Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ola of Lagos

[edit]
Ola of Lagos (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:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Nothing much to add here, but there's just no credible claim of importance here. Mostly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The delete views carry substantially more P&G-weight than the Keeps. Owen× ☎ 13:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MAX60 Cricket League

[edit]
MAX60 Cricket League (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 non-notable T10 league, this time from the Cayman Islands. Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG, alongside WP:EVENT. Notability of an event also isn't inherited just because current or former players are taking part. AA (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is well sourced. Multiple news organisations have reported on it. Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine squad announcements? Zero in-depth coverage which demonstrates why this tournament is notable. It is being played in the Cayman Islands, one of the lowest ranked associate members of the ICC. Zero notability and would be surprised if A) it happens, B) it lasts more than a season. The list of notable cricket tournaments can be found here. You won't it on this list. AA (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s great to see that associate nations are stepping up their game. Pkr206 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a reason to keep an article. AA (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (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, no significant coverage Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):
Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA
Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep
    let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
    Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
    Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect right now. Let's get a few more sports fans in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Redirecting it would diminish the significance of the tournament compared to other international competitions. This is an Under-16 level event organized by all confederations; the article should remain. Similar to UEFA and AFC tournament editions before the 2000s, the early editions of the CAFA tournament need to be preserved.
Lunar Spectrum96 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunar Spectrum96: you can only !vote once, I've removed the duplicate above. Mdann52 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ with no prejudice towards recreation as a dab, if there are enough articles to support such a page according to the guideline. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonperson

[edit]
Nonperson (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)

Original research; Fails WP:GNG: no considerable discussion of the concept in sources. Even the definition is unreferenced - Altenmann >talk 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There does appear to be a plethora of sources confirming the existence of the "nonperson" concept, with an example of a work that discusses it deeply enough being The Nonperson Treatment in Higher Education: The Case of Contingent Faculty by Roscoe Scarborough.[4] The only thing to do here is to add these sources and summarize how different sources define this concept. Perfectly notable to me. Brat Forelli🦊 12:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you suggesting is WP:SYNTHESIS. The article you cited used the term "nonperson" in a meaning different rom wikipedia. The same with some ither sources. There is no single coherent concept of "nonperson" so that we can consider its notability. Also, to adding diaparate definitions given by differet authors would propably violate WP:UNDUE rule: why would an opinon of a singlle author be encyclopedic? - Altenmann >talk 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources.", as WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION states. There is nothing wrong with a single term having more than one definition. The way in which article will make sense is to simply include the verifiable definitions without trying to synthetize them. There is no single definition of fascism that everyone would agree with. The solution is to include multiple. My vote stands. Brat Forelli🦊 17:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is not mere "more than one definition" - these are different definitions for different subjects accidentally having the same name. Per wikipedia rules, every article must cover a single subject. The subject which is defined in the lede has no reference. The source cited does not give any definition, merely uses the term. If you want to add other definitions, this would mean that you assume they describe the same subject, which is exactly WP:SYNTH. - Altenmann >talk 00:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be great to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If we address each definition of this concept we would simply end up with a list of WP:FRINGE ideas. Even the one citation to the article as it stands now, only uses the word in its prose once to quote someone else who used the word. It seems to be in the title of the citation just for shock value, If it is felt there is merit to an article for this, then a draft can be created and reviewed before recreating. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. I agree that there is no single coherent concept of "nonperson". However, the article does have a useful See Also list leading to articles on topics people might be looking for, if they search wikipedia for "nonperson". We should simply convert this into a dab page to those articles. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DELETE Upon first blush, it seems there should be an article on this, as in, it seems intuitively that it would be possible to write and source a good article on this topic. Upon a careful read, the fact that this has only one source is a problem. As I begin to look for more sources, I find that the dictionary definition of "nonperson" seems to differ from the more formal, social-sciencey one in the article. I feel that a good article on this concept would have to specify that this is the usage of "nonperson" specific to particular fields and not the general English definition of "nonperson." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC) And on a search for sources I find that while the sole source listed is not the only one that uses this political/legal definition of "nonperson," there are many other sources that use many more, including this one [5]. Here's my Google Scholar link, which as you can see shows the definition in the article and others: [6]. I am concerned that having an article on the political/legal side of this concept that does not acknowledge itself puts Wikipedia in the position of claiming that this is the only way to understand "nonperson." It's "gender" all over again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratra

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There does not appear to be any coverage of this subject outside of unreliable British Raj-era gazetteers. Searching on Google Scholar, Books, and online, I was able to find unrelated references to the name/term "Ratra" ([7]) but nothing relevant. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Henry

[edit]
Jazz Henry (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 sources given that meet WP:GNG (her father's website, herself talking, some name drops, and dubiously reliable articles), I didn't find any better ones, and the article also fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:ANYBIO. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable musician outside of the Band mentioned, I'm not sure a redirect would do much.. I find no sourcing strictly about this individual, only about the band. Guest star roles in TV shows are not what we're looking for for notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Park

[edit]
Gender Park (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:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. References are routine news reports about individual initiates when it was inaugurated. The organization itself lacks sufficient coverage. Government organization has no inherent notability, WP:ORGSIG. Gan Favourite (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Institute of Local Administration

[edit]
Kerala Institute of Local Administration (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:ORG, lacks in-depth coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) in reliable independent sources. WP:PRIMARY references are used for sourcing. The content is mostly copied from the official website. Govt organizations are not automatically notable (WP:ORGSIG). Gan Favourite (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Littlest Man Band

[edit]
The Littlest Man Band (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. There's this in The Reader (newspaper) (which directly copies much of the text from the Wikipedia article) and a review by Punktastic. A possible alternative to deletion is a merge/redirect to Scott Klopfenstein (although I'm not sure if he himself is wiki-notable either). toweli (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete argument seems strong. Even a little more discussion could show clearer consensus, though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISU World Standings records and statistics

[edit]
ISU World Standings records and statistics (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 don't even know what to make of this. An indiscriminate and incomprehensible assemblage of statistics; many of the "sources" do not support what a particular table purports to show; appears to violate WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SYNTHESIS, among other issues. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Broome

[edit]
Joshua Broome (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)

Soft Delete, so no issue with recreation, however factors do not appear to have changed substantively since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocco Reed. No indication Broome meets notability requirements as either an entertainer or a religious figure. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. The sources cited by Oaktree b seem to provide some proof of notability. The subject is not a politician, for which Fox may be considered a questionable source, and he used to be in the entertainment industry, for which NY Post has, although marginable, reliability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Hmmm... The Fox News, New York Post, Christian Post, and The Repository sources presented by Oaktree b appear to be interviews. I also found the subject being interviewed by Washington Times[12] and Evie Magazine[13]. While being interviewed by numerous media outlets is certainly proof of notability, fulfilling GNG cannot rely entirely on primary sources. I found several secondary sources from CBN[14][15], Daily Mirror[16], Mid-Day[17], and Maeil Business Newspaper[18]. These are definitely not the best sources, but the presence of these sources shows the subject person has secondary source coverage, and should also grant a pass for the primary sources to be considered as evidence of notability per WP:IV. So with both the primary and secondary sources presented in this discussion, I believe the subject person should pass GNG. Besides, I am not familiar with the American pornographic industry, so I cannot tell whether XBIZ Awards and AVN Awards are significant awards, but the numerous wins and nominations may also contribute to passing NACTOR or ANYBIO imo. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. Brent Morris

[edit]
S. Brent Morris (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:NAUTHOR. No clear notability. Longhornsg (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kakinada Airport

[edit]
Kakinada Airport (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 significant enough. No developments after 2014. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Nomination does not state a valid rationale for deletion, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete content. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism

[edit]
Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism (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)

Information available from Google Books on the author Rodney Casdeden: a geographer and geomorphologist by training and has been actively involved in research on landscape processes and prehistory for the last twenty years. He has written books such as Inventions that changed the World, discoveries that changed the World, People who changed the World etc. Should scientific matters such as Heliocentrism be used from author of such books as he clearly isn't a subject expert on the matter, also Vedic-heliocetrism relation is a disputed issue and not widely published in any reliable scientific materials(Indians sources regarding the matter is subject to further reliability check as plethora of works produced from India on matters regarding inventions and discoveries from India are heavy embellishments of the actual fact, a kind of tribalism). The second source clearly states it is a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual sans peer review. So it is explicit that citation is unreliable അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm seeing several other sources that discuss Yajnavalkya in the context of heliocentrism.[19] Perhaps it's just an issue with that one reference? Okay, I found the nom's arguments compelling, so I'm changing my preference to delete. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment delete: :In mainstream academics, it is generally accepted that the first heliocentric model was proposed by the Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos and later by Nicolaus Copernicus. Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism is not accepted by mainstream academics and may have been a religious interpretation of the text rather than a true heliocentric model. According to Shatapatha Brahmana it states that

    "The sun strings these worlds – the earth, the planets, the atmosphere – to himself on a thread.”

Which is interpreted as heliocentrism.It was already discussed on talk page regarding indian heliocentrism Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not only this article but every mention of Heliocentrism by Yajnavalkya in Wikipedia as it falls under WP:Fringe
@Srnec, @Praemonitus
Let's see the sources used for the article Yajnavalkya's theory of heliocentrism
The case for the unreliability of the first(author Rodney Casdeden) and second sources(a paper done for the completion of MSc degree by an individual)(numbering based on the article's reference list) are already pointed out by me. So I am skipping that.
Let us see the other sources
Fourth Source, the Murder in Venice by R. Suryanarayanan is explicitly a work of fiction. Now I am wondering how this as a source for an article on scientific topic existed in Wikipedia for so long without anybody noticing it.
Fifth source, Kak, SC. "THE SUN'S ORBIT IN THE BRAHMANAS is from the Indian journal of history of science. Reliability on Indian journal of history of science is extensively discussed in the Wikipedia Reliability noticeboard here under the section named Indian journal of history of science. There seems to be a general consensus that this journal is not a reliable source of information for citation. Also, see the guy(Kak, SC) who authored this isn't an expert on the field, he is an Electrical Engineering(if I remember it correctly) by qualification.
Sixth source, is from a website [20]. The website's About us states NRIOL.COM is a website developed by NRI Online Pvt. Ltd., a company promoted by a group of professionals and dedicated in providing value-added services to the unique needs of the expatriates worldwide. what more needed for its unreliability. It is also worth noting that the sources cited by the website are this Wikipedia article along with another work. This other another work the website cited doesn't even have a word entry for Heliocentrism or Yajnavalkya.
The seventh source, Ms. Mitali, Ratnaparkhi. English Textbook. As y'all can see, it is an English text, definitely not reliable for scientific topics. If needed I can elaborate the malpractices this source used in the translations of Vedas it provided. Also keep in mind this source is the product of Hindu nationalist(Hindutva) government who has a very established agendas for tying science with Vedas(or explaining science with Vedas/Vedic science/Vedic Mathematics etc) for legitimising their religion, an Indian version of Young Earth Creationism used by Evangelists in USA and elsewhere.
The third source used as citation in this article named Physics Around Us: How And Why Things Work by World Scientific Publishing Company may have fallen prey for the publications by Indian Journal for History of Science or other Indian publications as most of non Indian works that includes such claims may not be aware of the ground reality of movement happening within India ie., Tying Science with Hindu religious scriptures, the Vedas, or claiming Hindu religious scriptures such as Vedas has science in them millennia before present. Also this source doesn't go extensively on the topic just mentioning it as if a hearsay, as that book's objective wasn't on history of science.
So it is clear that this claim directly falls under Fringe theory like Flat Earth. Not only this, there are other claims like these circulating in English Wikipedia citing Indian Journal of History of Science and other Indian origin publications whose objective is as aforementioned.
So one can conclude that all listed references for this article are outright unreliable except for one.
അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sethubavachatram

[edit]
Sethubavachatram (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)

But for its age, this would have been a PROD. Flagged as unsourced since 2014. Fails WP:GEOLAND 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: INDIAN VILLAGE DIRECTORY lists Sethubavachatram as registered. In this New Indian Express article, the village is used in illegal spice trading. 2011 census also gives details. Few more reports are also there. Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishop's School (disambiguation)

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

This is a WP:ONEOTHER situation: a two-item disambiguation page for a term with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I added a hatnote to The Bishop's School, so the disambiguation page isn't accomplishing anything. - Eureka Lott 17:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Richmond, Virginia City Council elections

[edit]
2016 Richmond, Virginia City Council elections (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:NEVENT and WP:GNG due to a total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia isn't a political database. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is a clear consensus against an outright deletion of the page. Views are split between Keep and Revert to DAB. The choice between the two is an editorial one, not an administrative one. As such, it should be resolved like any other content dispute, on the Article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late modern period

[edit]
Late modern period (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 was the subject of a disputed blank-and-redirect a few weeks ago, and the involved editors have been talking past each other since then. I have restored the text so it can be discussed here, which is what should have happened per WP:BLAR. Those in favor of the BLAR argue that the entire article is original research and non-neutral, as reliable sources do not meaningfully use the term "late modern period". Those against the BLAR argue that the term does have precedent in reliable sources and that past consensus has been to keep the article as it is. Though I was previously involved in the discussion, consider my nomination procedural rather than a strong stance one way or the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging the participants of the discussion so they can weigh in here if they wish to do so. ActivelyDisinterested, Iskandar323, Nederlandse Leeuw, Peter Isotalo, Sm8900, SnowFire. Given the drawn out arguments around the BLAR, I ask that WP:BLUDGEON and WP:PEPPER be firmly applied at this AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambig and merge content (second choice): I've tried turning it into a disambig before, and supported it when this was done. I would find that an acceptable solution instead of outright deletion; the rationale of others here to Revert to disambig – especially Beland, who appears to be commanding a tentative majority right now – is somewhat persuasive. NLeeuw (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All About George-type coatrack articles
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia:Coatrack articles § All About George.[edit]
Shortcut

In an article whose article subject is XYZ (a location in America)

George Washington visited/slept/worked/ate at XYZ; George Washington was a terrible general and a lousy President, he owned slaves, lied about chopping down a cherry tree, … (followed by paragraph after paragraph of content, all about George and with little - if anything at all - to do with XYZ).

While the article talks about XYZ and its relation to George Washington, it does so very briefly and quickly moves on to applying biased negative opinions ("a terrible general, a lousy President") and facts (perhaps George Washington did own slaves at the time: nonetheless, the presentation of that fact is likely to cause a strong emotional reaction in the reader) and statements that are spurious, uncited, and unsourced (did he lie about chopping down a cherry tree? If so, can this be sourced?). The rest of the paragraphs have little to do with XYZ – the main Article – itself and continue to "hang" other negative unsourced "coats" on this coatrack, leading to a biased, slanted article. Since the example here is linked to a person of high notability, the statements most likely will be called into question and/or deleted on the spot without discussion.

It's better to just say "George Washington ate at XYZ on a date", and link to a George-specific article. "General George Washington slept here during the XYZ campaign" is also reasonable, if being a military general on the campaign was part of the reason he slept here. So is "Future President George Washington visited", because it briefly explains why someone might care that George Washington did so.

Remember that, according to transparency of piped links, we should add context, and not take it for granted that the reader knows who is Washington or will follow the link. The context, however, should be limited to what's needed for the current article. In this example, "President George Washington" or "General George Washington" (as opposed to just "George Washington") would be enough, as it clarifies why he would be considered a notable visitor. Try to keep a balance: provide context about other topics that may be relevant to the topic of the article, but don't lose focus of the current article and don't provide more context than what would be really needed.

NLeeuw (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SnowFire is the only reasonable user so far in this discussion. This is not an article about the term "Late modern period" or how often it is used. The name can change, but we need an overview article for historical changes since the Industrial Revolution. Dimadick (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambig and merge content. Apparently I dumped all this content here while breaking up Modern history, which is now a redirect to Modern era, and it now seems to overlap too many other articles. The parent article of this topic is now Human history. (I'm assuming this period is for the whole world, because by 1800 it became interconnected, and that this is not supposed to be a period in History of Western civilization?) It uses the terms "modern period" for 1800-present and makes Modern era the detail article for that period. Modern era says "The modern period is today more often used for events from the 19th century until today." If that's all supported by recent reliable sources, then the thing to do is merge this article into that one, following WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps Template:Human history could also then use adjusting to put "early modern period" outside "modern period"?
Because so much happened from 1800-1945, I'm not averse to making Modern era mostly about terminology and cross-century themes identified by historians, and moving actual semi-detailed historical overviews to century articles. Centuries are a weirdly arbitrary way to chop up the history of the world, but we're going to be doing that in those articles regardless. It's a bit weird to have an article that summaries the 1800s and half the 1900s but then also 19th century and 20th century, at similar levels of detail. I would leave that sort of editorial decision up to the implementer(s) of the merge (or a post-merge discussion), but if that happens, then Human history should probably be refactored to follow century boundaries. I'll at least link to century articles for 1800+ from there.
In any event, Late modern period used to be a disambiguation page (see Special:diff/920745392) so it should probably go back to being something like that, and not completely deleted. -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early modern period contradicts Modern era, and says the former is part of the latter. Is that because it's using an older definition? It sounds right because of the names; did an editor just make an assumption? How do we resolve this? -- Beland (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have serious systemtic problems regarding the scope and use of sources in our history articles. The problem is that we're treating history as a topic where any editor can define their their own article with the scope of "history from year X to Y" and then fill it with whatever content they want.
We need to start taking periodization seriously and not just consider it a convenient way of defining "overview articles" that are defined as year X to Y without any justification. With the exception of wars and other well-defined events, historians don't actually split history down to the exact year. In this context, the ones that are being "weirdly arbitrary" regarding history are us Wikipedians. Peter Isotalo 14:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the broader sense (rarely applied anymore), the early modern period is part of the modern period/era. In the strict sense (more commonly applied), the early modern period/era preceded the modern period/era, and the conventional demarcation between the two is the year 1800. According to the Nipperdey paper, "early modern period" as a term was coined in order to emphasise the "non-modernity" of European (and North American) society before 1800 (more broadly speaking, before the French and Industrial Revolutions). NLeeuw (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is the Nipperdey paper: Nipperdey, Justus (6 July 2022). "Inventing "Early Modern" Europe: Fashioning a New Historical Period in American Historiography 1880–1945". Journal of Early Modern History. 27 (3). Brill: 199–223. doi:10.1163/15700658-bja10051. ISSN 1385-3783. Retrieved 25 June 2024. It's one of very few WP:RS which actually mentions "late modern" (late-modern) as a potential (but rarely-used) historiographic time frame, but only once, and in passing (p. 212). The variation later modern actually seems more common (it is used 6 times in this paper: pp. 204, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222), but nobody agrees on the meaning and scope of later modern either. Nevertheless, this paper is extremely useful as a Begriffsgeschichte of the term "early modern". I can recommend anyone interested in this subject to read this paper. NLeeuw (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This process circumvents WP:OR and WP:N. This article was without support in reliable sources for years. Due warning was given on the talkpage and people had almost a year to provide sources. Textbook case of simply redirecting and this has been supported by at least two users. The situation is crystal-clear with editors consistently failing to provide source that define a "late modern period", but still trying to argue in favor of keeping the article because of personal preference. And now this AfD is being used to keep the issue alive. Rather than forcing the article to live up to perfectly normal policy standards, the issue is being put to a vote where lack of consensus would mean the article is kept. This is a purely bureaucratic maneuver with no benefit to the project. Peter Isotalo 10:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree; I think that nom is following the proper procedure as indicated, and we could probably best resolve the situation by participating in this process. NLeeuw (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree. I think it's a very clear case of where the verifiability of article content is being judged more on the number of edits and personal opinions rather than core policy. If enough people pile on here, they can overturn WP:V and WP:OR, and that's basically the same as voting on facts.
    With that said, I'm in favor of creating a disambiguation page. Peter Isotalo 09:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Peter Isotalo has been systematically removing incoming links to this article, so if the result here is keep then that will need to be repaired. – Joe (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • :I believe Joe has an axe to grind with anyone who supports academic historiography, or at least the aspects of it that he personally disagrees with. The way he characterizes my editing in articles that misleadingly use the fringe terminology "late modern" is in my view simply not good faith.
  • :Someone's simply annoyed for their POV being challenged and is acting accordingly. Peter Isotalo 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A remarkable belief. I'm sure you've got plenty of evidence for it. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Treat this as content issue rather than trying to throw shade on my behavior simply for disagreeing. Your comments here appear to be an attempt to escalate this issue into something other than a dispute over either content or procedure. Peter Isotalo 12:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm merely noting that you removed a bunch of incoming links that would usually be left in place until the AfD is closed. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making my edits seems suspicious even though I'm trying to use perfectly correct and normal periodization terminology. If I had simply deleted information, sure, but I've been changing links to refer to the modern period, which is perfectly normal and standard terminology. Peter Isotalo 13:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's focus on the contents and the relevant policies and guidelines, folks. :) NLeeuw (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to modern era then disambiguate per Beland. I agree with Selfstudier that we should should have an overview article for the period 1800–1945 and what we call it is irrelevant; Peter Isotalo is also not doing his argument any favours with the battleground behaviour and edit warring in lieu of discussion. However, as Beland points out we already have that overview article at modern era, so we should merge the content (back) there to avoid a WP:CFORK. Retaining a disambiguation page also seems sensible because, even if "late modern period" is not a widely-accepted historiographical concept, it's used in many other articles and is a plausible search term. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be my second choice. (During previous discussions this was my first choice, but attempts to implement it and reach consensus unfortunately did not succeed). I could get behind this option if the article is not deleted (first choice). NLeeuw (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So to clarify, you'd prefer it be left as a red link? – Joe (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as long as we can find no sensible content for it, we should just delete it altogether.
    A DP with possible meanings might help people to find what they're looking for, but I've already tried that, and we couldn't agree on that. But maybe we can reach agreement now, so it's still a second choice for me. NLeeuw (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more-or-less (I think) as per Dimadick and SnowFire. It is a known term but also "late" is a good adjective to connect to any "period/ age/ era" in history articles. Editors can and should make those decisions about how to break topics up even when publications do not. Debates about how to break up topics can of course require discussions about ORs, but such discussions should be done case by case. (Bulk editing should STOP.) Debates about "correct" periods and OR are pointless and legalistic and will go in circles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We debated this at some length over at talk:late modern period and had no problems proving it was an uncommon term. What you're arguing for here is that WP:NAME and WP:OR doesn't apply to historical articles as long as enough editors think they know better. Peter Isotalo 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Peter's concerns here. WP:OR must apply to periodisation, as difficult as that might sometimes be for editors (myself included). Because if don't base ourselves on WP:RS, Wikipedia will produce pseudohistory. NLeeuw (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The discussions on other articles such as World history have to a large extent been a one man show and Peter has been very unconvincing, and increasingly pushy. Peter is demanding that various usages which have been found are not relevant. Editors have to find examples "late modern period" I think editors on other articles aren't convinced this is important, and did not expect these bulk edits and article deletion proposals. In contrast, here on this page Peter is pretending that there is an obvious consensus decided elsewhere, and pushing things along that way. The fact is that we sometimes need a term to describe "later" modern events in many articles, as opposed to earlier ones, and just deleting words in bulk edits (e.g. what Peter has done on Low Countries [21] is clearly making articles unclear, to prove some sort of point. Whether or not "Late modern period" is a common term or not, we can't let an editor start deleting all usages of the two words "late modern"?? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, your line of reasoning here is mostly based that you dislike me for being adamant. You're being overtly hostile towards me. Peter Isotalo 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an inappropriate response. You are apparently trying to give the impression we've had a lot of prior discussion but we haven't. I am simply observing that you seem to be trying to steamroll through a big network of bulk edits using misleading, pushy remarks about discussions "elsewhere" which have supposedly proven your case. I have not seen you give any convincing argumentation or sourcing. It has been a couple of arguments against specific sources people have brought, or specific little internet searches, and a lot of insults and insinuations. There is just how it seems to me. It is clear that the terms late and modern are frequently found together referring to the same basic period or era or age, and it also clear that editors are free to break up articles in original (or uncommon) ways, using normal English adjectives like "late". I should add that of course your case may be relevant in some specific cases, but these will generally need specific solutions such as rewordings rather than simple deletions. I am very concerned with the whole rapid bulk editing approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's focus on the contents and the relevant policies and guidelines, folks. :) NLeeuw (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But that means confronting the WP:IDNHT aspect of this whole discussion. Peter keeps writing as if this term, and this division of history whatever you call it, has been made-up on Wikipedia, and apparently he proved it somewhere. However, that clearly isn't true. Historians don't all agree on their exact definitions of periods, and for that reason we can't let our history articles be too obsessed with the differences, but the idea that there is a new era starting approximately with the French revolution is clearly very common. Deleting all mention of that seems strange to me, and not something demanded by policy. What problem are we solving here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a classic Wikipedia problem. Maybe it's different with historians, but in archaeology my impression has always been that Wikipedians care way more about the precise definition of periods and other concepts than the researchers that actually define and use them. These labels are all means to an end – it's not surprising if we find that our end of writing a general-purpose encyclopaedia requires a slightly different set of labels from those used by historians writing research papers. – Joe (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambiguation The material attempting to define "late modern period" as a historiographical term is poorly sourced. The topic of "world history, 1800-1945" is covered better at multiple other articles discussed above. I don't see a clear way to redirect to modern era; there are similar terms (late modernism in art history) that have to be disambiguated as well. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgetting the current title, which seems untenable, we seem to have a gap for what might be titled World political history from 1815 to 1930 (or something similar) which should cover most of the existing content (of variable quality). Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's long nineteenth century to add to the pile too, but I think modern era covers it best. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of the name, there is cause to have a page covering the broad period of world history from the 1800s through to WWII, i.e. the period between early modern history and contemporary history. "Late modern history" is sometimes used and is perfectly logical in the context, but it doesn't really matter if it's "after-early modern history", "not-early modern history", "post-1800 but pre-contemporary history" or whatever other description people would like. I've personally found the "late modern history" page to be an extraordinarily useful division for breaking up page histories. Otherwise, the modern era is broken up into early modern history and '???' In any given history section, it makes very little sense to have early modern period and modern period alongside each other as sections, for reasons of incongruity and the fact that one is sort on some level, a child of the other. In such contexts, the early/late division is a pretty common sense one, beyond its sourced usage. Regardless, as a page here, I don't see why the period shouldn't be covered as a topic. There are marked differences between this period – French Revolution through to WWII – and the post-WWII period and onwards, not least an entirely new world order (even if it's breaking down these days). The current modern era page hardly does this period justice with its early modern period followed by clunky 19th century and 20th century divisions linked to those respective pages. There is something particularly coarse about treating the entire 20th century as a monolithic lump. The contemporary period break after WWII is useful if only to draw some sort of line between the highly distinct early and late 20th century. The question is what to call the period between the early modern period and the contemporary period if not the obvious extant term. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've got 19th century and 20th century for that. We really don't need to add our own home-made WP:REDUNDANTFORK cruft with arbitrary WP:OR beginnings and endings. NLeeuw (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you just read basic literature on the modern period, you'll notice that most modern histories define "modern period" as post c. 1800. A clean cut for "all" history at 1945 isn't really a thing either.
If we divide up historical periods according with the argument that it's "useful", we present a version of history that's based on personal preference and ease of editing. That would be a simplification for readers not through a fair summary, but by simply excluding that which feels inconvenient. Peter Isotalo 09:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not demonstrated that this term or concept were invented on WP. They clearly weren't.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to disambig and merge content to modern era per Beland. An unnecessary WP:CFORK, and what we call the single article on the period is of lesser importance than having only one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reflecting on where the editors have moved on Human history it seems we the preferred term for the SAME concept, more or less, is going to be "long nineteenth century". Like "late modern" I think have seen the term but doubt many people will see it as an absolute standard that all historians would use and agree upon. It is important to look at other articles in this case because this article here seems to be a target for many others. So we move from one term to another. This is happening already in this one case. Is this a big improvement? Maybe this article should be merged with that one? Will be possible to use this solution in articles about specific countries and regions, which have also been impacted by this dispute? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only if renamed to "European history, 1789-1945" or something similar to that. (No, it shouldn't be "World History", since 1789 isn't an important date for that.) Search google for "Europe history 1789-1945" and you will come up with all kinds of undergraduate survey classes - this is a period that we talk about as a unit, sometimes to 1914, sometimes to 1945. But it certainly isn't "late modern history", a term that is not used with any kind of precision. -- asilvering (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd have to remove all the material that's not about Europe, in that case. Based on a quick scan that's most of the current text. – Joe (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we would. But the alternative as I see it is outright deletion, or turning it into some kind of dab page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think the only point of keeping the article would be as world history. The lack of an obvious global start date doesn't exactly rule this out. The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had implications for several continents, not least a new wave of imperial expansion. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think then we're into the problems the deletion !voters are observing: that this isn't really "a thing". "Not early modern history, but also not contemporary history" isn't a defined field anywhere as far as I'm aware, and it doesn't make sense to shove a bunch of everything in all there together. I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of modern literature, where LEvalyn argued convincingly that although the topic seems "clearly notable," it only seems that way because the history of literature, broadly, is notable; the specific topic being questioned here, "modern literature" defined as "literature everywhere for the last 300 years" is one for which no sourcing actually exists: it is substantially broader than any actual field of study.. Reading that discussion again, I'll also quote myself, since that applies here as well: The topic exists inasmuch as we can describe its boundaries, but we can describe all kinds of bizarre and unhelpful boundaries - that doesn't make them encyclopedic, or useful subjects of a Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Harsora

[edit]
Neha Harsora (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, I am the page creator, I have nominated it for deletion given the background of G5 deletion of the previous version of this article, therefore necessitating a discussion on the deletion of this new version.

I firmly believe that Harsora is Notable now with her lead roles in Raazz Mahal, Udne Ki Aasha and also her pivotal roles in Thodasa Badal Thodasa Paani and Dhruv Tara – Samay Sadi Se Pare. She also had a pivotal role in the web series Fuh Se Fantasy. All of these roles make Harsora Notable. However, if any other editor has a different opinion, feel free to bring it here Ilovetvshows (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references which are reliable except for one reference from tellychakkar supporting Harsora's role in Sasural Simar Ka 2 (I have added this reference as it gave good information on Harsora's role in the show).Ilovetvshows (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Orea

[edit]
Rudy Orea (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:SPORTCRIT. Only one source, which is partly a primary source, about him "going back" to amateur football. Only made one cup appearance for Bordeaux as a regular B team player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Kinier

[edit]
Vladimír Kinier (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)

Redirect to 1990 FIFA World Cup squads#Czechoslovakia because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this former men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. I've checked Wikipedia articles in other languages, but most of them only provide database sources. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia, which may help copy over English article, is slightly longer and listed the clubs he has/had played for... but SKwiki likewise does not provide any decent coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. I've only found one secondary source that talks directly about him [22]. I think this is not enough to confirm the significance. The source Geschichte cites is an interview, that is, a primary source. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Geschichte. The source contains enough independent commentary on the subject to qualify as significant coverage. The source found by Tau Corvi is significant as well. A FIFA World Cup player is virtually certain to pass GNG, and its worth noting that we do not have access to 1990s Czechslovak newspapers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, per Slovak Wikipedia Kinier totaled 260 top-tier appearances. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Geschichte's source is an interview with Kinier where the only independent info is clubs/countries he played for and not playing in the 1984 Olympics. Tau Corvi's source is better but they aren't enough for a GNG pass. https://kramerius5.nkp.cz/ has Czech newspapers and https://dikda.snk.sk/ Slovak newspapers. His 260 top flight appearances are irrelevant. Dougal18 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • His 260 top flight appearances are irrelevant. – Common. sense. For modern European players (I'm talking internet era), where we have full-access to sources, can you find anyone with 260 top-flight appearances who is non-notable? Can you find a single modern European FIFA World Cup player for which there is no sigcov? Why would the 1980s be any different? Tau Corvi's source satisfies WP:SPORTCRIT, which should be all that is needed to allow this to be kept given the subject. (As for the links you provide, I've never seen those websites before. How in-depth are their 1980s newspaper collections?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 11:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, Dougal18 and Tau Corvi are correct. WP:SPORTSBASIC #5 states: Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. The source given by Tau Corvi looks like SIGCOV thing, but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage as possible overall instead of just one. Even if the paywalled Sme newspaper contains SIGCOV, that is still not equivalent to GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Kinier is still a local football legend in Žilina but as he played in communist Czechoslovakia online coverage of his career is not the best. However, there is in fact a full page coverage (not an interview) published by the Štart magazine in 1985. The magazine does not exist anymore, but the issue can be accessed by registered users through the digital repository of the Slovak National Library. Happy to improve the article further when/if I find more sources. Newklear007 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to The Times#Related publications. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times Top 100 Graduate Employers

[edit]
Times Top 100 Graduate Employers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think it is worth a section in The Times article. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems fine, it's a part of the overall Times umbrella. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

[edit]
Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of which article? gidonb (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp×g🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is the Anti Defamation League an unreliable source on the topic of combatting defamation? Colt .55 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [23] & [24]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
-StellarHalo (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C (talk • contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements.FortunateSons (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn’t seem like a notable enough subject for its own article, and reads more like a personal ramble than anything else Snokalok (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: The topic is highly notable and relevant. Politicians and news channels have dedicated time to this (see links below). The article just needs improving. October 7th denial, and specifically rape denial is extremely pervassive amongst anti-Israel protests, well documented, and this page, once improved, can be an objective resource for those understanding the phenomenom.
  1. Congresswoman on CNN: [25]
  2. Congressman on his own social media: [26]
  3. TalkTV: [27]
  4. Article on Roger Water's denial: [28]
  5. Denial by pro-Palestinian protestors at Berkeley City Council meeting: [29]
  6. Denial speeches by student leaders: [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt .55 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didem (belly dancer)

[edit]
Didem (belly dancer) (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:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per @Oaktree b. She has significant, regular coverage in the mainstream Turkish news media, spanning a large period. Also adding another reliable source.
TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yabani

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

I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide the reviews. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, redirect is better. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to HackMiami. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Heid

[edit]
Alexander Heid (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)

References, when reliable, do not provide significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more participation from editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG per the above referenced sources [1][2] which give significant coverage, the subject was the lead involved in all media interations for the content of the articles. The RollingStone article was coordinated by Heid as he is the founder of the HackMiami organization and the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors - additionally, as reverenced above the subject is mentioned in at least three paragraphs in the RS article.
Re: Financial Times - Heid was not only quoted in Financial Times but his discoveries were published in Forbes and referenced by a Senate Commission which names his employer at the time, and he was also the lead PR liaison with that as well - disclosing his discoveries directly to the press.
The Ars Technica article's content was based on a cybersecurity publication authored by Heid during his tenure at Prolexic, which received significant coverage. Infosecwiki (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Infosecwiki (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
You've added Youtube videos to the article but those are not considered reliable sources. I had removed the ones previously in the article. Please do not continue to add these. Lamona (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HackMiami. The sources in the article are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Heid, or else WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like patents or official bios and WP:PROMO fluff like "top 1000-cited papers on blockchain" (look closer: his paper on this list was cited just twice). The sources identified by Ednabrenze do not qualify. The Russ Banham article is self-published. (While it might otherwise count as WP:EXPERTSPS, given his reputation, the policy is very clear to "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") The Caplin News article is published by Heid's alma mater FIU and written to spotlight him as an alumnus; it fails the test of independence. The sources not holding up to standalone notability, a redirect is an appropriate AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference the JSTOR, the Blockchain paper was cited over 38 times and has been circulating for over 11 years. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote to Keep: The Caplain News article is not an article highlighting alumni, as Heid never graduated from FIU and only attended for a few years in the early 2000s. The Caplain News Article was written by an independent journalist, Antonio Gimenez has authored numerous pieces on cybersecurity luminaries such as YTCracker, his interview subjects have no affiliateion to FIU unless it is coincidence. FIU will not claim the subject as a graduate, hence proof this is not an alumni fluff piece.
    The Russ Banham article is not self published, as the self publishing requirement would dictate that the subject need write the article on their own - Russ Banham is a third party journalist who interviewed the subject and the article was synicated on various outlets. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please read WP:SPS. It doesn't only refer to material by the subject, it refers to any self-published source and Banham is publishing the article on his own site like a blog. I agree, he's an expert reporter, but the policy explicitly restricts self-published sources from being used on BLPs. As for the FIU piece, it specifically describes Heid as a former student (alumnus does not necessarily mean graduate) and it's thus not independent. Finally, please stop !voting "keep" with every comment. You've !voted three times and it appears that you are trying to throw off the conversation. One !vote is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I will put it into practice. I updated the reference to include more than just the Caplain article. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing in the article is patents, and articles that mention the person in passing. Nothing found for notability otherwise, some PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Patent links removed, replaced with relevant notable content such as documented association with John McAfee. Citations updated for missing citation on conferences. Infosecwiki (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to above, i vote for Keep Infosecwiki (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infosecwiki, you can only "vote" once so I struck your duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Infosecwiki, do you have a WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST that you need to disclose? Above you state that Heid is "the lead media liaison, and assisted in the entire process all the way through fact checking with RollingStone editors." You also state that "he was also the lead PR liaison" on the Financial Times piece. Neither the Rolling Stone nor FT pieces say that Heid coordinated the PR process, and the HackMiami site does not say that either. That's the kind of information that, if true, could only be obtained by someone affiliated with or otherwise close to Heid and HackMiami. That plus the fact that you have only edited on these two topics raises concern that you may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. Can you address this? (P.S. If Heid was involved, as you say, in the production of these articles, that would argue against them being able to meet the independence standard required for notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am referring to old Twitter discussions that I remember observing from years ago when the articles were released, I do not have any proof of these claims in present day 2024. I openly disclose I not only edited this article, but I created it over a decade ago. I am fully willing to disclose that I am the original author of this article as well as the HackMiami article. The subject of this piece has had notable accomplishments outside the realm of HackMiami and had a page created, and for the last decade it has stood the test until recent inquiries. I fully support the regular review of this article for continued inclusion, as such diligence is what makes Wikipedia the global standard of information. Infosecwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminder that editors can only cast one bolded vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only substantial source is the Florida University piece. Everything else is name checks or brief mentions. It doesn't surprise me that a security expert keeps a low profile. But there isn't enough here for a WP article. Lamona (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HackMiami as an ATD. I agree that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article are insufficient per the reasons stated above (although I've started a discussion elsewhere regarding the soundness of SPS's rule against using expert SPSes in BLPs). I have been unable to find additional sources indicating notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 06:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Product teardown

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

The article is currently mostly unsourced original research. While I was looking to redirect this and make a better section about it, I could find pretty much nothing of significant note beyond dictionary definitions. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and product teardowns don't seem very notable unto themselves beyond an esoteric hobby context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG and fails to pass WP:FORUM. While this topic may be interesting to certain individuals (such as the author who made the page), it does not have secondary sources that cover it as an activity. I couldn't find anything on the subject besides primary sources which are all original research.

Silvymaro (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Figure Eight Inc.. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Biewald

[edit]
Lukas Biewald (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)

Already did a cleanup of the article, but I do not think it meets the required depth of WP:BIO. I would suggest redirecting to Figure Eight Inc. which is the notable company he co-founded. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I hope these sources can be added to the article now. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic screwdriver

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

Most of this article is WP:OR. It is sourced to self-published such as wowstuff.co.uk or fan sites. A WP:BEFORE search brings up WP:PLOT summary or brief mentions and qualifies as a WP:GNG fail. If it were to be completely rewritten with proper sources it would still be at best a section in another article. Jontesta (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did a brief search and found sources relating to fan reactions to the Screwdriver's various redesigns for days. I had more success searching "Sonic Screwdriver" and then inserting the name of a specific incarnation of the Doctor afterwards, which yielded results for a particular incarnation of the Screwdriver. I will also note that the Screwdriver became so ubiquitous that it was added to the Oxford Dictionary of English. [39][40] I additionally found multiple GBooks hits that looked strong, but admittedly a lot of them were paywalled, so I couldn't gauge them very effectively. Either way there seems to be a lot of significant coverage. This article's in rough shape rn, but there is room for improvement. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Daranios' sourcing. Can you share how you found so many hits when the nominator's BEFORE search did not? Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens and Jontesta: I don't know really, because mostly what I did is what's mandatory in the WP:BEFORE search, and found sources in the article as it stands now, Google Books and Google News searches. I did find additional hits through the suggested but optional Google Scholar search. So I guess one thing we can take away from this for topics of this type is that in a time where popular culture is increasingly examined by academia, a Google Scholar search should be included by anyone considering nomination for deletion in case they come up empty in the mandatory parts of the BEFORE search. Daranios (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Budd

[edit]
Stephen J. Budd (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)

We do not need to have an article on every single person who has been convicted of horrendous local sex crimes. All coverage is rotm trial coverage from publications located in Palm Beach, Florida. After he got convicted it was seemingly never mentioned again. This is exclusively a local affair of one city. This is also a BLP, which is an extra sign we shouldn't have this. If the school still had a page I'd say merge there but we don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Further discussion may reveal a consensus to merge, but that need not happen at AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Cambridge colleges

[edit]
List of fictional Cambridge colleges (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 list is largely unsourced original research. Most entries cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is not viable as a separate article and fails WP:GNG. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University of Cambridge#In literature and popular culture, but the target should be much shorter once unreliable information is removed. Jontesta (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that instead of deleting this trio of lists, we should:
  1. Keep them
  2. Tag them as {{More citations needed}}
  3. Add a note on their talk pages pinging editors who have contributed to them over the years, alerting them to the fact that the list is inadequately sourced and may risk deletion (I hereby offer to add such notes if the lists survive this AfD)
  4. Wait a year. (Why not? There is no deadline, and Wikipedia is not damaged by the existence of these lists) This will allow occasional editors to be alerted to the situation and given a chance to improve the lists. (It seems likely that some of the editors who have contributed to the list spend much more time reading books than editing Wikipedia.)
  5. If after 12 months the lists do not appear to be worth keeping as standalones, bring them back to AfD or merge their sourced content to List of fictional universities, perhaps as a separate section.
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge hold a special place in UK society (witness the fact that even the new, largely state-educated, cabinet ministers are predominantly Oxbridge graduates), and historically a large number of novelists were educated there and used them as settings for their works. The "Oxford" list shows a couple of major series (Morse and Pulman) which have generated a batch of fictional colleges each. (Non-COI: I have no association with Oxford or Cambridge, though worked or studied at five other English universities). These three lists should be given a chance to be brought up to 2020s levels of sourcing, and will then be an even more valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that limited sourcing has been found and tagging first is a one suggested step in the deletion process, I would be fine with such a plan. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Further discussion may reveal a consensus to merge, but that need not happen at AfD Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Oxford colleges

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

This is a poorly referenced list. It has deep issues with WP:V as most of these cannot be verified in secondary sources. This is a WP:GNG fail that is not viable as a separate article. There might be an acceptable redirect target at University_of_Oxford#Oxford_in_literature_and_popular_media. Jontesta (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum 1: Verification can also be done by primary sources, so I do not see a problem with WP:V here. However I think some kind of inclusion criterium would be helpful, and that's where coverage in secondary sources might come in.
  • Addendum 2: Another secondary source would be Ancient Cultures of Conceit, which has something to say on fictional Oxford and Cambridge colleges as a group, and does feature individual examples. This could again be helpful to improve the list and with it we are pretty close to the notability threshold. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education. Daranios (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment If merged to List of fictional universities, this would be appropriate as a separate section of the list, rather than numerically overwhelming the main list. Better sourcing is also needed: I looked at the equivalent Cambridge list and found that the blue links do not all lead to information on the fictional college ("All Saints College" is mentioned in 2 of the 3 bluelinked articles on works, "Boniface" is in the Pendennis article, but no sign of "Brakespeare" in Manalive.) But it would be sad to see this compilation of content disappear: I'd suggest a new section, tagged as {{refimprove section}} and left for a few months to see whether sources are added after pinging major contributors to the list. PamD 21:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have three related articles, List of fictional Cambridge colleges, List of fictional Oxford colleges and List of fictional Oxbridge colleges, which I will address together. They have been in the encyclopedia for 20, 20 and 19 years, and during that time no editor has tagged them with any concerns about lack of sources or notability. They were initially created when the encyclopedia's standards of sourcing were less demanding, and list items were sourced only by being linked to Wikipedia articles on their content; later editors have added further entries consistently, ie generally without explicit sourcing (although most can indeed be sourced with a little research). This can be contrasted to List of fictional universities, created in mainspace in 2020, which has been thoroughly sourced from the beginning. (COI: I created that one) The three lists have grown gradually over the years, added to by a large number of different editors. Some of these are still editing, but not regularly. I note that @Paul A:, creator of the main lists in 2004, edited once in Nov 23, once in Dec 23, twice in April 24: a current editor, though one who quite probably won't even see the note on his talk page in the duration of this AfD. It would be sad to see this accumulated collection of knowledge deleted after a week's discussion, at the behest of an editor who appears to focus mainly on article deletion.
I suggest that instead of deleting this trio of lists, we should:
  1. Keep them
  2. Tag them as {{More citations needed}}
  3. Add a note on their talk pages pinging editors who have contributed to them over the years, alerting them to the fact that the list is inadequately sourced and may risk deletion (I hereby offer to add such notes if the lists survive this AfD)
  4. Wait a year. (Why not? There is no deadline, and Wikipedia is not damaged by the existence of these lists) This will allow occasional editors to be alerted to the situation and given a chance to improve the lists. (It seems likely that some of the editors who have contributed to the list spend much more time reading books than editing Wikipedia.)
  5. If after 12 months the lists do not appear to be worth keeping as standalones, bring them back to AfD or merge their sourced content to List of fictional universities, perhaps as a separate section.
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge hold a special place in UK society (witness the fact that even the new, largely state-educated, cabinet ministers are predominantly Oxbridge graduates), and historically a large number of novelists were educated there and used them as settings for their works. The "Oxford" list shows a couple of major series (Morse and Pulman) which have generated a batch of fictional colleges each. (Non-COI: I have no association with Oxford or Cambridge, though worked or studied at five other English universities). These three lists should be given a chance to be brought up to 2020s levels of sourcing, and will then be an even more valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that some sourcing has been found and tagging first is a one suggested step in the deletion process, I would be fine with such a plan. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance the Oxford list looks rescuable, but the Cambridge list might be trickier, and the Oxbridge list may be best just merged to a suitable section in Fictional Universities. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. As with WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Cambridge colleges and WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Oxford colleges, there is a clear consensus against an outright deletion. There is no clear consensus to merge; a discussion about such a merger should continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Oxbridge colleges

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

This is poorly referenced WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article tries to describe three different ideas of what belongs here, without any reference to reliable sources. WP:GNG fail. Jontesta (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that instead of deleting this trio of lists, we should:
  1. Keep them
  2. Tag them as {{More citations needed}}
  3. Add a note on their talk pages pinging editors who have contributed to them over the years, alerting them to the fact that the list is inadequately sourced and may risk deletion (I hereby offer to add such notes if the lists survive this AfD)
  4. Wait a year. (Why not? There is no deadline, and Wikipedia is not damaged by the existence of these lists) This will allow occasional editors to be alerted to the situation and given a chance to improve the lists. (It seems likely that some of the editors who have contributed to the list spend much more time reading books than editing Wikipedia.)
  5. If after 12 months the lists do not appear to be worth keeping as standalones, bring them back to AfD or merge their sourced content to List of fictional universities, perhaps as a separate section.
The universities of Oxford and Cambridge hold a special place in UK society (witness the fact that even the new, largely state-educated, cabinet ministers are predominantly Oxbridge graduates), and historically a large number of novelists were educated there and used them as settings for their works. The "Oxford" list shows a couple of major series (Morse and Pulman) which have generated a batch of fictional colleges each. (Non-COI: I have no association with Oxford or Cambridge, though worked or studied at five other English universities). These three lists should be given a chance to be brought up to 2020s levels of sourcing, and will then be an even more valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that limited sourcing has been found and tagging first is a one suggested step in the deletion process, I would be fine with such a plan. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Tom MacDonald (rapper). Looks unanimous. Glad this was a civil discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Missed

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

The article is almost exclusively cited to non-RS sites, and isn't even that notable to begin with (I may be wrong). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tom MacDonald (rapper): None of the sources here are reliable; they're mostly right-wing publications with clear bias which would never pass the smell test at WT:RSP, the Forbes article fails FORBESCON, and the rest are YouTube and social media. Found no additional coverage. Charting section is full of SINGLEVENDOR fails.
From my past experience, it is important to be wary of the potential for this to be swarmed with comments by biased editors. Hopefully they don't notice this one like they did the one I linked, but if they do, there may be a mess to pick through. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not !voting at this point, but will note in regard to the Forbes piece, even if it gets by FORBESCON due to the author being a recognized expert in an appropriate realm (I've not checked), it's unusable because Forbes or the author withdrew the piece; it was on the website less than half a day, which is not a matter of simply aging out (indeed, I don't think Forbes ever actually ages things off the site.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per suggested above. There's no indication this song is independently notable at this point. Cortador (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect fails GNG/NSONG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is a source assessment table based on all the coverage I could find:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.the-sun.com/news/11943910/tom-macdonald-you-missed-new-song-donald-trump-assassination/ Yes No See WP:THESUN Yes ✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2024/07/14/a-song-about-the-trump-shooting-is-already-rising-on-itunes/ Yes No See WP:FORBESCON Yes ✘ No
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/nick-kangadis/bh-you-missed-rapper-tom-macdonald-releases-anthem-about-trump-assassination Yes No See WP:RSP#Media Research Center Yes Barely ✘ No
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-this-canadian-patriotic-american-internet-reacts-rapper-tom-macdonald-releases-you-missed-song-trump-s-assassination-attempt Yes No See WP:SPORTSKEEDA Yes ✘ No
https://thepostmillennial.com/you-missed-tom-macdonalds-new-track-after-attempted-trump-assassination-hits-1-on-itunes-charts Yes No See WP:POSTMIL Yes ✘ No
https://www.showbiz411.com/2024/07/14/maga-singer-cashes-in-on-trump-shooting-with-tone-deaf-anti-left-record-you-missed Yes No A blog No Very short commentary, the rest is just the lyrics ✘ 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 anyone finds anything else, let me know. C F A 💬 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist per discussion above. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to artist. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait As the creator of the page, I knew it would be a WP:BOLD move making the article so early after the release, so I ask if we can wait until the Billboard Charts for this week come out. If there isn't much notable about its placement in the charts then I could see a merge/redirect as the next suitable option. Cheers! Johnson524 04:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previous votes and lack of proper sourcing. As for the question of chart position, chartwatchers project that the song will debut at #1...on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart and the Digital Songs chart. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music, but I'm guessing that's not enough to overcome this song's failure to meet GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect (per CFA comment) The Billboard Chart placements just released, and the single placed first in Digital Song Sales (and was already added to the article List of Billboard Digital Song Sales number ones of 2024 by another editor) and second in the Bubbling Under Hot 100, which isn't as impressive but still another chart ranking. At least for Digital Song Sales, doesn't this keep the article within notability guidelines? Johnson524 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no. Because it ranked #1 on Digital Song Sales, it's probably going to chart somewhere on the Hot 100 but that is still speculation. This does not indicate standalone notability, though. Per WP:NSONG:
    Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
    A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria ("they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"). Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.
    1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
    2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
    3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
    A position on a chart serves an indicator that the song may have enough coverage to warrant an article. However, in this case, it does not. As I mentioned above, the only coverage is in unreliable sources. The entire article, in fact, is sourced to those unreliable sources (because no further coverage exists). There are not enough reliable sources covering the topic to write an article longer than a sentence and a table with the chart positions. It therefore does not warrant its own article — at least not yet. It can always be retrieved from the page history if notability is established later. C F A 💬 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFA: You state your case really well 🙂 I'll strike my keep comment to redirect, but can the article still be kept in the page's redirect history if more sources ever become available? (they probably won't, but just in case) Cheers! Johnson524 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the redirect is done as just an edit, the history is not deleted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: Thank you for clarifying 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article seems to be a mix of rephrased lyrics and many minor non-notable claims to notability. It needs more info about the real-world impact and some commentary on the lyrics, which is even rarer in RS after that forbescon article was retracted. Per WP:NSONG, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. However, a layman reader might have trouble understanding the importance of the article beyond a single sentence: "You Missed is a pro-Trump[a] song by McDonald that was popular[b] after the attempted assassination." The information contained would still be beneficial in a section of the artist's article. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that's a little bit harsh. There are quite a few sources, its more about their reliability that's the issue. Johnson524 01:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to revise your comment. I agree with all of your statements, and since more reliable sources do not exist presently, I believe the article should be redirected to the MacDonald page, and any beneficial information merged into it as well. Happy editing 🙂 Johnson524 03:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ plot half of the article
  2. ^ wikipuffery part of the article
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. Actually an article move is an editorial decision and isn't listed as a possible outcome of an AFD discussion (it's not listed as a closing option at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions). Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Julius Ford

[edit]
Michael Julius Ford (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)

It does not appear that this individual is notable independent of the shooting to which most of the article's content is devoted. I'm not sure whether the shooting is itself notable, so am ambivalent between outright deletion of the article versus moving and refocusing on the shooting. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont know, why are you requesting a delete? 2600:1016:B00A:CEAE:5186:245E:BC5B:563D (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both deletion and moving are appropriate outcomes for AFDs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NEVENT. I did a decently extensive search and while there are a decent amount of later mentions in books (because the motive was religious at least in part) and academic studies, not one of these mentions are sigcov, news coverage fell off the radar pretty fast.
I'm kind of surprised this article managed to survive like this for 18 years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was convert to disambiguation page‎. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa

[edit]
Milagrosa (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)

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Poorly-sourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. The only source supports the statement about the name change from Tulo to Milagrosa, but that alone does not make this barangay notable. Article seems to have created to only serve as a directory and community portal as evidence by its list of schools and the "neighboring barangays". See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. AfD is created to provide a strong basis for redirection. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milagrosa may refer to:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Benedict Apugo

[edit]
Benjamin Benedict Apugo (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)

An article about a politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Endorsing politicians, and speaking on TV can make you appear on the news but the coverage may be your statements and quotes; same issue here. I want a community consensus on this. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello safari, this man here is a notable man being discussed in schools and very popular. for some reason, he has no social media presence. 70% OF the articles i cited are all on the WP:NGRA. there are far less personalities who worked under this man such as Theodore Orji , Orji Uzor Kalu and many more who have wikipedia articles. and as a young 19 year old girl studying history i ran into this mans story in a book called "Ibeku in igbo History", which i am not sure i can cite on the internet because it's an ancient cultural hard copy book.
If you want this book i can scan it to your email. the book is uploaded on scribd.com by someone and in it, this man was mentioned, but i'm not sure if i can cite that since its a Scribd upload done in 2020 or so.
Some articles i cited also spoke about him as a person and every person growing up here in eastern region of Nigeria knew BB Apugo. You can do more research yourself on this person to see i have put in the work before submitting to wiki and my goal in wiki is not bringing people with huge online presence, but working as hard as possible to include articles that are known about in real life but not spoken about on the internet with every possible info i have.
I will continue to cite more sources and keep working to make sure i include more info and I am sure other people will to by the time they see the article on him. Yinka Williams (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yinka Williams see Wikipedia:Offline sources. You can 100% use offline sources, even if they are difficult to access for other editors. If you decide to use offline sources, we recommend you add identifiers (such as ISBN or WorldCat) so that other editors can more easily access those resources. Broc (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! can i Include the link to the book on scribd ? and also if i'm using the ISBN how do I ethically include the page and chapter of the book or any more details i wish to help editors with. Thanks Yinka Williams (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include the link, as it is unclear whether the content was uploaded to Scribd with the copyright owner's permission, per WP:COPYLINK. Broc (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just got a hold of the ISBN and cited. Thank you. Yinka Williams (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify: Per the creator, people familiar with Igbo history will recognize that she is correct. Therefore, I suggest either draftifying or keeping the article. Send down the rain (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the thought of Igbo people knowing about such word. Although there is practically WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS during the 1980s and 1990s in Nigeria, it doesn't illustrated that a non notable person can have a Wikipedia article. I think @Yinka Williams believes that seeing people in the news automatically shows notability. Absolutely no. I don't see how Apugo meets WP:GNG—even endorsing people—an act that can be done by any politician. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe thanks for the remark, Also you mentioned a word igbo people don't know about, please what word is it ?
    secondly, i will respectfully tell you that he is a notable person, more notable than a few names i see here. The reason i used the news articles, some of which are dated as far back as 2007 are because those are the only articles i could find on him. Not that those are his achievements and i think you misinterpreted it. I also put up some pictures of him i could find with some of Nigeria's historical presidents and vice presidents, and an editor removed it stating that "being with notable persons does not contribute towards his notability" (and truthfully i disagree in my opinion, because there is no way this man would have ever had a seat with Presidents and Vice presidents especially in 70s, 80s and 90s if he wasn't notable, and the most interesting part is THEY visited him) also i have videos of top Canadian political representatives visiting this man in the early 2000s which i am trying to get to his parody youtube so it can be posted. Other arguments can be made, but this mans notability is not one of them. Yinka Williams (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can take a look at the book if you really want to verify. I mean a quick google search can pull up the book "Ibeku in Igbo History" which i cited with the pages referencing him. The news articles are a bonus and not to represent him. this man had a whole 11 pages written on him in a historical book. Yinka Williams (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find a number of mentions of B.B. Apugo indicating his notability. Take for example "The strong man of Abia politics, Ochiagha Benjamin Benedict Apugo has finally broken his silence on the 2023 governorship race in Abia, by endorsing the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Chief Ikechi Emenike." [44], "The acclaimed strong man of Abia politics and member of the Board of Trustees of the party, Prince Benjamin Benedict Apugo (popularly known as B.B.) is 53 years old today. Friends and political associates would converge at his expansive estate at Nkata Ruling House in Umuahia-Ibeku, Abia State to clink the good wine glasses in festivity. The State Governor, Chief Orji Uzor Kalu and political gladiators in the State would be on hand to celebrate a political personality that has blossomed through the aeons of time. Apugo has played the godfather's role in the political evolution of the State. He has also cut a niche for himself as a peacemaker and a conciliator, bringing together opponents to dialogue and to make concessions in the interest of peace and stability of the State. He does not look for public office. Rather, he prefers to be a rallying point and political pathfinder for his people, providing, as it were, the direction to go each time they are confronted with choices." [45] "B. B. Apugo ( a member of the board of trustees ) , campaigned on the platform of reversing all the anomalies of party management introduced during the Obasanjo regime . Although he did not win , it was clear that this stand was taken seriously by Yar'Adua and many party members" [46], "other prominent party members that left were Chief Sam Mbakwe, Chief B.B. Apugo and Senator Polycaro Nwite." [47], " A prominent Chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Member of the National Board of Trustees, Prince B.B Apugo has expressed" [48], "The crisis rocking Abia APC is getting messier by the day following accusations and counter-accusations of betrayal between the camps of two chieftains of the party in Abia," [49], "Abia State High Court, sitting in Umuahia, has adjourned till February 16 a N1.5 billion defamation suit filed by ex-Gov. Theodore Orji against a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress, APC, Prince Benjamin Apugo." [50] --Soman (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soman thank you for doing your due diligence on the article. From experience, it takes devotion to get these sources and I'm glad you put in that work to verify the legitimacy of these paragraphs. Yinka Williams (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- the article is correct, I personally applaud her for taking on such an article, there are numerous offline mentions on Apugo and as an Igbo man from Anambra state myself, I heard about ochiagha ibeku growing up. People are familiar with this story. Bill onyenma (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ! thank you 👍🏽 Yinka Williams (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whilst there might be cleanup issues in article, again I think notability is not an issue. Looking at more wordings in national Nigerian news media (BOLD added by me), "New twist as powerful APC BoT member reveals top southeast state Peter Obi will win. Chief Ochiagha Benjamin Apugo, ..." ([51]), "ELDER statesman and founding member of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Prince Benjamin Apugo is a respected grassroot politician in Abia State and there is no doubt about it. He played key roles in the success of the party in Nigeria and Abia in 1999 and 2003. In 2007, his party lost his State to PPA and Apugo went into political limbo as crisis and counter- crisis tore PDP apart in the state and national level." ([52], albeit letter to editor by reader), "Apugo, who is the embattled son of an elder statesman, Chief Benjamin Apugo, said the essence of the ritual, considered very deadly in Igboland, was to make his father to accept him and accord him the full status as his first son in line with Igbo tradition. " ([53]), "Nigeria: PDP BoT Member Gives Reason for Defecting to APC" ([54]), "Apugo, BOT member of APC, popularly also called, Oparaukwu Ibeku, (First son of Ibeku) by his people and in reverence to his immense contributions to his community." ([55]), "Prince Benjamin Apugo is the Co- ordinator of the opposition All Progressives Congress ( APC) in the Southeast geopolitical zone" ([56]), "ONE of the founding fathers of Abia State and an elder statesman, Prince Benjamin Apugo," ([57]). See also interview in national newspaper like this one, as well as this piece and this interview. Have a look at this press statement from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC Finally Arrests APC Chieftain, Benjamin Apugo for N36m Land Scam (on a side-note, see how the word 'finally' is added by the press dept of the institution itself), there was plenty of press coverage on the affair. There is this piece issued by the Federal Ministry of Information, "A chieftain of the All Progressive Congress (APC) and elder statesman, Prince Benjamin Apugo has expressed happiness with the leadership style of Governor Alex Otti in Abia state,saying that Abia has come to stay under him. Prince Apugo was speaking in an interview with news men after a private visit to the Governor in his country home, Nvosi, IsialaNgwa South LGA. ". And so forth. Albeit the usual concerns on quality of Nigerian national news media, it is fairly evident that Apugo is a prominent personality whose actions and statement are frequently reported upon. Moreover if we had access to print media archives from 1980s and 1990s, it is very likely notability would be further reaffirmed. --Soman (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ! thank you @--Soman (talk). I can verify that i also came across these articles and they are reliable. He did a lot of great things also, but i was making sure to sound neutral so i did not include. Haha ! thank you once again for researching and confirming. Yinka Williams (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have analysed the sources above and they are good for me. I am keeping per WP:HEY. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Haukur (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Tiwari

[edit]
Abhishek Tiwari (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. Virtually no coverage in external sources that I could find. (Note: There is a professor at Cal Poly Pomona by this name, it doesn't seem to be the same guy.) Withdrawn, see below Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matir Asurim

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG.

There's two sources currently, one of which is the organization's own website, and the other is actually a decent source in Jewish Currents [58]. Unfortunately, the Jewish Currents source is the only source I've been able to find discussing this organization in any detail.

Before was a bit complicated, given that the organization shares its name with a more well-known phrase. Looking at the organization's social media accounts and linktree[59], however, and the Jewish Currents piece is the only piece of coverage (independent or otherwise) they feature. (Smaller organizations tend to list any mention of their group in mainstream/local press, so the fact they've only listed one piece is a sign that there is likely no further coverage.) I did do my own web search, however, limiting results to those published in 2021 or later. Doing that revealed one mention in an author bio on Google Books (obviously can't work), one passing mention in the Jerusalem Post [60], and one passing mention in a law student's paper [61] on Google Scholar. While this organization could potentially become notable in the future, it isn't now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton High School

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

The article on Simon Kenton High School does not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not a directory or database for every school that exists. 1keyhole (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Booting#Bootloop. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bootloop

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

There is no substance to the article. In its current state, it's little more than a dictionary entry, to which I feel the need to remind that we are not a dictionary. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 00:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a plainly crufty and publicity-seeking article for a random, low-profile redditor who was never notable, and certainly hasn't been even plausibly relevant in at least eight years. See the Google Trends for this user: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=_9MOTHER9HORSE9EYES9&hl=en

Even when this user was receiving a bit of attention from blogs, their notability was highly questionable, and now - years on - it seems to me patently ludicrous that this, frankly, nobody warrants an encyclopedic entry. The tone of the copy is also the sort of overwrought interest common to writers trying to puff themselves (or their friends) up.

On a personal level, I can think of a dozen amateur fiction and fanfiction writers with greater impact than this user, and I wouldn't say they're notable either. Yes yes, Wikipedia:Other things exist, but I'm really shocked this highly unserious bio withstood an AfD the first time around. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Articles about Redditors require enough citations to garner notability. It would be worth movable to a Fandom wiki, however it cannot mix with CC-BY-SA 3.0 text, it should have been rewritten. Withdrawn. Keep as it has enough coverage of the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you didn't really provide any good reasons for deleting this article other than you considering him an non-notable nobody, but that's not how it goes. Notability is not based on personal opinion, it's based on if the person was covered by major notable reliable sources, which this person was. Bonus Person (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A forum fiction writer getting some blog press does not a notable entry make. There’s no way in hell this user passes the (admittedly non-binding) ten-year rule, and the whole page reeks of recentism and publicity-seeking. Without resorting to vulgar comparison-shopping, if every topic which merited a Gizmodo or Verge article was considered notable, the landscape of Wikipedia would look very different. This is not an encyclopedic article. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure calling The Guardian, Inverse, Vice, or The Verge "blogs" is a very strong argument. Also not sure recentism really applies when The Guardian article was written 8 (nearly 10!) years ago. C F A 💬 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The publicity policy you linked says:
"The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
Sources like The Guardian and BBC News are independent and reliable, they aren't just random crufty press blogs. Obviously this article would encourage people to read the stories, but that alone does not make it publicity.
The recentism page also says
"Similarly, a person who receives a temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event is not necessarily an appropriate topic for a standalone biographical article, if their notability claim is not likely to still be of sustained public interest in the next few decades."
This is not about an event or incident, the page is talking about published stories. People in 10 years will know that this is talking about a horror writer, even if they don't know what Reddit is. Bonus Person (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A strange argument, but there is coverage after 2016 if that's what you're looking for:
I have yet to see a reasonable reason to delete. C F A 💬 03:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, that was the "sustained" coverage I was looking for to show this was something other than a forgotten publicity stunt. Keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking IAR, sure, let's talk principles. How would deleting this article benefit the encyclopedia? We have enough information to write about, and the subject is a great example of internet phenomena and life in the modern age. Assuming that there's nepotism going on here also doesn't seem very good faith of you (remember, AGF applies to all people, not just editors). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, (edit conflict). Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFA. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the sources that covered this subject suggests bare notability. Plutocow (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Participants disagree with the nomination and believe sources are sufficient to establish GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mothin Ali

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

Non-noteworthy. City councillors are not noteowrthy per se. Holds no higher office; just a ward councillor Mtaylor848 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the claim to notability? As far as I can see the page is about a city councillor; which in itself is not noteworthy. He has no other office or anything else which suggests noteworthiness. Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, despite not meeting NPOL, municipal politicians can still be notable through WP:GNG if there is sufficient significant coverage of them. Curbon7 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_20&oldid=1237103568"