was there through the 70s. The homestead in the background is still there, but the barn on the left recently blew down. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Back Siding, 1922 The Thomas Disney (Walt's Uncle) homestead is marked next to the 18, coresponding to the previous picture. The school is where the community meetings were held. Note the separation from Yocemento and Ellis. Note also that the Yocemento Quarry site is now owned by the Boettcher cement syndicate of Denver, about the year they stripped the cemement plant. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reading the the newspaper makes it clear there is nothing here in terms of Hogback. Prior to the building of Nichty, the place is described as not inhabited by the paper. The news for hogback reported in the paper are nothing more than the news reported from the general area hog back ridge. Worse yet, whoever was sending in the news seems to have continued to refer to the area as hogback after Nichty was built. I know that Nichty existed but haven't learned much about beyond it had a school and teacher. I don't really think any of the stuff Ivegoneaway brings up makes this article notable. Articles about that stuff should mention this place, but we don't need a separate article for this this switch and or hog back ridge. The notability policies would require either the switch or the ridge to meet WP:N which they don't. Now articles on the subjects brought up previously should mention this place, but not the other way aroundJames.folsom (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nichty never existed except as a plat map as part of the coal hoax. The hoax did not involve Yocemento. The idioms show that at the time, the community had notoriety to Hays folk. I think to get to the article about the hoax, I think I'll have to recover an account with Forsyth Library. That will have to wait for the weekend. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not defending the present article, I would just like to fix and finish it someday. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one mention of the Nichty school district that I saw. I'll look, tonight. James.folsom (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James.folsom : If you find evidence of Nichty, that would be something! Don't think school districts would have been a thing there. The 1922 map shows a school a half mile north of Hogback Siding. I would have expect it to have been called the Hogback school, but who knows.

So, yeah, notabilty is down to the Disneys and the Portland Rose. Not much for city slickers. Dad would point out the Disney farms when we drove by the Hogback Siding in section 18. Farmers on the other side of the ridge could tell when the Portland Rose had to take the siding.

The Coal Hoax and the Commonwealers will be good additions to Yocemento, Kansas, someday.

But if you redirect this, it should really be redirected to Ellis, Kansas since the later siding had only a recycled name connection to Yocemento, while it was Ellis that laid claim to the Disney's fame (there was the Disney gas station), and the Hogback Siding was integral to the rail passenger service of Ellis.

IveGoneAway (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Ellis or Yocememto is probably the best outcome, IMO. Living memory of Hogback Siding as a distinct place separate from Yocemento is dieing off, and these persons count as Primary unreliable sources anyway. There are reasons for both settlement articles to mention the location. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a blurb in the paper mentioning the nichty school district and the teacher. The town was supposed to be named after a popular politician, so maybe they just named the school after him instead? I'll post it hopefully today. James.folsom (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-nichty/139558596/ James.folsom (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nichty was not a politician AFAIK, as far as an 1880s railroad-employed land commissioner might be concidered non-political. It is interesting that this makes it seem that railroad man Nichty was in on the coal swindle like J. P. Huntington was in on the Smoky Hill City gold swindle a few miles south.

I remember driving by the school that we see marked half a mile north of Hogback Siding, site. It was important enough to have been rebuilt as a concrete structure by my time. I'll have to look through the maps tomorrow to see if there is any sign of an 1880s school at the Yocemento site.

Well-loved is a curious adjective for a railroad agent especially since the Hogback lots were the last blank spaces on his 1880s sales map.

IveGoneAway (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, independent RS (Kansas Geological Survey) that Hogback is a location name between Yocemento [mile 153.0] and Ellis [mile 145.6]; At Interstate 70 Mile Marker 150.0: "A mile south of the highway is a railroad siding named Hogback, which probably got its name from a sharp bluff formed by an outcrop of Fort Hays Limestone along the Big Creek valley. [The source goes on to disambiguate this location from structurally similar Mount Oread.]^[1] This mention suggests that the siding was in place into the late 1980s after which the entire Kansas Pacific line was completely rebuilt and such many short sidings replaced by fewer mile-line unit train passing sidings.

The Kansas Geologial Survey has maintained the location name on its published geological maps. Geologically, the location is interesting because of the unstable, humucky Blue Hills Shale slump block terrane particular featured between Ellis and Yocemento [yes, a citation is needed for that].

IveGoneAway (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1887 Official State Atlas of Kansas places Hog Back Station just west of the future Yocemento site in Section 21,^[2] corresponding with the placement of Benecke's camera in 1873. This compares with the later Section 18 Hog Back Siding miles west in the 1922 atlas cited multiple times above.

IveGoneAway (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Published by the Ellis County Historical Society, At Home in Ellis County, 1991, mentions Hog Back Station (1887 atlas), Hog Back Siding (1922 Atlas), and Nitchy Townsite. The section cites the plat submitted for Nitchy in 1887 (the town was never built).

Included with the Hog Back Station section is a picture of the Luce Granary at the Section 18 Hog Back Siding. The presence of the Model T dates the picture after the 1922 atlas.^[3]

The same source also associates Walt Disney with his ancestor's settlement in this township, including his uncle Thomas Disney as justice of the peace. Hogback and Yocemento are listed distinctly, "Included in its boundaries were Hogback and Yocemento..." (cf, 1922 atlas) (pages 51, 54, 67-67)

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A New York Times article mentions Kepple Disney's 1877 purchase of a section on the railroad east of Ellis.

The Wichita Beacon, 1953, Hog Back's a Town Named by Kansans states, perhaps whimsically, "Hog Back exists a an actual town, by the way." The location appeared on highway maps, maybe only because of the obvious railroad sign that stood out at the location.

A "Hog-Back Sympathy Orchestra" performed at the 1923 Fort Hays Normal School Anniversary Day celebration. (also in this 1923 article )

This 1901 article associates the name "Nichey" with the original "Hog back switch", again saying that nothing ever came from the coal mine play. Interesting that a resort is mention; in 1977 I was given a tour of the ranch on the south of that original switch site and the rancher pointed to a pile of limestone and said it was a resort.

"Mrs. Thomas Disney returned to her home at Hogback from Ellis."

IveGoneAway (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rex C. Buchanan; James R. McCauley (1987). Roadside Kansas. University Press of Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey). pp. 96–102. ISBN 978-0-7006-0322-0.
^ Everts, Louis H., ed. (1887), Official State Atlas of Kansas, L.H. Everts & Co, p. 295
^ At Home in Ellis County 1867–1992. Vol. 1. Ellis County Historical Society. 1991. p. 65. [picture of] Harvey and Lyle Luce at the elevator their father operated at Hog Back.

From updated research, there are specific locations to clarify.
- "Hogback Ridge" or "Ellis County Hogback" broadly extends from Old fort Hays to Riga miles west of Ellis, any of those places might be causally said to be at the Hogback.
  - There are several notable promitories on the ridge. Modern names include "Blue Light Hill" and "Jesus Saves Hill" (incidentally pictured by Gardner). 1867-8 names include "Sentinel Hill" and "Signal Hill". My understanding in total is that these were applied to various prominances over time, including the later "Blue Light" and "Jesus Saves".
  - Reports of striking oil on the Hogback refers to the greater ridge.
- There is one place where Big Creek cuts at the base of a bluff and that is the one place where the KP Railway cuts accros the base of a bluff. This is in Section 21. The west end of the bluff is the location of the original Hog Back Siding.
  - The 1877 atlas and Benecke picture #51 attest to this location.
  - Thomas Disney attests to this location as "Hog Back Station" in his 1880's and 1890's livestock and produce advertisements.
  - This was also called Nichty/Nichey during and after the coal hoax.
  - Circa 1907, Yocemeto was built on the east of the bluff, a half mile east of "Hog Back Station" which was removed.
- After the removal of "Hog Back Station", "Hog Back Siding" was installed halfway between Yocemento and Ellis, incidentaly on Thomas Disney's farm, saving him 5 miles of bad mountainous road to get to the new Yocemento.
  - This name and location is attested to by the 1922 atlas.
  - That there is a 20th century location named "Hogback" 3 miles east of Ellis is attested to in Ellis newspapers.
- Where you see "Nichey/Hogback School", that is at the old station. Where you see "Beaver Bank School", that is at the new siding.

Well, that might be my closing arguement. I improved the article, FWIW. I can see how some might think of these two locations as one place. Sadly, most of my knowledge of the distinction counts as primary. We may observe that with the 1907 removal of the first siding, Thomas Disney had to drive his wagons 2 miles further OVER the bluff to get his grain, produce, and livestock to market, so, I like to think that this justice of the peace made a deal for a siding at his front door.

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James.folsom Thank you, for your look into the early pioneer schools at Yocemento. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn about the history of Beaver Bank School. I want to pick over your notes some day for additions to the Yocemento page. My best understanding of the schools was there was one named "Hogback" near the original Hog Back Sation location, maybe the one on the 1922 atlas northeast a bit next to the Replogle ranches (MP 296.5) just as "Beaver Bank" was at the Disney place (MP 300). When the siding was moved, the schools were not renamed. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless I'm missing something, the only sources are very minimal passing mentions of Hogback as a station or passing siding. Most of the expanded article content is WP:COATRACK coverage of land owned by the Disneys as well as a nearby school and town. I'm just not seeing anything that establishes this as a notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is the part I'm having trouble with too. The notability policies preclude transfer of notability from Disney to Hogback, I believe. Normally, you would just put all this material into the Walt Disney article. But, I bet that would be a real mess to do. Maybe an article about Erasmus Disney. I guess I like the story, but don't know that Wikipedia should be telling it. James.folsom (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that notabilty for the siding is not great. I did want to see what I could find. My original intent with this article was based on several references, which with more study I now realize have nothing to do with this specific location.

So, it really boiled down to just the Disney connection. I think the best way to handle the Disney connection would be to just add Elias Disney to notable persons from Ellis or Ellis County. Maybe Thomas Disney could also be added to notable persons from Ellis County with futher research on him.

There is a source that discusses that Walt did want to develop something at the Kepple/Thomas farms, but Roy forbade it. How? I think Roy had title to the farms, not Walt, but I'll have get access to the biography. But, that really doesn't help Hogback Siding, other than showing that the location is not Yocemento. But (assuming sufficient notability) Kepple's and Thomas' political and commercial activities in western Ellis County are really Ellis County's story, not Walt's. I hope that if I add some of this to Ellis or Ellis County it won't be deemed evasive.

IveGoneAway (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a real high bar, on adding people to the notable person section. You could probably even put a lot of this in the county article. James.folsom (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas tells us that Hog Back was not a settlement, The Germans who came to Ellis County, Kansas, so misleadingly and lopsidedly mentioned in Pfeifer, Kansas but who actually settled in a lot of places all over Ellis, and (ludicrously) first written about by me in their proper place in the County article last week, two decades in in the writing of Wikipedia when this is one of the big things about Ellis's history, chose not to settle Hog Back and it "pleased so little that the men determined to return to Russia" (p.6). Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G You have it right, I think, as I would expect. The Volga Germans settled widely around the county, and if one lived through the 1970s in Hacemerica, one would think the Germans were the only settlers (KJLS Polka of the Hour). Weren't the German farms settlements? Yes, they avoided settling south of the Section 21 Hog Back Station. Bukovina Germans settled around Ellis. But, at the same time German immigrants were avoiding Section 21, the Irish Disneys settled three miles east of Ellis in and around Section 18, Thomas Disney becoming a successfull farmer and county official. From commerical advertisements one could think Thomas was practically the only patron of the early Hog Back Station until the siding was moved to his front door.

What I am getting at is that the Disneys were closely connected to Ellis, while the Yocemento site was more separate. If anything, Yocemento was a Hays venture.

Moreover, while footsteps/hoofprints of Custer, Cody, Armes, Sternberg, Hayden, etc., can be recorded at the Yocemento site, I am only aware of of the Disneys at the Section 18 siding.

My point is, granted that the Section 18 siding is not meeting notabilty, the Disneys are a notable part of Ellis, not so much of Yocememnto.

Triumph of the American Imagination repeatedly discusses Ellis, not Hays, not Hog Back, not Yocemento. Page 571 breifly adds, that besides the Missouri farm, Walt wanted to develop the Ellis farm. But, yeah, thinking about development is much less notable than actual development.

Maybe, Merage/Redirect to Ellis, Kansas? IveGoneAway (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to be a real place for WP purposes. Passing mentions in newspapers can easily be considered references to neighborhoods or colloquial descriptions of landmarks that anyone in the surrounding area would recognize and do not imply the location was an independent populated place. Much of that material is also, predictably, likely too routine and trivial to warrant merging elsewhere, although the info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement in the area should be utilized somewhere.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that it is "not notable" for WP purposed. IMO, it is not necessary to say "not real place".

The "info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement" was already discovered and covered in Yocemento where it is appropriate (IMO) and has been added to Herzog/Victoria, Kansas, as well as to a broader discussion of the German settlements recently added to Ellis County. because, ultimately, Herzog and following "German/Russian" village were founded because they gave the county a second look.

"anyone in the surrounding area would recognize" Honestly, I think the ridge's settler name only has context 1870s to 1910s, and in 1910s it was really only a revival due to the intrest in the cememt plant and related oil discoveries (maybe not, maybe all the settler's alive then still called the ridge Hogback).

However, neither the ridge nor Yocemento are referenced by the Hogback pins on 20th century maps.

Elias Disney is already mentioned on Ellis County page. It would be appropriate add the Disneys to the Ellis town page, as has been discussed. Walt's proposal to create an attaction at Ellis might not be notable, but I wouldn't call it routine.
I never proposed covering the German settlers on this page. The Germans were not shown the Disney farm, as far as I have read. This page was started from the post-1900 siding location in GNIS, not the ridge or the original Hogback station that the Germans were taken to. This siding had nothing to do with the Volga Germans, AFAIK.

Merge has already been accomplished, effectively.

Redirect? Not every name on a modern geological or topogaphic map needs mention on WP. I would redirect to Ellis.

So, Delete wouldn't kill me.

IveGoneAway (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just stumbled on the Nitchy plat at the Ellis County geoportal, 1887, just like the newspapers said. The text of the plat submission shows this plat in Section 21-13-19, just west of the quarry bluff corresponding with Benecke, 1873 (east of Yocemento by 1/2 mile in Section 22). The siding this article is covering and the points of modern maps is in Section 18-13-19. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with a redirect to Ellis. Jbt89 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhermy Fuentes

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:BEFORE has been done; nothing but trivial coverage has been located Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 09:02, 5 February 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.

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 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Salguero

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview from 2019. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 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.

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 Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series 4 (2022). Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 4)

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

Contested draftification, no sourcing to establish notability for the particular series. Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Star Mississippi 22:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series 4 (2022). Fails GNG, sources found are primary, listings, and promo. // Timothy :: talk 16:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star#Series_4_(2022): no sources to support a standalone article about Series 4. Owen× ☎ 01:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:37, 29 January 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.

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. ✗plicit 13:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Polanco

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, instead finding only passing mentions (2012, 2014, 2015, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:45, 31 January 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.

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. ✗plicit 13:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual drainage systems

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

Fails WP:LISTCRIT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Unusual" is not well-defined and so there isn't any particular inclusion criteria. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real list criteria as to what an 'unusual' system is, and no references to provide notability for the list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain: From 22oct23 Casiquiare canal, Echimamish River and Manych River were deleted and moved to River bifurcation. Some others were moved to Lake bifurcation or deleted. This made the remaining list useless and deletible.The original reason for the list was that, given something like the Casiquiare canal, the reader would want to know if there were similar oddities. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:19, 1 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 07:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Zeine

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

Nomination on behalf of by 24.7.88.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): Article and sources do not appear to fulfill the criteria of WP:NOTE - it doesn't help that it was written by a contributor with a clear WP:COI. Searching for "Hatem Zeine" on google etc doesn't give any results that would help with WP:NOTE. (permalink) – Joe (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jordan. – Joe (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, England, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of articles written by this person as a Forbes Council member, none of which makes them notable. Nothing found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the IP is quite right; I'm finding a lot of social media, business-churnalism and the TechCrunch article which is uncomfortably close to interview, but nothing that convinces me of independent recognition unprompted by the subject. It might be too soon? Not notable in Wikipedia's sense at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 29 January 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.

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. Star Mississippi 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Deere

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N or that there is a good WP:ATD. This ahs been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found this, it seems like a RS [101], but it's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing (1) some routine coverage of the publication of his new books, (2) a couple of passing mentions of his name in articles on other topics, (3) some advertisements, and (4) a couple of book reviews. None of that seems like it meets the threshold for notability.

— Moriwen (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to check for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR: if multiple of his books pass WP:NBOOK with 2 reviews, that would be a NAUTHOR pass. The Christianity Today book review linked above as "routine coverage" is by no means routine coverage; it is an NBOOK-qualifying source for Even in Our Darkness (as long as it is an independent RS, which I do not know). If a second review for that book is found, that book passes NBOOK and he's part of the way along to NAUTHOR. (Routine coverage in an NBOOK context would be this kind of thing.) Note than an NAUTHOR pass does not require biographical coverage of the author. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Christianity Today review there is also this piece in the Publisher's Weekly here which states that two of his books sold 400,000 copies combined which suggests there should be reviews. I found this review here and a number of reviews listed in Google Books but i didn't get any previews, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to review the newly proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Most of what appears in a quick google is blogs and other unreliable sources but I found a couple more CT articles(probably paywalled) a full review] of his first book when it was published and news coverage of his firing from DTS. He looks to meet WP:AUTHOR, I think. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 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.

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. The arguments have been brief, and there doesn't seem an obvious consensus from the discussion. I have given drive-by IP comments less weight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Akora Khattak

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

There seems to be some confusion (among sources), as to the date, location, and even name of this battle. So is it one battle or synthases of more than one action?

Also all of the sources seem to be single-line mentions, (at least the ones that I can check). Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article has many solid Book references that are all working properly. I checked today to confirm it. Added an additional archived reference to the article today...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources are unreliable and some are hard to verify. Couple sources have one-liners about the battle except for one. The date is disputed among sources. I do not see any useful contribution of this article.RangersRus (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant battle and has good coverage in reliable sources. Referencing can be improved but the sources already present in the article are also enough to have this article on Wikipedia. Muneebll (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of value in this article. Even the sources are questionable which do not sgree with one another.23.25.75.145 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niche article and heavy reliance on snippets and questionable citations. The information here is so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is.208.184.20.115 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient WP:RS exist detailing the battle, and most of the references cited in the article do provide full view.

I don't know on which basis some editors here can call it poorly sourced. One just has to visit the article to verify that the sources are good enough to merit a stand-alone article. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: Please take a closer look at the !votes of IPs, because they are very clearly sockpuppets based on their similar arguments and the fact that they have made edit only at this AfD thread. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The refs provided are only short passing mentions and I don’t see anything more substantial. There isn't much in detail about the battle then a sentence or two. 63.86.0.91 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every individual fight mentioned somewhere in a book needs its own article especially when there is not enough information in multiple articles. Major Conflicts in sources in every aspect and most are just unreliable. 173.167.254.157 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article creator was CU-blocked not long after creating this article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 6 February 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.

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. There have been no comments for a few weeks; the conclusion is that the community doesn't care if we have this article or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Income

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

Sources in the article are from blogs, directories, interviews, primary or passing mention; appears to be WP:REFBOMB. Only one source (Borgen Magazine) appears to be secondary with SIGCOV. PROD was removed with the addition of an interview and a promo piece repeating what the NGO does. At present, does not satisfy WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG, happy to withdraw if SIGCOV, secondary independent reliable sourcing can be shown. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Switzerland. Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Random Institute: Random Institute and its head, Sandino Scheidegger, founded the Social Income organization. The organization's name makes it difficult to find sources establishing notability, but we have enough to include it as a section in the older organization's page. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @OwenX – while both entities were indeed founded by Sandino Scheidegger, it is important to note that they are distinct, separate legal organizations, each with its own unique mission and operational focus. The Random Institute primarily functions as an art institution, whereas Social Income is recognized as an official NGO and is registered as a tax-exempt entity in Switzerland.

Merging these pages would not provide added value to Wikipedia users. Instead, it could potentially lead to confusion, as the separate identities and missions of each organization are significant and merit individual recognition. Keeping the pages separate ensures that Wikipedia offers clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about each entity, allowing users to understand their distinct natures and contributions.

Thank you for considering this perspective in your decision-making process. DanielBallo (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction between the two organizations, and it certainly made my decision more difficult in arriving at my suggestion to merge the two. The alternative, however, is to delete the article about the Social Income organization, as it doesn't meet our standard of notability by itself. Opting for the lesser evil, I recommend we keep some of the contents as a section in Random Institute, while highlighting the fact that the two are different organizations with different purpose and structure, but with common founders. If and when there is enough significant coverage about Social Income to establish notability, the article can be spun off and revived from the redirect, with your old version serving as a starting point. Owen× ☎ 23:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Goldsztajn – I wish to address the concerns raised regarding the potential deletion of the page. It's important to consider the variety of sources that have covered the subject, including the coverage in Borgen Magazine, which, as you've already noted, is a noteworthy source. Notable among other sources are P.S. Zeitung (Wikipedia Link), where Min Li Marti, both editor-in-chief and a member of the national council, has featured content relevant to this topic, and Das Lamm, a prominent Swiss online newspaper. Additionally, there are offline sources such as Freundin Magazin, with an available PDF of the print version, and local reports (West Africa) from Hidden Voices Salone (PDF).

It's also worth noting the distinct nature of the initiative discussed on the page. Although a registered NGO with tax-exempt status in Switzerland, it operates uniquely as a civil solidarity movement driven by volunteers. This aspect is particularly relevant because it differs from traditional NGO structures, which actively seek press coverage, whereas Social Income does not follow this approach. Despite this, the initiative has successfully raised a substantial amount for a universal basic income pilot. This effort has not only been recognized by the Stanford Basic Income Lab but is also listed on the main UBI map, a detail that is mentioned in the article. As well as it is part of an open source movement which is also recognised by GitHub as one of seven meaningful open source initiatives, as mentioned in the article (third party source) and is supported by the official Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, with a confirmation letter linked in the article).

Furthermore, the initiative's focus on Sub-Saharan Africa contributes to its notability. This region is frequently underrepresented in the global news cycle, especially in the Global North, making the achievements and impacts of the initiative more noteworthy.

In light of this information, I believe the page in question fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria and offers valuable, well-sourced information that enhances the platform's diversity and richness of content.

Thank you for considering these points. DanielBallo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DanielBallo - any subject which appears in Wikipedia must be supported by significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources. What any of us think about a subject, its unique status, its importance etc is not relevant to a discussion of notability, all that matters is the existence of reliable sourcing. So, in terms of the sources presented other than Borgen Magazine, there does not appear to be any sourcing otherwise that reaches the criteria to be classified as reliable. Of the ones mentioned above:

Freundin Magazin - this is not SIGCOV, it is a short quarter page promotional piece, simply repeating what SI does.
Hidden Voices Salone - this is not independent, it is a publication of the Jamil and Nyanga Jaward Foundation one of Social Income's partners in Sierra Leone.
Das Lamm - this is a promotional interview.
PS Zeitung - same interview content as Das Lamm, credited to the same author.
Github Blog - a passing, promotional mention on a blog about SI's use of software.
DEZA/DDC/SDC - this is a primary source, it can used to confirm the existence of the organisation, but provides no indication of SI's notability. Aid agencies fund thousands of organisations world-wide, receiving ODA funding is not in itself an indicator of notability.

None of these sources provide secondary, independent SIGCOV. Unfortunately, SI's notability cannot be established with these. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goldsztajn - I appreciate the clarity you've provided regarding the sources for Social Income. To further contribute to this discussion, I'd like to point out an additional article on the Flanders Arts Institute's website, which offers additional insight into what Social Income represents.

While I understand and respect your viewpoint on the nature of the sources previously cited, I'd like to offer a different perspective on a couple of points:

1. Interviews in newspapers: My understanding is that interviews can provide valuable insights into an organization's work and ethos. The interview in question (Das Lamm, PS Zeitung) offers substantial information about Social Income's activities and impact, which I would consider a valid source for understanding the organization, rather than merely promotional.

2. Funding and recognition by government bodies (DEZA/DDC/SDC): The fact that Social Income was selected for funding and expertise support by a government agency might be indicative of its significance in the field. While I acknowledge that receiving funding alone does not establish notability, the selection process and the consequent support could be a testament to the organization's impact and relevance. DanielBallo (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DanielBallo: the problem with interviews, and why they are generally discounted in Wikipedia as a reliable source, is that they offer no *independent* assessment of the subject; it is what the subject wishes the audience to hear. As for an official government aid agency's assessment of those they fund - there are all sorts of criteria that they use to determine how to allocate funds, but none of them are the same as Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY. Again, there's a problem of independence, all aid organizations will wish that the organisations they fund are seen in a good light, which is why, to reiterate, primary sources are discounted as a means to establish notability for Wikipedia. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:04, 29 January 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.

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. Editors are encouraged to move the page to a better title, especially if this results in easier sourcing. Owen× ☎ 21:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Interactivo Kaná

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

It used to exist and there is some coverage, but I am not convinced it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Mexico. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Museo de Ciencia y Tecnologia Veracruz under which it has better sourcing albeit very local. I think there's enough to get it to WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with @Boleyn, I do not believe it meets Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:ORG. Avishai11 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:04, 29 January 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.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Jungle (2024 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Scheduled for December 2024, filming just began, everything is announcements or WP:NEWSORGINDIA so fails WP:GNG as well. Case of WP:TOOSOON. I see it was deleted in September of last year but cannot see the log to determine the reason. CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It is too soon for this article as its still in production stage where there is possibility of many changes and nothing could be considered definite till it reaches post-production stage. I will say that move the article back to draft for now.RangersRus (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think draftify is normally a good WP:ATD and often move them myself. I am wondering if you think it is best in this case given the number of SOCKS that are constantly moving them back to mainspace? I've tried many times in the past and we always wind up right back here unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case I would say its appropriate to Delete but as an alternative, keeping the page on watchlist and reporting sock that tries to move page from draft to namespace is another option. RangersRus (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good perspective. Either way will be work I guess. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While the coverage is mostly routine, there is a lot of it. Hollywood films of similar magnitude are generally kept once filming has begun, so I can't in good conscience say delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take a look at the references if you can point out the ones that are not press or churnalism or fall under NEWSORGINDIA. I am also curious how to judge "magnitude" if you can clarify. Maybe there is something I am overlooking. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have high confidence in my ability to judge the reliability of Indian sources given the very real concerns expressed in NEWSORGINDIA and the prevalence of churnalism in entertainment media generally. [102] [103] [104] and [105] all look to have involved at least some editorial rewriting though the ultimate sources are mostly PR pieces or social media posts. As for "magnitude" it is an admittedly subjective measure. What I actually did was observe that this is a sequel to Welcome Back (film) which came out in 2015. A quick search for 2015 Indian box office shows that Welcome Back was a top ten film in that market. Pages for Hollywood films that are sequels to top ten films are routinely created and kept once principal photography has begun based on coverage of similar depth (i.e. regurgitations of title, cast, and crew announcements). The sources I referenced above don't show a huge amount of editorial shaping and what they do have might be a purely stylistic to create an illusion of neutrality but they aren't what I would call "trivial" (i.e. one paragraph notices, or literal copies of press materials). I don't feel strongly about Welcome to the Jungle (2024 film) in particular (hence the week keep), but I do feel strongly that in so far as sourcing makes it possible we treat big budget Bollywood films the same as big Hollywood ones. In particular, the coverage that usually separates a film that gets an article at the start of filming and one that gets one on release is mostly routine coverage of production news such as casting that is 100% based on studio PR. Big films get their announcements covered and small ones don't. That is, as far as I can tell, the de facto notability standard and more or less what WP:NFILM says. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth response. Your "magnitude" explanation makes sense. And, note that Bollywood Films should always be treated with the same "rule of thumb" as all film industries. I have actually seen some recently thanks to living in a large enough city. However, they should also be treated with the same "notability" standards. I will do a full source assessment later today and post for everyone. Hopefully that will provide some clarify. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep -per Eluchil404 ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 05:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actual analysis of the source material about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page creator is now a confirmed SOCK. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 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.

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. A discussion to merge or redirect doesn't require admin actions, so can be done outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hillhouse (ward)

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

A WP:MILL single member local electoral ward with an electorate of 2000 which was created 50 years ago and became defunct 15 years ago. Sources do not establish notability, providing only that the ward existed and its results, which can be and have been collated in election results articles; each of the ~2000 such wards in Scotland of the era does not require its own article.

Discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 15#Ward articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee City Council wards indicated a preference among interested editors for the hundreds of current Scottish council wards (multi member, 3 times larger than the earlier wards, easier to source) to be merged into some kind of overview article rather than separate listings. As far as I'm aware, not much has been done in this direction and I don't see any urgent need to do so. But the creator of this article is aware of that issue, because I told him about it. He does a lot of hard work in this area but I think going down the road of creating these former wards is something that should be avoided, particularly in respect of creep into another region; Category:Wards of East Ayrshire is already a bit wild (there are 27 articles but only 9 current wards = 18 of these single-member wards, all created by same editor approximately a year ago). Crowsus (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland. Crowsus (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Notability is not temporary so the fact the ward was abolished is irrelevant. I would search through the Hamilton Advertiser archives to further establish notability but unfortunately the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have them available online for the period the ward existed. I don't doubt there will be articles in the paper at the time to help establish notability.

Btw, thanks for bringing this up and your kind comments. I looked into this further after our discussion because I wanted to know what the policy was and how that affected things. That's when I came across the geographic features notability policies and they support that political subdivisions are notable in their own right. As I said in our discussion though, that doesn't mean that we can't have a situation where some of these for one council are listed in one article but others have wards with their own articles. Multiple solutions to the same problem exist on Wikipedia and they can peacefully co-exist. I understand what you're saying though, particularly with categorisation (maybe there should be current and former categories? A discussion for another day). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that would be that the populated, legally recognised place is Hillhouse, Hamilton whereas this is a geopolitical unit based around that place, and so named after it. As you know, some councils could barely be bothered to name them and just used numbers. I'm struggling to imagine what even the Advertiser would have to say about the ward (as opposed to the neighbourhood) other than its councillor and the election results to elect said councillor. I read the Rutherglen Reformer quite regularly between the 90s and 2000s but even with pages to be filled, I can't recall much mention of the local wards beyond the most basic listings. Could be wrong.... Crowsus (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, the unnamed ones are a minefield and I think a catchall article rather than individual articles would be better for them. I had thought there was something in the policy about places having a name but I couldn't see it when I checked today which is why I hadn't created any articles on unnamed wards. If that is the intent of the policy though, it would definitely be worth rephrasing. Every ward, current and former, in the UK is legally recognised, it's written down in statute, so if that shouldn't confer notability that should be cleared up. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge An electoral district is not what NPLACE covers, which is the municipality or similar. The ward doesn't actually exist as anything except as a boundary from which representatives are elected. I agree with the discussions elsewhere that for the local level, electoral districts should be consolidated in main articles rather than as dozens or scores of individual articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Lanarkshire Council#Wards: Fails GNG, sources are mill election news, agree with nom and Reywas92 reasoning. WP:NPLACE clearly was not and is not intended to mean every election district/precinct/ward is notable for its own article. // Timothy :: talk 15:45, 28 January 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) 04:41, 29 January 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.

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 Transactions per second. Sandstein 20:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query throughput

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

Delete Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Tooncool64 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how this is different from Queries per second? --94rain ^Talk 09:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about the same. My understanding is that this article is talking about the database performance metric in particular, whereas the Queries per second article talks about the same performance metric applied to other systems. We could talk about merging the two, but as it stands a scholar.google.com search brings up a ton of articles discussing both. I really don't understand how/why the notability of this subject is being questioned. Sohom (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Query throughput, Queries per second, and Transactions per second are approximately equally (poorly) developed and referenced, and the subject area that encompasses all three would probably best be covered by a single article instead. It may well be that Query throughput is the best title for that article, but in any case I would support merging and redirecting any two of these articles to the third and then discussing a move on the talk page if need be. Jfire (talk) 23:38, 21 January 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) 04:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:39, 6 February 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.

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 DYRC. Star Mississippi 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Radyo U.S.

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

I can't find any reliable sources that could support the notability of the subject. Not to mention, the article has been unreferenced for a long time. Israel's Son 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Israel's Son 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator was a sockmaster, and this is complete nonsense about a station in one community having an American-based format based in California that doesn't broadcast there; there's just nothing for this to stand on, and it's completely made up. Nate • (chatter) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrSchimpf, salting may be considered if the sockpuppetry problem exists. -Ian Lopez @ 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DYRC: Barely found any independent coverage about the defunct online station. Based on its website, it existed as a separate entity from DYRC until it closed shop a few years later. ASTIG 😎🙃
Redirect to DYRC, which was known as DYXR in the 2000s. Fails WP:NCORP as a separate entity from the station per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 3 February 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.

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 04:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBTL-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like another station that only ever aired national content (it would not surprise me if even the later-year infomercials were carriage of some itself-non-notable service), probably failing to obtain any significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 29 January 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.

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 WSFJ-TV. or the Ohio list referenced. That can be re-targeted if needed. What's clear is the consensus for a redirect, target doesn't need continuation of AfD which is unlikely to garner participation as indicated by prior weeks Star Mississippi 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQMC-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage beyond routine business transaction reports in industry sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WSFJ-TV: that may sound unorthodox, but it seems like much of what has happened to this station have tied in to changes at that station. This was a run-of-the-mill TBN repeater until TBN swapped it for WSFJ, which gave W23BZ its "own" programming and made it a bit less "non-notable", but that was only good for something on its own in the pre-2021 looser "notability standards". WQMC-LD later ended up becoming "Urban One TV" (and no, that press release posted on the website of co-owned WXMG does not count toward notability, what with the lack of independence and all) on March 1, 2021 — the same day Scripps, which had ended up with WSFJ by way of Ion, shuttered Ion Plus and took Bounce TV from WQMC. This station feels like one of those that should have more significant coverage than it does (especially since there is also a Telemundo affiliation), but runs into such coverage being less likely to be generated within this century. (Alternatively, this is also one of those rare times where I'm more willing to consider a redirect to List of television stations in Ohio#LPTV stations than has even been considered in any of these AfDs.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect if someone is willing to add content to the article to go along with it. Ben Azura (talk) 21:38, 18 February 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.

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. I see a consensus among editors to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressors–oppressed distinction

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

Stub politics article, the criteria for it being nominated are as follows: poorly sourced Content Fork WP:CF covered else where by Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict... but also Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT.

Examples of poor sourcing are as follows: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) [106] by Gordon & Gordon, does not contain the terms on 145 as claimed, likewise "Specters of Marx" (1994) [107], by Jacques Derrida, and "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) [108] by Niilo Kauppi both do not contain the terms "Oppressor" and "Oppressed" at all. This leaves four disparate sources (two from Marxists, one from a conservative, and one about Israel Palestine) which technically pass verifiability, but don't seem to be discussing a unified concept or theory at all. Besides which, as mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT DELETION: There does not appear to be a unified topic here to merit an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 17:19, January 22, 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am unconvinced that the article's topic is notable. However, some of the statements made by the OP in support of deletion are not entirely accurate. For example, while Derrida doesn’t use oppressor/oppressed terminology, he does employ the dominant/dominated distinction (see page 68). Same goes for Kauppi (page 61) and Gordon & Gordon (page 71). XMcan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reasoned nomination: None of Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict mention oppressor-oppressed or dominant–dominated as opposing categories/concepts; valuable sources: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) by Gordon & Gordon, states on page 145: But again and again I am inspired by Freire’s saying, "It is only the oppressed, who by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors" [109]; "Specters of Marx" “At least provisionally, we are placing our trust, in fact, in this form of critical analysis we have inherited from Marxism: In a given situation, provided that it is determinable and determined as being that of a socio-political antagonism, a hegemonic force always seems to be represented by a dominant rhetoric and ideology, whatever may be the conflicts between forces, the principal contradiction or the secondary contradictions, the overdeterminations and the relays that may later complicate this schema—and therefore lead us to be suspicious of the simple opposition of dominant and dominated, or even of the final determination of the forces in conflict, or even, more radically, of the idea that force is always stronger than weakness (Nietzsche and Benjamin have encouraged us to have doubts on this score, each in his own way, and especially the latter when he associated “historical materialism” with the inheritance, precisely, of some “weak messianic force”’). Critical inheritance: one may thus, for example, speak of a dominant discourse or of dominant representations and ideas, and refer in this way to a hierarchized and conflictual field without necessarily subscribing to the concept of social class by means of which Marx so often determined, particularly in The German Ideology, the forces that are fighting for control of the hegemony." [110]; "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) by Niilo Kauppi "In its present meaning, the term “field” was partly created as a reaction to Marxist political-economic definitions of social phenomena and represents the systematization of Bourdieu’s structural approach. The field is composed of capital, an illusio, and consists of certain pertinent features. The concept contains some very Marxist elements: for example, the opposition dominant/ dominated. In accordance with yet another use of homologies, a field will be divided into dominant and dominated groups, and the dominant groups will themselves be divided into dominant-dominant and dominant-dominated (a:b; b1:b2; etc.). There is a definite tendency to construct a system—not surprising for a French intellectual who has been trained in philosophy.” [111]: sources do contain the dominant-dominated opposition, which is referred to as synonymous to oppressors-oppressed distinction in the lead of the article. No reason to delete. Phil from somewhere (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done there is unsourced original research. Which is what the article is doing. The creator of the article User:SummerWithMorons has had many such articles deleted on those grounds. But you're correct, perhaps I should have nominated this one for those reasons (eg. WP:OR).

Making the special case that this (the usage in those three disparate sources) is a unique meaning or usage of class politics (without a source), is a form of special pleading. That's not how Wikipedia works. We're not a catalogue of specific words and usages selected without any sources linking them. We're not an authority in of ourselves, capable of linking sources just because an editor says they're linked. That's more the work of a dictionary. The article should obviously be deleted as it is WP:OR regardless of how it's been nominated. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, you call quoting the article's original sources original research?? Good joke to start the day Phil from somewhere (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I called the idea that all three of those sources/usages are related; Original Research. Not the sources themselves.

Either all three are related (despite being from drastically different people, countries, areas of thought, and eras) because this is a general dictionary entry (and hence not appropriate encyclopedic content), or they're related because this is some unique and noteworthy usage (which would require a source OUTSIDE of Wikipedia saying so), or they're not related because this page is Original Research stringing unrelated sources together to construct an essay as if it's in Wikivoice.

So we should Delete as per WP:NOTDICT, OR find the imagined source as per WP:RS and WP:NN, OR Delete as per WP:OR. This is what I'm saying... and it's my view that the page should be deleted. RecardedByzantian (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion - although my nomination was perhaps not as thorough as it could have been, the article is still WP:OR. We can't just decide that two usages are linked, and then construct an article/essay around that opinion. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways this might be approached:

The article is all about Marxist theory and responses to it, not the distinction itself, which is surely as old as the practice of forced labor. There might be a good WP:merge target to an existing article on Marxism. Otherwise, if it kept as its own article, "(Marxism)" should be appended to the title.
One might ask – in addition to, or independently of, other articles on Marxism – whether there is anything in this article that is not already covered at oppression. If this article is to be about more than Marx's usage and its legacy, that is another possible merge target.

As it stands, however, while harmless, the article fails the WP:notability criterion. This distinction itself has not been shown in the existing article to be significant enough have generated its own literature. Hence it is not a enough of a topic to merit coverage in an encyclopedia.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google Scholar search shows that this is a very notable concept in Marxian political theory. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether those sources are cited in the article. And although I agree with others that this article is not in the best shape, deletion is not cleanup. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in such poor shape that deleting it and letting some interested party re-write it from scratch would more than likely produce an article of better quality. But they'll have a tough time separating it from Marxian class theory in my opinion. 194.223.27.216 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's covered by Marxian Class Theory. Part of the problem is that none of the authors are seeking to define or specifically talk about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" so it's disingenuous for Wikipedia to decide the terms are some how pivotal or important just because they get a mention here and there. Perhaps if there was a source focusing on these terms, or even a chapter, section, or subheading. But there's not. There's passing usages - the authors don't focus on the topic, so why are we?.... well it's because the American right are using claims about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" in the campaign to bolster and spread the conspiracy theory Cultural Marxism - here's right wing conspiracy nut Andrew Breitbart using the phrasing in his description of what cultural Marxism is: [112]. Here's the far right American think tank The Heritage Foundation using it for the same purposes: [113]. Here's American Conservative Think Tank Foundation for Economic Education using it in that same way: [114].

So one side of politics IS focusing on this phrasing - Conservative American Think Tanks. Here is Andrew Lynn, a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture debunking the attempted twisting in 2018 [115]:

"Flash-forward to the present. According to conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan, today’s cultural Marxists are deeply invested in toppling power structures of patriarchy and white privilege. They do so, according to this version of history, by following the Frankfurt School thinkers in transposing the oppressed-oppressor conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into the cultural realm, assigning oppressed status to various nonprivileged identity groups. Emergence of a victimhood culture follows, as groups laying claim to various identities articulate grievances against dominant groups and the structures that serve their interests. Rational adjudication of truth then becomes subsumed under demands for the subversion of power, patriarchy, and privilege across unjust social institutions, perpetuating continual identification of conflict within the established social order." [Emphasis added]

"There are many problems with this narrative, of course, and here’s one: Such a vision of an ever-in-conflict social order is only loosely “cultural” and could be constructed entirely independent of anything “Marxist.” You can find it in Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand, to name just a few. Indeed, today the most popular accounts of society as groups in perpetual conflict over resources—whether material, symbolic, or political—are found in best-selling books by evolutionary psychologists and biologists eager to apply their disciplinary insights to questions far outside their field. It is more the diffusion of Darwin—not Derrida—that underlies popular conflict-grounded accounts of morality and culture today."

This is a sound DELETE from me. Unless we can find leftist marxist theorists using it as at least a subheading - I'd even settle for just someone bolding it on the page. But in actual fact, they don't use it that often, the sources use it once or twice in passing IN WHOLE BOOKS, and it's the American right wing, and far right who are trying to bolster its usage as a paradigm of explanation for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Wikipedia shouldn't go joyously romping into a political minefield just because a particularly prolific editor who has had many of their essays deleted before carelessly wanders into one without asking "Is this really making something out of this particular terminology?". 194.223.27.216 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the concern is valid, I'm not seeing any of that in the article as written, which cites to Derrida, Hegel, and Lenin, who are hardly right-wing thinkers. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and what do you make of my statement that they're not particularly focused on the topic of the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" but are instead using the terms infrequently?194.223.27.216 (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP and turn into a disambiguation page. This is a unifying thread and key aspect of a lot of political philosophy, as well as various political ideologies. As such, I do not think that the reasoning provided here justifies a complete deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this entry is of encyclopedic value, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Welsh pointed out that the concept and corresponding article on Oppression already includes the distinction, so any disambiguation or linking should happen there. I no longer think retaining this page would be useful, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep notable concept in various contexts. Phil from somewhere (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - there's a lot of people saying "keep" then saying "Oh this is a thing in politics" - but then not offering any substantive sources that discuss the topic, which is apparently (according to these voters) substantial and well known in political discourse. I would like to remind whoever closes this discussion, that on Wikipedia, voting is done by the winning arguments - not by tallying the numbers (see WP:POLL and WP:Consensus). Demanding that an article be kept because it matches someone's personal viewpoint or their own original research, is not the same as having enough sources to substantiate the claims of the CURRENT article in it's current condition. Currently, this article should be deleted, as the sources don't substantiate it as a notable topic WP:NN. No one has presented either a policy or source based argument against that fact. Just because a word appears in many texts, doesn't warrant Wikipedia creating a dictionary entry or stub article for it. Without sources, the keep claims are just adding to the original research that creeps into Wikipedia because we don't delete articles like this one. 194.223.63.134 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - We have several articles already about adjacent philosophical/academic/activist traditions that focus on (leftist) identity oppression. This isn't the name of something that needs an article on its own, I think; I wanted to say this is an unsourced neologism, I'm not sure that's right, maybe as OP says not a dictionary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have reviewed the above and continue to support deletion. The concept of oppression includes within itself the distinction between the person/group/system oppressing and those oppressed. (Hence the hits in Google Scholar are entirely unsurprising and not in-themselves relevant.) It is possible that somewhere there is a dissertation deconstructing the meaning of the dash in "oppressors–oppressed", but this has not been established – and is not at all likely to be established – as an encyclopedic topic.

If, as some comments above suggest, this is actually about covertly correcting current American political discourse, I would submit that this is not the appropriate use of an article with this title. If that is the point, it should be made explicit in a fresh article to be assessed from scratch for inclusion in Wikipedia. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my earlier !vote and changing to merge whatever can be salvaged into oppression. I'm persuaded by Patrick. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
1. The article transgress Wikipedia:No original research
2. The article may be a pov-fork of Oppression or Marxism.
3. The idea that Marxists (and only Marxists) divide population between oppressors and oppressed is a variant of the Cultural Marxism narrative, a far-right conspiracytheory with roots in nazi Germany so ping @Volunteer Marek, Doug Weller, and Horse Eye's Back:
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn’t look like sources actually support the text except in some vague, original research-y, way, never mind establish notability. Volunteer Marek 19:22, 10 February 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.

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 which does not precluder a rename/scope which is a matter of editorial discretion Star Mississippi 02:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Pelagia

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

Nothing in the article suggests this character is notable, my BEFORE finds little of use. No Russian interwiki. The article is unreferenced (no footnotes). Maybe it could be rewritten into an article about a series (Sister Pleagia series) based on reviews or analysis of the series (this might be useful: [116]); sources are more likely to exist in Russian than English. If the article is not improved, however, due to failures of WP:V, WP:GNG and possible WP:OR, per WP:ATD-R I suggest this is redirected to the article about the author. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Christianity, and Russia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article already is about the series; all three books redirect to this page. I easily found reviews for all three books. "A nun with a nose for adventure" (Los Angeles Times, Jan 2007), "Nun has sleuth skills, feminist views" (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 2008), "Eye-popping stuff" (The Independent, Nov 2009). Russian language skills are not necessary. Toughpigs (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs If the books are notable, they merit stand-alone articles, sure, but here we discuss the fictional character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the books pages redirect to this page. This is the series page. It would be silly to delete the series page and then create stand-alone pages for each book. Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are really rather well-known books, translated into several languages, and doubtless with many reviews. I simply don't believe that a properly-done "BEFORE finds little of use" (did you make the same typo you do above?). If you think the article should be renamed Sister Pelagia series, do a RM. At the very least a merger to the author should be proposed. No valid deletion rationale given, just the usual chaff-storm of non-relevant policy shortcuts. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 29 January 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.

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. Sandstein 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provable fairness

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

It is unclear what the exact topic is here. Whether it is the concept of provable fairness / provably fair games, or a specific algorithm dubbed as "Provably Fair" sourced to a gambling site [117]. Either way, there does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources, especially for the later. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mental poker: a related subject. The term is occasionally used in academic literature on cryptographic algorithms, but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this is a subject that can be expanded greatly, especially with the takeoff of provably-fair Bitcoin casinos, almost all of which have provably-fair systems. Though, I can understand the idea of merging it into Mental poker, and creating a redirect to that page. OnlyNano 18:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (with no prejudice to draftification / userfication if people want to keep working on it). The sources that seem to talk about this algorithm directly don't appear reliable, and the journal articles are off-topic and don't show notability. (As a side note, I'm skeptical here... mostly-good-enough RNG is a "solved" problem, and "do you trust a service not to lie" is an unsolvable problem.) SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my thoughts mirror SnowFire's stance. Beyond that, it kinda reads like an essay aiming to convince people that online gaming is not a scam or something. Best case scenario should be draftifying, if someone truly wishes to work on this. (Which I'm skeptical of - even the article creator apparently just copy/pasted it from Simple Wikipedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be some coverage here: "Borca-Tasciuc, G. et al. (2022) ‘Provable Fairness for Neural Network Models using Formal Verification’, arXiv.org. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2212.08578.", "Kanhere, S. S. and Sethu, H. (2003) ‘Anchored opportunity queueing: a low-latency scheduler for fair arbitration among virtual channels’, Journal of parallel and distributed computing, 63(12), pp. 1288–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.jpdc.2003.08.002.", "Salimi, B. et al. (2019) ‘Capuchin: Causal Database Repair for Algorithmic Fairness’, arXiv.org. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.1902.08283.", "Gregori, E. et al. (2002) ‘Optimization-Based Congestion Control for Multicast Communications’, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Germany: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 423–442. doi: 10.1007/3-540-47906-6_34." . Regrads Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:09, 7 February 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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting house

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

Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Kentucky, and Virginia. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Seems like it could be a sentence in Polling station. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into polling station It's a good stub, but it probably works better as an article section than its own separate article. Nate • (chatter) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge, the two sources are primary and don't support most claims in the article, not worth transferring to another article as it stands. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this technically a list article, since it provides navigational links to notable voting houses? SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to patrollers/closer: see User talk:Rechtman#Nomination of Voting house for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Voting House for comments from User:Rechtman (main contributor to the article), who has not commented here, and others' responses to them. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found at least one article on the concept: [118] along with primary sources showing the building of a voting house was a "municipal improvement." Also serves as a navigational aid to notable historic voting houses. Probably keepable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per User:SportingFlyer, but without User:Rechtman's concept of Voting Rights Acts or other racial access, since there is no source. The title phrase is generic, and the RS ref SportingFlyer found is about a WPA project specific to Rowan County, Kentucky and with the goal of expanding voting access overall (and maybe for political aims). Other refs (some of which might be circular citation):

"Rowan County Voting House – Morehead KY". The Living New Deal.
"Knapp Avenue voting house to be sold". The Daily Independent. June 15, 2015.
"Brushy Voting House #6". Clio.

and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name.

Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as [119]). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title (Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky)?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed.

"Rowan County, Kentucky WPA Stone Voting Houses". National Park Service. Retrieved 2024-02-04.

Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge with the polling place article Fine,Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon.~~ The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it.James.folsom (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @James.folsom: does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DMacks:Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking.James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built.James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you !voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could it be useful to merge this with the 3 articles about specific voting houses? It would then be an article that would discuss the remaining ones under page.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polling station with slight merge. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found the documents SportingFlyer and DMacks posted, and as SportingFlyer said the article serves as a navagational aid to the sources used for it, the majority of which seem to be old newspapers and so unlikely to be digitized. A search on the National Register of Historic Places ("voting house" as a search term in the table) also shows 10 different listed voting houses, [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] the statement of significance being that

"The # 4 Hogtown Voting House meets criterion A and is a significant physical representation of the New Deal. It was constructed by the WPA and used exclusively as a voting house during the period of significance. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House has retained a majority of the original materials and is recognizable in function as a voting house. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House is located in its original setting and location, andhas retained its integrity of association as a building constructed by one of the New dealera agencies."
(the other statemesnts just change the name of the place)

To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username . talk . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it [130] announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g. [131] [132] [133]) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country [134]. A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB. Shaws username . talk . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places.James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is greatly improved over what it was, I like Jengod's approach on this. Let's let it live and mature now.James.folsom (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of major improvements, including sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ipigott and james DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bearian Mr Vili talk 00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I can tell, the article seems notable enough, and it has multiple references supporting its inclusion. The article could, however, use some improvement. 20 upper (talk) 18:00, 28 February 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.

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. After discounting the comments from sock puppets and giving less weight to editors with a conflict of interest, there doesn't seem to be much appetite to keep the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wilson (producer)

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

No sources that meet WP:GNG, there are a lot of mentions. Other sources are sponsored by some firm. Forbes 30 under 30 is marginally helpful. TLA (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, England, and Jamaica. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Forbes' 30 Under 30 is definitely helpful; it's an independent, reliable source directly covering the subject. The Sunday Times article [135] also indicates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Toughpigs, The Sunday Times article is marked "promoted content" by Quickbooks. So likely not WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Times piece was published to shed light on a specific area of business. The user’s usage as a case study is genuine and should certainly be seen as a notable source. BVWilson (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete fabrication of the truth. The sources are from numerous reputable publications and were covered with editorial integrity. To say the Forbes piece is marginally helpful is borderline outrageous. I believe it is ranked as the world’s number one business publication across sectors.

The user was never an employee or affiliated with Quickbooks. The dealings of the Sunday Times with any private company is relative to their business model and does not affect the genuine nature of the user’s inclusion. BVWilson (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To the contrary sources meet WP:GNG. Notable sources include: Sky Sports, Forbes, Channel 4, Harper’s Baazar, The Sunday Times and Management Today. Amongst others. Because an article is sponsored by an outside firm does not jeopardize the editorial integrity pertaining to the inclusion of an independent individual who is not connected to the firm sponsoring. Also, even if the accusation held merit, that is only seen in one instance across many sources. —— BVWilson (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BVWilson is likely a WP:COI. Name and WP:SPA-like contributions seem to suggest that. The sources mentioned by BVWilson are indeed WP:RELIABLE, but aren't even close to WP:SIGCOV. The Forbes, as I mentioned, is closest, but fails WP:100WORDS. The Times piece doesn't even have a byline, as it is paid content and not written by a staff writer of The Times / Sunday Times. Sure, Josh Wilson is impressive, but does not appear to meet WP:GNG for Wikipedia, unfortunately. If you would like, BVWilson, you can try to use WP:THREE. TLA (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with TLA, the sources on this article don't meet SIGCOV. GraziePrego (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Duplicate !vote: I disagree with GraziePrego. The inclusions are clearly WP:SIGCOV. Josh Wilson is clearly quoted ad nauseam throughout his sources. Outside of perhaps The Times - one could argue - every source meets WP:GNG. The Forbes piece is highly reputable and marks a significant accolade, irrespective of WP:100WORDS. BVWilson (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one vote @BVWilson, please strike one of your two “keep” votes. GraziePrego (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last “keep” vote is stricken from the record. BVWilson (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's sources, including Forbes' 30 Under 30, Sky Sports, Channel 4, Harper’s Bazaar, The Sunday Times, and Management Today, collectively demonstrate notable coverage in alignment with Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While The Sunday Times article is labeled as 'promoted content,' its use as a case study in a respected publication contributes to the subject's overall notability. The Forbes recognition, in particular, signifies a noteworthy accomplishment. Disregarding word count, the subject's inclusion in reputable publications and industry lists establishes a clear pattern of notability. The claim of conflict of interest should be evaluated based on content rather than contributor, as the sources and accolades fulfill GNG criteria, justifying a keep vote." KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Strike, sock Star Mississippi 02:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a lot of primary sources here, and primary sources do not count towards SIGCOV. It would be helpful if, per the nom.'s suggestion, someone presented the two or three best sources for discussion. The Forbes 30 under 30 must surely be oe of those though, and I think this might meet presumed notability under WP:PRODUCER. Criterion 4(c) has The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. I would prefer to see some source discussion though, as that would show how to improve the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 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.

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 04:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Parvani

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

WP:REFSPAM + likely WP:UPE. Sources are mainly press releases / WP:SELFPUB profiles. TLA (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:18, 29 January 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.

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 04:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delugan Meissl Associated Architects

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

Non WP:SIGCOV, a lot of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. TLA (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 29 January 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.

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 List of GMA Network stations. ✗plicit 07:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYVB-TV

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

There does not seem to be significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. A possible redirect target would be List of GMA Network stations. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA Network stations per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 11:54, 1 February 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.

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 merge‎ to Scottish Socialist Party. As for whether to delete the redirect after the merger, WP:RFD can make that determination. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Socialist Party United Left

AfDs for this article:

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

There were a lot of suggestions even with 2006's low standards to merge this to Scottish Socialist Party, and I think that's what we need to do. It isn't notable independent of them. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - Merge content to Scottish Socialist Party. I'm not sure it's necessary as a redirect, it's a faction from a minor political party that didn't last very long. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete — Merge reliably sourced content to Scottish Socialist Party, then delete this article as the redirect title is unlikely to be searched. Despite being around for almost 18 years, :Scottish Socialist Party United Left" only returns 10 results on Google, all mirrors of Wikipedia. SSP-United Left returns a few hundred results, but the results that are from reliable sources are less than what you can count on two hands. Yue🌙 20:51, 29 January 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.

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 List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 07:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W15EB-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I knew this was coming and I strongly advise keeping this article because of its considerable station history prior to being part of Innovate Corp. I have recently made some updates by expanding the history section and trying to overall better the article, would appreciate some assistance. This is also one of the few stations Innovate Corp. has made efforts to improve upon, adding HD channels to it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly any HC2/Innovate station that has any prior history has a leg-up on the stations they built from the ground up in the 2010s, but it's still hard to see how a station that appears to have only ever carried national services with little-to-no local content could attain the necessary significant coverage (its longest serving pre-HC2 owner was 3ABN). Most of the sources are databases (not considered SIGCOV), and one of those its its HC2 Broadcasting listing (definitely not independent coverage, also required for notability); the mid-2010s ownership changes, which are relatively routine business transactions, probably don't quite fall under SIGCOV either. To the extent this still matters, this is another survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of stations that carry national services with little-to-no local content in the United States, does that mean they all need to be deleted? This seems to be a rather high bar. The ref from HC2 Broadcasting can easily be replaced if that is deal breaker, there are a couple of third-party articles, already beating out a lot of other articles on Wikipedia. Yes, it survived last year's purge for good reason and should be the same for this year too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Only history has been translating networks without a minute of local content outside station IDs, and this one has a worse problem of 'revolving door networks' where nothing stays on a channel for very long, and it claims for the purposes of E/I programming, its fourth subchannel is its main channel (carrying either paid programming or Cozi TV's Spanish sister and certainly not watched by a regular viewer). If this group doesn't want to run stations seriously, it's not on us to indulge that fantasy with full-scale articles about what seems to be a shell game of multiple unwatched and unmonitored stations using the public airwaves. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response does not particularly talk about the article, but the company that currently owns it. What if tomorrow this station is sold to someone else, would you then suddenly find it relevant again? There are notability in this article despite @Mvcg66b3r saying otherwise at the top. Please consider the merits of the article and not the station's parent company, thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's just not much to say about the station, which in the past rebroadcast 3ABN without any local shows, and now a rotating list of networks chosen not to fit the demographic, but based on what barter deal a private equity group in New York hammered out across the country (if anything, to an area oversaturated with religious networks already as-is, which Vision Latina and Universal Living Faith are). It would be one thing if there was actual management in the area that programs to the community; there has never been a person with this station or most of Innovate/HC2's other licenses. For this station, its documented history is effectively a number of moves of the transmitter or construction permits, all of which before HC2 were between 3ABN's main office in Illinois and DC, and now the domain of a paper pusher at 450 Park Avenue in New York who couldn't tell you what HAAT is, much less anything about this station beyond the calls and city of license. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your candor regarding the station. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are either FCC data (#1 and #4), RabbitEars (#2 and #3), routine business transactional reports (#5 and #6) another database (#7) and a press release (#8) Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 29 January 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.

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 Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Inactive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWIM-AM

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

No significant coverage in RS. Could be redirected to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first source states that the station broadcasts from Oriental Mindoro. The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming and updates. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mere primary source records are not counted towards notability. MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV.

Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exactly do you see with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? Just to be clear what you think is SIGCOV.

All except source 1 are reliable and in-depth enough IMV since they're about the station's programming. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful.

Comments	Source
Fails SIGCOV. PDF fact sheet about another subject. Mentioned in a footnote: "* with 1 AM Radio Station - DWIM 9.36kHz "	1. ORIENTAL MINDORO FACTS AND FIGURES 2014
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	2. ^ Slain Mindoro broadcaster denied protection by court
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	3. ^ Calapan broadcaster shot dead
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	4. ^ Mindoro broadcaster killed; 33rd slain under Aquino
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	5. ^ Editorial: International Widows Day
Fails WP:SIGCOV, nothing about the subject	6. ^ Journalist seeks court protection from would-be assassins

// Timothy :: talk 14:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same reason as Timothy. Most of the references in the article have nothing to do with the subject. Israel's Son 02:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT INSTEAD. Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation is perfect instead of deleting. 49.145.111.255 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. Israel's Son 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel's Son, you can't have two bolded !votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available reference material about this subject would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the source analysis above. 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⁺⁺ 11:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Inactive per arguments of TimothyBlue and HighKing and possibly add a blurb in that section explaining why that station is no longer active per reliable sources. -Ian Lopez @ 16:40, 31 January 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.

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. Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Torr

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

Subject fails NPROF and ANYBIO. BEFORE search revealed no significant coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Alabama. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found about him, aside from four JSTOR mentions. Thus, no sigcov, no notability. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His citation record in Google Scholar is not bad, with quite a few double-digit citation counts and one triple-digit, but this is not strong enough in a high-citation field to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. In the early 2000s he seems to have bounced around from UAB Huntsville to the University of South Carolina to Virginia Commonwealth U. (judging from publication affiliations) and then his academic career appears to have evaporated without trace, not a good sign. Now all that can be found are extremely fringy web sites. I don't think there's anything here on which to base an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF, and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. May pass WP:Prof#C1 from GS citations in this not particularly high citation field (not nearly as high as computer science or biomed). His move into fringy activities may prejudice some against him, but I think that his other activities are enough for a weak keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I see no demonstration of notability in this article or elsewhere.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think he actually does pass WP:Prof#C1, as Xxanthippe mentioned, based on the number of citations as well as the number of peer-reviewed publications. But the article is a stub and needs significant improvement. If the fringy stuff makes him more notable then it should be included but if not, not. Qflib (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib and @Xxanthippe, just to check we are discussing the same person, I found his citations at Scispace which reports 151 pubs (reasonable), 4150 citations (low) and an h-factor of 29 (low). To me those numbers are too low. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If those statistics are reliable, and I have my doubts, they would lead to a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

That h-factor is at the Associate Professor level. IMHO > 50 is a base level for an h-factor of a notable scientist, perhaps 30 for a mathematician. He would be marginal for promotion to full professor at an R1 university, particularly as many of his pubs are reports. Maybe I am harsher than many... Ldm1954 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 for mathematicians would be a pretty high standard for anyone who doesn't do applied/CS stuff... JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus has him at 2823 citations, 163 docs, and h-index of 23. For most subfields of physics that is very low, but I'll have to check what his coauthors' citation profiles look like. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all 55 coauthors of his with 30+ papers (average paper count among all 105 coauthors is 64):

Total citations: average: 4189, median: 2600, Torr: 2824. Total papers: 113, 90, 163. h-index: 29, 27, 23. Top 5 citations: 1st: 473, 360, 360. 2nd: 260, 173, 209. 3rd: 187, 138, 201. 4th: 150, 117, 132. 5th: 133, 97, 129.
While he does have more papers and more highly-cited top papers than the median and sometimes average researcher in his field, what we're looking for is someone who is outstanding in their subfield, not slightly above average. Worth also pointing out that compared to people in the same subfield today, his citation profile is much less impressive (e.g. coauthors with far fewer papers who are still active include people like Maura Hagan, whose metrics are 7597, 102, 49, 621, 549, 415, 297, 267). JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 3 February 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.

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 merge‎ to Xorshift. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xoroshiro128+

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

No indication from reliable third party sources that this is notable ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 20:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used Google Scholar to find multiple sources covering the subject, including: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9132873, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265, https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS%202019_NJ_JU%20final.pdf Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar searches reveal multiple notable sources, such as IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, and a publication from KAIST, covering the subject in depth. These sources, including https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9132873, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042718306265, and https://caislab.kaist.ac.kr/publication/paper_files/2019/SCIS%202019_NJ_JU%20final.pdf, provide substantial coverage and analysis, establishing the notability of the subject. As these reliable third-party sources contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the topic, the article merits retention."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Sock strike[reply]
This feels a lot like an AI generated response. You've just summarised the comment above using the exact same sources that @Deltaspace42 provided. Why a set of quotation marks floating at the end of your comment too? GraziePrego (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to or merge with ~~Sebastiano Vigna~~ Xorshift. I'm not very familiar with RNGs as a research topic, but this one does seem to be awfully niche. Of the 11 Google scholar hits, one is a primary source, one is a duplicate and another four are preprints or Github pages. --Tserton (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Xorshift or else just redirect there. Xoroshiro128+ is an algorithm in a class of PRNG Xorshift algorithms. The propposed target page is generic, describing both the issue, for the interested reader, and containing some detail on the algorithms. Xoroshiro gets a mention but this specific algorithm doesn't, except in saying it is equivalent to another. Whether it needs further mention is debatable, but a paragraph about this algorithm would fit on that page. In this paper,[136] we see that this algorithm is in the class of xorshift PRNG algorithms and not distinct from it. Tserton's proposed redirect target is valid too, but I would suggest that any reader searching for this algorithm is less interested in the creator, and more interested in xorshift PRNGs, and that Xorshift is thus the better target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's a useful suggestion. Tserton (talk) 21:20, 29 January 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.

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, uncontested. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Nissman

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

~~BLP of a U.S. district attorney who has a solid career but I don’t see sources to suggest he is notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Caribbean, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This raises an interesting question. We have never established that a U.S. Attorney is inherently notable. On the one hand, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and have substantial power over federal legal prosecutions in their jurisdiction. On the other hand, they still answer to orders from the Attorney General, and can be fired by the administration that appointed them in the first place. One would think that a U.S. Attorney would receive fairly substantial coverage, to be found if sought. BD2412 T 23:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning~~ keep, based on a review of Newspapers.com coverage. Apparently, the subject has also written a number of books in the field, and received additional coverage for running unsuccessfully for a seat on the Oregon Supreme Court in 1984. BD2412 T 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: having added about a dozen sources and found some more likely points of notability, particularly with respect to the subject's publications reviewed in reliable sources, I am upgrading my !vote to "keep". BD2412 T 15:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw thanks for finding those sources. I think he passes as the author of several books that have been independently reviewed and amount to an important contribution to his field. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 31 January 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.

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. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto McCausland Dieppa

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

A lot of WP:REFSPAM, and it seems like WP:COI. A lot of the sources are very questionable, being WP:SELFPUB or defunct. Apart from a few musical profiles, I can't find much online either that meets WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Obviously this need cleanup but there is coverage to meet WP:BASIC. [137], [138], [139] in El Heraldo (Colombia). 200.107.96.222 (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO. Article is clearly a mess and excessively promotional, but not a reason to delete. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CurryTime. Meets GNG amd coverage. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 5 February 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of A-Scan (1 Dimension) OCT (1981-1990)

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

Scope is extremely specific and doesn't make sense as a standalone article. Instead, this could best be included in Optical coherence tomography or even as part of a new "History of optical coherence tomography" article, although the content isn't optimal for mainspace. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultra-niche "history" article, heavy reliance on primary sources. With major cleanup I might consider a merge with Optical coherence tomography, but the information here is so specific and so poorly-framed I wouldn't know what to do with it as-is. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little too niche for a wiki article. Could perhaps be worked into the main OCT article, but seems pointless, given how technical this information is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 29 January 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.

[1] ttps://www.mapsofthepast.com/ellis-county-ks-kansas-everts-1887.html

[RoadsideKS-2] Rex C. Buchanan; James R. McCauley (1987). Roadside Kansas. University Press of Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey). pp. 96–102. ISBN 978-0-7006-0322-0.

[3] Everts, Louis H., ed. (1887), Official State Atlas of Kansas, L.H. Everts & Co, p. 295

[AtHome-4] At Home in Ellis County 1867–1992. Vol. 1. Ellis County Historical Society. 1991. p. 65. [picture of] Harvey and Lyle Luce at the elevator their father operated at Hog Back.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYDD}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shibakali Mondal}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shibakali Mondal}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yemisi Ransome-Kuti}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahanshah Javid}}<!--Relisted-->