Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triáns

[edit]
Triáns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page clearly does not satisfy WP:NGEO Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 28 July 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. There is consensus that being a member of the Federal National Council meets the notability guideline for politicians. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed bin Musallam bin Ham al-Ameri

[edit]
Mohammed bin Musallam bin Ham al-Ameri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. فيصل (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and improve. I agree that being elected in the Federal National Council makes him notable as a politician; though that section of the article seems in need of expansion. There seems to be some issue with censorship and government control of media in UAE; there are no consensus yet on some of the sources for the article. Much of the coverage is also due to a single philanthropic act (though of course, pledging half of his wealth is a big deal.) Prof.PMarini (talk) 19:03, 1 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Hospital Bratislava – Academician Ladislav Dérer Hospital

[edit]
University Hospital Bratislava – Academician Ladislav Dérer Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What possible Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 28 July 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 Pelaaja. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miika Huttunen

[edit]
Miika Huttunen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable, redirect to Pelaaja? IgelRM (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 28 July 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 Digital Eel. If you disagree with the Redirect target, you can discuss it on the talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iikka Keränen

[edit]
Iikka Keränen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear notable, redirect to Digital Eel? IgelRM (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Digital Eel. Both are good redirect targets but I prefer this one. --Mika1h (talk) 15:22, 30 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prayz Network

[edit]
Prayz Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not have the WP:CORPDEPTH needed for a standalone article. The only sources currently in the article are primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin: All of the network's stations are in Wisconsin, and all but one of them (that lone exception being the acquisition of a former non-religious station) were built in the early 2010s — radio stations that new almost never get the significant coverage they would have gotten decades ago. A clear remnant of the "if there's FCC licenses involved, there's some level of notability" stance that was finally shut down by this 2021 RfC (a situation made worse if the network technically falls under the stricter NCORP than GNG). The redirect is only really to preserve this article's own redirects at WTPN, WWJC, and WEQS as {{R to list entry}}s; as "Prayz Network" itself (as opposed to the stations themselves) is not mentioned there, it may be more appropriate to only retarget those particular redirects and delete the article altogether (and to be clear: if it were not for those redirects, this would unambiguously be a delete). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect. The consensus threshold for inclusion for radio station articles is much higher today than it was when I created the article in 2015, and I fully agree with Wcquidditch's assessment of the level of notability of the individual stations. Yet, as Wcquidditch also stated, the article's own redirects could be retargeted separate from "Prayz Network", which itself is not mentioned in "List of radio stations in Wisconsin". Moreover, the network holds a permit for a station in Minnesota, making the list article even less appropriate as a target.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Redirect and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 28 July 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. Withdrawn by nominator. czar 16:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Acts of War

[edit]
Tom Clancy's Op-Center: Acts of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find a second review to satisfy WP:NBOOK. I found this "review" on publishers weekly though here. My redirect as an AtD was reverted. It may be possible significant contemporary reviews are lurking in newspapers, however, newspapers.com is down for wikipedia editors, so I cannot check. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ARandomName. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:36, 29 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bassem Fleifel

[edit]
Bassem Fleifel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF, fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 28 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thomson (judge)

[edit]
Michael Thomson (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a judge, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for judges. As always, judges are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but the sole "source" shown here is a (deadlinked) press release self-published by his own employer, which is not a notability-clinching source, and absolutely no GNG-building sourcing has been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 28 July 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 1924 Kenosha Maroons season. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Oberbroekling

[edit]
Ray Oberbroekling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. This could possibly be redirected to List of Kenosha Maroons players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 28 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tin roof pie

[edit]
Tin roof pie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG. Only reference is a recipe and WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV for this ice cream cake. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:50, 28 July 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. czar 21:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osirica

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Osirica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire thing seems made up. For one it seems to claim that this "order" still exists and is operating since ancient times. ★Trekker (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC) The last deletion discussion is incredibly confusing as it seems to have resulted in a "Keep" without the votes actually making any sense (similar to the article itself).★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Egypt. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In some other languages, "osirica" can simply mean "things related to Osiris" (as it did in Latin), but in English it seems to only have this specialized meaning, the purported Egyptian proto-Masonic order found in some Afrocentrist fringe beliefs. There don't seem to be any reliable sources about it online. Most of the online uses of the term in that sense appear to be regurgitations of this Wikipedia article (which has languished in this direly underdeveloped state for nearly twenty years!). The article attributes the term to George G. M. James's book Stolen Legacy, but it doesn't seem to actually appear there. The only English-language results I can find in Google Books are in the works of Yosef Ben-Jochannan, who used it to refer to the Egyptian mystery schools that were originally posited by James, and in books that are later than and presumably downstream from Ben-Jochannan's. One could argue that this page should redirect to the article on Ben-Jochannan, but I'd prefer that it didn't. The word does have a meaning in other languages, and Ben-Jochannan's fringe theory shouldn't hold the patent on it. A. Parrot (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Literally no sources listed in the article... This [5] which doesn't seem a RS and some footnotes here [6]. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have mentioned, a quick search for academic sources offers little in the way of credible sources.
  • The verifiability of the sources that mention this subject have been widely called into question, so if the article remains, the content should change to highlight that this is a fringe theory (and reflected in a name change > Osirica (fringe theory))
  • Regardless of the verifiability of the subject, the lack of sources (and the lack of detail: off-cuff mentions are not significant enough) infer that this article does not meet standards on notability
  • What can be found on the wider internet mentioning the subject seems to be citogenesis/backwards copy, where instead of basing content on the existing published sources, Wikipedia has become somewhat the "authoritative voice" on this subject: [7] [8] [9], etc. Obviously, it's antithetical to what Wikipedia aims to achieve.
Neatly95 (talk) 12:42, 22 July 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 Guster discography#Extended plays. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTV2 Album Covers: Guster/Violent Femmes

[edit]
MTV2 Album Covers: Guster/Violent Femmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no claim to notability Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guster discography#Extended plays per nomination. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:56, 29 July 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.

Mike's Weather Page

[edit]

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎

Mike's Weather Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are either unreliable, taken out of context, primary, or just mere excerpts. Additionally, the article reeks of both oversourcing and undersourcing. OhHaiMark (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Weather Page is a respected and valuable source for online information on both U.S. weather and Atlantic tropical activity. Many private and public entities support Mike's efforts. There is no qualified basis for this Wikipedia article to be marked for deletion. 47.198.44.148 (talk) 12:00, 29 July 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 Midland Main Line upgrade. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellingborough Aggregates Terminal

[edit]
Wellingborough Aggregates Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable. PROD was removed on the basis that the electrification trial info should be merged, but I'm not sure what the target would be.... Coverage of the terminal seems limited to the trial. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:05, 28 July 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 Keep It Together (album). Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Meowstro Sings – Guster's Keep It Together

[edit]
The Meowstro Sings – Guster's Keep It Together (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the band is notable and their other albums are, I cannot find any sources to support the notability of this album. Could be merged into Keep It Together (album). Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Keep It Together (album). The AllMusic biography of the band could be used to source the added content. toweli (talk) 22:41, 28 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. There is no purpose served by prolonging this. I made an error in nominating this article (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Parrish

[edit]
Sydney Parrish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am struggling to understand how Parrish passes WP:NBASKETBALL. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Holmes has a Wikipedia page, why can't Sydney Parrish? She has won multiple awards and honors and received significant coverage. Coolelvin2 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 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 dog crossbreeds#Pugese. Consensus is unanimous and the creator (and only significant contributor) has agreed to redirect, so this is a G7 of sorts. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond (is Queen of Hearts's alt; talk) 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pugese

[edit]
Pugese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. The only reliable sources covering the crossbreed are focused on Peggy. An article on Peggy might be able to meet GNG but this crossbreed fails GNG and should be redirected to list of dog crossbreeds Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep (as article creator) - the breed is covered by several websites related to dogs and dog breeds. I think it has enough coverage to pass GNG. I have changed my vote to redirect. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those dog breed websites cited in the article aren't reliable sources.
    They also write the same low quality generic articles on every possible hybrid combination there is. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're websites about dog breeds, writing lots of articles about hybrid breeds is kinda the point, no? I'm not sure how they're unreliable or how the articles are generic/low-quality. They clearly aren't made using generic information, they contain specific facts such as litter size, height, weight, health risks, and other information that requires actual research or knowledge about the breed. For example, the wagwalking source contains information about possible eye colors, possible nose colors, coat variations, coat thickness, hair texture, major and minor health risks, brushes used for grooming, and way more information that can't be considered generic. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How are they reliable to begin with? They assert the same generic information for every dog breed that cannot be sourced anywhere actually reliable, or if it is it is just copied from Wikipedia. These websites plagiarise and bullshit so they appear in search results and advertise dog food or pet insurance.
    >they contain specific facts such as ...
    And how on earth do they have this information? These are novel crossbreeds so where is the reliable source for this information? How can something with absolutely 0 mentions in veterinary literature have accurate health information about it?
    The sites claim the pugese has a predisposition to granulomatous meningoencephalitis, but this is obviously information they've just copied from their article on the Pug into the pugese article without any basic fact checking. The mutation that causes encephalitis in the Pug is recessive and doesn't exist in the Chinese Crested, so a hybrid of those two would not be able to contract it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Di (they-them). - Sebbog13 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect now Di (they-them) has changed their mind, per the table. - Sebbog13 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of dog crossbreeds. There are a lot of crossbreeds covered by these breed sites, but none of the sources are particularly reliable or indicate this is a popular mix beyond that it exists. The wagwalking source is the only one with any substance, but reading closely it's entirely generic with copied phrases or generalities about the pug and the chinese crested that they presume apply to their cross rather than actual data. They have hundreds of such pages for mixes, including 33 for pug mixes, which does not establish notability whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fails GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. I checked Google Scholar and Google Books and couldn't find anything else. I'll also note that this crossbreed is not recognized by any of the kennel clubs listed on WP:DOGS/RS#Establishing notability which, along with GNG, is the standard for establishing notability for dog breeds and crossbreeds. C F A 💬 15:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://wagwalking.com/breed/pugese Yes No Promotional pet insurance company blog Yes ✘ No
https://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/chinese-crested-dog-mixes Yes No See WP:DOGS/RS No One paragraph of information in a list of many breeds ✘ No
https://thepugworld.com/pug-and-chinese-crested-mix/ Yes No Blog Yes ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0jqlz2j9wzo Yes Yes No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-64451742 Yes Yes No Trivial mention ✘ No
https://www.sidewalkdog.com/pugese/ Yes No User-generated blog Yes ✘ 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}}.
Alright, I concede. Seeing this table has convinced me to change my vote to redirect. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:00, 31 July 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyla Holas

[edit]
Kyla Holas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no SNG for softball, so the article subject needs to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Under that standard, there is not "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" that would indicate notability. Additionally, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. This also fails SPORTSBASIC because I could not find any non-primary sources mentioning the article subject. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 28 July 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. Procedurally closed as withdrawn, with no opposing views. Owen× ☎ 07:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi

[edit]
Sultan Sooud Al-Qassemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines, and there are no reliable, independent sources to verify its notability. Additionally, the article is written in a promotional tone.-- فيصل (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of Barjeel Art Foundation, MIT Media Lab Director’s Fellow from 2014 to 2016, practitioner-in-residence at the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies at New York University and Yale Greenberg World Fellow - visiting instructor at the Council of Middle East Studies at Yale University, the Center of Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, the American University of Paris, the Islamic Civilization and Societies program at Boston College, the Middle East Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, the School of Arts and Sciences at Brandeis University, the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, New York, and Bard College Berlin. Listed by Arabian Business as one of the world’s 100 Most Powerful Arabs.

Published works include Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud. “The Politics of Egyptian Fine Art: Giving a Voice to the People.” In Arab Politics Beyond the Uprisings: Experiments in an Era of Resurgent Authoritarianism, edited by Thanassis Cambanis and Michael Wahid Hanna, 240–268. New York: Century Foundation Press, 2017; “Toward Abstraction: The Case of Kuwait in the 1960s.” In Taking Shape: Abstraction from the Arab World, 1950s–1980s, edited by Suheyla Takesh and Lynn Gumpert, 107–115. Munich: Hirmer, 2020; Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud, and Todd Reisz, eds. Building Sharjah. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:14, 28 July 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 Pakistan Penal Code. Feel free to merge content to other articles. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common Intention and Common Object

[edit]
Common Intention and Common Object (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not treat the topic in an encyclopedic way, see WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, specifically WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Wikipedia is not meant to simply publish the text of a law without any context or, as seems to be the case here, a very flawed translation of a law from another language. The topic may be notable, but can only be treated in Wikipedia if enough secondary sources exist about the topic. The only source that was ever used to create this article was a blog and the reference has since been removed from the article. No secondary sources, no encyclopedic article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:48, 28 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anousone Xaypanya

[edit]
Anousone Xaypanya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT/GNG. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. Creator recreated this 3 times in mainspace, then de-proded, so taking it to AfD. C F A 💬 17:10, 28 July 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 Speedily deleted‎ as a hoax by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Air

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Easy Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG, possible hoax (founder & ceo return no results on Google at all) AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:09, 28 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Strong Enough (disambiguation)

[edit]
Not Strong Enough (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This most likely qualifies for WP:SPEEDY, per WP:ONEOTHER. A hatnote atop Not Strong Enough already states, "For song by Apocalyptica, see Not Strong Enough (Apocalyptica song)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Unnecessary at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 14:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 4 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gramos Incident

[edit]
Gramos Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources about this alleged military operation. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 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 deleted‎ autobiography in accordance with WP:G11. Creator is welcome to try again via WP:AFC and submit for review. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Super-fly

[edit]
Astro Super-fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer. Only sources are to Spotify, YouTube and some other music player. A search finds nothing to indicate importance. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:59, 28 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Valenti

[edit]
Greta Valenti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources presently used establish independent notability (either due to not saying much about Valenti, or not being RS, or not being independent), and I wasn't able to find significant coverage of Greta Valenti in reliable sources, only mentions. There also seems to be COI editing in the history of the article. toweli (talk) 15:51, 28 July 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. Solid consensus not to delete, though there are valid concerns about the current state of the article. No prejudice against continuing discussion on reshaping the article or content. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-dressing in film and television

[edit]
Cross-dressing in film and television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list article about an incredibly common trope in film and TV, and, though enormous, is wildly incomplete and biased in its coverage. I've been watching it for a while and it's not getting any better (it has had a citations needed tag for 13 years), plus there is a frequent problem with editors accidentally adding trans characters. I believe the current version fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTVTROPES, and MOS:TRIVIA, and if there were to be an article with this title connected to scholarly discussions of cross-dressing in media, it might be better to start over. BrightVamp (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, Fashion, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's not a good policy-based reason for deletion. The essay WP:NOTTVTROPES is an essay and as such may form the opinion of some users, but also, it more precisely argues how a good article may look like and so the current article could be edited through improvements to the article, not deletion, which centers more on notability and arguably, there is plenty of reliable sources that have discussed the portrayal of cross dressing or drag in film and television that does warrant encyclopedic discussion (such as negative stereotypes of some portrayals and the cultural implication and many other noteworthy things such an article can discuss). As such while even many of the examples in the essay are linked with "bad" and "good" - you can see all of those were improved through article editing, not deletion.
If you have editorial concerns, then you can be WP:BOLD and improve the article to contain more encyclopedic information in addition to the current lists about appearances.
Also, it seems that there is currently a split proposal for the article and an existing draft for the split that had some discussions - Draft talk:Cross-dressing in television#Overlap, list and title issues that you may want to join and help if you are passionate about the area. Raladic (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to Cross-dressing#Across media - A quick search shows that the actual topic of depictions of cross-dressing in media is potentially, and very likely, notable. However the nominator is correct this this list is a completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of poorly sourced, largely non-notable trivia, rather than any kind of genuine discussion on the topic based on reliable sources. Further work developing a proper article on the topic should be done at the appropriate section of the main Cross-dressing page, and then potentially spun out to a separate article if needed. The same should be done at Drag (entertainment)#Film and television (which never should have been combined into a single list to begin with), however given the specific title of this article, the redirect only makes sense to point to the Cross-dressing article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much support redirecting it, glad to see this topic is well covered in encyclopedic fashion in these two places, including an appropriate number of examples, making this article even more superfluous. BrightVamp (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ”Wildly incomplete” is not correlated at all with the notability of the topic. It is entirely appropriate to have this topic split out and has more than enough content to justify its own article. GraziePrego (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding in response to the point raised by Rorshacma- while there are content problems on this article that make it appear indiscriminate, the problem lies with the content that is there, not with the actual intent and topic of the article. It is entirely possible to rework this article into something that doesn't fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so it should be kept and worked on instead of deleted. GraziePrego (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yes, exactly, that was entirely my argument for Redirecting to the main Cross-dressing#Across media section and reworking it there before splitting it back out. It preserves the history of this list in the (very unlikely IMO) chance that any content here would be useful for doing that, while simultaneously keeping a list that badly fails the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy out of the main space of the encyclopedia. I am really not seeing a convincing argument as to why it would be preferable to leave this as-is while any kind of reworking is done. Rorshacma (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic which would overwhelm the Cross Dressing article if merged or expanded there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of the "Keep" votes are only commenting on the notability of the topic, but that was never a concern brought up in the nomination. The list being completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE was the policy cited in the nomination as the rationale for deletion - it would be helpful if that concern was addressed by those arguing to keep during this discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While some of the information of the article is a list, we do allow list of things if they are notable as WP:NLIST, that being said, the article isn't currently titled as a specific list article, but as the main topic of the occurrence of "Cross-dressing in film and television". So again, removing some information if it isn't useful can be done through editing, not AfD.
    The article and its title are clearly notable, so deletion isn't appropriate and WP:COPYEDITING can improve the article to add more information on the topic to it and potentially shorten some of the lists or move them to a separate standalone "List of cross-dressing in film and television" article, which as long as it satisfies the NLIST criteria can be fine and doesn't necessarily become indiscriminate. Raladic (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a lot of reliable sources cover the topic and individual entries are verifiable. So either as a list or a prose article, this meets requirements for notability and can be retained. Whether it should be split or renamed is another story. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 1 August 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 14:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Abinsk

[edit]
Battle of Abinsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The two references in the article are to Wixsite, a website maker hosting user-generated content. As it stands, the article violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. Frost 13:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any notable sources other than from mirrors of Wikipedia. May be a hoax, given the unexpected lack of mentions for what is supposed to be an important battle. 169.233.113.51 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 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 Wrong venue‎. This is a redirect, not an article and it should be discussed at WP:RFD. It also looks like the page was never tagged as being part of a deletion discussion which also makes it invalid. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

[edit]
Elongated tetragonal disphenoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article "elongated tetragonal disphenoid" once became the redirected article of gyrobifastigium, allegedly known as its dual polyhedron. No source ever mentioned it in either Google Books or Google Scholars, especially about its dual.

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:33, 28 July 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. The sources proffered in the discussion have not been refuted, reducing the subsequent delete votes to WP:JNN. Thereby the consensus by strength of argument is keep per GNG. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Programming Language

[edit]
Easy Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable programming language. The only sources are the language's official website, and I found no online sources in English or Chinese that establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not help that searching for easy programming language just brings up a list of languages that are "easy"
but yeah, google scholar search[17] also seems to indicate little to no interest in the language. The current article attracts little attention and is mostly a manual for hello world. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears chinese in origin. If an editor with experience in chinese programming language could help provide info, that would be nice.
There are some sourcing in the chinese wikipedia [18], but they suffer same problem as what nom suggests Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:Notability (software). This language is taught in middle schools across the country. However, a more thorough search for sources is needed. IntGrah (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search found these sources:
  • On the use of modules in the Easy Programming Language [19]
  • Usage and research on the Easy Programming Language [20]
  • A comparative study of Chinese and English visual programming [21]
  • I need this and so I solve it like this. Needs and tools for students and professionals of translation and interpreting in the face of the digital multilingual challenge [22]
However, they don't have open access. There are also many articles about the usage of the language, but I excluded them from here. It appears sufficient to conclude notability.
IntGrah (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, cannot find any sources to indicate notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgp28 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The sources found by IntGrah (talk · contribs)'s excellent research:
      1. Dong, Xiaolei 董小雷; Liu, Zhifang 刘志芳 (2007). "易语言中模块的使用研究" [Research on the use of modules in Easy Programming Language]. 唐山师范学院学报 [Journal of Tangshan Normal University] (in Chinese) (5): 95–97. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Zhangqiao Keyan 掌桥科研.

        The abstract notes: "就易语言中模块的功能与使用进行了深入研究,体现了易语言中易模块在程序设计中所起的重要作用."

        From Google Translate: "The function and use of modules in Easy Programming Language are studied in depth, which reflects the important role of Easy modules in Easy Programming Language in program design."

      2. Dong, Xiaolei 董小雷; Liu, Zhifang 刘志芳 (2007). "易语言的使用与研究" [The use and research of Yi language]. 唐山师范学院学报 [Journal of Tangshan Normal University] (in Chinese). No. 2. pp. 71–73. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Zhangqiao Keyan 掌桥科研.

        The abstract notes: "分别从运行占用资源、编码效率、程序运行速度与代码量等多个方面与其它编程语言进行了比较研究,从而体现出易语言编程的优点."

        From Google Translate: "A comparative study was conducted with other programming languages ​​from various aspects such as running resources, coding efficiency, program running speed and code amount, thus reflecting the advantages of Easy Programming Language."

      3. Huang, Jiacheng 黄嘉诚 (2022). "中英文可视化编程的对比研究" [A comparative study of Chinese and English visual programming]. 电大理工 [Science Engineering] (in Chinese) (2): 72–78. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Zhangqiao Keyan 掌桥科研.

        The abstract notes: "在易语言与VS2010开发环境上, 模块化等方面效率更高。"

        From Google Translate: "In the development environment of Easy Programming Language and VS2010, the differences and advantages and disadvantages of Chinese and English visual programming are studied by comparing different factors such as windows, variables, and codes. The results show that Chinese programming is relatively disadvantaged in terms of space and time efficiency, but is more efficient in terms of writability, organization, and modularity."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Easy Programming Language (Chinese: 易语言) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No wide coverage of the programming language. I also doubt it’s notability. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 13:11, 3 August 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. Nominator withdrawal their nomination. . (non-admin closure) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.O.D.S.

[edit]
G.O.D.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NBOOK and GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:28, 28 July 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 Elon Musk#Relationships and children. Most participants favored deleting or redirecting the article (primarily the latter), on the basis that while there is news coverage about her, it is entirely driven by her relationship with her father. The redirect arguments of DanielRigal ("She was dragged into the limelight") and Speederzzz ("the only famous thing she has done is be trans ... and criticize her dad") were typical and cited by some others. Regardless of whether the exact criteria of WP:BLP1E are satisfied, there is no obligation to have an article about someone who is in news coverage for a narrow reason; if appropriate, the dispute can be covered in the article about her father. RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Jenna Wilson

[edit]
Vivian Jenna Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unsure she is notable in her own right, she is only notable because of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
She’s had significant coverage of her own, particularly for criticizing her father. We have articles for things far less notable than that. Snokalok (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially concerned that she is only known for one event, but the available references cover a span of years. The WP:NOTINHERITED issue is spurious, since the notability claim is not based upon the mere fact of being related to a notable person. We don't delete biographies just because a person is less famous than the very famous person they're associated with. Keeping this article is fundamentally sensible for the same reason that we have articles on Sean Lennon, Moon Zappa, etc., etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean Lennon is a noted musician in his own right, and Moon Zappa was a TV actress and an MTV VJ, back when MTV actually had something to do with music. Did they each get a boost because of their more famous father? I would think so but they are both notable in their own regard, not the same thing as what we see here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria is very clear about this. "person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A ". The article only ever has relevance to drama with her father, and it makes more sense for this to be combined into Elon Musk. Vangaurden (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_children as long as the only famous thing she has done is be trans (not special) and criticize her dad. The only reasons sources even write about her every so often is if her dad repeats what he has said before. If someone keeps talking about one thing that happened in the past, does it invalidate WP:BLP1E? In the end her transition and the reaction to it can be classified as one event drawn out over 2 years.
I say this knowing people argue for WP:GNG, but I keep in mind:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article."
(Italics added for emphasis)
This article provides no information that would be valuable independent of the section on Elon's page, this is basically an expanded explanation of the second paragraph of Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_children. I think that if a page would not be worth reading without the context of another article, it should not be a standalone article and instead be part of the main article.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 15:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best argument for merging/redirecting yet, however there is the issue of the Musk article being 10,500 words, and therefore content should realistically be further divided or trimmed, rather than more content included into it. I also don't believe the section content in question justifies the added length and instead should be better summarised with the expanded version in this article instead per summary style of a relevant child article (in this case Wilson). Therefore I believe there is more of an argument for trimming the referenced section, with this article being a link at the top of the section for further info, rather than merging into. CNC (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that subsection on Elon Musk is getting ungainly. QRep2020 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that her article and what she and he have said in the larger "conversation" reduce to the subject of her transition. It's also about her childhood, his public recounts of events that she denies, her repudiations of his morbid characterization of the process of transitioning in general, etc. QRep2020 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the information about her youth (except for maybe the absent father part and her school) are about her gender and sexuality and her fathers reaction to it. Maybe it is because that is how I experience my transition, but I see those aspects as integral to transitioning. All of the other information are either random personal facts scraped from the internet (her study, how she was conceived) or her criticism of her dad. So while a bit brief, I don't feel like I unfairly characterized the article's content.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 18:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG as being the object of multiple examples of substantial published coverage in presumably reliably sources. We are not here to discuss each nomination subjectively as whether they should be in an encyclopedia, we are here to determine whether a given subject meets objective standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. This article does. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, which she cannot pass due to failing GNG. ——Serial Number 54129 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, failing that, Redirect. Speederzzz pretty eloquently puts the argument here, as does DanielRigal with regards to being sensitive to an individual. They are only the focus of attention because of her dad; that it keeps coming up doesn't make it less of a case of NOTINHERITED and BLP1E. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect for now per general WP:N. I'd be happy to rediscuss the page's inclusion in the future in the event that the subject evolves.
    — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 18:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is sufficient sourcing on her to pass GNG. Someone can be mainly notable due to their relationship with someone else. WP:NOTINHERITED means that being related to a notable person doesn't inherently give you notability, but it's not a prohibition on having pages for people who are mainly known due to their association with someone else, so long as there are sufficient sources to support an independent article. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk She is not notable in her own right. I would also support a delete of the article if it was the consensus. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Elon Musk, although perhaps Family of Elon Musk should be converted from a redirect-to-DAB to a prose-y list. Either way, as Speederzzz says, passing GNG is not a guarantee of an article, and this is particularly true for a living person whose notability arises from their association with another living person. Given the attention she's already received, Ms. Musk Wilson may well earn freestanding notability in the near future. But it is neither fair to her nor beneficial to our readers to have an article about a 20-year-old that is solely about her criticism of her father. The fact that multiple BLPvios persist in the article ({{not verified}}—a template that should never appear in a BLP—right in the lede; BLPNAME violations regarding her siblings; including dubious claims by Musk without immediate rebuttal) despite all of the attention coming from this AfD, should undercut any argument that maintaining this as a separate article does no harm. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An expanded Family of Elon Musk would be much better if necessary; redirecting someone's name to an article on someone they very much dislike feels wrong, even if not strictly against policy. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Musk family was deleted via AfD last month. Also the subject is Wilson, not "Ms. Musk". CNC (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She's still in his family biologically, even though she no longer goes by that last name. That page was also not particularly good, and I don't think that AfD consensus would be repeated should there be a better page created with biographical information on Vivian Wilson merged there, as well as more information on Elon's other non-notable family members (such as Errol). But again I support keeping this article; that option is secondary. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My second point was directed @Tamzin, not to your point re: "Ms. Musk". I'm otherwise not convinced we know what is "fair" to Wilson, given she agreed to an interview with NBC and seems happy to shitpost about her estranged father. I don't mean the initial criticisms and accusations, I'm referring to public shitposting before and after. CNC (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A list article about Elon Musk's family, serving as a sub-article split off from Musk's article, would be distinct from an article that treats the Musk family as a notable entity. And yes, my mistake of course regarding surname. Talking about Musk's family got it jumbled in my head. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. NOPAGE and BLP1E state even notable topics may be better covered in the context of a parent article rather than as a standalone. Everything in this bio is derived from her relationship with her father, not from any recognition she has gained in her own right. She is also not an "LGBT advocate" just by virtue of "being trans and talking about it"... JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at minimum redirect: Per the arguments above which I found best summarized by DanielRegal, Speederzzz, Tamzin, and JoelleJay. Wilson's sole claim to notability is her relation to her dad. FFS the article is as comprehensive as it can be considering the sources and all we can muster is 1) an early life section that has trivia and a single vaguely notable fact: she changed her surname to avoid association with her dad and 2) a section devoted to the fact her dad lied about her on a podcast and she tweeted calling him on it and his other behavior. This entire article could be 2 sentences: Musk has an estranged transgender daughter who transitioned at 16 years old and changed her surname to avoid association with him. He has publicly criticized her transition and blamed it on "neo-marxism", he appeared on a podcast in July 2024 with Jordan Peterson and made many statements she publicly criticized as untrue. Remove Musk and the non-notable fact she's trans and what's her claim to notability? At 18 years old she changed her surname to avoid association with her dad and at 20 he said things about her on a podcast which she said were bullshit on twitter...Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I'm inclined to support privacy for this individual. When a good chunk of the information in the article comes from an interview her father did it shows what she is actually notable for. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect to Musk - given the statements that Musk has made about her, redirecting her article to his is Just Wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk per others, and merge only the details about her reaction to the comments made by Musk. I would recommend that anyone interested in creating a 'Family of Elon Musk' article postpone it until this AfD has been resolved, as there may be additional debate on whether Wilson should be considered part of Musk's family. Svampesky (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Although the subject satisfies WP:GNG and does not fall under WP:NOTINHERITED ("Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship"), this article should still not be made for reasons of WP:BLP policy. First, Wilson arguably falls under WP:BLP1E, the "one event" in this case being repeatedly and publicly maligned by Elon in various high-profile venues since 2022. The fact of it being "repeated" may seem to imply that Wilson was obviously not involved in just "one" event, but, as Speederzzz argues above, the underlying event which is the source of all the later reactions and coverage is the mere fact of Wilson being queer and trans, which is not in itself significant. Second, Wilson is not a public figure. As the NBC interview with Wilson mentions, "Wilson has never granted an interview before and has largely stayed out of public view," but "she could no longer remain silent after [Elon's] comments Monday." In other words, Wilson felt forced to speak to the media, and otherwise has tried to keep a low profile. For this reason, there should not be an independent article about Wilson, on the basis of the presumption of privacy. Most of the important information about Wilson is already included in Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_children, so simply redirecting there should be a decent solution. Angegane (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk#Relationships and children. There have been several arguments to the effect that it "doesn't matter what her 'coverage' is about" as long as there's significant coverage. This is incorrect. The guideline is very clear that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." The secondary sources all discuss Vivian Jenna Wilson in the context of her relationship with Elon Musk, so it's most reasonable to cover this in the relevant section of that article. hinnk (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This person has given one press interview and made a series of social media posts that got a news spike, and only brief/passing mentions before that. Note that redirecting does not mean Wikipedia erases all traces of Wilson: her existence and views can be mentioned in other articles, as appropriate. There is no need to make a devoted stand-alone article to a person thus far known only for speaking out against her estranged father. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the points made above. I don’t accept the idea that we’re forced to have a standalone article for everyone who Elon Musk insults simply because they respond to the insults and the news media covers it. WP:N makes it clear that we have the editorial discretion to instead address it in Musk’s article or elsewhere, which in the case of a young person being in the news for her father’s comments (and her response) seems far more appropriate. A standalone BLP would, by necessity given the available sources, essentially reduce her life to this back-and-forth with Musk, which would do a disservice to both our readers and the article subject. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Elon Musk article. There's very little to write about her, frankly. She dislikes her father and criticizes him on social media. The rest of the article is puffed up with details on topics that don't make her notable (being trans and all the stuff about her early life isn't noteworthy). Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect no need for a standalone article per the points already made above. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . She had even been receiving significant coverage even before this, but she was choosing to be non-public person and thus it would have been inappropriate to have an article on her. Now that she is being quite public, it is time that there is an article, so long as it does not get too long and violate WP:DUE.
  • It is perfectly normal for family members of famous people, whose fame comes from their relation to or conflicts with a more famous relative, to have articles. What matters is their level of fame, not how they got it. Vivian has "a several paragraph article"'s worth of fame at present, and there's certainly more than enough content of interest to fill that. It's also worth noting that having this article allows for keeping the (already incredibly long) Elon Musk article shorter. So my vote is a strong support for keeping this article. -- Rei (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk: Fails notablity. Can be redirected to Elon Musk. Charliehdb (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The delete/redirect votes here aren't based in policy and instead seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please actually read WP:NOTINHERIT and you'll see that some of the delete votes citing it above are exactly what it is telling you to avoid in deletion discussions. Notability is not automatically inherited (e.g. if they don't meet GNG and their only claim is being related to someone), but anyone who meets the applicable notability guidelines is notable. End of story. It doesn't matter what the coverage is about or if it only exists because she is related to Musk. Is the first lady not notable because she has only received coverage for being the president's wife? In this case, Wilson obviously meets GNG and thus is notable (full story in the NYT, CNN, People, BBC, AP, etc.). C F A 💬 14:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the baseline criteria of WP:GNG is not a guarantee of a stand alone article: Per WP:GNG (a guideline, not a policy): "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. We are now having that in-depth discussion. Actual policy considerations include WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Should Baron Trump have his own article? All of Musk's other kids? Should the children of every celebrity whose names, birthdates, and interests been mentioned in reliable sources be automatically granted their own article? "X is the baby daughter of Y. She likes the color blue and singing songs." Wow, what a fascinating encyclopedia article! Before her public spat with daddy, Vivian Wilson was just one of several children of Musk. A pseudobiography attesting to her existence and repeating her spat can be best summarized in existing articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have the other kids been the subject of a scheduled interview by a major publication? Has Baron? She is a High-Profile person, albeit it happened quicker than usual because Musk set the ground work by speaking ill of her. QRep2020 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I'd maybe support a merge to Family of Elon Musk, but that was deleted last month. BLP1E does not apply here because in-depth coverage about her has been happening for more than two years. Here's a profile from the SCMP published in September 2022, here's one from June 2022, here's another one from June 2022, then she had the major interview last month. There is nothing wrong with an independent article in cases like this because it's what the reader wants. Readers don't know about all our strange wikilawyer arguments that happen in the background. They're just looking for a standard Wikipedia biography on the subject, and a separate page gives them that. C F A 💬 14:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is not BLP1E, and to prove this you show us different coverage of the same event some time ago. I do not consider 2 different instances of criticizing Elon Musk as two different events. That is the only notable thing about her (and her criticism is only notable because she is the child of Elon Musk).
If a reader is really that interested in the unimportant parts of her life they can read one of those articles you link. If readers are looking for a standard Wikipedia biography, they won't find it here. This page is simply some trivial information on her birth followed by a long list of her criticisms towards her dad.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 16:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLP1E certainly does not apply here. In order for BLP1E to apply, all three conditions listed have to be met. Regardless if you consider it one event or not, criteria #2 (The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual does not apply here. Please see WP:LOWPROFILE for an explanation: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. She has chosen to do a high-profile interview because she wanted to share her story/spread awareness/etc. She chose to seek the attention in the news over the past few weeks; the news didn't decide to cover it without her intervention. In fact, one of the listed criteria for being a "high-profile" individual and not meeting BLP1E is specifically this situation: High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well. C F A 💬 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. QRep2020 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, this is a classic case of WP:BLP1E, where the "event" is a protracted public dispute with her estranged father. The only significant coverage about her relates to that one event. She is not notable in her own right, any more than a hypothetical first spouse who was not notable before their spouse's election and kept a low public profile afterwards would be notable in their own right. I'd be inclined not to redirect to Elon's article, though as Elli notes there are no policy-based reasons not to do so, it just feels wrong given the circumstances. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per CNC and Gobonobo above, there is multiple sustained coverage about her for years about her transition, name change and estrangement, which passes WP:SIGCOV, so it's not just a 1-event case. Raladic (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk#Relationships and children. Nothing establishes that she is notable apart from who her father is. Many thousands of people criticize Musk every day, some of whom are possibly even Trans and/or have been interviewed once by a journalist. Transitioning and/or being interviewed once for criticizing Musk doesn't make someone notable and that's all we have apart from her relationship to him. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 14:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Can we please stop having endless discussions about the interpretation of policy, and let the closer decide what policy applies, and says, the closer will have to try and read all of this. ? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how deletion discussions work... The closer isn't supposed to close based on their interpretation of policy — that would be a supervote. They're supposed to interpret consensus, which involves discussion. C F A 💬 17:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a vote, arguments have to be policy based. And there is no point arguing someone is wrong, the close will look at what is said, and decide what is applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to a certain extent, it is a vote. Consensus is weighted discussion. You can't just say "stop discussing" when that's exactly the point of a deletion discussion. C F A 💬 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that someone is "wrong", only that interpretation of policy is inaccurate, which is a totally valid argument, as well as the usual basis of most deletion discussions in fact. I'm struggling to understand the issue here. CNC (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As referenced in this essay on deletion policy, refutation and counter-arguments are highly recommended in such discussions and should be strongly encouraged. As relevant, CFA's arguments aren't a repetition of previous arguments. CNC (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's also getting circular, the same points being argued over and over again, just like is happening now. If your argument is a good one, it does not need stateing 15 times, once will, be enough. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely not true. Nobody has refuted the augment of BLP1E based on the required conditions as well as LOWPROFILE. This counter-argument is not repetition when the refutation is completely different. CNC (talk) 17:37, 2 August 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, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Černák

[edit]
Filip Černák (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Černák seems to have never played at professional level and his career lasted 150 minutes in total. I found nothing better than Športky, which is a transfer rumor, but am not sure how reliable the source is. Searching for "Filip Černák" on Google come up with other men with the same name instead of this footballer, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 28 July 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, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Adika

[edit]
Jordan Adika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. All secondary sources coverage is trivial and mentions him in passing in relation to his co-creators. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:03, 28 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndelle Higginson

[edit]
Lyndelle Higginson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Fails WP:NCYC, WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 July 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 Singh Is Kinng#Track listing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Ore

[edit]
Teri Ore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like the coverage here is passing mentions in album reviews, interviews, listicles, and viral clips – I'm not seeing a clear WP:GNG or WP:NSONG pass here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 28 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 S.V. Notch season

[edit]
2024 S.V. Notch season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football team seasons in Suriname have never been seen as fulfilling WP:NSEASONS, but I guess this kind of article hasn't really been created before either, so I want a community discussion whether this fails WP:NSEASONS. I personally think this does fail that guideline. Furthermore, I don't see the need for article diffusion since S.V. Notch is a microstub and the Suriname Major League is short as well. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 28 July 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 M1 (Warsaw)#Depots. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STP Kabaty

[edit]
STP Kabaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG for p[laces explicitly says that they are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. Has not even one reference anywhere near GNG. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The polish wiki has significantly more info.... much of it unsourced. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacja_Techniczno-Postojowa_Kabaty
I assume there might be information in polish to help prove notability, but as I can't speak polish, and polish wiki has no useful citations to help, I'd vote delete unless folks can find them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't "sourcing issues" per se. The issue is that in order to establish wp:notability, a requirement to have a separate article, it needs GNG sources......a GNG source is an independent published source which covers the topic of the article in depth. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's all about the sources and those arguing to Keep this article have to demonstrate that RS exist to support claims in this article. A source review would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 21 July 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) 05:43, 28 July 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 delete per my note below ‎. Bishonen | tålk 06:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kefas Brand

[edit]
Kefas Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All significant coverage is heavily promotional and seems to come from unreliable and tabloid-like sources. I can't tell for sure that the sources are non-independent, but it is weird, for example, that five of the sources in the article mention the subject's forex trading and radio station. The draft was declined because the sources appeared to be marketing/PR, but it was moved into articlespace without addressing this concern. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:12, 28 July 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. Closing this as Delete as the Keep didn't present a strong argument and just repeated policy. Of course, you can work on a new version of this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Gazi

[edit]
Akin Gazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:
1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'
I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks.
Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:39, 28 July 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 Maharashtracha Favourite Kon?. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer

[edit]
MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. An award for playback singers issued by a TV channel. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:38, 28 July 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. Due to lack of multiple sources providing significant coverage. RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iași (1653)

[edit]
Battle of Iași (1653) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single publication by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret after wading through a bunch of machine-translated sites. I couldn't find any RS in English so I tried searching "Bătălia de la Popricani" for Romanian results as well. The ones that looked best were: [35] (not exactly SIGCOV though); [36] (Vice has no consensus in terms of reliability, and I'm not seeing any sources in the article that we could follow for more info). There might be something in [37] but I think someone fluent in Romanian would be needed to translate. And even assuming it's reliable and there's at least a few pages on the battle, that's two sources at best if we also accept the Vice article. There simply doesn't seem to be enough. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter if there is one or two sources what matters is its credibility I know the rules say more than one but if it is credible and recognised in the historical community such as books from Cambridge university then I don't understand removing article one. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of sigcov. Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions from more editors. This will probably not take a full week but please offer policy- and source-related arguments instead of "per X" ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify/Weak keep: The event is real and not spamy. But, there is no reliable resource that support the event over Internet. But, I think there could be hard copy materials in Libraries and maybe some interested individuals would bring them and include to the article so it is better to give editors chance to edit it. Instant History (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Yes, the event has been mentioned in multiple places, but there is no SIGCOV to establish notability of the battle. There are n number of battles but this is not something which is covered in detail anywhere. The sources aren't convincing enough to warrant a standalone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 4 August 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 delete‎. This article was speedied, CSD G11 by Deb. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgardo Defortuna

[edit]
Edgardo Defortuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Edgardo Defortuna

There are two problems with this biographical article about a Florida businessman. The first is that violates neutral point of view. The second is that it does not satisfy general notability.

The article reads as if it was written by the subject's real estate company, because it may have been written by the subject's company. The last two paragraphs, Philanthropy and Civic Involvement, and Honors and Awards, have no references. They were written to describe the subject as favorably as possible. The section on Family Matters and the Next Generation is also a puff piece, and is mostly about his wife rather than about him.

The references are not independent coverage, and mostly read like press releases. References 3 and 4 appear to be variations of the same press release.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.islandernews.com An interview in a Key Biscayne newspaper No Yes Yes No
2 www.forbes.com An article by a Forbes 'contributor'. These are considered unreliable. Maybe Yes No ?
3 therealdeal.com A profile that reads like a press release from the subject No Yes Maybe ?
4 commercialobserver.com Another profile that reads like a variation of the same press release No Yes Maybe ?
5 www.bizjournals.com An article for paid subscribers only. Assumed to be No. Yes Probably not. ?
6 mlmiamimag.com Another interview that appears to have been provided by the subject. No Yes Probably ?
7 therealdeal.com Another press release No Yes Probably ?
8 sfbwmag.com Another press release No Yes Probably ?
9 www.bizjournals.com A press release on acquisition by Christie's No Yes Yes ?
10 therealdeal.com Another press release No Yes Probably ?
11 sfbwmag.com An interview with the subject's wife No Not about the subject Probably ?
12 hauteliving.com Another interview with the subject's wife No Not about the subject Probably ?
13 www.culturedmag.com An interview by the subject's wife about a real estate project No Not about the subject Yes ?

This is not the first article about this businessman. A prior article in 2017 was deleted as G5 and G11. An article on 6 June 2024 was deleted as G11. A draft was created on 19 June, and this article was created on 25 July, by the same editor, and they are similar. This article and the draft may be toned-down versions of the spam piece; I have not seen the spam piece and do not want to see it. The Heymann criterion is to find three independent reliable secondary sources within seven days. Otherwise, the originator will be able to find real sources for the draft and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robert. This was super helpful. The article was edited to improve the neutral point of view and include reliable sources. I'd like to clarify that The Real Deal South Florida article on Edgardo Defortuna was an editorial feature and not a press release, but open to your feedback on how to rework. I also included more references in the Philanthropy and Civic Involvement, and Honors and Awards. I also removed the lines about his wife that were not relevant to Edgardo's article as a whole. Let me know if this is better and looking forward to additional feedback on how to improve this. Thank you again! Ashthetic (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G11. Most of the press is either paid for or pitched by PR puff pieces and definitely should be deleted for a GNG failure should my speedy nomination be declined. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:54, 30 July 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.

Café Hagen

[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

Non-notable small restaurant chain, fails WP:SIGCOV and generally WP:NCORP. I understand more could be added, but as it stands, the entire reception section is "Aimee Rizzo included the business in The Infatuation's 2023 list of Seattle's best cafes for getting work done." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link 1: Author "covers the food scene in the neighborhoods around Seattle." Local coverage of Seattle restaurant for Seattle audience. Weak at establishing notability.
  • Link 2: Contibutor to very local magazine. Not WP:RS, fails WP:AUD. With lines like "Beck knows it takes the right people to create a warm atmosphere and a future for the business", I doubt it passes WP:INDEPENDENT.
  • Link 3: Author self-identifies as marketer, unclear whether this piece was paid for. Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.
I do feel a lot of the subjects of articles you are writing about are not notable, which multiple editors ([1], [2]) have raised independently. I also think you do great work on Wikipedia, in particular, I think your writing style is very lucid. I am a vindictive person, but this is not an example of that.
I was referring to integrating the other "reviews" that are already in the article into the reception part, not that other sources are out there. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're trying to stir the pot, so I will not be commenting further. If editors want to delete this page, so be it, but please leave me alone. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — Has over 20 news sources, and the article has been expanded to include more information. Roasted (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think constitute WP:SIGCOV? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG. More than enough significant coverage:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/take-in-the-full-hygge-experience-at-south-lake-unions-cafe-hagen/ Yes Yes Listed on WP:NPPSG Yes Entire article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.king5.com/article/entertainment/television/programs/evening/scandinavian-cafe-seattle-cozy-hygge-hagen/281-f02a8719-a5ff-408f-a7fa-56e3ca6cb311 Yes Yes Local news Yes Entire article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://hoodline.com/2020/01/new-scandinavian-spot-cafe-hagen-debuts-in-the-cascade/ Yes Yes Local news Yes Entire article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://dailycoffeenews.com/2020/02/25/coffee-meets-hygge-at-danish-inspired-cafe-hagen-in-seattle/ Yes Yes Reputable subject-specific magazine Yes Entire article is about the subject ✔ Yes
https://www.thestranger.com/things-to-do/2019/12/13/42277170/a-hygge-scandinavian-cafe-and-more-seattle-food-news-you-can-use-december-13-2019-edition Yes Yes Local news ~ Section dedicated to the subject ~ Partial
https://issuu.com/specialpublications-ppc/docs/qam_11022022#google_vignette Yes Yes Local news Yes Front-page article is about the subject ✔ Yes
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}}.
This is not including most of the additional less-significant coverage, like sections in "best coffee shop" lists, for example. I suggest the nominator withdraw. C F A 💬 03:09, 29 July 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. but I don't have a lot of confidence in this article. And I don't understand the rationale "Keep per Hashid Khan" as that is the name of the nominator who was asking for this article to be deleted. it might warrant another visit to AFD in the future but right now, the nominator is accused of being a sockpuppet and there is no support for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jhain

[edit]
Battle of Jhain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. There is not any battle named as the "Battle of Jhain", the name of the battle is fabricated Hashid 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A battle happened in Jhain during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji. The book 'The History of India' mentions it. Medieval India, Volume 3 also talks about the campaign. Early Chauhān Dynasties also mentions it. Though it was not called as 'Battle of Jhain' by any historian so it could be renamed. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Changeworld1984 Battle of Jhain isn't any official battle, it was a minor conflict during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's Ranthambore campagin which turned out to be unsuccessful Hashid 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article passes WP:GNG and is well cited with reliable sources. Article suffers less from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and more from non-encyclopedic writing style, which isn't means for deletion. An example would be "Some sources say ..." John.mark1956 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 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! 03:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimadeva

[edit]
Bhimadeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MOS:DABMENTION requires "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". "Bhimadeva" is mentioned only in Bhima of Mahikavati, probably not a good target for a redirect. I suggest this page is deleted in order to enable uninhibited use of Search. A PROD was reverted by @Utcursch: with edit summary (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhimadeva+caulukya) without editing any targeted article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bhima I now, quite properly, also mentions "Bhimadeva". The stipulation in WP:DABMENTION gives as the rationale for its claimed requirement "since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". In this case the links obviously would help the reader so this is one of the occasional exceptions the MOS allows for. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language-barrier keep. "Bhima" is in the dabbed article names, and "dev" shows up in the article bodies. I am not familiar with that language, but there seems to be some grammar thing going on that makes this dab page worthwhile. – sgeureka t•c 14:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 28 July 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. To the nominator, please don't start a third AFD in 2024. Wait longer as the first two AFDs were closed this year as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Malviya

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Amit Malviya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, Till date he has not won any election, he is just the head of the IT cell of the ruling party, whose job is to spread fake news all day long. You can also read about his fake news here. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Probably doesn't meet NPOL, but he doesn't seem to be a politician... He also doesn't meet FILM, but he's not a film, so the nom seems incorrect. In addition to the sources from last time, this [38] and this [39] show coverage, more than enough to meet notability, GNG in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good catch. I wanted to !keep. Let me fix it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly meets GNG. It seems the nominator thought politicians must had to pass NPOL to establish notability, even if they pass GNG, which is incorrect. Notability will be established if any of the criteria are met. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:GNG Madeforall1 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many people who have numerous media sources writing about them but this doesn't makes them notable. The subject in this case seems to be affiliated to biggest political party of India and hence we can see good number of sources about them. However, most of them appears to be paid articles. I recall how one of my article Vikas Shakya was deleted despite having many sources. The reason sought was paid editorials being used as sources. Here, in this case, it is possible that we are witnessing same case. The person is clearly not fulfilling WP:NPOL as he has not been elected to even local level body and I doubt the sources used are free from bias.-Admantine123 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Admantine123, can you point out which articles are the paid ones, for the benefit of other editors? Or point out the ones that aren't paid, if that's easier. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Çomment WP:NPOL is *not* a guideline that can be failed, that is, if a subject does not satisfy the criteria it does not mean they are not notable for Wikipedia. NPOL is an inclusive measure, not exclusionary. NPOL sits separately from the GNG because it provides "presumed notability" - the idea being that a person elected to office is generally likely to have SIGCOV in reliable sources. FWIW, no comments to date have indicated why sourcing presently in the article does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 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 think a 3rd relisting will bring us any closure to a consensus decision so I'm closing this now. I feel more confident in this closure as there are experienced editors currently working on improving this article.

But if I might offer my own opinion, I don't recommend a Merge with Race and intelligence as that article includes no mention of Judaism and, as I stated below, one can not consider one branch of Judaism, "Ashkenazi Jewish", to be considered a "race". Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote Merge into IQ and race
Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.
I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:
  • Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
  • It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
  • Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case there is any confusion, I changed my vote to Delete discussing with folks below Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani is right. We need to stop WP:TNT like the past few AfDs, and address the issue head on that we should still avoid WP:PROFRINGE while still recognizing this is clearly notable, even if the sourcing is biased.
IDK if i wanna vote delete or keep at this point. Maybe this article still deserves to be WP:TNT, but we should try to get to an actual consensus that leads to a real article.
Maybe this should just be called Jewish Intelligence Theory or Jewish Intelligence Stereotype. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, agreed.
Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a vast body of literature that discusses the special role of jewry as a (proto-)object of racism; there also is a large body of research (Cochrane, Glad...) concerning purported (self-)selection trends in historical Jewish populations; there is also a vast body of literature concerning their psychometrics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, massive removals of text on the same day this AFD was opened[40] suggest either possible tag teaming or, at least, a problematic attitude on the part of Bluethricecreamman and Grayfell. (I will archive this page privately to document such practices in any case). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I guess I could have been less sassy. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), you'll see that this article has been nominated no less than 8 times under different page titles for deletion consideration and was always Kept until this last AFD. With such a track record of being Kept, I want there to be a very clear consensus on what should happen this time so that we are not back here for a 9th or 10th AFD discussion. It would help if participants reviewed past AFD discussions. I also question whether a Merge to Race and Intelligence is appropriate if this idea has been rejected on that article Talk page and, my own question, whether it is appropriate to consider one branch of Judaism to be a "race".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its hard to tell what the merits of the previous arguments were, as the deleted page from the past few nominations is unseen. Is there anyway to show more page history or something?
It also seems much of the commentary as the years pass on has been on the debunking of many of these studies from pop-culture tidbits of "wow science can explain race difference in a post-racial society" to "wow, can't believe we tried to believe we were post racial when we were publishing WP:FRINGE articles about how genetics prove the stereotypes about different racial groups" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tally results from previous AfDs.
1) [41] no consensus, basically equal deletes and keeps
2) [42] keep, the article is poorly written but has significant notability
3) [43] speedy close, the nominator gave no reason, so closer is probably right
4) [44] speedy close, nominator gave reason, closer just angry that nominator tries again?
5) Cannot find this? the numbering system gets weird, and an admin attempted to delete and salt this page to supposedly prevent further nominations? [[45]]
6) [46] Speedy keep, closed after 2 days? also weird, this is somehow both 6th nom of Ashkenazi intelligence and 1st nom of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence. notably, user who closed is blocked for 3 months from WP:ARBIPA topics due to editwarring, so I think the speedy keep might have been biased.
7) [[47]] Delete, tons of sock puppet activity to Keep.
all this means to say is this article obviously brings up significant tensions, and the AfDs for this page haven't always followed what seems like a clear protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps it would've been more definitive to use a clean slate for this instead of what I did for this nomination, but our time on Earth is limited, and rehashing this discussion didn't seem worthwhile. If anyone is coming here who doesn't know the history of this general topic on Wikipedia, maybe start with Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. The gist is that Wikipedia holds these articles to a high standard for a variety of reasons, based many years of history and tedious discussion. Sources need to be high-quality, and context needs to be provided, and right now this article fails to do that. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging. Here's what I see in the six previous discussions:
  • Two discussions were from 2007. Many comments focused on notability. I don't know how strong Wikipedia's RS and NPOV rules were back then. Their combined interpretation at WP:FRINGE was just reaching guideline-level consensus at the time.
  • The next three don't really count: they were speedy'd because the nominators didn't do their job of connecting their rationales to Wikipedia policies.
  • The last, in 2020, was closed as TNT only. It did not come to a conclusion about whether another article at the title could be acceptable.
There are many good comments in the previous discussions, but their closing results have limited bearing on the delete reasons we are discussing today. Jruderman (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Would it help to invite more editors to this discussion? I believe it would be considered nonpartisan to post at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, on Talk:Race and intelligence because we're continuing discussions from there, or on talk pages of not-yet-explicitly-ruled-out smerge targets: Gregory Cochran, Ashkenazi Jews, History of the race and intelligence controversy. Or on the talk pages of participants in the previous AfDs (perhaps just those who are extended-confirmed and still active). Jruderman (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you want.
I would strongly oppose merging to Cochran's article for multiple reasons, so if anyone wants to actually propose that we can discuss in more detail. Any other article would still have to summarize reliable, independent sources. Right now the article is mostly journalistic opinions, and some of these are fringe sources, as well. This seems undue for a topic as broad as Ashkenazi Jews. With better sources it would be easier to evaluate where to merge. With any merge, the goal isn't "how do we preserve this content" it's "how do we proportionately and neutrally summarize this topic?" Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existing section at Gregory Cochran could use some contextualization or rebuttal, but looking at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence again, I don't see anything worth moving to the Cochran article. Jruderman (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the slightly-better section at Henry Harpending regarding the same paper. Jruderman (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the same reasons given in Liz's comments at the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've sent info about the discussion to WP:FT/N
Of note, there has been no noticeable improvement to the article in the past two weeks, and much of it remains citations of fringe sources, and debunks/reactions of the fringe sourcing, which probably is still too much WP:PROFRINGE to be worth keeping. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fringe content cobbled together from inappropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because the topic has an extensive literature, barely scratched by the article itself. I see a lot of nervousness in these repeated attempts to erase a stub because it touches on a topic that is variously perceived as racist, as a put-down of an outgroup and a proud vaunting of the compared ingroup (Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending's paper became, in Steven Pinker's words, 'a target of harsh denunciation and morbid fascination.'), as too politically incorrect even to mention. The fact remains that:

The discussion is out there, and it has been held in the press, in synagogues, and before a sold-out audience at the Center for Jewish History in New York City’(Pinker 2005) Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20140-5 p.178

This is a 19th century myth, recycled because developments in genetics, and a number of provisory results, led to attempts to repackage it on empirical grounds, transforming a negative stereotype into a positive typecasting. So in terms of intellectual history it merits coverage; it terms of widespread diffusion it deserves a comprehensive, astringently neutral analysis per sources like Sander Gilman, our preeminent expert in this kind of argument (Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, University of Nebraska Press 1997 ISBN 978-0-803-27069-5)
So symptomatic fits of nervous nellydom are quite out of place, certainly in a deletion argument. A topic that has a large range of secondary sources, that has stirred scientific and public controversy; that is widely misinterpreted; marked by conceptual clumsiness by its promotors and anxieties by its critics, obviously requires an encyclopedic entry. What we have is pathetic (too much edit-warring, not very informed or competent, but there is a real opportunity here to make a very good article based on high quality sources. In such cases, deletion is sheer laziness, an invitation to relax in shiftless torpor rather than creatively rise to a challenge when the alternative is simply hard, focused work reconstructing it in terms of contemporary scholarly commentary.Nishidani (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good article about this topic maybe could be written, but the problem is that the current version is so fundamentally bad that it would require essentially rewriting from scratch, and the article would be subject to endless POV pushing that would ultimately degrade it to an unacceptable quality. I am also not finding any good sources on this topic other than the Gilman book. I think a section should probably be added to Stereotypes of Jews, which if warranted could be expanded into a full article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version that existed before it was hacked to pieces. What we are looking at is the article after it was bombed by excisions. Gilman's is not the only book. The whole 2005 controversy eventually generated a thesis about modernity in Norman Lebrecht, Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 ISBN 978-1-982-13422-8. The problem is that few wikipedians statistically appear to edit articles in extenso, but nearly every wikipedian is interested in talk page comments.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that Wikipedia editors have decided many of the available sources about Ashkenazi intelligence fail the requirements of WP:RS policy. That's why they keep being removed. Some examples from the time of the previous AFD are the edit summaries here and here. This way of understanding RS policy is one of the aspects of the topic that's been receiving media attention, most recently on Richard Dawkins' Twitter. And it's what will have to be addressed before there can be a well-sourced article about this topic. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that second source is apparently neoconservative biased as per the wikipedia entry. richard dawkins twitter is also not relevant for establishing reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article had previously been deleted before, and ive been curious about the sourcing of much of the previous version of the article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two options. A stub or poorly worked article can be removed/erased/expunged. When you do that, the topic itself as an encyclopedic entry disappears. No passing eyes will be tyempted to improve what isn't there. Or, one can look at the RS, ascertain if the topic is noteworthy (it is) and improve it. I've done this several times at AfD, and, in several hours, once the article is placed on a strong footing, the AfD is dropped. So the real issue is, is the topic noteworthy? (See below. It is). If so, then why make the article disappear rather than roll up one's sleeves and imprtove it. Just consistently removing stuff, and not replacing it with better sourcing, is bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following don't fail RS and deal with the issue, and reminding editors that an abundant literature on the topic exists will not change this negative vote, and therefore I, for one, anm not going to waste time over several hours to show how the article can be rapidly rewritten into a near GA articled (because it will be erased). I don't know how many were used in the past and erased, but anyone, anyone can see at a glance that the topic is very well documented in RS.
Apparently in deletion discussions, evidence (that this quick summary of easily googled sources) doesn't matter.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, going off what you suggested, the last AfD was advocating for WP:TNT. The deletionists did not advocate that the topic wasn’t notable.
I still have some questions about some of the sourcing or presenting this uncritically, but its def notable.
I will say, much of the secondary sourcing here is a part of that discredited 2005 study. I would much rather have an article discussing this topic as to a stereotype for a model minority than trying to do pseudoscience to promote racial science. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like more sourcing about the ethics of this science, the stereotypes effects, etc.
As we have a week’s time, I might try my hand at adding more to this article again. ty nishidani! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. It's true that google throws up a lot around the 2005 article, but, if the idea illustrated in one version by an article that fails to convince its peer community gets traction, we should cover it. If only in order to allow readers quick access to what the best scholarship says about it. I think on of wikipedia's function is to elbow out meme replication, i.e.,by eluciding per secondary sources what some controversial idea states, and its reception history. This, per several scholars, goes deeper than that 2005 study however, and Gilman is a superb source on its historical context - things like the envy, resentment and rancour felt by many at what was, in large effect, the implementation of a Protestant work ethic in a rising non-Christian minority of the population.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I remain completely open-minded about this issue. I wouldn't exclude a priori that there are populations which, statistically, appear to display a significant, on average, higher IQ (and that is a relative definition of intelligence: I recall reading in 1965 a study that suggested poets did poorly in them) than other contiguous groups. Some communities have a markedly higher longevity than their neighbours. In both cases, it does not mean that, Ashkenazi are all more intelligent by genetic endowment, or that Sardinians are all stocked with better longevity genes. In any such population dumb schmucks or those who die prematurely before the national average will abound. I don't believe one should feel intimidated or uneasy about any kind of high order research that appears to upset the applecart of our common democratic beliefs in equality, which is a legal ideal, not a biological reality.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishindani, I'm just checking back in on this discussion, and I see that you've provided some excellent sources. I would object to calling e.g. Charles Murray or Nicholas Wade reliable secondary sources on this topic, and from a quick glance some of the sources you list don't appear to discuss the topic directly, e.g. Norman Lebrecht's Genius & Anxiety, despite what one might surmise from the title. But other sources like Nadia Abu El Haj and Sander Gilman look good. Whether this should redound to a "Keep" or a redirect to Stereotypes of Jews as Hemiauchenia suggests, I'm not yet sure. I'll look into the sources some more before deciding whether and how to revise my !vote, but in any case I thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that that Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade are not RS on the topic of intelligence. I don't think the "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" is particularly reliable either, given the controversial associations of its authors. For a contentious topic like this we would really want to look to academic sources rather than to newspapers which tend to be less reliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not only is "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" primary, it's unambiguously WP:FRINGE per the established consensus on race and intelligence. We can still mention it in article space of course, but only to the degree that it's discussed in reliable WP:FRIND / WP:SECONDARY sources. Generalrelative (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edit a number of pages I think explain nutter hypotheses, e.g.Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, a few of us reedited that after doing the FA Shakespeare Authorship Question which outlines the near total academic orthodoxy, which was less familiar to readers than the bizarre literature that pullulated concerning alternative candidates.
My principle is, since these ideas, be they nutter, lunatic fringe, minor, or theories of some passing scientific curiosity since fallen into desuetude, for our readers it is important to provide comprehensive coverage, if only to ensure that global readers whgo google are not sucked into the crap universe. This is one of wiki's fundamental functions, and it should do it neutrally, without any intimidation, anxiety, reserve, or personal intrusions of one's private, or even well-founded (a disciplinary consensus) judgments on where the 'approximate truth' might lie. I don't think much of Nicholas Wade, for example, but his negative review of the Khazar hypothesis got major support from most editors, and I didn't object - he was part of the discourse at that time, even though his grasp of molecular biology, despite his degree, was mediocre. He, like Murray, has a wikibio, and has a certain prominence in public discussions of these matters, so applying highbar RS, something rarely done, that excludes anyone but the foremost experts in a particular subject, is dangerous, because we miss coverage that has influence on public perceptions. This is not a 'science' article where only cutting edge experts get a say. It is an article that covers the claims to the possible existence of ethnic differentials in intelligence made by people who have qualifications in the area, though their views are not mainstream, but also of the way this controversy was taken up by the broad mainstream outlets (ergo impacting public memory and opinions). That is why such figures are acceptable, just as in scholarly terms, incompetents like William Farina and Mark Anderson were used as sources on the Oxford Shakespeare page, also because they have or had a public profile. This is not just about what science says of the scientific status of a dubious theory, but about how it arose, who promote(s)d it, what its (a) scientific reception and (b) public impact was/has been. The truth/science plays very little part of public discourse which battens on memes and dumbdowned ideas. So it is of fundamental importance that we address not only the science of the world, but the vast extent of the confusions in the public sphere which occlude our clear perception of what the cusp of learning might say. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this at all, so long as we observe the WP:FRINGE guideline. In the case of Wade for instance, it will be important to remember that e.g.:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.

Generalrelative (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clear up some confusion here.
  • (a) the article deals with some results, reliably published in the relevant scientific journals, that suggested on average Ashkenazi had a higher IQ than comparable groups in their societies.
  • (b) Some spun this as proof of a racial difference
  • (c) Some said the observed differences could be explained by specific cultural factors, etc.
Are editors here contending that the scientific data in (a) are incorrect, or the result of skewed methods or that the data constitute fringe facts, whatever they are, that (b) can be shown to exist ergo the topic (a,b,c) should be ignored as fringe or (c) we can ignore (b) because there is an alternative explanation, culture, that accounts for the apparently ascertained statistical results of a number of surveys in (a). My impression is that almost all comments here are focused on (b) and ignoring the status (in the academic literature) of (a) and (c). If so, the article will be deleted, and we shall never have a wiki article on (a) and (b) and (c), simply because of a failure to distinguish the elements in a complex narrative.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. And honestly, thanks for your patience in laying it out. I have to get back to work but will strike my !vote for now. I need to look into the literature quite a bit more before I can fully engage with you on the substance of the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That it a very empirical approach to these problematical articles, and deeply appreciated (whatever your eventual vote may be). Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, especially on something as politically charged and with such a historical pseudoscientific record as race and intelligence.
A fairly ridiculous amount of “scientific literature” from the 1800s and early 1900s has promoted eugenics, and equally presenting discredited theories and current scientific consensus goes against the principles of WP:DUE. If public discourse goes off a cliff, and sourcing starts to do Alternate facts, we should be able to debate and reason on here which sourcing is WP:rsp and which are based on bunk. We should not freely present bunk without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern is entirely reasonable, but this is precisely why we have the WP:FRINGE guideline. So long as we stick to it, we will avoid the pitfalls you describe. Generalrelative (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remain skeptical of science being used to advocate for stereotypes, for good reason as well. like generalRelative states, there are charlatans in this field who have polluted a lot with poorly done science to advocate for stereotypes, and extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof before we present too much of it without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bluethricecreamman, please absolutely stop these kinds of general appeals from now on; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is very clear about this.
We must work with reliable scholarly literature of all kinds.
In fact, you may want to strike(through) these two comments above! Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no. see Sagan standard but primary research requires vetting by the scientific consensus. and even if some pop sci folks publish that ivermectin is the next cure for covid or that vitamin c does cure cancer, we should beware.
didnt see generalrelatibe but they’re right about following wp:fringe Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE. The occurrence of several earlier deletion discussions should encourage advocates of "keep" to work hard to get the article in good shape -- unless the article is hopeless. The fact that this hasn't been done means that it's time to delete it. NightHeron (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been allowed to get 'into good shape' because of relentless excisions. Anyone could put the article 'in good shape' were the deletionist impetus less relentless so that it could be improved.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any experienced wikipedian can predict just from the title that the article is probably in a parlous state. But the topic is notable, so it deserves an article and we should persevere. Zerotalk 08:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but requires an outrageous amount of work. It’s a notable and rather interesting historical topic which should have it’s own article, but for that to be viable, someone would have to properly work through the academic sources. FortunateSons (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Race and intelligence. There's no need to keep it out unless / until that article gets too long, and if / when that happens, we can split it again. The people already working on Race and intelligence are also the people most likely to be able to improve this one. FourPi (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably an interesting article that could be written about the topic of "Jewish intelligence" as a stereotype and its history going back to the 19th century, based on the works of Sander Gilman, but the current article is so, so bad that I really can't be compelled to vote keep. I would be okay with Draftifying the article to completely rework it to be based on the work of Gilman. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Selectively merge with Stereotypes of Jews. My nomination and this !vote are not based on notability in broad terms, this involves specific issues with this topic and its current and potential sources. This nomination was based on WP:TNT and WP:FRINGE issues, and the above discussion has not resolved those issues in my opinion. Any merge with Race and intelligence should first have consensus at that article's talk page, and it's going to require a lot of work before that happens. We would have to figure out what, exactly, we're merging, in other words. A draft would potentially help with that.
There are many potential sources for this topic. I've looked at plenty of those sources, including some of the new ones proposed above. Some of them are reliable in some contexts, and some are not reliable at all. The Cochran etc. source is about race, genetics, and IQ. Cultural factors are discussed in simplistic terms as background for theories on Jewish genetic drift. Cochran etc. categorized this form of intelligence as a genetic trait specific to a subgroup of a Jews, who are treated by the authors as biologically separate from other populations -that's the point. There is a LOT to unpack here, but again, all of this has already been unpacked on Wikipedia talk pages more times than anyone can count. To quote Sander Gilman: "Take Home Message: Don't confuse racial categories with scientific ones. Don't assume that making 'positive' comments about a group is necessarily a good thing."(PMID 22013349) If the article is going to be about Cochran etc. than it should be rewritten from scratch to be about this paper, including context (such as Henry Harpending#Racial views). If this topic isn't just about Cochran etc., than it's about "Jewish smartness". That reduces this to either trivia or to a stereotype, and both of those are a better explained and contextualized elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT again and or Merge with Stereotypes of Jews. Maybe draftify it and let a motivated editor take their best shot. Think it probably is WP:N, especially with the amount of pop science buzz race and intelligence gets, but Grayfell is also right that current version is from Cochran and other indelibly flawed sources. This is a hornets nest of a topic and I'm happy to editwar on other things in the meantime haha, but there is a significant amount of work to get this into shape Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave it another shot, but this is not my expertise area. I'm gonna notify folks from Race and intelligence to take a look if they want too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your effort! By now it seems clear that we should keep and continue to improve; TNT does not apply here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article still needs a lot of work, but it's no longer the embarrassment to Wikipedia that it was when the AFD had recently been opened. I'm optimistic that Nishidani will eventually improve it further, and the topic is clearly notable, so there no longer is any reason to delete it. By the way, I'm the person who commented above, [48] not a random IP user who showed up only to vote here. 84.212.187.87 (talk) 08:56, 3 August 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 Independent (song). Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Phat

[edit]
Lil Phat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When your biggest claim to fame is a single guest appearance on a more notable rapper's (Webbie) single and the only coverage is of your death, it's a pretty clear instance of WP:NMUSICBIO. Redirect supported if not outright deletion. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 00:41, 28 July 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian representatives at international male beauty pageants

[edit]
List of Malaysian representatives at international male beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable sources as a group to meet the WP:NLIST and as it stands this is WP:SYNTH. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 28 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_28&oldid=1238970209"