Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 26: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:13, 26 December 2024 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,520 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Permanent Revolution (group) (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)← Previous edit Revision as of 02:13, 26 December 2024 edit undoDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,520 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mwijaku (XFDcloser)Tag: Disambiguation links addedNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__ __TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mwijaku}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Permanent Revolution (group) (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted--> {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Permanent Revolution (group) (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu}}

Revision as of 02:13, 26 December 2024

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      December 26 (Thu)      December 25 (Wed)      December 24 (Tue)     More...

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

< December 25 December 27 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

Mwijaku

Mwijaku (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)

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Misplaced Pages isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:
Permanent Revolution (group) (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)

Defunct minor Trotskyist group. No demonstration of meeting GNG within the article, with sourcing being from self-published sources (mostly their own) so violates WP:ABOUTSELF. Checks on scholar show no notable academic discussion of the group. No likelihood of improvement and no obvious redirect targets.

Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu (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 subject doesn't appear to be notable. I scoured through everything for a BEFORE, including Japanese sources, Books sources, sources from the early 2000s, and Scholar sources. I found a genuinely fantastic source from SyFy, which can be viewed here: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/pokemon-electric-tale-of-pikachu-manga.

Beyond that, though, is very little. There's some trivia articles from Valnet, which generally don't count for notability, but that's about it, and none of them are really SIGCOV of the entire manga series. The current source in the article is half-decent, but it's very barebones coverage (It's generic but it sold well). I found another hit in a scholarly paper, but it was just verifying the same sales info that I found previously. There's an interview source in here, but that falls under WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't count for notability.

There's scattered bits here and there, but nothing here for a strong, concrete article that satisfies any notability guideline. An AtD for now is to List of Pokémon manga. While not the greatest article, it allows for a preservation of page history should stronger sourcing come about, or if that list ever gets a revamp. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment I found these sources (brief mention), (sales), (Plot). Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above sources; I also found a good article in Screen Rant (considered marginally reliable) and this Mania article is linked in the external links, which is a reliable source. Not to mention Anime News Network previously reported that at one point it was the best-selling comic book in the US . Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Mania reviews are for the anime series, they should be removed from external links. --Mika1h (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I went ahead and removed them. Timur9008 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I did not realize it was an anime review (admittedly was too lazy to read it); that being said, my vote does not change. Link20XX (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: This isn't an argument for retention, but something that might point towards sourcing that could show notability. I seem to remember that this series was the first Pokemon manga to be brought over to the United States and given an official translation. The English release dates seem to back this up as well. I'm pulling up some hits in Newspapers.com - I'll go through those and see if they're for this series or not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was indeed the first English language translation (official, anyway) of any Pokémon manga. I've found some news coverage of this - I'm uncertain of one of the reviews, but did find at least one good one. The one I'm not certain of, it's because the reviewer looks to be young. The picture is low quality so I'm not certain and the review isn't given any of the "reviewed by Jane Smith, age 8" or "Kiddie Korner" type additions that usually accompany child reviews, so I have to assume that it might have gone through more editorial oversight than some of the other reviews, if she is as young as I think she might be.
I'd have liked to have added more. I actually think that there is a very strong chance that there are more sources out there, they're just harder to find because of one (or both) of two reasons: The sources are not available on the Internet or do not allow for searching as one would with Newspapers.com. The sources do not use the specific title of "The Electric Tale of Pikachu" and instead refer to the series along the lines of "Pokemon comics", something that would be pretty easy to do as Viz began publishing the original, longer series immediately after completing the four volumes of TETOP. This newspaper article is a good example of this. It's a short mention about how the first issue of the comics (mentioned in the lead and backed up by the Yadao source) sold extremely well.
With this in mind, when you consider what I did find - and that some of those sources were released years after the last volume was released in 2000 - it does give off the strong impression that more sourcing is probably available. However even without that, I think that the currently available sourcing is enough to establish how the series passes notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Something to back this up is that it's extremely likely that some of the anime and manga themed magazines of the time would have reviewed the series as well. Pokemon related topics were kind of a license to print money, so I could see one of the early magazines like Mangazine, Protoculture Addicts, and so on reviewing this. Sure, it's not a guarantee, but this is one of those cases where the existence of such mainstream sources gives off a good faith assumption that more likely exists.
Of note is that we also haven't searched for Japanese language sourcing. The same issues I mentioned above for the English language sources would apply here, but I think it's likely that more reviews and coverage exist in Japanese as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I've asked for help at the Pokemon and anime/manga WikiProjects, in the hopes that someone fluent can perform searches. I'm bringing up a lot of hits, but since I'm not fluent I'm unable to refine this so that the results bear fruit more easily. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Withdraw as a result of some of the finds here. I'm impressed with a few of the more obscure finds I wasn't able to locate, primarily the Ex.org review. Combined with the SyFy source and some of the other sources, this more than passes WP:GNG. I'll see about trying to incorporate some of this content into the article soon. Thank you all for the finds! I honestly thought this wasn't notable at all, so I'm glad to have been proven wrong here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:
Raegan Revord (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)

Per Talk:Raegan Revord#Requested move 19 December 2024, this title was previously salted and the subject's notability is doubful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Misplaced Pages article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Misplaced Pages entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Misplaced Pages failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is kept, the draft should be back-filled into the history. As it stands, the accepted version in mainspace sounds nearly identical to the older rejected and multiply-declined draft. Therefore, the draft's history should remain to give original credit for those words. And this also casts doubt on the authenticity of the current article's editors' contributions as being truely their own, vs end-run around the non-acceptance of the older draft. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Consider this to be a more succinct statement than what I tried to say in my Keep but it's tangled comment above. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Since there is a general acceptance in this discussion that the draft version is better (whether or not it's sufficient), might the simplest way to handle this if the decision is "keep" to simply delete the live version and move the draft into place? I don't quickly note anything from the live version that would need to be merged in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mdewman6, ANUwrites and CapnZapp. Subject has been working as an actress for over ten years and has had about 150 credited TV appearances, with most of those in episodes of a top-rated TV series. More than sufficient to establish clear notability for the purpose of having a Misplaced Pages entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Just to clarify, since you included me in your "per": There's lots of people with 100+ television credits that Misplaced Pages rightly ignore, if those are all bit roles. I'm not (strongly) arguing she fulfills the current NACTOR criteria (though I wouldn't be surprised if she is), I'm arguing Misplaced Pages's criteria are wrong if we can't add articles on young actors simply because not only do they need one successful show, they need two. This heavily tilts Misplaced Pages's coverage toward adult actors and away from young superstars, sometimes with massive online presences, that people are interested in but our stodgy project choose to ignore. But child actors aren't simply children whose integrity we should protect above all - these individuals and their parental guardians CHOSE public life. They clearly appreciate publicity more than privacy. (No, you can't be part of Hollywood anonymously unless you're a baby) Also, in this case Young Sheldon was a major show where it just so happened that one of its main cast wasn't bluelinked in the main article... and that was (of course) a female. Gender equality is another heavy argument to maintain an article on Revord. All this to say that if you "per" me, you per "so what she hasn't had a second notable role, here we should clearly make an exception from NACTOR". CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be arguing that we should have lower standards for child actors than for adult ones, which seems precisely backwards to me. To the degree that a child actor is making any decision, they are not informed maturely in making themselves so public. There are several ways in which Misplaced Pages considers minors worthy of additional protection, and Ms. Revord is still a minor at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Consider WP:MINORS (that essay is an essay). Having a WP-article is not an achievement, nor does it necessarily do the subject any favors. The older someone is, it's a bit more likely they have WP:GNG-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Uladzislau Palkhouski

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Emiliya Kalehanova

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Walter Irving Scott

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

Non-notable magician. No sigcov provided for this story-like article to distinguish it from a hoax. Jdcooper (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nelli Ioffe

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

John Ward (pitcher)

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

As much as I hate to AfD those that have played a professional game of baseball, after getting a PROD tag I scoured old newspaper sources and was unable to find anything whatsoever on this person trying every combination I could think of. Even the game logs for September 1885 turn up empty to the point that I'm questioning if he ever played at all (he does but it took Peter Morris to find anything and even then it's only primary source stuff). Literally the only thing I found of his existence is the Courier-Journal on Sep. 20, 1885, but even then it's only a sentence and goes more on a tangent involving the far superior John Ward baseball player. Wizardman 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing thanks to the finding of sources, not sure how you found some of those but happy to see it. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Further note: His death announcements include some further biographical details. See here, here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep after expansion - a decent amount of news sources now. ~Darth Stabro 00:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Khilkov

Khilkov (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)

Astonished how long this rubbish has been around. The only source was a WP:SELFPUB WP:OR blog, probably run by the same User:Khilkoff who created this page in 2008. Moscow wasn't "founded" in 1147, but only first mentioned; we've got no idea who founded it and when. But Mr Selfpub Blog is certain that *his* ancestors founded Moscow, and that Misplaced Pages should mention this "fact". This whole article is genealogical fancruft WP:COATRACK written by one descendant for WP:SELFPROMO about how he and his family are so awesome because they descended from someone who is awesome. At the very least WP:TNT. (No objection to keeping Category:Khilkov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. WP:GNG not met, cannot find any adequate sources to replace the one removed. Procyon117 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Traditional monarchy

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

Traditional monarchy, as a distinct system of governance, ideology or political affiliation is not widely used enough to be considered WP:NOTE. There was obviously a lot of work put into this article, and I can sympathise with how awful it must feel to see it nominated for deletion. However, this topic has a lot of redundancy and little notability as a distinct subject.

A lot of the alleged traditional monarchists in this article never use the label. Charles A. Coulombe has 0 mentions outside of Misplaced Pages of being a traditional monarchist. Coulombe is both a traditionalist and a monarchist, but he never uses the term traditional monarchist. Even Rafael Gambra Ciudad, who has the most extensive mentions of Monarquía tradicional, has zero sources describing him as a traditional monarchist (that I can find). Several of the quotes throughout this article discuss monarchism but do not mention traditionalism. The label of a traditional monarchist is also frequently applied to movements that do not describe themselves as traditional monarchists. A lot of the connections to traditional monarchism seem to be made by the editor, rather than the sources.

A brief survey of the academia on traditional monarchy shows that it is rarely mentioned and when it is it is not described as a distinct ideology from traditionalism or monarchism but a combination of both. This leads to many of the sources used by this article not mentioning the term traditional monarchy.

I am aware that this article relies on a lot of Spanish sources, something I'm by no means fluent in, so I could have totally missed something big. However, even with Google Translate and searching basic Spanish terms, almost nothing comes up.

At the end of the day, this article reads more like an article about monarchism and would have substantially fewer issues if it were.}} Clubspike2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

information Note: Most of the article's content has been added by one user, Sr L, since 24 November. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Although I have been the most interested in develop the article, there were others that preceded me and even are equivalent of this articles in other wikipedias. Sr L (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
First of all, I feel that it is very picky to focus on a largely nominal and terminological issue to propose deleting the page. For those, I think it would be better to rename the article as "Integral Monarchy" (used in Tsarist circles), "Corporate Monarchy" (used in Habsburg loyalist circles), "Classical Monarchy" (used in some academic circles), "Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism" (which could be the most formalist possible name for Misplaced Pages), etc. of alternative names that exist for this type of monarchy that the article describes according to what various legitimist and counterrevolutionary groups, that are anti-liberal and anti-absolutist alike, adhere to.
Secondly, I must mention that the concept of "Traditional Monarchy", according to the definition that it adheres to on a corporate and aristocratic form of government according to medieval political philosophy or "scholasticism" (such as the Thomistic philosophy of law and Augustinian political theology in the Christian context, which also develop Aristotelian and Platonic political philosophy, which in turn its followers admit to having conclusions similar or equal to those of other traditional philosophies that are grouped as "non-modernist" such as Confucianism or Vedism), allows that naturally the Iberian concept of "Traditional Monarchy" can also refer to such forms of monarchical government that maintain similar qualities in reaction to the Political Modernization initiated by the Secular Humanism of the Renaissance and consolidated with the Age of Enlightenment, which is what all these "classical reactionary" groups have in common, which have brotherly relations with the Carlist and Integrist groups, which are the ones that most allege the concept (despite that even italian, french and polish monarchical groups uses the concept and I referenced some of those). There is even an entire philosophical school that defends this specific form of "pre-modern Monarchy" according to the characteristics of a perennial tradition (Perennialist School, although they are obviously not the only defenders of this type of government and in any case they have an emphasis on questions of mysticism and metaphysics rather than politics)
Finally, it can be empirically verified, after reviewing the sources of the article (specifically looking for the statutes and declaration of principles of the monarchical groups mentioned), that all these groups that perceive themselves as "authentic reactionaries" come to defend a form of government that is essentially common, despite the specific name they give it. There is even a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups along with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. From this we can conclude that all these legitimist groups, which have historically collaborated with each other (like the White Russian movement associating with the Carlists in anti-communist alliances during the interwar period, the Polish monarchists of the magazine Rojalisci-pro Patria having integrists in their ranks and basing themselves on Carlism, the intellectual collaborations between the legitimists of the houses of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, etc.) consider themselves to defend what the Iberian traditionalists understand as "Traditional Monarchy" and which perhaps other traditionalisms or "classical conservatives" names in a different way. Which, again, would be a more nominal and terminological question (which could be resolved by renaming the article, although I personally would not suggest it), not a proof of the insubstantiality or inaccuracy of the article. Sr L (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
While renaming the article would solve some issues, I believe that it does not fix the notability of this concept. When searching on both Google and Google Scholar, the terms Integral Monarchy, Corporate Monarchy, Traditional Monarchy, Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism and Classical Monarchy are either scarcely used or scarcely used in the way this article uses the term. These ideologies may all have common beliefs and roots, but without a widely recognized term grouping these ideologies together this bars on being original research.
My main concern is not that the groups categorized under Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism, or any synonymous terms, are not related but that the notion of categorizing them this way is not notable enough to be its own article. Clubspike2 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that this is mostly a problem of Anglo-Saxon academical community that just don't have the same interest on this topyc unlike Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian or Polish academical communities (in which for me have been more easy to get sources on this topyc, even someones that consideres British Jacobitism as part of the movements that supports this model of government). Since the essence of this questions are about the method of making connections to categorize this in what is understanded as "Traditional Monarchy", I think that the problem is the necessity of wanting pure academic papers that say something about traditional morality or leaders specifically saying so outside of Carlism and Integralism, which yes they are (like Jacek Bartycel on Poland or Marquis de la Tour du Pin in France, along the influence of Francisco Elias de Tejada on Italian monarchical organisations like Editoriale Il Giglio), but in Anglo-Saxon community are very few outside of marginal circles like Jacobitean or Traditionalist Catholicism. But being demostrated that there are shared principles and fundaments that determinates their common model of Monarchy, I think that staying in something terminological would ignore the essential, perhaps it is because it has been see all these movements in the same way anyone would see an ideology, instead of seeing them as a particular Social Doctrine of Monarchy. The problem would be the necesity to see a system and a creator who gives it a name and people influenced by that creator citing his work, instead of seeing it as a series of principles shared by classical reactionaries' conception of Monarchy as based on a Perennial Tradition outside of ideological formulas (that's why the article should mantain it's name in my opinion, due to being reivindicated mostly by Traditionalist circles that tries to distinguish themself of other Monarchisms). Although, if I would consider a referent that inspire the rest, it should be Thomas Aquinas Iusnaturalism, as all of those movements that defends this "Traditional Monarchy" are inspired (if not totally based) by his proposal of Monarchy in De regno, ad regem Cypri, all of the academical authors that mentions this model of government are Thomists or are sympathisers to his political contributions (like Perennialists). Sr L (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I noticed this by seeing this edit, which is adding a bunch of text referenced to a glaringly unreliable source, some NGO that promotes some oddball fringe views. If this is the standard for the rest of the text, then yes, it should absolutely be deleted because this is a policy violation. --Joy (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I suppose that the policy violation is about Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. While it is true that the defense of the Traditional Monarchy is currently a marginal position, this is not sufficient reason to delete the article, since the reasons why Misplaced Pages avoids giving articles to marginal things is if the object of the marginal is due to having little academic support or no historical impact, but the defense of the "Traditional Monarchy" model (understood as a corporate, traditionalist, decentralized, religious and anti-modernist form of government) has been a very relevant real historical phenomenon, which in some countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy are a relevant case study on the historiography of revolution and counterrevolution.
    And specifically the Traditional Monarchy model, has support from serious and recognized academic authors cited in the article, such as Juan Vazquez de Mella, António Sardinha, Francisco Elias de Tejada (influential in Italy), Miguel Ayuso Torres, Rafael Gambra Ciudad, Jacek Bartycel (Polish), the Marquis de la Tour du Pin (French), etc. which haved a common understandment of a Christian or Perennial Social Order based in this type of Monarchy that isn't Constitutional nor Absolutist, trying to be an alternative superation of Feudalism.
    It cannot be placed in that category as could be the case, for example, of anarcho-national bolshevism (a political ideology that exists but with no systematization and no serious references in the academic world). By this logic there shouldn't be articles talking about anarcho-capitalism (and it's derivations) or fascism (and their movements), which are currently marginal positions. Sr L (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, the idea is not that we don't cover complex topics at all, the idea is that we observe the WP:Verifiability policy while doing so. Blogs are not reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Like most such hobby horses, it's a curious and overwhelmingly excessive mix of original research and synthesis. I'm not going through this entire thing, and one thing must suffice, for now: this source, a page on WordPress that claims to cover the genesis of the "modern state" in a couple paragraphs, and it is used to verify (pardon me for the long quotes):

    The first attempts to develop organized traditionalist monarchists movements appeared in Spain and Portugal during the context of Carlist Wars and Liberal Wars, in which Carlists and Miguelists launched proclaims (like Manifiest of the Persians) that later defined a series of political doctrines to reject the paradigms of liberal revolutions (as Liberalism was perceived as a political philosophy contrary to a Christian social order), but also trying to reject the monarchical absolutism that caused the perceived social decline of Christendom by having harmed the "Intermediate Bodies" (popular institutions of the plebeians, like Municipalities, Guilds, Corporations, Parliaments, etc. that were guarantors of Class collaboration), local Customary Law (guarantors of Regional Autonomies and Subsidiarity) and the social role of the clergy (the autonomy of the church from the state, guarantors of Natural law) in the name of erroneous ideological assumptions of Modern Philosophy (like Anthropocentrism, Nominalist anti-Metaphysical Realism, Immanentism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Secular humanism, Regalism, Enlightened absolutism, etc.) to achieve apparently more "efficiency" and "rationality" in governments that instead led to the Ancien régime crisis

    and

    Then it would be stablished the absolutist model of monarchy during the Protestant reformation and normalized in Europe by the Westphalian system, in which there would be attacks against the political power of the Social Corporations (that were mostly in good convivence until the European wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, along the wars of French system of Alliances based on Raison d' etat instead of Universitas Christiana) in the name of Political stability. And finally it would be a popular political system among Western intellectuals (specially followers of Modern philosophy) during XVI to XVIII century, like Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius or Thomas Hobbes.

    Note how careless the editing and how argumentative the writing is in those paragraphs, sweeping through history with the broadest possible brush. This is how we get 300k of excessive (and excessively overlinked, another hallmark of such writing) and overformatted (another hallmark) writing. No, burn it. This is an essay. It is possible that somewhere in here is a concept worth noting, but even the lead doesn't make that clear. Delete. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    About this source (page on WordPress), it's from an official Carlist institution, the Circulo Hispalense (now Circulo Elias de Tejada), which is an extension of actual Traditionalist Communion (2001) and can be verified in their official page: https://carlismo.es/presentacion-en-sevilla-del-circulo-hispalense-de-la-comunion-tradicionalista/. So, it can be considered a reliable source as it's related to an academical institution which officially defends this model of "Traditional Monarchy", and being the article about explaining that model. The same institution has made collaboration with other "Anti-Liberal" Monarchist movements, and that's a big consideration about why this "Traditional Monarchy" is the same Monarchical model of government defended by reactionary movements with similar "Counter-Revolution" political philosophy (like jacobites, french legitimists, miguelists, habsburg loyalists, white tsarists, etc) against Constitutional Monarchy and Absolute Monarchy at the same time.
    While my intention wasn't arguing, just expressing the official fundaments of the "Traditional Monarchy", I'm not against to eliminate those paragraphs if they're syntethised in a more accurate way for Misplaced Pages standard. Although, about that conclussions about Westphalian system as catalyst of Absolutist Monarchies, those aren't exclussive of Traditionalist Monarchists thinkers but are a greater historiographical debate among Academy and have been supported by non-related authors like André de Muralt (but due to not being this article just about historical science, but mainly political science, I avoided to mention the other perspectives and mantaining the focus on the fundaments of Traditional Monarchy, so just mentioning the historiographical perspective that it's assumed by these academics about why Traditional Monarchy is different of Absolutist Monarchy or Modern Sovereign state). So, again, you can change the redaction if that's the problem (or at least giving an advice cartel to correct it in the near future), not borrowing all the page.
    Also I was considering, about resolving the issue concerning the excessive amount of sources, to create another article about "Movements that defends Traditional Monarchy per country", as most of those sources are related to the part of "Supporters of Traditional Monarchy". Sr L (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

J. Steven Svoboda

J. Steven Svoboda (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 about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again in the hope that it will generate commentary/analysis of recently added sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino 00:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  • del no significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 03:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you Beeblebrox. I now added 2020 San Bernardino Sun and The New Zealand Herald articles and, more importantly, a 2022 SSM - Qualitative Research in Health and a 2023 Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics articles. There's more to add, maybe even better, if I can find the time. I deleted the {{BLP primary sources|date=March 2016}} because it already seems irrelevant. Involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including newborn endosex male circumcision, is probably one of the most sensitive topics. It's likely safe to assume that this can explain at least some of the delete votes. If it's ok, I'll be contacting users for a possible vote reevaluation. Chrono1084 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)