Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 21: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FMUATW}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hetty Shi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hetty Shi}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Backup Z64}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Backup Z64}}

Revision as of 11:31, 21 January 2024

< January 20 January 22 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FMUATW

FMUATW (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)

Can't find multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of this song to demonstrate this song meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The only source I can find that isn't a trivial mention of the song is this article which is less than 1000 characters long. Would recommend a redirect to Brooke Candy discography. pinktoebeans (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not delete it! There will be more articles coming out very soon since her album is getting released this year and she usually does interviews and track-by-track breakdowns of each song leading up to the release date. If sources are the problem, I will update it as more come out! BiggestBidder (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't help with establishing notability as they are not independent of the artist, and as the song has already been released as a single, I am unsure as to whether there will be any more sources about the song itself when the album is released. Notability is based on current sources and attention, not ones that may or may not exist in the future. pinktoebeans (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The song was released 6months ago; I'm not sure what else can be added. If it hasn't been covered since before the launch, I don't expect to find much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: The most-cited source in the article is the non-trivial one mentioned above, which the article makes good usage of, even while the article is short. BiggestBidder (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. People who care can create a redirect on their own, but we don't have clear consensus for one here. Sandstein 12:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hetty Shi

Hetty Shi (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:NSKATE: has neither won a medal at a senior international event nor the gold medal at Canada’s national championships. Placements at novice & junior competitions do not count. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Backup Z64

Mr. Backup Z64 (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, though it isn't an area I have a lot of knowledge in. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, and I couldn't find a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Algeria–Morocco relations. Star Mississippi 22:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saidia incident

2023 Saidia 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)

Although this article is well sourced and there was some international coverage of the events described, I am not sure that the coverage is sustained enough or the events significant enough to make the topic notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems well sourced and sufficient to meet notability criteria. Greenman (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a sustainable controversy regarding Algeria refusing to send back Abdelali Mchiouer's body: 1 2 3 4
Ismaïl Snabi's still in prison: 1 2 NAADAAN (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Worldwide coverage as NADAAN explained Riad Salih (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- On current showing, I'd have to lean toward deletion based on WP:NEVENT and WP:NCRIME. All of the sources currently cited are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. To by valid for mainspace, there need to be secondary sources that analyse the event in WP:DEPTH or show lasting WP:EFFECTS. It also appears that the coverage is specific to the timeframe of the original incident, which would fail WP:PERSISTENCE. I am not ready to !vote until I see if anyone can resolve those issues with sources that are not accessible to me due to language barriers. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly thank you that sounds very sensible. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support a merge to Algeria–Morocco relations as well. My only concern is that we should be looking for secondary sources there as well, and I still can't find any for this event. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, leaning towards a merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge if secondary sourcing can be found to support balanced addition to the target page.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sword Art Online characters. History remains under the redirect to enact the merge, if desired Star Mississippi 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinon (Sword Art Online)

Sinon (Sword Art Online) (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)

As indicated at first nomination, it already proves that the character is not notable. Since then, the article was still not improved and has no commentary about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings. Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying "that it just exist". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Murderdolls which preserves the history in the event sourcing is IDed Star Mississippi 22:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Griffin

Eric Griffin (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)

Ineligible for WP:PROD. Redirection has been contested by an IP address. As far as I can tell no WP:CSD criteria apply. So, article has 1 reference which is primary by nature of it being an interview and the link is dead. Looking for sourcing for a WP:BEFORE is a nightmare due to the name being shared with Eric Griffin (boxer). Narrowing results nets me nothing. I've tried regular Google, Google news, news archive, and the Wikipedia Library - all without success. As such Eric Griffin inherently fails WP:GNG. —Sirdog (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, i actually think this guy is somewhat notable --FMSky (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello FMSky, so you are basing your vote on "I think"? Would you please provide sources. dxneo (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hes probably notable per WP:BAND for having having been a "musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" -- FMSky (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FMSky, which WP:MUSICBIO are you talking about cause it says "Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources...", RS illustrating SIGCOV to satisfy GNG must still be provided regardless. dxneo (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Murderdolls: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. I see nothing properly sourced for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Transactions per second. Sandstein 20:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query throughput

Query throughput (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Construction surveying. Star Mississippi 22:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey stakes

Survey stakes (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Services Volunteer Corps

Financial Services Volunteer Corps (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Kansas

Martin, Kansas (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)

Another short-lived not-a-town post office. Mangoe (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with redirecting to the township when it has the same name, but I don't see the point here. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
references
  • Gannett, Henry (1898). A Gazetteer of Kansas. Bulletin. Vol. 154. United States Geological Survey. OL 20596112M.
  • Merge it or delete It's a post office, the local paper for this county goes back to around 1840 at least. There are no mentions of a settlement called Martin. There is a post office called martin along the Saline river. People used it as a stopover between destinations. Purportedly, postmaster Delay's wife was a good cook, and would serve a good meal to those laying over there. There isn't really any one article that tells the story though. You just kind of have read them all. Every mention of this place is of the post office, The most illustrative example being this one. https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-county-news-republican-drowned/139266707/. Sorry to bum you guys out.James.folsom (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. At this point we have the Kansas Historical Society now, the contemporary Kansas State Board of Agriculture back in the 19th century, and your newspaper clippings, calling this a post office; and only Gannett in 1898 saying that it is a "hamlet", which isn't that great a claim in any event. And on the gripping hand, nothing much to say about it in either form. Especially if we subtract the generic all-Kansas-articles infobox and further reading, and unverifiable ghost town with zero population claim. Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've copied over a couple sentences about the post office at Martin to the Buckeye Township article. People who are really interested in the history of this part of rural Kansas can find it there. No reason for this obscure rural post office to have its own article.Jbt89 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ellis County, Kansas. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Back, Kansas

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

  • Keep I'm sorry but I can't even imagine what you're talking about. There are three sources, all of which say it is or was a town. Even if it wasn't, deletion isn't remotely necessary or appropriate, and you could have proposed a redirect to Yocemento, Kansas or Ellis County, Kansas. Either way, you've blown past the existing sources and past the extensive plans detailed by the illustrious expert editor IveGoneAway on the Talk page. Anyway, this is not what AfD is for. @IveGoneAway: Hi. — Smuckola(talk) 06:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yocemento, Kansas. This was the name of the old railroad siding in Yocemento and retained that name when the railroad moved the siding three miles west. Reference (1) says as much, reference (2) says the former Hog Back is now called Yocimento, and reference (3) is just the name of the siding shown on a map. Content of article (including additions planned on the talk page) can, and should, be merged into the article on Yocemento. Jbt89 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having a great deal of trouble with this, as it seems to me that all these claims about moving the siding are based on original research in examining old maps, and it does not seem to me that those maps are inconsistent with the Hog Back siding never having moved, and Yocimento having been put in later some three miles east. The first map in particular does nothing to resolve the matter, as it places the siding at a spot midway between the two modern sidings; but it is also, shall I say it, a bit vague, and the other map is even more so. The other thing is that, however long Hog Back may have been the original name of the Yocimento siding, it wasn't so very long, and they have been two distinct places for well over a century. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I might have it backwards - the siding may have remained unchanged while the town of Yocemento grew up just east of it. Still, shared history and geographic proximity makes Hog Back a feature of Yocemento rather than an independent place IMO, and there are plenty of sources stating as much. Note that this edition of the National Gazetteer lists the map location for Hog Back Station (historical) as Yocemento on page KS125.

        Reference (2) in the article appears to originate from page 480 of the Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society [6], where it states that Hog Back is "now Yocemento." Jbt89 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • That National Gazetteer is merely a paper printout of the GNIS from the 1980s, note.

          In 1906, I. M. Yost and Professor Erasmus Haworth met in Hays and decided to build a cement plant at the hogback.

          — Cable, Ted T.; Maley, Wayne (2017). Driving across Kansas: A Guide to I-70. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700624140., p.85
          Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mangoe : Sorry, if the statement of seems OR, and given the curious citation, I don't blame you. I would have to relocate the newspaper article that mentions the siding relocation corresponding to the platting of Yocemento, which is the actual needed citation. From Beneke, we see the original siding was located west of the future quarry site, while the cement plant was built further east. When Haworth bought out the location and had a new siding installed less than a mile east, the redundant spur siding was moved or demolished and the name was reused on the other passing siding. Certainly by 1923 there was justification for the passing siding (removed in the 1980s at the earliest). IveGoneAway (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbt89 and Mangoe. Per the sole reliable source in the article this is Yocemento, Kansas and these are duplicate articles. Most of the article is copy-and-paste boilerplate that is in numerous Kansas articles, including the merger target. There are 2 sentences of potential merger content here. The first sentence is outright false, as it falsely claims this railroad siding to be a town. That leaves the second sentence, which is already discussed in the merger target at far greater length. There is actually zero merger to do, and a redirect suffices. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This newspaper clipping sheds the most light on the matter. https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-hogback-a-town/139276060/ I have skimmed most of the prior mentions of Hogback prior to this point in time. Bear in mind you need to read other material to get fullest feel for the story. But, Essentially before there was Hogback siding/switch there was Hogback ridge. The rail switch was built near there and the area seems to have been known as Hogback. There were ranches there when the switch was built and the local paper published news for Hogback. In 1887 the area was described in the above article as basically nowhere. The article is essentially declaring that investors are going to build a town called Nichty at the site of the switch. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that the town of Nichty was actually built, so this site should be where Nichty was. Which is pretty definitive that there was no town called Hogback there. I also read that there is ridge pass at Hogback ridge, so you can likely imagine why it's called hogback. The train probably passes through the pass there. The pass probably makes a good place settle too. James.folsom (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The background is correct. I think I can lay hands on the plat, but the town was never built. The Nichty plat was a historic hoax, like the gold rush a few miles south on the Smoky Hill River. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is not Yocemento, but a distinct location roughly halfway between Yocemento and Ellis.
    • Yes, the siding at present Yocemento was originally named Hogback but the name was later given to this location.
    • Present Hogback is not as notable as Yocemento, but has some notability.
      • While there was no platted town, newspapers record that the community did have an identity with social events under that name.
      • The first settler there was Erasmus Disney, Walt Disney's grandfather. Walt's father left there to start his family in Florida. The land is still under the Disney name.
      • The passenger station in Ellis never had a passing track, so as long as the Portland Rose section met twice daily at Ellis, the Westbound section had to stop at Hogback if the Eastbound beat it to Ellis.
      • Famous Kansas Marshal Nealy captured Coxey's Army of Commonwealers hijacked train at the Hogback siding. Hogback Becomes Known to the World. About ten years before the relocation of the name, so this would have been the earlier siding of Beneke's picture.
      • Because of the namesake geology, the name became a synonym for "poor farmland" in Ellis County.
      • A provisional plat for Hogback was created by conmen pushing a coal hoax. There is Dakota Formation coal there, but too deep, too thin, and too poor quality to mine. Actually, this, too, was at the present Yocemento site; not at the later Hogback Siding.
    • There was a Granary there as a matter of record.
      • (OR, I have found the building site. Not that it matters, I have found Valentine Sandstone gravel there as the pavement or concrete aggregate at one time.)
  • I started a DYN improvement to the page, look here for the citations of the above, but I ran out of WP time for a while.
IveGoneAway (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KSHS has a non-free image of the 1950's Hogback telegraph shack with present landmark shelter belt in the background. I'll get the link, later. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UP Shed Depot at the later Hogback passing siding, 1954, Kansas Memory, KSHS. This is the site marked on the maps halfway between Yocemento and Ellis. Natually, this siding was removed later but was there through the 70s. The homestead in the background is still there, but the barn on the left recently blew down. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Back Siding, 1922 The Thomas Disney (Walt's Uncle) homestead is marked next to the 18, coresponding to the previous picture. The school is where the community meetings were held. Note the separation from Yocemento and Ellis. Note also that the Yocemento Quarry site is now owned by the Boettcher cement syndicate of Denver, about the year they stripped the cemement plant. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading the the newspaper makes it clear there is nothing here in terms of Hogback. Prior to the building of Nichty, the place is described as not inhabited by the paper. The news for hogback reported in the paper are nothing more than the news reported from the general area hog back ridge. Worse yet, whoever was sending in the news seems to have continued to refer to the area as hogback after Nichty was built. I know that Nichty existed but haven't learned much about beyond it had a school and teacher. I don't really think any of the stuff Ivegoneaway brings up makes this article notable. Articles about that stuff should mention this place, but we don't need a separate article for this this switch and or hog back ridge. The notability policies would require either the switch or the ridge to meet WP:N which they don't. Now articles on the subjects brought up previously should mention this place, but not the other way aroundJames.folsom (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nichty never existed except as a plat map as part of the coal hoax. The hoax did not involve Yocemento. The idioms show that at the time, the community had notoriety to Hays folk. I think to get to the article about the hoax, I think I'll have to recover an account with Forsyth Library. That will have to wait for the weekend. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not defending the present article, I would just like to fix and finish it someday. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one mention of the Nichty school district that I saw. I'll look, tonight. James.folsom (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James.folsom : If you find evidence of Nichty, that would be something! Don't think school districts would have been a thing there. The 1922 map shows a school a half mile north of Hogback Siding. I would have expect it to have been called the Hogback school, but who knows.
So, yeah, notabilty is down to the Disneys and the Portland Rose. Not much for city slickers. Dad would point out the Disney farms when we drove by the Hogback Siding in section 18. Farmers on the other side of the ridge could tell when the Portland Rose had to take the siding.
The Coal Hoax and the Commonwealers will be good additions to Yocemento, Kansas, someday.
But if you redirect this, it should really be redirected to Ellis, Kansas since the later siding had only a recycled name connection to Yocemento, while it was Ellis that laid claim to the Disney's fame (there was the Disney gas station), and the Hogback Siding was integral to the rail passenger service of Ellis.
IveGoneAway (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Ellis or Yocememto is probably the best outcome, IMO. Living memory of Hogback Siding as a distinct place separate from Yocemento is dieing off, and these persons count as Primary unreliable sources anyway. There are reasons for both settlement articles to mention the location. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a blurb in the paper mentioning the nichty school district and the teacher. The town was supposed to be named after a popular politician, so maybe they just named the school after him instead? I'll post it hopefully today. James.folsom (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-nichty/139558596/ James.folsom (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nichty was not a politician AFAIK, as far as an 1880s railroad-employed land commissioner might be concidered non-political. It is interesting that this makes it seem that railroad man Nichty was in on the coal swindle like J. P. Huntington was in on the Smoky Hill City gold swindle a few miles south.
I remember driving by the school that we see marked half a mile north of Hogback Siding, site. It was important enough to have been rebuilt as a concrete structure by my time. I'll have to look through the maps tomorrow to see if there is any sign of an 1880s school at the Yocemento site.
Well-loved is a curious adjective for a railroad agent especially since the Hogback lots were the last blank spaces on his 1880s sales map.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, independent RS (Kansas Geological Survey) that Hogback is a location name between Yocemento [mile 153.0] and Ellis [mile 145.6]; At Interstate 70 Mile Marker 150.0: "A mile south of the highway is a railroad siding named Hogback, which probably got its name from a sharp bluff formed by an outcrop of Fort Hays Limestone along the Big Creek valley. [The source goes on to disambiguate this location from structurally similar Mount Oread.][1] This mention suggests that the siding was in place into the late 1980s after which the entire Kansas Pacific line was completely rebuilt and such many short sidings replaced by fewer mile-line unit train passing sidings.
The Kansas Geologial Survey has maintained the location name on its published geological maps. Geologically, the location is interesting because of the unstable, humucky Blue Hills Shale slump block terrane particular featured between Ellis and Yocemento [yes, a citation is needed for that].
IveGoneAway (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1887 Official State Atlas of Kansas places Hog Back Station just west of the future Yocemento site in Section 21,[2] corresponding with the placement of Benecke's camera in 1873. This compares with the later Section 18 Hog Back Siding miles west in the 1922 atlas cited multiple times above.
IveGoneAway (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published by the Ellis County Historical Society, At Home in Ellis County, 1991, mentions Hog Back Station (1887 atlas), Hog Back Siding (1922 Atlas), and Nitchy Townsite. The section cites the plat submitted for Nitchy in 1887 (the town was never built).
Included with the Hog Back Station section is a picture of the Luce Granary at the Section 18 Hog Back Siding. The presence of the Model T dates the picture after the 1922 atlas.[3]
The same source also associates Walt Disney with his ancestor's settlement in this township, including his uncle Thomas Disney as justice of the peace. Hogback and Yocemento are listed distinctly, "Included in its boundaries were Hogback and Yocemento..." (cf, 1922 atlas) (pages 51, 54, 67-67)
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A New York Times article mentions Kepple Disney's 1877 purchase of a section on the railroad east of Ellis.
The Wichita Beacon, 1953, Hog Back's a Town Named by Kansans states, perhaps whimsically, "Hog Back exists a an actual town, by the way." The location appeared on highway maps, maybe only because of the obvious railroad sign that stood out at the location.
A "Hog-Back Sympathy Orchestra" performed at the 1923 Fort Hays Normal School Anniversary Day celebration. (also in this 1923 article )
This 1901 article associates the name "Nichey" with the original "Hog back switch", again saying that nothing ever came from the coal mine play. Interesting that a resort is mention; in 1977 I was given a tour of the ranch on the south of that original switch site and the rancher pointed to a pile of limestone and said it was a resort.
"Mrs. Thomas Disney returned to her home at Hogback from Ellis."
IveGoneAway (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rex C. Buchanan; James R. McCauley (1987). Roadside Kansas. University Press of Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey). pp. 96–102. ISBN 978-0-7006-0322-0.
  2. ^ Everts, Louis H., ed. (1887), Official State Atlas of Kansas, L.H. Everts & Co, p. 295
  3. ^ At Home in Ellis County 1867–1992. Vol. 1. Ellis County Historical Society. 1991. p. 65. [picture of] Harvey and Lyle Luce at the elevator their father operated at Hog Back.
  • From updated research, there are specific locations to clarify.
    • "Hogback Ridge" or "Ellis County Hogback" broadly extends from Old fort Hays to Riga miles west of Ellis, any of those places might be causally said to be at the Hogback.
      • There are several notable promitories on the ridge. Modern names include "Blue Light Hill" and "Jesus Saves Hill" (incidentally pictured by Gardner). 1867-8 names include "Sentinel Hill" and "Signal Hill". My understanding in total is that these were applied to various prominances over time, including the later "Blue Light" and "Jesus Saves".
      • Reports of striking oil on the Hogback refers to the greater ridge.
    • There is one place where Big Creek cuts at the base of a bluff and that is the one place where the KP Railway cuts accros the base of a bluff. This is in Section 21. The west end of the bluff is the location of the original Hog Back Siding.
      • The 1877 atlas and Benecke picture #51 attest to this location.
      • Thomas Disney attests to this location as "Hog Back Station" in his 1880's and 1890's livestock and produce advertisements.
      • This was also called Nichty/Nichey during and after the coal hoax.
      • Circa 1907, Yocemeto was built on the east of the bluff, a half mile east of "Hog Back Station" which was removed.
    • After the removal of "Hog Back Station", "Hog Back Siding" was installed halfway between Yocemento and Ellis, incidentaly on Thomas Disney's farm, saving him 5 miles of bad mountainous road to get to the new Yocemento.
      • This name and location is attested to by the 1922 atlas.
      • That there is a 20th century location named "Hogback" 3 miles east of Ellis is attested to in Ellis newspapers.
    • Where you see "Nichey/Hogback School", that is at the old station. Where you see "Beaver Bank School", that is at the new siding.
Well, that might be my closing arguement. I improved the article, FWIW. I can see how some might think of these two locations as one place. Sadly, most of my knowledge of the distinction counts as primary. We may observe that with the 1907 removal of the first siding, Thomas Disney had to drive his wagons 2 miles further OVER the bluff to get his grain, produce, and livestock to market, so, I like to think that this justice of the peace made a deal for a siding at his front door.
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • @James.folsom Thank you, for your look into the early pioneer schools at Yocemento. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn about the history of Beaver Bank School. I want to pick over your notes some day for additions to the Yocemento page. My best understanding of the schools was there was one named "Hogback" near the original Hog Back Sation location, maybe the one on the 1922 atlas northeast a bit next to the Replogle ranches (MP 296.5) just as "Beaver Bank" was at the Disney place (MP 300). When the siding was moved, the schools were not renamed. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless I'm missing something, the only sources are very minimal passing mentions of Hogback as a station or passing siding. Most of the expanded article content is WP:COATRACK coverage of land owned by the Disneys as well as a nearby school and town. I'm just not seeing anything that establishes this as a notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is the part I'm having trouble with too. The notability policies preclude transfer of notability from Disney to Hogback, I believe. Normally, you would just put all this material into the Walt Disney article. But, I bet that would be a real mess to do. Maybe an article about Erasmus Disney. I guess I like the story, but don't know that Wikipedia should be telling it. James.folsom (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that notabilty for the siding is not great. I did want to see what I could find. My original intent with this article was based on several references, which with more study I now realize have nothing to do with this specific location.
    So, it really boiled down to just the Disney connection. I think the best way to handle the Disney connection would be to just add Elias Disney to notable persons from Ellis or Ellis County. Maybe Thomas Disney could also be added to notable persons from Ellis County with futher research on him.
    There is a source that discusses that Walt did want to develop something at the Kepple/Thomas farms, but Roy forbade it. How? I think Roy had title to the farms, not Walt, but I'll have get access to the biography. But, that really doesn't help Hogback Siding, other than showing that the location is not Yocemento. But (assuming sufficient notability) Kepple's and Thomas' political and commercial activities in western Ellis County are really Ellis County's story, not Walt's. I hope that if I add some of this to Ellis or Ellis County it won't be deemed evasive.
    IveGoneAway (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a real high bar, on adding people to the notable person section. You could probably even put a lot of this in the county article. James.folsom (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas tells us that Hog Back was not a settlement, The Germans who came to Ellis County, Kansas, so misleadingly and lopsidedly mentioned in Pfeifer, Kansas but who actually settled in a lot of places all over Ellis, and (ludicrously) first written about by me in their proper place in the County article last week, two decades in in the writing of Wikipedia when this is one of the big things about Ellis's history, chose not to settle Hog Back and it "pleased so little that the men determined to return to Russia" (p.6). Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G You have it right, I think, as I would expect. The Volga Germans settled widely around the county, and if one lived through the 1970s in Hacemerica, one would think the Germans were the only settlers (KJLS Polka of the Hour). Weren't the German farms settlements? Yes, they avoided settling south of the Section 21 Hog Back Station. Bukovina Germans settled around Ellis. But, at the same time German immigrants were avoiding Section 21, the Irish Disneys settled three miles east of Ellis in and around Section 18, Thomas Disney becoming a successfull farmer and county official. From commerical advertisements one could think Thomas was practically the only patron of the early Hog Back Station until the siding was moved to his front door.
    What I am getting at is that the Disneys were closely connected to Ellis, while the Yocemento site was more separate. If anything, Yocemento was a Hays venture.
    Moreover, while footsteps/hoofprints of Custer, Cody, Armes, Sternberg, Hayden, etc., can be recorded at the Yocemento site, I am only aware of of the Disneys at the Section 18 siding.
    My point is, granted that the Section 18 siding is not meeting notabilty, the Disneys are a notable part of Ellis, not so much of Yocememnto.
    Triumph of the American Imagination repeatedly discusses Ellis, not Hays, not Hog Back, not Yocemento. Page 571 breifly adds, that besides the Missouri farm, Walt wanted to develop the Ellis farm. But, yeah, thinking about development is much less notable than actual development.
    Maybe, Merage/Redirect to Ellis, Kansas? IveGoneAway (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete. This doesn't seem to be a real place for WP purposes. Passing mentions in newspapers can easily be considered references to neighborhoods or colloquial descriptions of landmarks that anyone in the surrounding area would recognize and do not imply the location was an independent populated place. Much of that material is also, predictably, likely too routine and trivial to warrant merging elsewhere, although the info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement in the area should be utilized somewhere.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that it is "not notable" for WP purposed. IMO, it is not necessary to say "not real place".
The "info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement" was already discovered and covered in Yocemento where it is appropriate (IMO) and has been added to Herzog/Victoria, Kansas, as well as to a broader discussion of the German settlements recently added to Ellis County. because, ultimately, Herzog and following "German/Russian" village were founded because they gave the county a second look.
"anyone in the surrounding area would recognize" Honestly, I think the ridge's settler name only has context 1870s to 1910s, and in 1910s it was really only a revival due to the intrest in the cememt plant and related oil discoveries (maybe not, maybe all the settler's alive then still called the ridge Hogback).
However, neither the ridge nor Yocemento are referenced by the Hogback pins on 20th century maps.
  • Elias Disney is already mentioned on Ellis County page. It would be appropriate add the Disneys to the Ellis town page, as has been discussed. Walt's proposal to create an attaction at Ellis might not be notable, but I wouldn't call it routine.
  • I never proposed covering the German settlers on this page. The Germans were not shown the Disney farm, as far as I have read. This page was started from the post-1900 siding location in GNIS, not the ridge or the original Hogback station that the Germans were taken to. This siding had nothing to do with the Volga Germans, AFAIK.
Merge has already been accomplished, effectively.
Redirect? Not every name on a modern geological or topogaphic map needs mention on WP. I would redirect to Ellis.
So, Delete wouldn't kill me.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just stumbled on the Nitchy plat at the Ellis County geoportal, 1887, just like the newspapers said. The text of the plat submission shows this plat in Section 21-13-19, just west of the quarry bluff corresponding with Benecke, 1873 (east of Yocemento by 1/2 mile in Section 22). The siding this article is covering and the points of modern maps is in Section 18-13-19. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with a redirect to Ellis. Jbt89 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Easdale, Kansas

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

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

  • Comment: In the Hayes Free Press of Oct 10, 1900 it makes a reference to A.N. Horn selling his home to "Jim Grippen of Easdale".[7]. A few other stray references to Easdale like that in the late 1870s until about 1900 also exist. A 1905 atlas of Ellis County shows a Jas Grippin and Wm Grippin with land around the geographical location we have for the former Easdale post office.[8] When this article was created in 2018 it was not correct to term it a "small settlement" based merely on the existence of a post office; but us veterans on these AfDs are aware that midwestern U.S. post offices were set up in many places in the 1800s that never became towns. The article got worse in 2021 when edited to say it was a "ghost town". In my opinion, "ghost town" is way over-used on wikipedia on articles on little place names like this, it really should be used for abandoned settlements that have or had some remaining buildings and infrastructure. I know Pfeifer, Kansas is not understood to be the same place (but I don't know where the GPS coordinates for Easdale first came from?), but that article's discussion of Easdale makes a decent case for a redirect there. And the 1887 newspaper mentions say the post office name was changed, not moved (though perhaps it was moved).[9]. Apparently the Easdale PO was in Rush County when it was established in 1878.[10][11] There seems to have been a border change between the counties of Rush and Ellis at some point.[12] --Milowent • hasspoken 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me add, I found this 1963 article in the Hays Daily News on the history of Pfeifer, and it describes the community as moving in 1884 to its current location. It says the former location was "in Section 25-14-17 of Freedom Township". You can find the township map of 1905 here[13]. Pfeifer is plainly now in the northwest corner of Section 36, as depicted in the 1905 map here [14]. The new location definitely seems to be south of the original location, since Section 25 is north of 36. The settlers (who were Volga Germans) first came in 1876, so it seems no surprise that the Easdale PO was established as needed in the area by 1878, and it made sense to move/rename the PO by the time that happened in 1887. "Easdale", of course, it not a German name, but a Scottish island. Before the Volga Germans started arriving in Ellis County in 1876, a George Grant is said to have brought over 300 Englishmen starting around 1872, but a "grasshopper scourge" in 1874 caused many to leave, and eventually the Volga Germans took their place.[15] The first postmaster of the Easdale PO was "Rollo A. Burnham", not a German name.[16] A "James A. Maine" took over late in 1878.[17] Looks like he was still there in 1885.[18] So it makes sense that a name like "Easdale" wouldn't stay on when a German majority took over the area.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ellis County, Kansas#History has the grasshoppers already, notice. And the coördinates come from two GNIS computer database records. The first set is the coördinates in the article at hand, which is a "locale". The second set is an "Easdale, see Pfeifer", which is a "ppl" and repeats the (different) coördinates for Pfeifer. Alas, the same person who gave us the false ghost-townery in Special:Diff/1058765611 and other articles is the same person filling these Kansas articles with every-article-has-the-same-boilerplate-junk-history at Special:Diff/721974070 and the like. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can find the second set of coordinates which matches Pfeifer at nationalmap.gov, but not a link for the coordinates used on this article in a GNIS search. The original citation upon creation was just to "http://geonames.usgs.gov", and searching "Easdale" there only leads to the Pfeifer reference you note. I was just wondering where it came from, because I've run across this issue before.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's far from original. That's just a WWW interface that the USGS set up to access the computer database. Not everything is "a link".

          Back in the 1980s, this database was available on magnetic tape and was even printed out on paper, bound, and sold in book form. Ironically, Google then digitized the books, so it's possible to find out what the feature classes, which were squashed a few years ago, used to be years ago. This has confused several people in past AFD discussions who don't realize that what's available on a WWW site was once available as this "National Gazetteer of the United States", being exactly the same thing and exactly as bogus, before the World Wide Web was invented, because the GNIS was invented in the 1970s.

          Things to remind yourself about the reliability of GNIS data: It's a government computer database that is an index to where words occur(ed) on government maps, mostly maps as they were in the 1980s. Like other government projects it was ambitious but was de-funded before the all-important fixing-the-errors-from-state-sources phase of the original plan kicked in. The "historical" records were dropped from the database tables quite a while ago. More recently, all of the feature classes, which used to make distinctions amongst cemeteries, locales, populated places, flats, tanks, summits, gaps, and so forth, were largely squashed.

          For an article that explains the rural post offices, see the one that I cited in Bulloch County, Georgia#Further reading a couple of days ago. It does a fair job of explaining, with that county as a case study, how actual history happened, and thus why a lot of this "ghost town" and "unincorporated community" synthesis that people do, in desperation at trying to flesh out crap from the GNIS, is utter tripe. Rennick has documented an entire state full of examples of how post offices moved around with people's private homes and stores that they were run from.

          Schools were the same, and there was no rule that school districts were coterminous with post office service areas. Adding them together to make places is synthesis, just as the still fake ghost-townery of Monroe, Kansas (AfD discussion) is. This is "settled" land, but these were and are rural places without population centres. "At Monroe" is how the mail is delivered and (when it's a store) the general store supplies are shipped.

          And in several of the midwestern states the "communities" were the (civil, not survey) Townships. (In Rennick's state they were the Creeks.) The Townships were the legally recognized populated places, for people wanting that rule, with census figures and legal authority. The Fifth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture doesn't give a population figure for Easdale post office, because the post offices aren't the legally recognized populated places despite what the desperate Wikipedia synthesizers and false ghost-townery writers think; nor does it give populations for the 44 school districts that it mentions; but it does say that 451 people lived in Wheatland Township in 1885, which you wouldn't know from our every-article-in-Kansas-is-the-same crappy boilerplate article on the place.

          Equally as sad as the Monroe ghost-townery synthesis is the fact that if Kansas editors had been any good at this then rather than a bland sweep of boilerplate across loads of Kansas articles we would have for years now known a lot more about the Germans from the Ellis County, Kansas#History article, and it wouldn't be lopsidedly placed in Pfeifer, Kansas (because, for starters, they didn't just settle in Pfeifer), and we'd even know a tiny bit about Hog Back, Kansas (AfD discussion) and why it's not a settlement (the German settlers choosing not to settle it), because it's all in Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas.

          Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to set out all that background info, Uncle G. Re the last point, I'm sure others have noticed this too, but I think there's a bias in wikipedia towards including more historical details in smaller geographical unit articles. Moving details into county and state and regional articles requires a more deft understanding of historical context. E.g., knowing that these immigrants weren't really Russian, as some sources may say. The bias towards calling things "ghost towns" that aren't isn't a wikipedia-only problem. Indeed, the 1971 article[19] I just cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendota, Kansas-- which is definitely a moving rural post office -- calls it a "ghost town". I understand the frustration of folks like you and Mangoe, we are fighting inherently irrational human behavior here which seeks to imbue place names with more history and meaning than perhaps they deserve. For the mercy of whoever closes this discussion, i'm not saying "Easdale" should be kept. I'm just interested in confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer (which also wasn't really a town) was.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer".
    Recognizing that not every GNIS point was a village does not mean one has to interpret that GNIS data is full of error. The choice of some locations, like Easdale, does seem to be based on local primary sources at the time the point was set. Want to feel old? Try having living memory of landmarks that GNIS points were set on, but destroyed later, and have editors thereby question veracity. Yes, any truth of a GNIS point does not inherently convey WP notabilty.
    Living memory is not RS, but I feel there is room for improvement in bedside manner. Consider that the postmaster of one of these village post offices took care of me after my mother died, and Dad would say I would call her "Mom". Fr. Burkey wrote on Easdale as a post office that served early Pfeifer, but was then replaced by the Pfeifer post office, which once "really existed", even if maybe no one in Pfeifer today can remember where it was. Careful saying Pfeifer is not a town, people live there on platted streets; it is at least a village with a beautiful Fencepost limestone cathedral. Let us be careful in the tone and words we use as we necessarily delare locations as non-nontable.
    I see ECHS maps an Easedale Cemetary. About a year ago I was going over the perenial Hays Daily News Autumn lists of 1800s cemeteries; so I might go back and look what was said about Easedale Cemetery, if anything. What I recall was that some of these prairie cemeteries were family plots and others were just where a wagon load of travelers died, and the typical caretaker was some old man with no realtionship to those buried. I make no suggestion now that "Easedale Cemetery" had any connection with "Easedale PO", or any settlement.
    Regarding any merge, I would suspect, though, that Easdale, as a topic, is closer to Pfeifer than to Ellis County. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The little we know about this place simply validates that it was a PO, and barring a surplus of Stella-Rondo-type family dynamics in the surrounding areas, no one lived at this PO.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - This was a real place, it is listed on the Kansas state Map: https://www.macpl.org/atlases/1903/Kansas%20State%20Map.pdf 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know it was a place, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎, i.e, a post office in someone's house. But if this is your inclusionist method to cause Mangoe and Uncle G to have a stroke and stop nominating articles like this, it may work.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, from a geologist perspective, I honestly enjoyed this map for the canals around Dodge; I did not know that. And I had not thought of South Fork Pawnee River as an old channel of the Arkansas. Thanks. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

  • Comment Just adding what I've learned since I voted. Studying other of the post offices since has made it clear that in a lot cases the newspaper mentions are simply using the post office as a point of reference, and when people write into the paper from these postal places, they are simply denoting where they get their mail. It's not necessarily where they live.James.folsom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, in the sense of "in the vicinity of". In the case of the many classified adds mentioning Easdale, it is really the closest thing to an address. With the dozens of post offices in the county, I don't need to speculate that people would want to walk further than the closest one. The presence of a post office and school do not prove the existence of even a rural community, just that there were enough people around. Interestingly, the Pfeifer farm plots were originally laid out "Russian style", 44 feet wide by 1/2 mile. But across the river, more Jeffersonian quarter sections. Just another tempting suggestion of different groups of settlers. When you get to Victoria/Herzog, there is a big cemetery of hallowed ground for the Catholic parishioners and a tiny one across the road for "everyone else". I see the same thing comparing the Easdale tiny cemetery with the Pfeifer cemetery, a mere two miles apart. Well, don't underestimate the difficulty of crossing the Smoky Hill. No RS for any of this, just fascinating to me. Even in my lifetime though, there was strong coercion in rural EL CO to not sell land outside each parish membership, the same with marriage. Easdale might have been squeezed out, eliminating the need for a separate PO and grocery store and non-parochial school. I know editors have suggested that Easdale was an early site of Pfeifer and/or that the sites merged, but thinking about the parochial communities of the time, I am prone to disagree. I might be wrong. The "Meders of Easdale" were original Easdale settlers; Meders own the old Easdale section today. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I am chatting with a historian who's family founded Victoria, Kansas. As completely German-Catholic the countryside and the town is today, he had to remind me that the founding name is not. Queen Victoria directly funded the original Protestant settlement there. Ahhh, Meder is an English/Irish name and Easdale is also English. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to OP Mangoe: I propose Merge with Victoria, Kansas instead of Pfeifer on the basis (to be confirmed) that Easdale was a part of the British Victoria Colony of 1873 and was and still is separate from the 1876 Volga German Pfeifer parish. Easdale settlers were in part if not wholy British and the location is proximal to the Victoria Colony founder ranches; Grant's Villa and the "Scotty" Philip Ranch. The Meder family was among the orginal Easdale settlers, still holds the land, and is a name consistent with the colony. We have names of the Easdale settlers and I have asked for comparison with the registered British colonists. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'll go out on a limb and infer that Easdale and Norfolk were nostalgic post office names for the British colonists who concentrated their "estates" on the low ridge between the Smoky and Big Creek. The number of Victoria colonists was capped just over 200 and they had no real interest in town building, apparently. After the collapse of the British colony, the German villages had little need for little post offices or one-room Protestant schools on the prairie. What is on the EL CO page is good enough, probably. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Merge/Redirect to Ellis County, Kansas based on a preference for redirecting rather than outright deleting post offices/rural areas rather than deleting them outright when usage of the name as a place can be demonstrated. I think the county is the best target for a redirect because the relationship between Easdale and the neighboring communities of Pfeiffer and Victoria hasn't been confirmed by an sources that I can see. Probably worth a line in the county article; something like, "In the 1880's a rural post office and school were located at Easdale about 8 miles south of Victoria and 2 miles north of Pfeiffer." Eluchil404 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why the county and not Wheatland Township, Ellis County, Kansas? Jbt89 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reasons, first because Uncle G had mentioned the county article above in the discussion, and second because when I made the comment I was not aware that Kansas counties had named townships with articles that might be an option for a redirect. I have no objection to the township as a target, my primary goal is to help create a consensus to preserve the limited sourced info while removing the incorrect appearance that this was ever a formal settlement or ghost town. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404 You can't find a connection between the Easdale PO, school, store, and cemetery and Pfeifer because Pfeifer had their own school, store, and cemetery (especially) and really wanted no connection at that time.
    The evidence of association of Easdale with the Victoria Colony is largely geographic. The Victoria Colony was a concentration (between the Smoky and Big Creek) of estates from Norfolk, to Grant Villa, to Easdale, to Philip Ranch. The south boundary of the Victoria Colony was the Smoky Hill River. source The Duke of Norfolk was a sponsor of the Victoria Colony. George Grant might be from the Grants around Easdale, Scotland. ... the point being, Norfolk and Easdale were born and died with the colony, not Pfeifer, not EL CO.
    @ Jbt89 Two reasons, first, Easdale was in Freedom Township, two, township boundaries in this county are wibbly-wobbly over time ...
    Here is a good map of the remnants of the colony shortly before the Easdale school and PO closed. There's that railroad that ATSF advertised as building through Easdale.
    Ellis Co Townships have been significantly restructured recently. I could dig into that with over time.
    I have some name lists now, but I can't work with them over this weekend.
    IveGoneAway (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas. Most of the above discussion of the Victoria colony seems like original (though sensible and relevant) research, so I don't think a merge with Victoria, Kansas makes sense. It has convinced me that Easdale (the post office and associated rural area) likely has a different origin than Pfeiffer, though, so any merger or redirect should go to an article about the surrounding countryside (the township being the obvious candidate), not the town of Pfeiffer. I've gone ahead and added a history section to that article and given it a couple sentences about the Easdale post office, so deleting this article won't cause the information in it to be lost. Jbt89 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might add the home of the Victoria Colonist's founder, George Grant's Villa, to the Freedom Township article. By RS, it is in Section 8 of Freedom Township. More notable to the township than either Duck Creek or Eagle Creek, and critical to the British colonists there, Big Creek clips the township (Grant's Villa faces Big Creek). There is also the Norfolk "hamlet".
    Merging Easdale with Freedom Township is practical, as the least resistance path. I don't deny that as presented the establishment of the Easdale PO by the Victoria Colonists is "OR", I did say it is circumstantial and needing confirmation, and I have not added it to any article. I do have some citations to support it, but failing a colonists name, even Grant's, on the post office application, there is no certainty that the Victoria Colony founded that PO. (Even then there is some synthysis, I suppose.) IveGoneAway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff. Adding it to the Freedom Township history section now. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, (after another 3 mile hike-think) this is the best redirect target, thanks. If I ever get into the Grant Folder in the basement of the Hays Public Library and come up witha few more solid RS, and want to change the redirect, that would be a good problem. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While a majority of editors have !voted for keep, editors in favor of deletion continue to maintain that strict organizational notability guidelines have not been met. The difference in evaluation comes down to differing assessments over the degree of independence of various examples of coverage cited in this discussion, as well as assessments as to whether coverage is of the organization, of its reports, or of its founders. A few keep !votes also made IAR arguments to the effect that this organization's reports' prominence in coverage relating to Israel-Palestine is sufficient to establish notability despite the fact that this coverage is generally not of significant depth regarding the organization. signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

AfDs for this article:
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (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:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage which is independent, reliable, and significant,

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

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

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181211-euro-med-hrm-saudi-arabia-has-forcibly-disappeared-3-libyans/ Yes No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.marsad.ly/en/2021/05/19/euro-med-hrm-calls-for-disclosure-of-maps-for-mine-sites-in-libya/ Yes No Significant coverage of a "call" from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.euromedmonitor.org/en/About No About-self Yes ✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718 Unclear where these profiles come from; whether they are from the organization Yes No One sentence of coverage of their aims, and a list of its structure ✘ No
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine Yes Yes No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian-8 Yes No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israels-icc-rebuttal-admission-war-crimes-rights-group Yes Yes No Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/family-visits-imprisoned/ No Republication of a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ~ No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2890/Euro-Med-announces-changes-in-its-administrative-and-executive-structure No About-self ✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-targets-rights-defenders-un-council-hears/1992437 Yes No WP:RSP for Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) No Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/author/ramy-abdu/ No Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/ramy-abdu/ No Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2019/08/27/as-mena-states-grow-increasingly-repressive-businesses-should-lead-reform/ No Published by Ramy Abdu No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/staff No About-self ✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/101164 No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://imemc.org/article/euro-med-monitor-report-suffocation-and-isolation-15-years-of-israeli-blockade-on-gaza/ No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200407104742/https://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/lisa-hajjar No Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/tareq-ismael No Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/michael-smith-uae-prison-mps-b1813663.html Yes Yes No Significant coverage of a letter organized by the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://exeter.academia.edu/TanyaNewburySmith No academia.edu page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/authors/3/Maha-Hussaini No About-self No Maybe SIGCOV of Maha Hussaini, not sigcov of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/maha-hussaini/ No Author page for a Euro-Med HRM reporter No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/maha-hussaini-martin-adler-prize-win-rory-peck-trust Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.una-oic.org/page/public/news_details.aspx?id=328294&NL=True No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release No Significant coverage of an official complaint from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/ngo914.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Libya ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo923.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo927.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo942.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo950.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo953.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo959.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo933.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/about-us/where-we-work/mena/palestine/ No Funded (?) a Euro-Med HRM Project No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2017/08/palestine-gaza-civil-society-women-leadership-incubator.html Yes No Significant coverage of Women's Leadership Incubator project, passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/from_denial_to_defense_youth_for_rights#!/ No A "go fund me" equivilent for a Euro-Med HRM project No No Significant coverage of the project, not of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
http://www.ju.edu.jo/Lists/NewsLetter/Disp_f.aspx?ID=1175&Issue=August%202016&order=8 No UJ Newsletter about a summer school hosted at UJ No Passing mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://thepoliticain.co.uk/middle-east/201/ No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release No Significant coverage of a summer school set up by Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.bnreport.com/en/wikirights-2/ Yes No Significant coverage of a program by Euro-Med HRM to edit Wikipedia, no significant coverage of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://law.ju.edu.jo/Lists/AcademicNews/Test.aspx?ID=78&ContentTypeId=0x0100FB3DD40023178C409CDBAC99DB39D980 No Copy of source 36, this time hosted on UJ's sharepoint No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211003105920/https://europebriefnews.com/2017/10/25/watering-the-seeds/ Yes No Not discussed at RSN, but I'm convinced that it is not a reliable source. The source is obscure and now defunct, and its "about me" page only said "Europe Brief News (EBN) provides our readers with latest news from across Europe such as news, stories, politics, tourism, travel, food, health diet and many more topics" which does not indicate any level of editorial control or reliability. The specific article also raises questions; it is labeled as "news", but it is reads as an opinion piece.

Note that there is a current organization using the name Europe Brief News that does appear reliable, but they are not the same entity - the current one was founded in 2020.

 It could arguably contain WP:SIGCOV, but I'm not convinced; it uses a lot of words but says very little about Euro-Med HRM, and WP:NCORP requires that the coverage is sufficient to "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". However, this is a lesser issue than the reliability of the source. ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3190 No About-self No Significant coverage of a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/11/career-assassination-dws-scapegoating-of-arab-employees Yes Yes No Passing mention of a press release from Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/many_faces_wann No Appears written by We Are Not Numbers No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/deported-israels-war-against-palestine-solidarity-activists No Written by the secretary of Euro-Med HRM No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/128695 No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
We Are Not Numbers: Junge Stimmen aus Gaza No A book written by We Are Not Numbers ✘ No
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/struggles-triumphs-palestinian/ Yes No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160824141709/http://www.daysofpalestine.com/news/israel-bans-right-activist-entering-gaza/ Yes No Single sentence of coverage of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-fence-stories-hebrew/ Yes No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/german-court-rules-palestinian-ex-dw-journalist-sacking-unlawful Yes Yes No Passing mention of a Euro-Med HRM investigation ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5039/Euro-Med-Monitor%27s-We-Are-Not-Numbers-project-celebrates-graduation-of-new-batch-of-writers No About-self No ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5562/Euro-Med-Monitor%E2%80%99s-project-We-Are-Not-Numbers-launches-17th-cohort-of-writers No About-self No ✘ No
https://news.trust.org/item/20210902130009-tk186/ Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM; syndicated from a Reuters article which is used seperately as a reference ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/they-told-us-they-hate-africans-hundreds-detained-deported-abu-dhabi-2021-09-02/ Yes Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58446660 Yes Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM. Appears to be identical to the two reuters and truth.org sources linked above, except translated into Pidgin ✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared ~ Most of the coverage related to Euro-Med HRM consists of quotes No WP:DAILYEXPRESS No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/risks-refugees-disabilities-face-turkey-how-mitigate-risks-and-challenges-shape-apt No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://europebriefnews.com/2017/12/09/euro-med-monitor/ Yes See earlier discussion of Europe Brief New's reliability No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/world/middleeast/fleeing-gaza-only-to-face-treachery-and-disaster-at-sea-.html Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared Yes No WP:DAILYEXPRESS No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-arrests-hundreds-of-teachers-after-violent-clashes-zzg7ppsvh Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-survivor-commemorates-victims-paintings-2022-05-26/ Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://palestine.unwomen.org/en/stories/feature-story/2022/05/zainab-al-qolaq-a-survivor-of-an-israeli-airstrike-on-gaza-in-may-2021-tells-her-story No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this table was added on 28 January not 21 January and now there are two of them one here and one at the bottom. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was added on 21 January. And this one covers the sources in the article, the one at the bottom covers the sources presented in this AfD. If you wish, feel free to remove both of these comments per WP:MUTUAL. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Actually the 2015 deletion was on the basis of only 3 delete votes and the 2021 AfD was closed as no consensus. So the story is more complex than that. Zerotalk 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read those, I am referring to the claims the sources (and secondarily on the paid editors) which appear accurate. I performed a cursory search myself and have not found other (better) sources (except the article by NGO Monitor, whose reliability is disputed per the RS Noticeboard). FortunateSons (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was judging by the standards of other canvassing I've seen which have been pretty blatant. I believe any other suspected ones are by university students on this program [26]. Their edits seem quite reasonable actually so it must be a fairly good course even if most of hem have been heavily edited since. Wikipedia itself organises similar courses [27]. NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the ones I've identified have been board members - although it's possible that the ones that I haven't connected to individuals are those students.
Regarding Pigsonthewing's comment, I posted there because the editors who frequent that forum have experience reviewing COI editing, and such experience would be helpful here. I included that summary to make the relevance to that forum clear, and I didn't consider it an issue because it is factual and because COI editing isn't a reason to delete an article - it's merely a reason to review it more carefully. However, I'll be careful to avoid using terms like "UPE" in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of review by other editors and the closer, I've created a table of all sources presented in the AfD.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
ample references to it A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided. A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided. A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided. ? Unknown
this paper published in the Lancet No Authors include the founder and chairman of Euro-Med HRM Yes No Coverage is limited to detailing Euro-Med HRM's activities in preparing the report: "The field researchers of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor covered 338 (64%) of the total 530 children killed. They focused extensively on mass attacks because it was difficult to cover hundreds of attacks taking place at the same time for 50 days." No WP:SIGCOV of the Euro-Med HRM itself. ✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 1 No Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM No Coverage of a primary report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 2 No Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM No Coverage of a statement from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
Their reports are routinely picked up by RS Yes Yes No Coverage of a call from Euro-Med HRM to free a Tunisian prisoner; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams Yes ~ While Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable No Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation. Yes Yes No Coverage is "The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based Human Rights NGO, reported that the law legitimized censorship and restricted freedom of expression (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 2020)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. ✘ No
National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Schoarly Citation. Yes Yes No Coverage is "PA Security also commonly targets opposition. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,274 arbitrary detentions in the West Bank in 2015 and 1,089 summonses by Palestinian Security Services. The human rights violations targeted mostly individuals affiliated with Hamas or who opposed PA policies, including about 35 journalists and human rights activists, 476 university students, and 67 teachers/professors (Euro-Med 2016)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. ✘ No
Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group Yes Yes No Coverage of an allegation from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza Yes Yes No Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor No WP:CRUNCHBASE; source is deprecated ✘ No
https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920 No Mirrors other sources, which lack independence. For example, the significant coverage comes directly from the Euro-Med HRM's website, and other coverage comes from the EU transparency register, which is populated by submissions from the organization Yes ✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718 No They normally provide "a profile in the words of the organization itself" No Only one sentence of coverage; "Advocate for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict." ✘ No
3 by Richard A. Falk No Richard A. Falk is the chairman of Euro-Med HRM's Board of Directors Yes ✘ No
4 by Reliefweb No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release Yes ✘ No
5 by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Yes Yes No Coverage is of EuroMed Rights, not Euro-Med HRM - different organization, with a very similar name. ✘ No
NGO Monitor's article 6 Yes No Editor who presented the source has !voted for it to be deprecated No Two sentences of coverage containing highly contentious claims. The closest we have to WP:SIGCOV, but not good enough - particularily given how the source is about to be found unreliable at RSN. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
If any editor disagrees with my assessment, please say so - and for the ease of review of your claims by other editors and the closer, please provide a quote of the content that you believe constitutes significant coverage of the organization. Please keep WP:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself in mind when doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you're repeating yourself my I repeat that is a guideline and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Is the aricle well worth having in Wikipedia? That's what AfD discussions like this are about. NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal your source assessment is missing a column for Secondary, which is important because what a subject/those affiliated say is a primary source (i.e. an insider's view) even when reliably published (i.e. interviews, their statements or based on material provided by them with no analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others, etc.). S0091 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the template doesn't include a row for that; I'll see about including it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

All information about an organisation comes ultimately from the organisation. Sources don't become non-independent solely because some of their information comes from the original. We rely on intermediate sources, in this case the EU Transparency Register, to process the information. Your argument would also eliminate a news story based on an interview on the basis that the information comes from the interviewee. It is perfectly obvious that this is a perfectly respectable source. Zerotalk 06:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure you understand; this is content written by Euro-Med HRM. It being republished elsewhere doesn’t make it independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I take an editor post that was deleted for say ARBECR and instead sign my name to it, I take responsibility for it. Get it now? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND, addresses this question directly:

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

The content being republished by an independent party doesn't change the fact that it was produced by an interested party. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you don't get it, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there isn't anything that describes the organisation itself except that NGO Monitor or itself or blogs and they're not reliable sources. It has to stand on its own merits as being widely used by reliable sources and for its activities. That last Delete !vote above, I looked becaused they talked about COI, actually seems to support human rights articles for organisations that have far less written about them - I noticed Humanitarian Law Project and The Hague Justice Portal. That portal is much less likely to ever have stuff written about it but it is important and widely used. Their support for it cited WP:HEYMANN. It looksd like straightforward human rights organisations have problems that way - perhaps they should have more scandals! NadVolum (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two reputable sources I gave actually do describe the organization itself for the purposes of GNG. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they republish Euro-Med HRM's description of itself. Per the section of WP:NCORP that I quoted that isn't considered independent coverage and thus doesn't count towards GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the EU Transparency Register's linked "Guidelines for applicants and registrants" it states The information in the Register is provided by the registrants themselves, on the understanding that they are ultimately responsible for its accuracy. The Secretariat monitors the quality of the Register’s content and reserves the right to de-register ineligible registrants, including those found not to observe the code of conduct. Their disclaimer says information is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date.
Lobbyfacts acknowledges in their disclaimer about the EU Transparency Register As stated on its website, information on the official EU Register is provided by registrants themselves, making it the sole responsibility of those organisations. It is recognised that some entries in the official register are inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise misleading. Based on this information, the EU Transparency Register and those relying on them are not reliable sources because the register does not have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet is another example of a clearly independent source, by virtue of the peer-review process. An academic working at a university could write a paper specifically about their own activities at that university and by virtue of the peer-review process the resulting content would still be independently vetted by virtue of the peer-review process. This does not apply to all published literature ofc, but it certainly applies to peer review. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment about Lancet specifically because I do not have access but what you describe is a reliably published primary source, so reliable but not helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the arguably involved author is not the lead author and only one of four contributors, and the topic is not the author, but pertains to research findings, so the work as a whole is perfectly secondary (+ peer review). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR It was correct to nominate this for deletion and it probably doesn't meet a strict interpretation of wp:notability guidlines. But wih the preponderance of sourcing and information, and that having this article exist is more likely to serve the reader than the organization/ one which readers might seek to be informed on, I think that it's an article that should exist in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    To serve our readers it's not enough to present an overview of the organization; we need to present a neutral overview of the organization.
    Unfortunately, that isn't possible if our only significant coverage comes from non-independent sources - and would be a violation of WP:V, which says Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: Again, you were correct to take this to AFD. And per my previous post, I agree that it has not been established that this meets the wp:notability guidlines as written. As a preface, I could come up with strong arguments in either direction on this. I would also have several quibbles with the arguments in your past post. Setting all of that aside, at this venue, this is simplly a "should this article exist?" question, and I gave my opinion on that. I gave my rationale as wp:iar and the usefulness of the article. Another way to state my argument in wp:notability terms is that per the criteria described in Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works this topic is very enclyclopedic and has some importance / impact, making it something that people would be likely to seek an enclyclopedia rticle on, and pushing the wp:notability equation up into the edge case zone. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with Ramy Abdu. I simply can't find fault with the case BilledMammal has made. Yes, the org's reports are widely mentioned, including in scholarly literature, but there is indeed an almost complete lack of significant and independent coverage of the organisation itself in reliable sources. Happy to reconsider if or when new sources come to light, but we do have rules for a reason. We should follow them. --Andreas JN466 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong under the founder Ramy Abdu and the content would look silly there. And it wouldn't fit under the current leader Richard A. Falk either. In fact much of the stuff from it wouldn't even mention them. NadVolum (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment I see HonestReporting has a longer spiel about them at CNN & Other Media Give Voice to Anti-Israel “Human Rights” Organization. NadVolum (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excluding sources that lack independence, that is probably the most significant coverage I have seen on this organization. We would need multiple such sources to keep the article, but before we count it - and thus add it to the article at a level of prominence that would be appropriate for one of the few sources that are both independent and contain significant coverage of the article - do any editors have any objections to it, such as on grounds of reliability?
    @Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323: Comments? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to try and avoid the lie direct. We were just raising the question, we're so glad we were wrong - but that's a lot better than NGO Monitor.. NadVolum (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NadVolum: To be clear, you support using this source prominently in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I do actually support putting it in, but I see it as a biased source that should be attributed and used with caution. To be quite clear since you like policies, and going to the opposite extreme from what you seem to be implying, see WP:N for what is required. In that '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline', I agree they satisfy that for the purpose of establishing notability. There's no requirement for a lack of bias in doing that and they do seem to have some editorial integrity as I noted just above. Later we have 'Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists', and 'Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article'. According to that just sticking a notability citation on the talk page so it could be found easily would be more than enough. NadVolum (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - RS about them exist!. I think people are not doing their homework. There are significant RS (reliable or relevant sources) out there talking about EMHRM, — they are important enough to be mentioned and described in:
None of the above are trivial. Keizers (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through those, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization - some of them contain coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, but per WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself that is not sufficient to count towards notability.
Could you provide quotes of the content that you believe consitutes significant coverage of the organization?
I note that the ReliefWeb article is not independent, as it is written by Euro-Med HRM, and NGO Monitor has already been dismissed as unreliable - and I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization

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

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

and when they further report that

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

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

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

Reject it how? We are not flat earthers; we agree the article exists, we are not rejecting its existence. That we disagree with the article is besides the point. If tomorrow the entirety of the Israeli consent manufacturing machine started raving 24/7 about how (insert random human rights organization) is actually Hamas and Hitler in a trench coat, as they regularly do from time to time, we might not agree with them, and we would surely find them to be eminently dishonest, yet, nevertheless, the mere fact of such coverage would likely cause the object of their rage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if there weren't other coverage- and in this case, there most assuredly is. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN Watch article doesn't contain significant coverage of the organization. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell all it says about the organization is that it's officials, who include Richard Falk and Ramy Abdu, are notoriously biased and antisemitic, and routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online. That isn't significant coverage of the organization.
The Doha News article has similar issues; the only independent coverage of the organization, as opposed to coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, in that article is the two quotes you provided, and 29 words don't amount to WP:SIGCOV.
As for rejecting the UN Watch article, I've already seen one of the editors arguing to !keep this article argue it is unreliable, and I suspect if I tried to add it to the article it would quickly be reverted - I suspect they won't reply, but let's ping them to ask: @Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323: Any objection to including content from UN Watch in the article - and if no objection, any objection to including it with the level of promience that one of the few WP:SIRS sources on the topic would warrant, assuming you don't dispute that it contains SIRS converage? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Doha one looks like it was written by a journalist and is about the organisation. NadVolum (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post is clearly RS about EMHRM and Doha News while not objective, also clearly writes about the importance of the organization. And ReliefWeb is reliable because the site is operated by the UN and clearly thinks EMHRM is important enough to mention. I am not a guru on Wiki policy but there must be some WP:COMMON SENSE applied here? Third party journalism about the organization cannot be the only yardstick of notability.Keizers (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The various reasons have been given above with links to the various policies. Community discussions like this are part of the commmon sense mechanism of Wikipedia, it can agree a consensus exception from a rule. Those rules - policies and guidelines however are the result of a lot of prior editing decisions and discussions so good reasons have to be given for exceptions. The rest of what you say is your presentation of that type of reason. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! You've been on Wikipedia since 2006! You'll know far more about all that than me! NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yes but I've never come across this exact degree of stubbornness re original research v. coverage. No doubt because Israel/Palestine is an emotional topic, particularly right now as its victims are livestreamed to our phones every day.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post contains a small amount of coverage of a claim that Euro-Med HRM has made; it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself. If I am mistaken, can you please quote the coverage?
The ReliefWeb source is written by Euro-Med HRM; it doesn't matter whether it is reliable or significant, as it isn't independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Iskandar323, Keizers, and others. Absurd we are even having this debate, and if the main subject that this organization covered were anything other than the situation in Israel and Palestine, I suspect no such discussion would be had. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those points above... exactly what I was trying to express.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this organization covered any other subject it would have been an uncontroversial deletion; no compliant coverage and COI editing by the organization usually makes for an easy AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I miscount, you have now made 24 comments in this AfD, many of them very long and many of them repetitious. This is what WP:BLUDGEON is about. You should stop. Zerotalk 06:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing.
Can I ask why you feel so strongly about deleting this article, @BilledMammal?
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them were concerned with addressing, in considerable detail, unsuitable sources that editors bombarded the discussion with; ideally, editors would have ensured the sources they provided aren't obvious WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP failures, but since they didn't I had to detail the issues. However, since you're here, do you care to comment on whether you consider HonestReporting and UN Watch sufficiently reliable for use in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Now 25) I have stated my opinion that this organization is notable. I still hold that opinion, and believe it is obvious on its face and does not rest on the reliability of either HR or UNWatch. I also find your repeated pings to border on harassment. Zerotalk 07:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Springs Television

White Springs 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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. PROD was declined in 2022 with the rationale that the channel was verified to have existed but existence does not equate to notability. Let'srun (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There are no references in the article, just a few external links at the bottom. Running through the first few pages of Google doesn't provide anything resembling a reliable source. Small references to WSTV affiliation in relevant TV station pages are enough for the purposes of Wikipedia. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 23:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 05:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Frederick Vining

Frederick Vining (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 person probably existed, but it seems like they weren't notable. We have fondagrave.com and a vintage photo from a book of vintage photos, which doesn't substantially cover the subject of the article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long paragraph about him in the DNB article about his brother George Vining. The article is probably worth retaining since it can be expanded (which I intend to do, since I created the WP article George Vining). AtticTapestry (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Material added regarding his reputation and material from his obituary.Leutha (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Source
Dababase entry 1. Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining". Library of Nineteenth-Century Photography. Paul Frecker. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
Source appears to be society Who's Who style promo bio from 1824. Fails WP:RS. Subject is mentioned, not named, brief information, no SIGCOV about subject, doesn't use the subject's first first name. 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c The Biography of the British Stage: Being Correct Narratives of the Lives of All the Principal Actors & Actresses .. Interspersed with Original Anecdotes and Choice and Illustrative Poetry. To which is Added, a Comic Poem, Entitled "The Actress.". London: Sherwood, Jones & Co. 1824.
Blog post/database entry 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining (1790-1871)". paulfrecker.com. Paul Frecker.
Find a grave 4. ^ "Frederick Augustus Vining (1790-1871) - Find A..." www.findagrave.com. Find a Grave. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
Nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. #2 above comes the closest, but a single source from 1824 does meet WP:N.  // Timothy :: talk  12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. He has an article in the ODNB and in Boase's Modern English Biography:[28] [29]. These are the standard biographical dictionaries. There is a biography in Roach, listed here: [30]. Profile in The Theatrical Times: [31]. Obituary in The Era, 11 June 1871, p 11: [32]. Both cited by Boase. There is other coverage: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. He was "well known": [40]. There is a lot of other coverage, including, amongst other things, coverage of his performances, and even a garotte attack on him in 1867, in the British Newspaper Archive. Our article already even cites his obituary in the Birmingham Daily Gazette: [41]. A newspaper article from 1871 does not become a "blog post/database entry" just because it is quoted on a website. There is no indication that there is anything wrong with the Biography of the British Stage, which is cited by other sources (including 40 articles in the ODNB) that are certainly reliable. Praise, even when very enthusiastic, is not the same thing as promotion. It certainly is significant coverage, and it would be perfectly obvious which Mr Vining the book is talking about, even if that fact was not confirmed by this: [42]. James500 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This actor is notable enough to have several reviews written about him and, although not all favourable, it is not clear where the full breadth of information about him is published if not on Wikipedia. Tithon (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A scholar or author will find this article a godsend when writing a footnote. Just because he's deeply historically obscure, doesn't lessen his notability. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2022 Bratislava shooting. Editors are free to merge any appropriate content to the target article. Complex/Rational 14:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juraj Vankulič

Juraj Vankulič (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 crime was horrendous, I see no evidence Vankulic is notable for anything but their death. There doesn't appear to be anything to add, rendering Shooting of... not a viable solution. A redirect to 2022 Bratislava shooting would be a fine ATD but expect that this is contentious so wanted broader eyes, especially with folks who have access to non English sourcing. Star Mississippi 03:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juraj was a very notable and important person in Slovak queer scene. This article is important to their friends and family for keeping their legacy alive. Creating this article was the sole reason why I began an editing account. I beg you, please, do not delete it. Animaeon (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a noble goal, but please read WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:COI if you knew Vankulic or are otherwise connected with their friends and family. Star Mississippi 04:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if any reviews of his performances could be found? --Ouro (blah blah) 10:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Baton Rouge, Louisiana#Education. ✗plicit 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Education in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (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)

Nothing about Baton Rouge that necessitates a Education page under Notability procedure. 777burger user talk contribs 03:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy‎ per creator's request Star Mississippi 22:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January Walker

January Walker (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)

Random congressional candidate who's never received any national news coverage whatsoever. Blatant violation of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that getting 6.6% as a third party candidate is notable, along with the fact that she has received a substantial amount of Utah-specific coverage and been invited to several debates she is considered notable. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting 6% of the vote most definitely does *not* make you notable. Take a look through the list of notable third-party performances in US elections and see how many of the third-party candidates have Wikipedia pages. I would argue that, based on WP:1E, it's not possible for anyone to be notable solely based on their performance in one election. And no, getting some routine campaign coverage within the state of Utah doesn't make her notable either. As WP:NPOL says: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, I support the deletion- please just allow me to move the page to my userspace Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus was reached to keep the article per adequate sourcing. (non-admin closure) CaptainGalaxy 15:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Squirtle

Squirtle (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)

Just like what happen to Charmander, this article is also having a problem with notability. Of all the sources cited at this article, only the polygon source [43] is useful. At WP:BEFORE, these are possibly the only good sources [44] and maybe this? [45]. This source [46] is probably just about the gameplay; showing that the article isn't notable despite the popularity (which isn't an argument). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are still not enough to pass WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, didn't saw that Vice source coming. But, leaving this afd still open for discussion if the character now barely passes gng. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge Greenish Pickle got it right the first time, there's no need for backpedaling. The Polygon article is the only true SIGCOV I can see here. The Squirtle Squad as a group is not to be confused with Squirtle the Pokemon species. If Squirtle Squad is notable, the article ought to be about them, or the episode they appear, but notability is not inherited from the Squirtle Squad. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it a pretty strange assessment that reception for individual Squirtles are irrelevant to the species as a whole. I do not believe that the average person would look at the Squirtle Squad and differentiate it as a separate concept from Squirtle. Virtually all of the reception for Pikachu, for example, is about Ash's Pikachu, should that mean we should redirect Pikachu to the list and make an article called Ash's Pikachu? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really strange? We have an article on Mordin Solus but not salarian; they are not obviously notable, or at least people have not found them notable before now. Saying that Squirtle Squad and the individual Squirtle from the anime makes the species notable is like claiming Mordin automatically makes salarians notable.
    Pikachu is somewhat different, because Pikachu and Ash's Pikachu are virtually synonymous. I'm not sure if some people even realize there is a species. I don't think this is the case for any other Pokemon, such is the amount of popularity that Pikachu has. (Addendum: Team Rocket's Meowth may be the only other one I can think of that people know on such a basis) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is what I would consider a massive difference between an individual Squirtle named Squirtle and an individual salarian named Mordin Solus. It's also not claiming that the Squirtle Squad (which includes the individual Squirtle) makes the species notable, it's saying that the notability of the Squirtle Squad is directly relevant to Squirtle itself. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bulbapedia has a separate page for both Ash's Squirtle and the Squirtle Squad, yet you are arguing that they are the same thing as the species. I don't think that's borne out by anything online.
    I do think that, even if this page is merged, the Squirtle Squad is independently notable. I found a GamesRadar article, which can be combined with Vice and TheGamer. I wouldn't oppose its creation, I just think the species isn't as well-known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is both "Ash's Squirtle" and "Squirtle Squad" pages on Bulbapedia. Bulbapedia would not cover Ash's Squirtle as part of the Squirtle Squad article, and they would not cover the Squirtle Squad as part of the Ash's Squirtle article, because the Squirtle Squad has individual characters that would not make sense to include as part of that article. I have no concept of what you think that separate pages for the Squirtle Squad and Ash's Squirtle on Bulbapedia indicates, because that's just how Bulbapedia works. The leader of the Squirtle Squad has his own article, just like the leader of Team Rocket has his own article, without the groups they lead needing to be a part of their article.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will point out a street in Las Vegas is named after the Pokemon, something that was argued as significant coverage in Snorlax's AfD. Now mind you I personally don't find it much, but consensus shows others including Zx above felt different on that matter, so I think it's fair to argue for some consistency.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you're directing that at me, but I never argued that a street name made Snorlax notable. My argument was based on unrelated sources. I don't think the street names have any bearing on the notability of Snorlax, Squirtle, or any Pokemon. It's just too insubstantial to say it confers any notability to anything besides perhaps the cultural impact of Pokemon in general. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake there, I was certain you'd agreed on that as well. Your reference was the one citing Pokemon GO with the police in that AfD. Still I think an overarching argument in that AfD as a whole was "the character is recognizable enough in commentary to get reaction". There are mutliple articles noting it in light of Ed Sheeran, which while a bit of promotion, does have some discussion over the multiple articles. Then there's weird moments like this with the President Elect of Chile, where Nintendo gifted him a plush of it and he vocally reacted. These are small, but do show there's recognition in pop culture of the character to an extent. And I think after the Snorlax AfD it's worth to consider where that lies with a Pokemon in terms of "should this have an article"?
    In addition regarding the whole squirtle squad thing, I think you may be looking at the forest but missing the tree: the argument isn't being made that "the Squirtle Squad" itself is notable, but that the characterization it gave Squirtle in the anime is, and how long that has endured. It's not a case like with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for example where as a whole they're notable, because only one Squirtle in this case gets any commentary: Ash's.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also believe it's strange to say that discussion of individual Squirtles is not relevant to the species article, considering that the appearances section is halfway composed of discussion about individual Squirtles. The article is clearly meant to encompass Squirtle and every variant, and Bulbapedia doing it differently reflects a completely different philosophy than what Wikipedia uses. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Squirtle already demonstrates notability based on the commentary references that Cukie offered as well as at least some representation within outside media with the references that Kung Fu Man cited. Based on this established precedent as well as how Bulbapedia is ultimately standardized wildly differently from Wikipedia, I see no valid reason why this article should deleted given how its meant to be a discussion on the species at large and not simply say, an article exclusively about Ash's Squirtle. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I wasn't sure about this, but ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ's claim that "the Squirtle squad" is notable but that "Squirtle" as a species is not strikes me as over-convenient hairsplitting. I don't think that argument holds up. If this article is deleted, no one is planning to raise a "Squirtle squad" article on its ashes. Keep the article that we have. AfD is not cleanup. Toughpigs (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up per above. Some of our Pokemon content is on the edge, but there is WP:SIGCOV about this character. The trivial mentions can be summarized in a more encyclopedic way, and the rest can be figured out through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As Cukie Gherkin and Kung Fu Man have pointed out, there are a couple of articles on the internet discussing the notability of this particular Pokemon species. I strongly agree that in this case, the popularity of the Squirtle Squad has definitely made an impact on the perception of the species as a whole as evidenced in this article from Forbes about Squirtle which was first featured as a Pokemon Go Community Day promotional event. Squirtle has also been promoted as a Funko Pop Vinyl doll, one of several species featured as livery on a commercial airline, and even as a kids meal toy from McDonald's. I believe I could transplant some of the sources from the Meowth, Charizard, and Raichu articles and use it to salvage the article from deletion. I am willing to do the work, but I am currently working on salvaging another featured list from demotion.
--Birdienest81talk 08:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which featured list, out of curiosity? @Birdienest8: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Los Angeles Rams head coaches Birdienest81talk 21:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Baghirov

AfDs for this article:
Anar Baghirov (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 was deleted in 2017 for failing to meet notability. It was recreated in 2018 and still does not meet notability requirements. It also appears to have been created by a COI account. The subject does not meet notability requirements for academics or officials. The subject is the head of Azerbaijan's Bar Association but that does not seem to give notability to the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Resume BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Even a brief look at the article content and sources show the refs do not meet WP:IS. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if WP:THREE sources are found that meet WP:SIGCOV and are not routine mill news.  // Timothy :: talk  06:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: part of a COI/SPA campaign about Azerbaijan topics. This one fails NBIO. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Reil

AfDs for this article:
Billy Reil (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 notable wrestler. Worked on independent level. sources only make passing mentions about him WP:ROUTINE results. No in-deep coverage about him. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus here is slim, especially with the nom being discounted since having been blocked. However this is a BLP without good sourcing, and therefore edge to delete. Star Mississippi 22:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin

Jana Amin (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)

Failure of WP:BLP and WP:N. Sources are not independent, half are related to her entrepreneur mother, whose biography itself is not notable.

Source evaluation:

  • el Kaliouby, Rana; Coleman, Carol (2000). Girl Decoded. Penguin Random House.
Book from her mother.
  • "Changing the narrative around Muslim Women and supporting girl's education with Jana Amin, Egyptian-American Advocate (#16)"
Podcast involving her.
  • Changing the narrative, one Muslim woman at a time | Jana Amin | TEDxYouth@BeaconStreet
TEDx involving her.
  • "Affectiva Co-Founder Rana el Kaliouby on How She Built a Tech Startup as a Single Mom 5,000 Miles From Home"
Interview of her mother.
  • "Rana el Kaliouby decodes her memoir "Girl Decoded""
Book about her mother.
  • "UNGA 2020: 'I began my activist journey by telling the story of Muslim women I knew'"
Interview with her about her TEDx.
  • Amin, Jana (17 December 2019), Changing the narrative, one Muslim woman at a time, retrieved 2021-03-25
Her TEDx talk.
It is very likely self-published (https://egyptianstreets.com/submit-an-article/). Also, see an excerpt of the article:
Amin is not just an inspiring women’s rights activist of our time, but also a young woman of action whose life is centered on learning, commitment and determination, and passionately works to ensure that visions, policies and even academia are turned into real tangible solutions..
  • "Protecting progress for girls' education — Assembly | Malala Fund"
Blog post by her.
  • Hung, Madeleine A.; Kim, Joyce E. (September 15, 2023). "Harvard Students Launch Fundraisers for Morocco Earthquake Relief".
One namedrop of her. Local college newspaper.

Given this and the overall interconnection between promotional pages, I think a WP:TNT delete is needed. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have looked at the sources, and I substantially agree with the assessment that बिनोद थारू has given. There are citations to pages that don't even mention Jana Amin, pages that barely mention her in passing, and pages that are either certainly or probably not independent of her. There is no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because The National (Abu Dhabi) is a reputable newspaper and being prominently interviewed in it should be enough to establish WP:N, especially when also backed by Egyptian Streets which is a large blog in Egypt, plus being allowed to write for the Malala Fund and speak at TEDx: OK so not every TEDx speaker automatically has WP:N but a TEDx speaker who's also been in some country's major daily newspaper and another country's major blog is more likely to be. I agree that the article should be improved (we could cite the Borgen Project magazine article instead of just the front of the Collateral Repair Project for a start, although we'd first need to check why Wikipedia is blacklisting Borgen Project URLs, I wonder if this is an error). But I don't see the need to WP:TNT this article. (Potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT disclosure: her mother and I were in the same lab as PhD students. I think the points I made are still valid; a second opinion to check this would be nice) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 22:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add sources to further establish notability: NowThis News - How Nawal El Saadawi Shook Up the Patriarchy in Egypt featured Jana; also the Italian version of Elle (magazine) ran an article on her; also Marie Claire Arabia (which does not currently have a Wikipedia article, but has been cited several times by various Wikipedia articles so appears to be a recognised source) had an Arabic article featuring her. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 14:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. This close has no prejudice against renaming/rescoping the article, but there's insufficient consensus and it can be discussed outside of AFD. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born Japanese

Foreign-born Japanese (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)
See my comment below. The term is Diaspora. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case. The article on Japanese diaspora is about the group of ethnic Japanese people who are in Japan (a large majority of whom are not citizens of Japan, and have never lived there), whereas this article is about the group of Japanese citizens who were not born in Japan (a large majority of whom live in Japan). Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the scope intended by this article. This article is explicitly about citizens of Japan, which is a separate topic from Japanese diaspora. In effect, since the Japanese government does not acknowledge the existence of ethnicity (and the series of articles on foreign groups in Japan also explicitly limits the scope of those articles to citizens of foreign countries, cf. Brazilians in Japan, Chinese people in Japan, Americans in Japan), deletion of this article would leave us with few places to discuss the subjects of this article as a group. If that is fine with everyone, I suppose the category will have to suffice. Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Dekimasu's extensive edits, and to see whether the initial issues have been resolved or can be with a rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion in line with the prior relisting comment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ with a side of nomination withdrawn, however consensus is also clear Star Mississippi 22:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of contract laws

Conflict of contract laws (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete This article is a mess and contains huge swaths of unverified content. Seems to violate WP:NOTESSAY and I believe it would be best to WP:TNT. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Tooncool64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James500 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of what? Contract laws??? Tooncool64 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of the topic of "unreferenced wikipedia articles" (and, to a lesser extent, unreferenced content within largely or allegedly unreferenced articles). As I explained in my edit summary, the contributions of your account consist more or less entirely of a 'campaign' against uncited articles. Your account is also a WP:SLEEPER with no edits for roughly five years, then a massive spike of edits over the Christmas holidays (when most editors were away), that consists entirely of this 'campaign' of PRODs, AfDs, RfCs etc. on unreferenced articles. James500 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. In fact, I find your insinuation that I am a bad faith actor insulting. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason we have Template:Single-purpose account is because it is relevant to AfD discussions. Further, I have not insinuated anthing. James500 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The template usage page specifically states that it should be used in cases of suspected sockpuppetry. Also, if you look at my contributions, I have contributed much more than just nominating articles for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not exactly what the template says. It roughly loosely says that it should be used if there are sufficient grounds for concern, and in my provisional opinion, the fact that an WP:SPA is also a WP:SLEEPER constitutes sufficient grounds. Yes, I can see that you have been adding sources etc to unreferenced articles, but that is still editing within the single narrow topic of the "unreferenced articles backlog". If you don't like the template, the simplest thing to do would be for you to diversify your editing. There are lots of things that you can do on this project that don't relate to the "unreferenced articles backlog". James500 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: no evidence whatsoever of WP:BEFORE. Here is a paper from a law journal I found after literally five seconds of a Google search for the article's name. Here's a book: "Eugene F. Scoles and Peter Hay, Hornbook on Conflict of Laws, West Group (2004)". Is there a reason these aren't viable? jp×g🗯️ 02:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper you have found does not seem to mention the concept of "Conflict of contract laws". While the concept of "Conflict of laws" has implications on "contracts" and "contract law" (this is why there is a section titled "Contracts" in our article "Conflict of laws"), I am not familiar with the concept "Conflict of contract laws" as such. It might be that the phrases "Conflict of laws" and "Conflict of contract laws" are quasi-synonymous. I have some sympathy for Tooncool64's proposal to WP:TNT the article, in the absence of any source. In my view, in this specific instance, a sensible way forward would be to improve and expand the section "Contracts" in our article "Conflict of laws", rather than trying to convert a rather long personal essay containing no reference into a proper Wikipedia article. Edcolins (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. This concept satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. It has received significant coverage in many books and periodicals, and there are many entire periodical articles and entire book chapters about it. The expression "conflict of contract laws" does actually appear in numerous books and periodical articles in Google Books and elsewhere, but the expression is entirely synonymous with the chapter on "contract" that appears in every book on conflict of laws (aka private international law), and with that branch of the law of conflict of laws. Any attempt to deny this would violate NOTDICTIONARY, because we don't treat a single topic as multiple topics just because the single topic has multiple names. It may be that the present page name is not the WP:COMMONNAME of this concept, and the page should be moved. This topic has numerous names, such as: conflict of contract laws; conflict of laws in contract; conflict of laws of contract; conflict of laws: contract; conflict of laws and contract; contract in conflict of laws; contract in the conflict of laws; contract and conflict of laws; contract and the conflict of laws; and so on ad nauseum. They are all the same thing. They are not separate topics. There is no indication that the article is a mess, and David91 was not, as far as I can remember, in the habit of writing essays, or huge swaths of unverifiable content. He did make a few mistakes (I should know, because I have corrected some of them over the years), but it was very obvious that he always got his information from law books, and that most of it was reasonably accurate. Further the article is not actually unreferenced or unverified at all. The article cites four sources including one Act of Parliament and three international treaties, all of which are reliable sources. WP:TNT is not applicable, and the deletion of the main article on any broad area of the law would completely disrupt that entire area of the project and would be disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive, disruptive. James500 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is now referenced to seven treatises and a periodical article. There are many other sources available. James500 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw my nomination per information above. I made a mistake in not doing enough research. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's Most Wanted

Australia's Most Wanted (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:NTV, WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG, despite being a notable program that aired on the Seven Network from 1989 to 1999, before being cancelled, then the program switched to the Nine Network for 6 weeks, then it was axed. Only refs are from IMDb, tv.com and ovguide.com. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Langlois

Suzanne Langlois (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)

Questionable notability that does not appear to be established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is an important figure in St. Louis, both as founder of Kaldi's and her work at Meds and Food for Kids. M'Laurine (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are needed for that claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Here are some sources, including podcast interviews and stories in several newspapers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoRqyIZH_4k (The Seed - the Start-up Journey Episode 20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmM2qClxudU (The Influential Non-profit - Episode 37)
https://www.voxmagazine.com/news/kaldis-coffee-mu-education-expansion/article_cbcb86d4-062a-11ea-9609-ff8bddb79a81.html
https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/kaldis-makes-four-coffee-shops-near-the-corner-of-ninth-and-cherry-streets/article_4122ea2d-28f9-5bd9-847c-fe469738e061.html
https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/food-drink/dining/coffee-is-good-with---and-in---muffins-special-request-bakers-at/article_e83b2d46-f6a5-55e7-9a27-0f17f94e41f4.html
https://urnex.com/blog/kaldis-is-raising-the-coffee-game-in-americas-heartland
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/best-of/2000/food-and-drink/best-place-to-buy-coffee-2507925
https://ethicalstl.org/docs/EthicsInActionAward/ParticiaWolff.pdf
https://newterritorymag.com/about/board/ M'Laurine (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commercial adspam of only local interest. If this BIO has been edited by a paid editor the subject should ask for their money back. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I think we must agree to disagree. In my opinion, being a businesswoman sought out by multiple newspapers and bloggers for interviews, and later becoming CEO of an organization that has treated 800,000 Haitian children for malnutrition, amounts to cultural significance. Xxanthippe clearly disagrees. I suggest we let others weigh in.
    I would also request that you refrain from ad hominem attacks. You may disagree with me for believing that various St. Louisians merit Wikipedia pages, but my motivation is informational, not financial. Attacking the poster serves just to maintain the status quo of articles mainly about entertainers, university professors and athletes. M'Laurine (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - based on sources in the article, listed here, and my online search, there does not appear to be significant independent, reliable, and secondary coverage to support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. For example, the source used to support the article's claim that Langlois "has been credited for changing the coffee landscape in St. Louis" (URNEX), according to its About Us page, is a company that sells coffee-related products and offers services to coffee shop owners; its blog post source about Kaldi's includes "Josh Ferguson views Urnex less as just a product manufacturer and more as a trusted advisor in all things coffee equipment" etc - this appears to be an advertisement that lacks independence. The 2019 Vox Magazine source focuses on Josh Ferguson, Tricia Zimmer Ferguson, and Kaldi's, and mentions "In 1994, Howard Lerner and Suzanne Langlois founded Kaldi’s in St. Louis" so this is not significant coverage. The 2008 Columbia Missourian source is three lines, announcing a new Kaldi's location, so is not significant or secondary coverage of Langlois. The 2009 St Louis Dispatch source is mostly based on quotes from Langlois, lists Kaldi's locations and includes a muffins recipe, which is not significant, independent, secondary coverage of Langlois. There is also an event announcement that is not significant coverage. There is a post from the Kaldi's website, which is not independent. There is also a high school student newspaper I am not able to access, but this type of source is not strong support for notability. There is a 1994 St. Louis Dispatch source noting a local journalism award for Langlois, which is not significant support for notability. There is also a 2017 Feast magazine recognition for Kaldi's, which is not significant support for notability. Another source is the New Territory Magazine About page, which has a brief profile of Langlois, which is not independent or secondary support for notability. This source review is not saying Langlois has not had a successful career or diminishing the importance of her nonprofit career; there are various reasons why the notability guidelines have us looking for certain types of coverage, and it does not appear that we have those types of sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She is a successful businessperson who has accomplished various things but does not meet the requirements of WP:N. Llajwa (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQAW-LD

WQAW-LD (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 meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to prior bundled AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, fails GNG and NCORP. No WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found routine mill news, nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab A8

Samsung Galaxy Tab A8 (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 has no references. But, this article was moved to mainspace because of old article per WP:DRAFTIFY.Hajoon0102 💬 01:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDEO-LD

KDEO-LD (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 meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHDT-LD

KHDT-LD (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 meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New York City stabbing spree

2024 New York City stabbing spree (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)

Wikipedia is not a news site and it's too soon for an article on a series of crimes that will likely not have lasting or persistent coverage. This particular series of crimes are not particularly high-profile outside of NYC, and it's run-of-the-mill coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Response to the relisting comment: As an initial matter, a search of ABC7 to determine whether stabbings are generally singular events, and thus unique, is OR. We need RSes to establish that claim to notability. (In any event, WP:NCRIME does not create an exception for unique criminal acts. By contrast, WP:CRIME, which applies to perpetrators, does, but the example provided there is Seung-Hui Cho, and this stabbing spree is nothing like the Virginia Tech shooting.) The additional sources provided also do not establish notability. First, having national coverage is not enough under WP:GEOSCOPE, which states that such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. The sources cited are also all recent news reports, and WP:PERSISTENCE states that Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A recent google search 10 days after these events finds no sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please stop writing these fearmonger articles about everyday crime in New York. Nobody died, suspect in custody. Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and also WP:HEY. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lizbeth Goodman

Lizbeth Goodman (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)

Not appearing to meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. Avishai11 (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Penmynydd as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castellior

Castellior (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)

Castellior is just a farm, not a village or hamlet. I have walked past it on the public footpath. There is no intrinsic notability for individual farms. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   00:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, meets WP:GNG. Goes to show, you can't walk a public footpath in the UK without tripping over something historic. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are hints that there is geology to be had, as well, if it's the farm that the geologists are talking about, which I have not confirmed. Name check at Jones 1875, p. 300, too.
      • Jones, Owen, ed. (1875). "Mon, Ynys". Cymru: yn hanesyddol, parthedegol, a bywgraphyddol (in Welsh). Vol. 2. Glasgow & Edinburgh: Blackie a'i fab.
    • Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Fold into Penmynydd - I tend to disagree that this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NGEO) based on sources shared by Jfire (talk · contribs) or other references I could find - which are almost all incidental.
My view for each of the sources shared by Jfire:
  • Carr discusses the etymology of Castellior and lists three hypotheses for how this name came to be. As one page in a 300+ page book dedicated to reviewing every single place name in Anglesey, I don't see this as being a strong sign of notability. The page lists three different names used in the past for the locale, and mentions two people by name in the hypotheses for the place name, but neither appear to have published books on this topic (from a very quick search) which could help establish encyclopedic value . (I was not able as present to access Nurmio's paper, however if the core discussion is regarding etymology, I doubt the contents over these two pages can be significantly different)
  • Pritchard is very much a passing mention that does not establish notability, with four sentences in total covering Castellior, noting that someone said something was there, but with no proof.
  • Muckle is a report of archaeological excavations. Again, unless there are findings of note (which there do not appear to be) I don't see how this supports notoriety for an individual article.
  • The 'Castellior Project' is one of many that the Welsh Government supports. Many of these are named after the farm or locale where they are implemented (Pentre Farm, Cilwrgi Farm, Lower Eyton Farm, Fro Farm, Ffrith Farm... all of these were on the first two pages of listings on the 'Farming Connect' program which includes the 'Castellior Project'). Again, I don't see how this establishes WP:GNG or WP:NGEO level of notability for a self-standing article.
I feel these sources would be better used to add in the Penmynydd article a section regarding possible fortifications near Penmynydd. This section can include sourced discussion on the etymology of Castellior, the lack of findings from archaeological surveys in the area, as well as the potential link to Bryn Eryr. Shazback (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KADY-LP

KADY-LP (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 meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_21&oldid=1197652117"