Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 13: 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 07:27, 20 February 2022 editLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators762,005 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/A.S.K. M.E. (XFDcloser)← Previous edit Revision as of 09:06, 20 February 2022 edit undoCoffee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,540 edits Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opposite Day (XFDcloser)Next edit →
Line 69: Line 69:
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Uzbekistan-related articles}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Uzbekistan-related articles}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WAAR TV}}<!--Relisted--> {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WAAR TV}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opposite Day}}<!--Relisted--> <!-- {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Opposite Day}} --><!--Relisted-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Telangana-related articles}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Telangana-related articles}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles}}

Revision as of 09:06, 20 February 2022

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      December 30 (Mon)      December 29 (Sun)      December 28 (Sat)     More...

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

< February 12 February 14 >
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

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Khalid El Bargoni

Khalid El Bargoni (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)

de-prodded by author without explanation; the sources says it all. (can anyone find anything on this?) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Denny Blood

Denny Blood (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)

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Should be a redirect, but an editor keeps insisting on re-creating it without any sources which show real world notability.Onel5969 23:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ahmet Uyar

Ahmet Uyar (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 nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, and doesn't meet NSPORTS. Onel5969 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against possibly re-focusing the article on the more notable 2015 stabbing, if any editor wants to take that on. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yishai Schlissel

Yishai Schlissel (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 believe an article on the stabbing attack itself would be more appropriate as per WP:PERP. Redirect and finetune content. Mooonswimmer 21:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm relying on automatic translation here but the Hebrew version of this article has quite extensive coverage of the 2005 attack and it seems to have references to support that coverage. It just doesn't seem to have got much coverage in English language sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Ample could still be an understatement. These two attacks on LGBTQ and the one in Tel Aviv (that one was by a gay person in denial of his orientation) shocked Israel and filled its newspapers. All three are notable. gidonb (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:CRIMINAL #2 and the WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E does not apply to people with such a central role in multiple notable events. It is possible to rework this to the fatal 2015 attack putting the 2005 one in the background, as nominator hints. It would take a lot of work, especially in necessary expanding, well beyond what is reasonably covered by rename. Still a worthy effort and recommendation at closure. gidonb (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Natural history in the Spanish New World

Natural history in the Spanish New World (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)

Appears to be an essay, not an encyclopedia article PepperBeast (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Zastava Arms. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Zastava M12 Black Spear

Zastava M12 Black Spear (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 indication of notability. Searching the name online only brings up the manufacturer and Misplaced Pages mirrors. Loafiewa (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. There is a fundamental disagreement here on whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability that I don't think will be resolved with a third relisting so I'm coming down on "no consensus". Liz 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bill Workman

Bill Workman (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 notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Such a negative spin. I didn't say it was a finish, just that I readily found more information online, and that there used to be much more in the article. I added three paragraphs, including nine sentences from three new sources. I've read WP:POLITICIAN and get that there's no guaranteed notability, but much of what you write as necessary seems to go beyond what's written in that guideline. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are presumed to be notable. The associated note includes that such a person, "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." As the previous commenter noted, Greenville is significant within its region and Workman was its mayor for 12 years. No, the article as currently written doesn't confirm notability, though I'm not convinced the required journalistic coverage is non-existent. —ADavidB 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure, you added three paragraphs, but only one of those paragraphs, consisting of three sentences, addresses anything potentially notability-building about his mayoralty, while the other two paragraphs address personal life trivia that does not speak to notability. So your statement about three paragraphs and my statement about three sentences can both be correct at the same time, because only three sentences within your three paragraphs actually speak toward whether he's notable or not. And as for whether you are or aren't convinced that the required journalistic coverage is non-existent, that's immaterial — we don't keep inadequate articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist than anybody has actually shown, we keep inadequate articles only when somebody proves that better sourcing absolutely does exist to salvage it with. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The article has grown significantly with additional sources. —ADavidB 08:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes meant to post Keep, I fixed it. thanks. Caphadouk (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete mainly because the sources don't seem to be that usable for notability. For instance three of them are obituaries from local news outlets. Which don't work for notability. A couple more are announcements in local news papers about his run for office. Which literally anyone running for local office gets. What else is there besides that? Something about a local police officer settling a law suite. "Glimpses of Greenville: 1980 to 1990", "Mayor Knox White runs for seventh term — decades after he promised term limits", and "Lost Restaurants of Greenville" all literally have nothing to do with him. So it's laughable to say he's received significant press coverage. The only thing that might work is one of the obituaries, but that's about it and I'm pretty sure there needs to be more then that. So there's zero basis for this guy to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NPOL regarding local politicians, and its note as to what significant press coverage means. Many of the sources were in fact prompted by Workman's death, but are by journalists, not paid obituaries. White ran against Workman and succeeded him as mayor, as that source includes. The "Lost Restaurants" book notes Workman's city redevelopment, and the "Glimpses" article notes his bringing international cultural ties to the city. There are three Spartanburg Herald-Journal source articles that focus on Workman's run for a U.S. House seat. —ADavidB 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the reason obituaries are bad indicators of notability has nothing to do with them being paid for or not, and journalists can write them as much as anyone else. Or I'd like to see a guideline that says otherwise. Unless I'm wrong like Pilaz says they are silent on obituaries. As far as your other points, none of them are indicators of notability. Literally all mayors are involved in city redevelopment and bring 'international cultural ties", whatever that means, to the city that they are mayors of. In the meantime, NPOL is pretty clear that runs for office aren't notable on their own. Which I assume would include someone running for the House. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that paid (funeral home-generated or classified ad-style) obituaries would not be independant, thus negating their proper use. Journalists can potentially skew most all of their writing, but we use what they write that is published in reliable sources. Most mayors do attempt to lead their cities well; not all of them are successful at it. —ADavidB 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it. So we will have to agree to disagree. Although I am interested to know where the sources said his good leadership as mayor or whatever had anything to do with the buildings being built. The blog says he and the city council "took a risk," but it's a blog and that doesn't really have anything to do with his leadership. All city councils/mayors take risks when they approve projects. Outside of that I think another reference said he was mayor at the time, but nothing else. So where exactly does it say his "successful leadership" resulted in anything, let alone beyond what most mayors are usually involved in? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added more content and sources, which may provide more support considered necessary. Many (not all) leaders take risks, yes, though those who are repeatedly or greatly successful in doing so are generally given credit for it. Which source is a blog? —ADavidB 01:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local press coverage only, fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO (and possibly WP:BIO1E - his death). He is not, unlike claimed above, a major local political figure who have received significant press coverage. The only seemingly-reliable sources that cover him with some depth are the Greenville Journal, The Greenville News, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat, and maybe WHNS. The first two are from the city where he served as mayor, and Spartanburg is 35 minutes away. WHNS is also based in Greenville, and the (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat appears to be only the 13th largest South Carolina newspaper (and that's excluding free circulation). All of this coverage is local and not outside the specific region as demanded by WP:NPOL. Pilaz (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • To elaborate on the failure of WP:NBIO, I've always found obits to be a poor indicator of notability. Not only are many of them paid for (hence not independent), but they always happen in the context of the death of the subject (WP:BIO1E) and usually do not fall under the editorial policy of the newspaper in question (there's often just an obit department doing its own thing). This is a personal preference and Misplaced Pages guidelines are silent on obituaries, but it is the reason why I don't usually count them towards the WP:GNG, especially if they are local. 3 million people die in the United States every year, and hundreds of thousands of obits are published every year in the US alone. Imagine if we had to determine the notability of every dead person in the world through the lens of obituaries. Pilaz (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Where, specifically, is 'outside their area' stated as required of sources for major local politicians? Areas where WP guidelines are silent don't seem a proper area in which to make assumptions against notability. Relatively few dead people receive full coverage by journalists, so the referrals to "3 million" and "every dead person in the world" are non-applicable exaggerations. —ADavidB 10:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, my mistake: I incorrectly thought that Misplaced Pages:Notability (politics) had already been adopted, due to the fact that we continuously refer to WP:POLOUTCOMES when looking for precedent. I've consequently corrected my original comment. Under that proposal, #9 has "outside their specific region" added to "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", but it's clearly not in NPOL. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, we usually tend to only retain mayors who belong to cities of regional prominence; and Greenville isn't even in the top 300 largest US cities nor in the top 5 of largest SC cities. Being a mayor of such a small city hardly qualifies for a "major local political figure", and the fact that coverage is almost exclusively hyperlocal confirms that. The failure to meet WP:NBIO due to quasi-total reliance on obituaries from local media (with its WP:BIO1E concerns) remains valid in my eyes. Pilaz (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, I am free to determine whether sources are reliable on a case-by-case basis, especially when the guidelines are silent on said sources, since sources need to be reliable to count towards the GNG. Obits are notoriously paid-for, edulcorated biographies not subject to the same editorial guidelines as other journalistic pieces. This is something that has come up at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard several times. As an example, throughout her carreer, obit writer Kay Powell of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has written about notorious people such as "The church choir singer who had a frontal lobotomy and donated his brain to science, the girl who sang at Martin Luther King Jr’s funeral, the woman who was Flannery O’Connor’s secret pen pal for 30 years". Of course local newspapers are going to be writing about every dead mayor when the bar is so low. Pilaz (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
We differ on whether Greenville is regionally prominent (not nationally or necessarily state-wide). It is the seat of Greenville County, the most populous county of the Upstate region and the state, with the largest school district in the state. The Greenville News circulation is at or near fifth in the state. If the writers or publishers of Workman's source articles are known to be unreliable in their journalistic standards, you may have a point. Otherwise, referring to other newspapers and writers is tangential. —ADavidB 18:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The way I usually side with the whole "regional coverage" thing is that I determine if what the paper is covering is a local story or not. Obviously regional news outlets have a vested interest in covering topics that are local to them. So they will, even if it's something that's not otherwise notable. But if it's a news story about something in the "Greenville region" then I'd say it's fine as a regional source. Really though, if it's a topic relating to Greenville then it isn't regional coverage. Outside of that the Whole discussion about what is or isn't a regional news outlet is a little pedantic. Especially these days with the internet and most local outlets being connected to the Associated Press or bought out by bigger news companies. Like most local newspapers in my region now are owned by the same company, which also owns USA Today. So there's an extreme amount of overlap in what they cover. Plus a lot of news stories from USA Today. So the whole "regional/local" thing is really a moot point. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Sources now include The State from state capital Columbia. Additional sourcing is on the way via NewsBank. —ADavidB 04:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep article has significant coverage demonstrating notability. WP:NPOL is not meant to exclude politicians who do not meet the criteria set out there if they meet WP:GNG; this article should be kept not as an NPOL pass but as a GNG pass. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Workman is more than trivially mentioned in many of the sources, and he does not need to be the main topic of such source material, per WP:GNG (read it). Also, "There is no fixed number of sources required ... but multiple sources are generally expected." In WP:NPOL, the requirement for 'major local political figures' is multiple sources of significant coverage. The article has grown greatly since nominated for deletion, and the content is fully sourced. —ADavidB 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep There are numerous sources here that are specifically about him. I don't understand the objection to obituaries - presuming that they are not of the paid notice variety (and these seem not to be) they are a testament to the perceived importance of the person. I also think that local newspapers that are actual newspapers, not freebie coupon papers, are good sources. In fact, the local newspapers here have WP articles, which says something about their stability and perhaps reliability. Lamona (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Disappearance of Julie Weflen

Disappearance of Julie Weflen (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 unable to find evidence that is a notable missing persons' case. Coverage is limited to possible updates, none of which have panned out. The lack of a locker search doesn't make it stand out, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Copying comment from talk where @Joticknor: wrote Keep - per the Charley Project entry ... "The true crime author Ann Rule included a chapter about Weflen's abduction in her 2004 book, Kiss Me, Kill Me.". Just want to be sure it's not missed by closing admin. Star Mississippi 14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Vivekananda Institute Of Higher Education, Najafgarh

AfDs for this article:
Vivekananda Institute Of Higher Education, Najafgarh (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:NSCHOOL (no reliable sources) and is written like a WP:PROMO. Previous (2014) AFD failed due to lack of participation. Headphase (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. There's a rather broad community consensus that Misplaced Pages is not a textbook, and the "keep" opinions must accordingly be given less weight. Sandstein 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse

Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse (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 blatantly violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, as it develops content from initial lemmas to propositions just as a textbook would, rather than like an encyclopedia. Since it is actually quite well written, I transwikied it, reformatted it, added some explanations and exercises and added it to a textbook on Wikibooks, where it fits much better. Felix QW (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if the proof page can be seen to violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it should stay. I invoke the Misplaced Pages principle WP:Common sense.
Following the "common sense" flow chart:
-> Does the proof page improve the encyclopedia? Yes. I think the proof page fits well in Misplaced Pages, because it complements the article page. This is no surprise, because the proof page's purpose is to support the article (and not to serve as a textbook). I think it is a good idea to keep wiki proofs close to the material that they support. In particular, this keeps the interested editorship close to the proof page.
-> Does it break the rules? Yes.
-> Is that because the rules are wrong? No, the rules are fine.
-> Ignore the rules and DO IT
In this case, "DO IT" means to do nothing, leave the page in place. Sometimes, it is better to do nothing. But let's discuss, discussing this is good.
When I look at the other pages in the wikibook "Topics in Linear Algebra", I see far less edits. I fear the content would wither and die on wikibooks. On Misplaced Pages, 72 editors have contributed 341 edits. (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Proofs_involving_the_Moore%E2%80%93Penrose_inverse) Even though the topic of the proof page is very narrow (compared to, for example "Field theory" (https://en.wikibooks.org/Topics_in_Abstract_Algebra/Field_theory), the proof page is currently the longest page in that book. Had the page been created at wikibooks in the first place, it would not be at the current level of quality.
The proof page has many proofs, develops them from each other. It shares this property with a textbook. But it is not a textbook, it is not intended to be a textbook. The "Proofs involving" discussion linked to above mentions that the proof page was originally a subpage, and was promoted to "article" only because subpages are no longer allowed in article namespace. As such, the proof page is conceptually still a sub-page, a supplement to the article, intended to make the article more easily verifiable. One of the reasons for the page's existence is that for these proofs, literature is somewhat hard to get a hand on in practice, simply because it is a bit of a niche topic. The page indeed provides an alternative to such other literature. As does all of Misplaced Pages, in a sense.
It has been claimed that the wikibook would be a more appropriate place. For what reason? The other topics are more "abstract algebra", while the proof page is intended to support an article mostly about concrete algebra (matrix algebra).
--RainerBlome (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I agree that the current location in Wikibooks is not ideal. The plan is to move the material into the into the far more active wikibooks:Linear algebra Wikibook, which is a featured book and actively used in university courses. However, because the linear algebra book is featured and quite visible, I am still waiting for some criticism/opposition on the Wikibooks:Linear algebra talk page before doing so.
I think the Moore-Penrose inverse would be a great addition to the linear algebra wikibook, since even though it is not usually covered in undergraduate linear algebra courses, it is useful, accessible and very pretty. Felix QW (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: @Felix QW I agree that wikibooks:Linear algebra looks like a better place than Wikibooks:Topics in Abstract Algebra. I also agree that everything else being equal, Wikibooks would be a more appropriate place in general. But in practice, not everything else is equal. Looking at the page history of https://en.wikibooks.org/Linear_Algebra/Inverses, which would be a suitable sibling, there is significantly less editor activity there than on Misplaced Pages.
Thanks for your effort in rendering the content in textbook form. I like what you did there. Of course, those changes are appropriate only on Wikibooks, on Misplaced Pages the new phrasing would not be appropriate. It looks like you dewikified some or all wikilinks in the article. I do not see why. Was this necessary for some reason, could you please explain why you did not covert to Misplaced Pages links? One of the points of a wiki (even hypertext in general) is the use of links. --RainerBlome (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment: The Removal of the links is explicit Wikibooks policy (I was also surprised) – in fact, when transwikiing a page from Misplaced Pages, it gets an explicit "dewikify" tag
wikibooks:template:dewikify! Felix QW (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Rolling my eyes at that policy. Then the "Wiki" in "Wikibooks" does not fulfill expectations, for me. At least it doesn't say "no links", it just says "use sparingly". One more reason to keep the proof page at Misplaced Pages. :-)--RainerBlome (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Remark: The page has around 850 page views per month. (https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2022-01&pages=Proofs_involving_the_Moore%E2%80%93Penrose_inverse) Were this much less, I might not bother to discuss here. The number of page views can be seen as a coarse indication of the current value of the page to the public, at its current location. This is our benchmark value. Would the value change? I do not know. For the sake of argument, let us *assume* that the value does not change much when the page is moved.

Seriously: What are the advantages, exactly, of moving the proof page? Rules such as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK have purposes. Actions should actually serve these purposes.

@XOR'easter What does "more appropriate place" mean, appropriate in what way?

@David Eppstein What does "better home" mean, better in what way?

Answering "it would satsify the rule" isn't valid, the point of Misplaced Pages isn't to satisfy rules. What would be achieved by applying the rule?

Is Wikibooks a better place for the proofs? I have doubts.

We want to compare alternatives

Keep in Misplaced Pages

Move to Wikibooks

Maintain a copy at both Wikibooks and Misplaced Pages

For the alternatives, let us imagine that we compare their effects at some point in the future, say ten years from now. Which alternative would yield a better Misplaced Pages? Which would yield a better world? Which would yield more value?

The point in removing something should be something like this:

  • We do not want to maintain this at Misplaced Pages. Doing so would worsen Misplaced Pages.
  • We do not want to host this at Misplaced Pages. Doing so would worsen Misplaced Pages.

As long as Wikibooks is stable (have all Wikimedia sites been stable so far?), I expect it to not really matter where the content is hosted, Wikibooks or Misplaced Pages. But I do expect it to matter where the content is maintained, at Wikibooks or Misplaced Pages.

--RainerBlome (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - leaning here on a personal bias lol, but I just wanted to look something up related to this topic and found the answer reasonably quickly on this specific page, which if nothing else meets the basic use case of an encyclopaedia. And another anecdote: I have never once stumbled across Wikibooks in the search for something. More importantly, there's nothing in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK specifically against proofs being in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps it could be argued that there are too many proofs, or they're too detailed, but that's an argument for trimming the page, not deletion altogether. At least some of this seems notable enough. 86.130.93.159 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are too many of them, and yes, they are too detailed. I'd go further and say that none of them prove anything surprising; they mostly demonstrate that, yes, the operator works like a derivative should. Trim away all that ought to be trimmed, and there would be nothing left. XOR'easter (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Rob VanAlkemade

Rob VanAlkemade (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'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to What Would Jesus Buy? or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Setting aside the procedural issues, the substance of this is quite clear cut; the primary argument for deletion is that GNG is not met; and this has not been refuted. Multiple sources provided at the previous AfD, which keep !voters there and here refer to, are unreliable per WP:RSP; the argument that the rest are not substantive is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Elijah Schaffer

AfDs for this article:
Elijah Schaffer (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'm not sure the subject meets WP:N general notability guidelines. He appears to have gotten some media attention on Fox News for interviewing Kyle Rittenhouse before the shootings, plus media criticism coverage from Mediaite where Schaffer complained about Zionist influence. Everything else is from non-RSs: right-wing blogs and similar publications (National File, PJ Media). In short: I don't think the above stories amount to the level of substantial or sustained coverage necessary for a BLP. Ich (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: At the time I created this AFD, I wasn't aware it had been listed a month ago. Revisiting the previous AFD listing, Such-change47 provided a set of links. Out of the four links, I judge MEAWW to be clearly non-RS, and Blaze Media is Schaffer's employer. Mashable and the Daily Beast are okay as sources as per WP:RSP but I still don't think this is enough RS coverage for a BLP. Also pinging Kiwichris and DFXYME who participated last time.-Ich (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there was an AFD as recent as a month ago, and it is normally bad practice to renominate such an article for deletion so soon... WP:CCC states: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. As there was a) limited participation in the prior AFD, b) as the nomination argument here is distinctly different than the prior one, and as c) commentary now refutes some of the sources provided in the prior AFD... I think it is reasonable to allow this to remain open for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Surprised to see this article immediately renominated after the closure of the first AFD which, except for the nominator, was unanimous in wanting to Keep the article. Liz 04:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC) It sounds like a reassessment of the article sources, and additional ones proposed for it, warrants further review. Liz 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak delete It doesn't seem like this page would quite meet GNG based on the sources in the article or the ones found in the previous afd. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Not seeing WP:BIO. We have two sources about how he participated in the storming of the capitol and a couple mediaite posts. It's not nothing, but it's not quite enough. There's also a WP:BLP issue in that if we base this article on those sources, it would be entirely negative. As for the previous AfD, someone linked to four sources, two of them in unreliable sources, and two other people "per"ed them. The last person added five more unreliable sources (for the purposes of notability anyway). Obviously it couldn't be deleted based on what participation there was, but a very low quality discussion is a fine reason to renominate. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Which of the sources in particular from the previous discussion help satisfy GNG? They have been contested in this discussion, so I am curious which you see as strong. Freelance-frank (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Claudia Dicaeosyna

Claudia Dicaeosyna (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)

Obscure woman named on a stone inscription, with no evidence of why she's important. Content of the article is basically unverifiable, the source only ventures a guess based on the husband's name, and so it's impossible to know for sure if she indeed married Tiberius Claudius Narcissus instead of someone else of the same name. Avilich (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, there's precisely one single source (a very old one at that) which does so, and even that is just a one-line speculation which the author didn't waste ten seconds with. I could find no other source which discusses her, so I don't really think she should be discussed in the main page. Presumably you didn't know back then that it was just a "possible husband", since the article is totally misleading in this regard. I think this should just be deleted for the same reason any article on some random freedman would be deleted, and for the same reason that most of the millions of freedmen who ever existed don't have redirects. If you disagree, then by all means vote redirect, but your time is solely yours to spend and to 'waste'. Avilich (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't really see why it matters if its one sentence speculation that you think the author didn't spend enough time on. Its still a plausible search term thats has been associated with Narcissus for over 100 years now, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a very widely read work.★Trekker (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not very likely that anybody will even hear of this name before that of Narcissus himself, so nobody will search for it before already stumbling upon the meager information available on her. Anyway, the article has several misleading and unverifiable statements which makes it desirable to delete before redirecting. If you wish to recreate it as a blank redirect afterwards, then just go ahead, nobody will stop you. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
So you were actually perfectly ok with a redirect to the possible husband, yet still decided to recreate the article just to delete it?★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid this doesn't bring us any further than step zero, which is that a woman of that name existed and was married to some "Tiberius Claudius Narcissus". Lulu.com is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing platform, whereas the Alford source says basically nothing about her, aside from merely noting the inscription's existence and her name in it. The claim she was a freedwoman of Claudius is an unverifiable one that the Misplaced Pages article itself made without any authority: it is not corroborated by the source which the Portuguese article cites, so I think it simply took the information from Misplaced Pages and assumed it was true. Compare its publication date, 2015, with the date of the Misplaced Pages article's creation, 2007, and the date of its transclusion to the Portuguese Misplaced Pages, 2010. Avilich (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
And I reverted it, because the sources aren't any good, as I explained above. Avilich (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources isn't any good. So I've restored my edit and removed the spurious source. Ficaia (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete There is no certainty she was what this article claims. It could be conveying false facts at worst, and at best, it shows she was not notable enough to have more than a single inscription bearing only her name. Nothing else can be said about her. It would be too remarkably short for a stand alone article. (That was sarcasm.) Delete delete! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to establish consensus as to whether a redirect would be appropriate or edit warred over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Once again, it's not even known for certain whether the subject was even associated with the redirection target, and the name is no less obscure than the million others that can be found in existing stone inscriptions, so it's unlikely to be a useful search term at all. Can this be closed already? I'm sure creating this article didn't take 3 weeks. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Thrasyllus of Mendes#Family and issue. Nobody is for keeping the article, but there is no consensus about whether to delete it as unverifiable or to redirect/merge it with Thrasyllus of Mendes#Family and issue, where this Aka and the uncertainty about her is mentioned. Absent consensus to delete, a redirect is the most consensual outcome. Editors may want to decide about how and whether to mention Aka in the target article, and if she ends up not being mentioned, the redirect can be submitted to RfD. Sandstein 10:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Aka II of Commagene

Aka II of Commagene (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)

Highly WP:OR-ish article of an obscure royal whose existence is rendered dubious by the source which the article itself cites, Beck on Mithraism. The specific genealogical details apparently come only from "Royal genealogy of Mithradates III of Commagene at rootsweb" (self-published online source). The basis of this person's existence, according to the article, is "a preserved incomplete poem", but the source Beck on Mithraism asserts that this is a "real uncertainty", and adds that the correct reading of line 15 of this poem excludes, in my view, an earlier and widely current interpretation which gave Balbillus himself 'a royal mother, (?)Aka'. The other source which the article cites, Gundel 1966, mentions "Aka" in passing, but his information must be outdated in view of Beck's anyway. Much of the content sounds outright made-up (statements like Aka II is one of the daughters born to the King of Commagene, Mithridates III; She was most probably born, raised and educated in Samosata; Aka II became known as Claudia Aka).

Given that this person's existence is very doubtful, and that the article is more misleading than useful, this should be deleted. The source is already used on Thrasyllus of Mendes, which disposes of the need to merge. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Aka II isn't currently mentioned in the main text of Thrasyllus Yes, she is. She is discussed in M. Chahin. 2001. The Kingdom of Armenia, 190ff. and mentioned in Levick, Tiberius 1999 No, she isn't. There's nothing in either, provide quotes or that isn't true. Even if the sources did discuss her, merging would only be required if the present article did so, which it doesn't. Beck's declaration that a particular reading of a poem is "correct" doesn't make earlier scholarship "outdated" in quite the same way that, say, archaeological evidence would Yes it does, especially since evidence of a stronger kind ('archaeological evidence') doesn't exist. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It is good that you have updated the Thrasyllus article to mention the name. Furius (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Which I took from the source itself, not the article which you are saying should be merged with it. Avilich (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Look, it comes to exactly the same thing. The name and hypothesis wasn't mentioned in the Thrasyllos article when I initially commented. They are now, so you have done what I was asking for. Furius (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
They are not the same thing; "merging" entails preserving and perpetuating the article's content, but in this case, just about anything said about "Aka" is unverifiable or made-up (eg. one of the daughters born to the King of Commagene, Mithridates III; was most probably born, raised and educated in Samosata; Aka II became known as Claudia Aka). If you can't identify what you want merged, with the attribution to the original author preserved, then don't vote merge at all. You could also explain (or cross out) your baffling remark that "Aka" is covered by those two sources (Chahin and Levick), when they do not say so much as a word about it. Avilich (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Fine. Furius (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge (or redirect to her husband. Nothing about her is notable in her own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This article should definitely not be merged or redirected. The content is essentially unverifiable, not even because this person is almost certainly nonexistent, but rather because even the coverage of this topic as a nonexistent person doesn't support most of what the article says (original research in other words). Compliance with V and OR shouldn't be negotiable here. Avilich (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • The source is Cramer 1954, pp. 13, 94–95, 136 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCramer1954 (help). Page 136 has the family tree with Aka married to Thrasyllus. Page 94 has Tiberius in the marriage of Aka.
    • Cramer, Frederick Henry (1954). Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 37. American Philosophical Society. ISBN 9780835758215. ISSN 0065-9738.
  • Cramer was a history professor (doi:10.1086/ahr/60.3.584). Kaplan 1978, p. 390 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKaplan1978 (help) argues that Cramer "went one step too far" and on Kaplan 1978, pp. 49, 389 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKaplan1978 (help) blames part of this on Honigmann 1958, p. 984 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHonigmann1958 (help) who made the daughter of Antiochus II link. Kaplan 1978, p. 99 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKaplan1978 (help) thinks that Aka II is chronologically to have been the daughter of Antiochus III instead.
    • Kaplan, Michael Steven (1978). Greeks and the Imperial Court, from Tiberius to Nero. Harvard dissertations in classics (PhD thesis) (1990 reprint ed.). Garland. ISBN 9780824032135.
    • Honigmann, Ernst (1924). "Zu cig 4730". Hermes. 59 (4): 477–478. doi:10.2307/4473937.
    • Honigmann, Ernst (1958). "Kommagene". Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Suppl.). Vol. IV.
  • Mind you, this is all content for the article, and a reason not to delete it, but rather to include Kaplan as well.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The impression I get from Kaplan's snippets is that he doesn't think 'Aka' existed either. You're probably mistaking him for the somewhat outdated Cramer, who in p. 99 does have something similar, but with multiple question marks (evidently he's just speculating). Anyway, all these sources are doing is going back and forth about a single, dubious slot in a family tree. There's nothing that requires a standalone page. All you can really say after putting together all literature is something like: scholars have debated whether Tiberius's astrologer Thrasyllus married a member of the royal house of Commagene (whose name is sometimes given as 'Aka'), but this theory doesn't have much acceptance any more. I already added a similar notice at Thrasyllus of Mendes; Beck is already sufficient, but you can go ahead and add Kaplan as a citation there for good measure if you wish. Avilich (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • (Changed vote) I have altered my vote to redirect, as what is now already in Thrasyllus of Mendes is all we would need as a merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This person was formerly thought to be the wife of the emperor Tiberius's astrologer Thrasyllus, but most modern scholars don't seem to think, anymore, that she actually existed. Not that we can't have articles about imaginary people, but I don't think that quite fits the bill here. She might be worthy of a brief remark in Thrasyllus' article. My view is that there simply isn't enough data available for a decent stand–alone article. Delete. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Can this be ended already? Nobody wants to keep or even merge this, and what little can be gathered from the sources has already been added elsewhere anyway. If this is still up because because a redirect might be useful, then no, I don't think it will, since the title and the numeral may incorrectly imply this subject reigned as a monarch (yet another way this article can mislead readers). Avilich (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The charge that WP:NORG was not meet was not addressed successfully. I do not see a strong case for a redirect: the fact that the label's founder also founded Fearless Records (a page that doesn't mention the subject) doesn't seem to be sufficient. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thriller Records

Thriller Records (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 organization that fails WP:NORG as a WP:BEFORE shows user generated sources, and Vendor sources. WP:ORGDEPTH is a major fail here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the page creator's comment on the article's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Your response to my rationale above doesn’t appear to be In accordance with my comment, I didn’t say anything about vendor sources or user generated sources in my comment above, I mentioned WP:NORG not being met and WP:SIRS not being applicable, there simply is no WP:SIGCOV as required by NCORP, so I’m not entirely sure why your reply isn’t in synergy with my comment directly above. Celestina007 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The Lost World of the Crystal Skull

The Lost World of the Crystal Skull (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as coverage is sparse, only minor awards mentioned and nothing else found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Switchh

Switchh (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. PROD removed when one review was added, but no others were found in a BEFORE. More than one review is required. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: Shshshsh, can you find any additional sources/reviews for this Hindi film. We have two reviews so far but considering this is a 2021 release, we should be able to find more. Courtesy ping to nominator Donaldd23. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Can't find any, but I don't think more are needed to establish notability. Not all films get a wide release, and a film review by ToI is no mean thing. Shahid • 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay

List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay (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 list Jax 0677 (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator dudhhrContribs 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul Courant

Paul Courant (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)

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. WP:BEFORE search found no RS pertaining to him. The entirety of the Career section is unsourced. dudhhrContribs 17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Roman Rumbesht

Roman Rumbesht (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 living individual. WP:BEFORE revealed no in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Paid editing appears to be involved. twabin 16:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yosef Zvi Rimon

Yosef Zvi Rimon (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 enough significant and in-depth independent coverage, npov not maintained, possible original research. although 1 or 2 good sources, I suspect not adequate. Tame (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Maud Angelica Behn

Maud Angelica Behn (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)
Leah Isadora Behn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contrary to what was said upon the recreation of the articles, the Behn girls are expressly not "core members" of the Norwegian royal family. Not even their mother is. See the official website. Consequently, the girls bear no titles and have no public role. They are low profile teenagers. The only reason we have these articles is that their mother is the daughter of a king, but notability is not inherited. According to WP:INVALIDBIO, "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A". For them to be considered notable, they have to have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources, but the truth is that they do not get more than passing references in reliable sources when their parents or another actually prominent relative are discussed. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Thank you for notifying me of the AfD. The acid test here is WP:N, and the test is surely met. Notability is not about importance, but the subject is listed on the web site of the royal family as one of the small number of members of the family, anyone who doubts that has only to follow the link helpfully provided above. Could this information please not be deleted from the article again? It seems pretty unlikely that any member of a reigning royal family is non-notable. But the correct approach to this is whether there is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is. Moonraker (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note on “the recreation of the articles”, in checking the history, which goes back to 2004, I can find no deletion. I see the nominator has twice blanked the page without discussion, but that is not quite the same thing. Moonraker (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A header at Leah Isadora Behn says that article is being considered for deletion, but the link provided leads here instead. If this page is treated as an AfD for that page too, then I say Keep for the same reasons. Please could I be notified if another AfD is in fact begun? Moonraker (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the deletion nomination page for both articles. I contend that WP:GNG is not met because there is no in-depth coverage of these teenagers in reliable sources. Since you claim otherwise, please point to the significant coverage which I have not been able to find.
The subject is listed on the family's website as a minor relation, literally "in addition" to those who are "members of the Norwegian Royal House", i.e. those with royal roles. Unlike their cousins, who are prince and princess, the Behn sisters do not have biographies on the official website. On the official website, just as in every other reliable source, they are only mentioned in passing when their mother is covered. That does not constitute significant coverage.
However unlikely it may seem, relatives of monarchs can be non-notable. We have guidelines explaining that, and we have had numerous articles deleted recently, e.g. the grandchildren of the kings of Sweden and Belgium, for the very same reason. Surtsicna (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: When it comes to “the grandchildren of the kings of Sweden and Belgium”, that is beside the point, as every case needs to be judged on its own merits, viz. compliance (or otherwise) with WP:N. You are surely not suggesting that a rule of thumb is developing that the grandchildren of monarchs are non-notable. The sources are listed under the header “References”, no point in copying them here. As WP:N is not about importance, I do not think it matters to this discussion, but it is not correct that “the subject is listed on the family's website as a minor relation”, that is not said there. For what it’s worth, below is what the royalcourt.no page says, which is pretty clear: it treats Maud and Leah the same way as their mother, Princess Märtha Louise. You would not I think say it implies that she is non-notable? Moonraker (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

    The Royal House of Norway belongs to the House of Glücksburg. The members of the Norwegian Royal House are Their Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja and Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Princess Ingrid Alexandra. The members of the Royal Family are in addition the Crown Prince and Crown Princess’s other children, His Highness Prince Sverre Magnus and Mr Marius Borg Høiby; Her Highness Princess Märtha Louise, Miss Maud Angelica Behn, Miss Leah Isadora Behn, Miss Emma Tallulah Behn and Her Highness Princess Astrid, Mrs Ferner.

  • Keep Maud. Unlike her older half-brother Marius Borg Høiby, Maud Angelica Behn has actually done something that separates her from the half-significant royal/celeb gossip news. She became a public figure when her father died and she spoke at his funeral. This was followed by her writing the book Tråder av tårer, which was printed in 10,000 copies and immediately reached #1 on the Norwegian Booksellers Association bestseller list upon release. Geschichte (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral on Leah. She is an influencer and horserider, but only a teenager, so one might construe the coverage (which is ample) as not being significant. But it's 100% certain that the Norwegian press treats these people like full members of the royal family. The notion of them being "low profile teenagers" could not be further from the truth. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Speaking at father's funeral hardly makes one a public figure, but being a writer might be something that makes RS notice her. The question is whether they get in-depth coverage by reliable sources, thus excluding tabloid gossip or brief mentions in articles about their parents. I do not see that. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Pradeep Rajput

Pradeep Rajput (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)

Possible COI promotional article on a non notable actor who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search turns up nothing of substance. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was consensus to delete the American Samoa article, no consensus with respect to the others. Sandstein 08:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

2016 United States presidential election in American Samoa

All prior XfDs for this page:


2016 United States presidential election in American Samoa (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)
2016 United States presidential election in the Northern Mariana Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2016 United States presidential primaries in Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2016 United States presidential election in the U.S. Virgin Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Nominator's original comment (superceded by below comment for clarity)

We don't need articles about events that don't exist just to let people know that it doesn't exist. It is using a very bad qualifier. Its non-standard not just per WP guidelines but also according to conventions of Elections related articles too. This article contains details about 2016 presidential caucuses but they have their own standalone articles (2016 American Samoa Democratic presidential caucuses & 2016 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses). This article was subject of past AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016. It appears that the name was never changed as per closing instruction. But even if it's name is changed, it will still be out of the pack among any other election year. Party-specific articles exist for every state in every year (unless incumbent goes unchallenged). For no other state in any year, or the territories in any year except 2016, do we have a cover all-party primary article, and there's no indication those kinds of articles are in the pipeline. Not to mention the false look it gave when left in Template:2016 United States elections that it had representation when it factually did not. (I removed it from there). ---CX Zoom(/him) (|contribs) 15:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion:

  1. We don't need articles about events that don't exist just to let people know that it doesn't exist.
  2. Title is first thing a reader notices, and the usage of "presidential election" as a qualifier gives the false impression that American Samoa has presidential representation when in fact it does not.
  3. This article contains details about 2016 presidential caucuses but they have their own standalone articles (2016 American Samoa Democratic presidential caucuses & 2016 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses).
  4. Only party delegates vote in caucuses, has nothing to do with ordinary citizens, like other "elections".
  5. Presidential caucuses/primaries in territories do not form a part of the legally defined "presidential election" process.
  6. Democrats Abroad, for example, conducts primaries in Canada. There were 19 polling stations across Canada and 622,000 voting-age U.S. citizens. Yet we don't have a "20xx United States presidential election in Canada" article.
  7. This article was subject of past AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election in American Samoa, 2016. It appears that the name was never changed as per closing instruction. But even if it's name is changed, it will be non-standard. Party primary-specific articles exist for every state in every year. For no other state in any year, or the territories in any year except 2016, do we have a cover all-party primary article. It is simply repetitive to articles mentioned at point #3.

References

  1. "Americans in Canada to help choose Democratic presidential candidate - National | Globalnews.ca". Global News. Retrieved 2022-03-02.

---CX Zoom(/him) (|contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete American Samoa but Keep the others. I support the deletion of the article on American Samoa, as it is entirely unsourced (failing GNG and V) and nom has proved it redundant. However, I cannot support the proposed deletion of the other articles without any evidence (or even, it seems, proper PROD procedure, as none of the other articles are tagged). Toadspike (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: As far as Puerto Rico is concerned, the article may be misleading altogether anyway. In my understanding the alleged "primaries" held in Puerto Rico are not popularly held but held only for the Puerto Rican members of the GOP and DEM parties there. There are several (local) political parties in PR, but since only the PNP Party supports statehood, only members of that party vote in these alleged US presidential "primaries". In my understanding the PNP party limits voting in its US presidential primaries to only its party leadership, not the people at large. This leadership, I understand, consists of all its (PNP) senators, legislators and mayors as well as its legislative, gubernatorial and mayoral candidates. That would be a marked difference from presidential primaries held in the US mainland where any citizen can vote in the GOP or the DEM primaries so long as they are registered republicans or democrats respectively, and the reason I would argue the article title may be misleading altogether anyway and make it a candidate for Deletion regardless. Hope this helps! Mercy11 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Skarmory, Toadspike, and Mercy11: pinging because I modified the nomination for better clarity. Also, I've added AfD notices on all nominated articles. Back when I started this AfD, I wasn't able to understand the instructions, asked for help at WP:HD but didn't get much out of it. Now, I'm able to do it correctly, and so I've completed the steps that were left incomplete back then. Thanks for your kind consideration. ---CX Zoom(/him) (|contribs) 06:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Satyajit Deshmukh

Satyajit Deshmukh (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 politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. North America 01:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yomi Denzel

Yomi Denzel (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)

Promotional article on a non notable Nigerian entrepreneur & “YouTuber” who fails WP:ANYBIO and in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus GNG isn’t met either, a before search shows me coverage in unreliable sources without a reputation for fact checking such as this & this. Furthermore they seem to be related to a (notable brother) but unfortunately notability isn’t inherited neither is is acquired by proximity to a notable person. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep The Figaro article appears to be a paid/sponsored story. The RTS interview seems notable, rts being the Swiss public broadcaster. The French Huffington Post article also appears legit/uses a reliable source. There's one on a website/magazine called "Le Temps" written by someone at rts, seems to have enough French-language sources to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Following edits, the deletion rationale no longer applies. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

LMBO

LMBO (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation page. ... discospinster talk 04:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Dua Lipa. Spartaz 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Dua Lipa concert tours

List of Dua Lipa concert tours (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:N - it only cites 5 sources, one of which is self published and one that is a WP:RS (The Line of Best Fit) resulting in much WP:OR. I would also argue that it fails WP:V. Additionally per MOS:ALBUM guidelines, tours that are not notable enough should be mentioned in their parent album article, which to me makes it seem like this article shouldn't exist in the first place. LOVI33 15:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


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

The result was redirect to Camila (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 15:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

In the Dark (Camila Cabello song)

In the Dark (Camila Cabello song) (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:NSONGS - all the sources are from it's parent album and therefore should be redirected there. LOVI33 15:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was Disambiguateifyize. I hope I did it right. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mostly right, I modified the lead to match the title. Thanks for action taken! Sda030 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Educational organization

Educational organization (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 is unnecessary as there is already an Educational management article that is more developed. This stub will likely lead to duplicate information. Although there is a minor difference between management and organization, it is way too early to consider such a split. Also, nothing has been done on this since 2009. Sda030 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz 19:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

DXDT Racing

DXDT Racing (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)

Motor racing team doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- coverage is either WP:ROUTINE or does not discuss the team in depth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to recent improvements in the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney I am trying to understand how is this even remotely close to a WP:GNG worthy source. A passing mention of DXDT + quote farm + quote farm + 2 sentences about Crowdstrike (unrelated to the AfD) + another quote farm + 1 sentence about DXDT + quote farm + quote farm + a sentence about Ryan Dalziel + quote farm. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I guess your standards are higher than mine? Or more likely, mine are lower for non-BLP subjects. Although thin, there is enough secondary context about the subject to contribute to a short stub article should another worthy source be brought up. As it stands, nothing else appears to exist at this time hence why I'm likely not !voting to keep this. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
With nothing else available, I have edited my !vote from neutral -> delete. It is indeed WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for your constructive criticism and discussion of this page. Because this particular form of racing does not receive large amounts of exposure sometimes the only media covering this particular series are the ones I have already cited, as I know I cannot link to DXDT or Crowdstrike's own press releases. That is why Misplaced Pages has been incredibly helpful in increasing the footprint for this area of the sport and linking all the coverage in one place. With your helpful feedback, I have begun to add from additional sources including Honda, Mercedes Benz, Speedsport News, and Speedway Digest, as well as linking to other Misplaced Pages pages that include the team this page is about. I will continue to gather additional sources to meet your guidelines. Thanks again! Racerchick18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I am also in the process of linking DXDT Racing to all of the articles they were previously mentioned in. There were many, so it is taking some time while I continue to update the page. Thank you for your patience! Racerchick18 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has undergone a significant expansion since the last delete !vote, which requires reanalysis of the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify - I have struck my delete !vote in light of the expansion of the article; although WP:NMOTORSPORT does not cover race teams at present, the team's results in GT World Challenge Americas indicates a good future WP:POTENTIAL for passing GNG. At the moment, it does not, with still only RACER providing anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage that isn't an official release (with even RACER being debatable, as seen above). Draftifying in my opinion is the correct solution here, allowing the creator to continue working on the article until a second piece of SIGCOV is found. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment With the improvements in the page I have changed from delete to neutral and hope that the improvements continue. Gusfriend (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep (previously delete then neutral) - As the page has continued to improve I believe that it has reached the point that it satisfies the requirements to being kept.Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I have struck my delete above. Looking through the sourcing in the article as of now there still isn't much in the way of SIGNIFICANT coverage that is actually about the team (rather than the drivers, sponsors, etc), so I am not switiching to keep, just withdrawing my !vote (let's call it neutral). A7V2 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Striking my !vote to send to draft in light of the nominator's withdrawal. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 09:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 07:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Armando Giglia

Armando Giglia (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 don't normally have Misplaced Pages articles about Run-of-the-mill people like government school principals, and I can't find any reason why this one should be an exception. Graham87 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 07:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

LifeLine srl

LifeLine srl (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 borderline G11 eligible article on an organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 07:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Action of 12 October 1950

Action of 12 October 1950 (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)

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. This is documented on the talk page for the article, and on the talk page of the Blockade of Wonsan article. This firefight is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page. Its one citation has been added to Blockade of Wonsan and the aftermath has already been cut and pasted into USS Pirate (AM-275), so merging has already taken place. 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards.Keith H99 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

An AfD was created, to delete several of these fantasy articles. It got a bit messy, and this Korean War article did not get clearly addressed. Here is the link to the first nomination.
Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Action_of_16_January_1916
Thanks. Keith H99 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
AfD for this article Action of 12 October 1950 Keith H99 (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discounting the apparent confusion with the baker, there's still a number of valid arguments for and against notability here. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Briony Williams

Briony Williams (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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her only major role was in the TV series Lockie Leonard. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, Check her other credits. She had two other shows and 52 episodes is a significant amount. Chelokabob (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
One-off characters generally do not count as significant roles, and she doesn't seem to be a Renée Jeanne Falconetti/The Passion of Joan of Arc-like exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Her role is Struck by Lightning is decent. A secondary character behind the three leads. See Cinema Papers, May 1991. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Clarityfiend, look down to the “Resources” section. There you will see a list of resources about the plays. Eg for ‘’Spring Awakening’’ you will see
Performance Recording: Spring Awakening, State Theatre Company of South Australia, 10 May 1991
Review: Christabel Hirst, Sunday Mail, 21 April 1991
Review: Diane Beer, The News, 17 April 1991
Review: Michael Morley, Financial Review, 26 April 1991
Review: Murray Bramwell, Rites and Wrongs, The Adelaide Review, May 1991, 28-29
Review: Peter Ward, The Australian, 18 April 1991
Review: Tim Lloyd, The Advertiser, 17 April 1991
There you can see six reviews, including from The Australian, a national newspaper. So no, not “just cast listings” as you falsely claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Reviews of what, the plays? Not the actress? Next to useless in establishing notability. Also, where is this Resources section? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Reviews of the play establishment the notability of the play. Since that demonstrates a notable production and she has a significant role that is one more role for NACTOR. So very useful in establishing notability. And where is the resources section? Down near the bottom, right below Contributors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
You can WP:NOTINHERIT notability from a play. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Let me try to break it down for you. There is a SNG for actors at WP:NACTOR. The first criteria on that list is Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The simplified version,
Say an actress has a significant role in a TV series. If that TV series has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a television show. Thats would be one for the above criteria. You acknowledge that above.
Say an actor has a significant role in a film. If that film has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable notable film. Thats would be one for the above criteria.
Say an actress has a significant role in a production of a play. If that production has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable stage performance. Thats would be one for the above criteria.
Say an actress has a significant role in a television show and has four significant roles in a notable stage performances that would count as five for the above criteria. Last I checked five was multiple. It's not about inheriting notability from a play, It's about verifiably satisfying a Subject-specific notability guidelines. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
That's simply not true. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I was initially going to weak delete based on the television work but there is other material available, in both main stream media and industry media, if you want to find it, which clearly enables a more in-depth article to be written. For example:
    • .. the brilliantly screwball Briony Williams .. in Four Places
    • .. Briony Williams .. a little self-conscious at times, but overall was gutsy, forceful, and seductive .. in Macbeth
    • .. the adaptable Briony Williams .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
    • .. depth of acting talent in the cast .. Briony Williams .. in The Graduate
    • .. Briony Williams proves surprisingly dexterous in an amusing cameo as a stripper .. in The Graduate
    • Briony Williams .. shines in her rather thankless roles .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
    • Briony Williams is pitch-perfect as the solicitous and protective Barb. in Four Places
Combining the subject's television work and stage work I think they get over the GNG line. So there is definitely NEXIST but it really needs to be added to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that these are all (with the possible exception of the paywalled newspaper article) just passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
They are not passing mentions. They are specific purposeful points about the subject, and are directly relevant to the context they are in. I agree that each by itself is not significant and I am not claiming that any one of them establishes notability. They do, however, demonstrate sustained coverage and in aggregation do contribute to both notability and depth. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 07:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Client's day

Client's day (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 unofficial holiday, does not appear to be notable. Homo ergaster (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – Input from a native speaker for the provided sources would be helpful, but from what I can discern, GNG is not met. Contrary to the nominaton, the unofficial part of this holiday does not seem to be a problem (e.g. List of minor secular observances contains many notable unofficial holidays). After a quick Google search, there are a few results, but fewer than a comparable "National Customer Appreciation Day". Article appears to fall under WP:MILL. While the number of sources is decent, there are some concerns with the reliability of some based on the translations I could find. Not to mention a fair deal of CE/MOS cleanup is needed to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards, however, draftifying would not be completely off the table if RS can be provided for notability. Bgv. (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Public School English Medium Bijbehara

Public School English Medium Bijbehara (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)

Unsourced article. Was PRODDED, deprodded by creator. Was draftified: original editor has re-created in mainspace. AfD seems only way forward - no obvious CSD Category, Prod would presumably be removed again. PamD 09:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus and I don't think one is forthcoming out of another week of discussion. Star Mississippi 15:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WhatsApp snooping scandal

WhatsApp snooping scandal (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 about the same event as Pegasus Project (investigation), though all its content is about Pegasus Project revelations in India. It has already been covered extensively in the above two articles and this page does not add anything substantial to it Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I hadnt noticed that.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment I would have supported merge as well, but this article really has nothing that the original article does not cover already. It seems the author created it without realising the existence of the other articles.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@CapnJackSp how are you so sure? have you checked every line and reference? I randomly looked and found that the Pegasus article does not have mention of Priyanka Gandhi, while this article has it along with reference. I still stand by my decision. Venkat TL (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I did go through the reference, it seems quite confusing and Im honestly confused as to how we would include it into the pegasus article. The source states that "WhatsApp did not say that the phone was hacked in this fashion by an illegal Pegasus software" in the message sent to State secretary Priyanka Gandhi, but also says that the Congress alleged the phone had been sent a message related to the app? If you can provide a concise summation of the news article, I would be more than happy to add to the existing article on Pegasus. To me, the news article seems to imply that the message sent to Mrs. Priyanka's phone had nothing to do with pegasus in particular, but was some sort of message from Whatsapp.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep on second thoughts, I see that both article have different scope. WhatsApp snooping scandal covers the revalation in 2019, while the article Pegasus Project revelations in India, as the name suggests, discussed the investigative report by Group of journalist on Pegasus project published in 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Enough contributions from other editors that G5 is not applicable IMO. More time to discuss merit of a standalone would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 06:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Kotobank

Kotobank (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)

Website doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- lacks non-routine coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. Sorry for my misunderstanding. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted. Already speedy deleted the day before. Too much WP:PROMO. Will WP:SALT at WP:ECP level. El_C 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Anudip Foundation

Anudip Foundation (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)

Advertisement of a non-notable organization based on press released/paid releases. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In sum, the sources cited in the article are of abysmal quality, generally being either connected to the subject or just having no usable detail to cite, with only one halfway-decent source that's sketchy and one that's only charitably citable. A Google News search in the English-language edition of Google only returns https://www.edexlive.com/beinspired/2018/oct/04/this-kolkata-based-organisation-is-helping-marginalised-youth-including-victims-of-trafficking-find-4094.html as a viable source (string: "anudip foundation"). Unless some good sources are found in the Subcontinent's native languages, there's not much of anything here to work with at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 08:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

*Shouldn't be deletedAfter researching this article i found everything is correct about Anudip Foundation. And there are many mainstream media references. So i think this article should exists on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikat065 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — Saikat065 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 04:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Arcadia Watches

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

Fails WP:GNG AND WP:NCORP. Gives the impression of advertising. The Banner talk 05:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 07:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Team Bodyshop MMA

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. The sources are about fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. Sources also lack depth on the gym inself. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Imcdc (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD has been bludgeoned to death by walls of text by the nominator, who has since been blocked for this kind of conduct. A renomination without their participation might help result in a clearer consensus. Sandstein 21:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Pepe Escobar

Pepe Escobar (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)

Hi,

From WP:JOURNALIST:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or

4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

So, clearly, the only chance an editor would have in establishing Pepe Escobar as a notable "journalist" is via avenue 1, which would presumably entail the collection a range of reliable sources, from over his 3-decade-long career, featuring "peers" or "successors" (i.e., other journalists) widely citing him, indicating he is "regarded as an important figure". I would write that as "an authority" or "acknowledged expert" or something, but, at any rate...

HouseOfChange argues that:

== Notability, per NJOURNALIST 1: "widely cited by peers" ==

Pepe Escobar's peers would be other journalists who take an interest in world affairs. Based on multiple citations from multiple journalists over multiple years, he meets WP:NJOURNALIST #1, widely cited by peers.

  • 2012 The Atlantic
  • 2013 Mercury News
  • 2015 The Week
  • 2016 Oliver Stone in Interview magazine
  • 2019 Jacobin and Secret Notes from Iran
  • 2021 Times of Malta

The article needs more third-party sourcing and better content, but Escobar is clearly a notable journalist. Of course, it is always a problem to Google material ABOUT journalists because there is typically so much more material written by said journalists. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. Bakshian, Aram Jr. (January 10, 2012). "The Unlikely Rise of Al Jazeera". The Atlantic. Retrieved August 30, 2021. A look at the list of Al Jazeera correspondents, commentators and anchors offers dramatic proof of its cosmopolitan breadth. You are not likely to find names like Nick Clark, Dan Hind, Richard Falk, Ronnie Vernooy, Pepe Escobar, Corey Robin, David Zirin, Amanda Robb and Danny Schechter on any list of Muslim extremists.
  2. Hudson, John (March 5, 2012). "World Reacts to Obama's Security Pledge to Israel". The Atlantic. Retrieved August 30, 2021. In Thailand's Asia Times, Pepe Escobar...laments the state of U.S. foreign policy saying 'the graphic proof that Israel exercises virtual complete control of US foreign policy was the sight of an American president defensively addressing the AIPAC Colosseum.'
  3. "Obama's Asia summit no-show: How it looks from over there". Mercury News. October 8, 2013. Retrieved August 30, 2021. Most colorfully, Brazilian analyst Pepe Escobar compared China's 'offensive' in Southeast Asia to 'an accelerating Lamborghini Aventador,' in contrast to America's 'creaking Chevrolet.'
  4. "Obama, Russia, and The Godfather". The Week. January 8, 2015. Retrieved August 25, 2021. Obama 'urgently needs to do a couple of things: learn to play chess; and watch the DVD of the Godfather saga,' said Pepe Escobar in Hong Kong's Asia Times.
  5. Wallace, Chris (March 26, 2016). "Oliver Stone". Interview Magazine. Retrieved August 30, 2021. I get most of my best information from people who are there, people who write independently. And there's actually very few of them...Pepe Escobar. I like Robert Parry in Washington.
  6. "Bernie Has Called to Free Lula. Why Won't the Rest of the Democratic Field?". Jacobin. October 22, 2019. Retrieved August 30, 2021. The fact remains that, in the words of journalist and international relations analyst Pepe Escobar, 'Lula is Brazil's only possible factor of stability. He's ready, has an agenda not only for the nation but the world.'
  7. Siraj, Nadim (2019). Secret Notes From Iran: Diary Of An Undercover Journalist. One Point Six Technology Pvt Ltd. Today, courtesy of journalists and analysts from the Noam Chomsky school of thought (like William Engdahl, Vijay Prashad, Pepe Escobar, Abby Martin, John Pilger, Michel Chossudovsky, and several others)...
  8. Manduca, Mark (July 20, 2021). "Michael Brooks – one year on". Times of Malta. Retrieved August 30, 2021. He would always have interesting guests on to discuss international relations, economics, politics and society. These guests included the likes of Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Vijay Prashad, Richard Wolff, Pepe Escobar, Mark Blyth and others.


The second reference to him in the 2012 The Atlantic piece is more than trivial. He is quoted, somewhat derisively:

"In Thailand's Asia Times, Pepe Escobar gives a somewhat poetically ominous depiction of what goes on at AIPAC. "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) get-together in Washington takes place in an intimidating, cavernous Colosseum where the wealthy crowd ululates in unison for Iranian blood." Ululates, eh? Escobar laments the state of U.S. foreign policy saying "the graphic proof that Israel exercises virtual complete control of US foreign policy was the sight of an American president defensively addressing the AIPAC Colosseum." - Hudson, John (March 5, 2012). "World Reacts to Obama's Security Pledge to Israel". The Atlantic.

Other than that, Refs 1, 7 and 9 simply mention his name in a list of others, the very definition of a "trivial" mention (WP:TRIVIALMENTION).

Then he has a couple of single sentence quotes in minor publications (2013 in Sane Jose's The Mercury News, again, mostly for comic effect, amidst half a dozen quotes from more serious "analysts"; and 2015 in something called The Week, same sorta thing, comical quote, amidst the input of others.

Ref 5 is an atrocious source (Oliver Stone name checks Escobar - along with fellow RT/Sputnik/Press TV/ traveler Robert Parry - in a publication called Interview Magazine).

Which leaves us with Ref 6, his 2019 quotation in JacobinMag, which is nowhere close to being a RS, and proves it in this very instance by not directly quoting Escobar himself, but simply hyperlinking to the article where he made the statement: Globalresearch.ca a haven of crackpots and conspiracy theorists that Misplaced Pages has long blacklisted, so technically this source shouldn't be allowed on those grounds alone.

So, has HouseOfChange proven that Pepe Escobar is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" in the field of, I don't know what, international journalism and/or as a geopolitical analyst? I would maintain he hasn't. He's been at this game for three decades now, and he's yet to have a single byline (article published) in a mainstream reliable source. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Escobar is just barely notable enough that we do our readers a service by having a short encyclopedia article about him. I believe that he meets the low bar of "widely cited by peers," with said peers being other journalists. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: And this exemplifies what I see as a fundamental problem with how the culture of "inclusionism" and off the charts recentism. I could cite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:BLP policies every day until the cows come home, but obviously the policies aren't being adhered to, as there are an seemingly infinite number of these type of BLPs on Misplaced Pages the fail the very basic requirements of notability.
As, the fundamental objection I have to this page and many pages like it, is just calling yourself something ("journalist", "analyst", etc doesn't make you one). In what sense is here an actual journalist? The definition is pretty simple: "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast" but in the age of blogs, self-published presses, and websites and TV stations of extremely dubious credibility and reliability (for e.g. Press TV, Al Jazeera, Sputnik, Middle East Eye, Middle East Monitor, FOXNEWS, Salon, Slate, the Daily Beast, I could go on forever) then literally anyone can start calling themselves a "journalist" in a matter of months, they wouldn't even have to leave the house. They'd just have to choose the team, and spin their narrative from their laptop.
So even if Misplaced Pages was a database (which it is not per WP:NOTDATABASE), the only way he would be included in any database of journalists would be as an example of one of the many of these fringe figures who've managed to eek out a career working almost exclusively for dubiously-funder outlets who adhere to very low levels of editorial standards. He, in particular, among this rather large and ever-growing crowd of online-only "journalists", would be a fact-checker's nightmare: a single piece of his may contain half a dozen fails (references to long debunked theories, 9/11 denial, various ongoing popular conspiracy theories, with AIPAC and Mossad and the CIA all secretly orchestrating everything that happens - most of this isn't even marked for the read as "opinion" or "commentary" btw).
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
He is certainly no fan of AIPAC, but he can separate fact from opinion well enough that scholarly sources cite his articles e.g. (looking at Google Scholar only for English publications 2020 and later) American Journal of Public Health 2021(footnote 31 goes to a 2020 article by PE), University of Leicester Ph.D. thesis 2020 (footnote 2 on p. 10 to a 2017 article), Journal of Security and Strategic Analyses 2021 (footnote 11 to a 2018 article). HouseOfChange (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


You couldn't have illustrated my point more perfectly. I immediately clicked on the University of Leicester source, on account of the fact that once upon a time I nearly did an MA there. But, you linked me to 'a student's thesis'..... you seem to not yet quite understand what a reliable source is, but, in case you didn't realize, a student's thesis, is not. Anyway, more importantly, in that thesis, the student cites an article Escobar wrote for Russia Insider. The fact that he's happy to write for an outlet that constantly promotes Holocaust Denial should immediately disqualify him from any possibility that he be considered a serious journalist (if you don't believe me, have a quick read of their website, where you'll see among of their seven sub-sections you can visit are "revisionist history", "WWII revisionism" and "the Jewish Question"... click on the latter and prepare yourself).

Now, your second source is - aside from being written in atrocious English - is again from an unknown author publishing in a journal that is put out by an unknown Pakistani think-tank in Islamabad (the journal didn't even appear in most websites that are dedicated to collecting ranking data from academic publications). If you click on the link to the think-tank itself , it's dead. The page for the journal seems to be up at least, nevermind it having the appearance of something was was coded in the mid-90s. If you go to Google Scholar and search for it's articles, none of them have even a single citation. I was finally able to find it recognized somewhere, hoping to see a hilariously low Impact factor, but, of course, it's not even significant enough to warrant some poor employee being told to calculate it's insignificance. If you type the name of the Journal into Google News it gets 0 results. But on top of all this, the article of Escobar's that the author cites, was published in Consortium News. You can go to WP:RSP where it's coded red and says: " There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories." Or visit Ad Fontes Media's entry on it, which ranks it as extremely unreliable.

And, then you put forward an article from, of all places.... The American Journal of Public Health? When we say peers, we mean, fellow professionals, other journalists, you get that right? And that, Medical Doctors, even ones that write in academic journals, aren't journalists? Did you check the citation? He isn't quoted from, or even named. So aside from being another great example of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, the author is disagreeing him, in a rather cheekily mocking tone I might add. She writes: "Nevertheless, one point is clear: those seeking an understanding of China’s current response to COVID-19 need not turn to ancient Confucian culture to explain everything from universal mask wearing to compliance with draconian restrictions on personal freedoms." And his article in the Asia Times is listed in the footnotes. Why is she mocking him, what did he write? "Confucius is winning the Covid-19 war" He presents us with this gem: (beware folks, bit of a rant ahead...)

"I offer, as a working hypothesis, that the Asia triad of Confucius, Buddha and Lao Tzu has been absolutely essential in shaping the perception and serene response of hundreds of millions of people across various Asian nations to Covid-19."

And then proceeds to spend the entire rest of the article, expositing the basic precepts of Taoism/Daoism! This is at once hilarious in its open display of ignorance, but also a grossly offensive thing to say, as someone who has spent much of his adult life in Hong Kong, as a journalist (well, he says he is anyway), and in writing this literally in The Asia Times! In short, Daoism and Confucianism are something like equivalently as incompatible as Socialism and Feudalism. Daoism is all about "going with the flow" to put it into English vernacular, accept what you can't change, and don't struggle against the natural world. I mean, he actually mentions "Wu-Wei" ("action through inaction", or "effortless action", impossible to translate)! If you took a Daoist approach to the Pandemic, you wouldn't do anything! Such viruses are a natural part of the world, you have no control over that. Laozi (aka Lao Tzu) said "the best leader is one you never notice", who walks behind (i'm getting rusty, it's been over 15 years since I studied this and University, and a couple more since I lived in China). Laozi wasn't writing to politicians or about politics, it's a classic example of wisdom literature, and in content is much more akin to ancient Greek Epicureans and Stoics. Which is why is such a hilarious thing to say. Imagine someone someone - not Italian - having the nerve to write that he Italian response to Covid was shaped by its trinitarian heritage of Catholicism, Caesar, and Dante." LOL. Completely meaningless. The original point, from whom he was quoting, was that of a Korean who said Confucianism is the overriding value in East Asian societies, even in supposedly "Communist" China. And this is true. It's general knowledge in fact. So in talking to a Western audience, he was saying that in the Far East the is more respect for authority, tradition, elders, law etc, than there is in the United States. Pepe Escobar read this, ran with it, added in Buddhism, because, well, it's "cool"? We don't know he doesn't explain why Buddhism is part of the "triad". But decided that he's run with Daoism, and completely contradict the point Mr. Han was trying to make. Laozi and Conzi (Confucius) are so diametrically opposed in philosophical terms, that it's the most popular "religious tradition" amongst anarchists. So, needless to say, a Medical Journal is not a reliable source for.... whatever it was you were trying to do with it. And Pepe Escobar is clearly not a reliable source for almost anything. I wouldn't trust a restaurant recommendation from him at this point. But I want to thank you for this HouseOfChange, I had no idea he was as entertaining as all this, this makes makes me wanna order all his books and read them at night in bed and laugh myself to sleep.

So, anyway, in short, you've offered us:

1. A footnote from an article in a medical journal discussing responses to Covid around the world, which mentions only to mock what he says. And, incidentally, what he was saying was wrong anyway. I shouldn't have to even mention WP:TRIVIALMENTION, it's all irrelevant anyway.

2. An article from an unknown author published in an unknown Pakistani journal (and I mean,literally unknown, it doesn't have an Impact Factor of 0 or 0.1, it literally doesn't have an Impact Factor; it may as well not exist as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned) where the author cites an article written by Escobar for already Misplaced Pages-blacklisted, Consortium News. Did not the horrendous English of the article - not to mention the design of the website - not give you pause for thought?

3. And yet another trivial mention, in a student's thesis, which, and I feel sorry for this student, cites an article Escobar published in a far-right Kremlin-funded anti-semitic Holocaust denying website very popular with white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

I do worry, if you are as to wrote to me the other day, a quiet little WikiGnome who goes about trying to improve people's BLPs and such, for your capacity to determine reliable sources from unreliable ones. I honestly, really encourage you to take another good, close read of WP:RS and WP:BIO. Cheers, EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


  • Delete. Confusingly for an AfD, the nominator does not actually put forward a deletion rationale; the person who created the AfD is not suggesting that this be deleted nor be turned into a redirect but instead that the article be kept. Such an nomination should ordinarily be speedily kept, but somebody responded with a deletion rationale before anybody got around to making this a speedy keep, so I might as well make an argument since we're past the point of a procedural keep.
    The nominator puts forward an argument about being cited by peers. I personally don't buy arguments that, for purposes of notability, widely cited by peers means that eight sources report that you reported on something and trivially mention your name. The provided references additionally don't actually cite him for facts in any meaningful way. Rather, they trivially mention that he was among a group of people or they mention a very short blurb of his—that simply isn't the threshold of widely cited; being widely cited means being cited in a wide range of sources, not being infrequently cited in newsletters or only very occasionally being referenced in academic literature. (Academics aren't peers of journalists either, for that matter).
    EnlightenmentNow1792 argued above that the individual doesn't pass WP:NJOURNALIST (a particular SNG), but this isn't a valid deletion rationale on its own. The subject of the article would also need to fail WP:NBASIC for the article to fail WP:N. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV of this individual, so I think that the article fails WP:BASIC as well. For the reasons I state below, I believe that the coverage coverage in each of the eight sources that mentions him by name fails to contribute towards passing WP:NBASIC:
    1. The first source mentions his name as a part of a list and provides no coverage of him whatsoever besides that his name doesn't sound like that of a Muslim extremist.
    2. The second source briefly quotes his reaction to a particular foreign policy decision by Barrack Obama. The coverage is not in-depth, nor is it actually from The Atlantic (it's content from The Wire).
    3. The third source quotes a sentence of his but doesn't actually provide any significant coverage of Escobar as a person. The source also refers to him as a Brazilian analyst, which isn't the same thing as a journalist that some of the people supporting the article being kept are saying.
    4. The fourth source says that Escobar wrote something about Medvedev, but the coverage of Escobar as a person is not significant there.
    5. I have no clue if the fifth source is even reliable for the words of who it interviewed, but a random shoutout that consists solely of Escobar's name isn't WP:SIGCOV regardless.
    6. The sixth source coverage of Escobar consists of a two sentence quote of Escobar's with extremely limited commentary. It's also very clearly an opinion piece, which isn't necessarily a reliable source.
    7. The seventh source does very little except mention Escobar's name. It doesn't even really cite him for anything; he's just put on a list along with TeleSur and "Global Research Foundation" among others.
    8. The eighth source is an opinion piece whose only reference to Escobar is that he once appeared as a guest of a Michael Brooks production.
Simply being name-checked by a bunch of sources doesn't make a person notable under WP:NBASIC. The specific references above also don't show that Escobar is widely cited as a journalist, which is what WP:NJOURNALIST would require. Getting one's opinion pieces quoted is few publications is simply not evidence of widespread citation, nor is being cited in three academic journals. If there are multiple in-depth articles about Escobar he'd pass WP:BASIC. If his work were widely cited, it would be easy to show. Unfortunately for those who want to keep the article, it doesn't appear that anybody can actually show that this individual meets any relevant notability guideline. As a result, his article seems fit for deletion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I messed up the AfD process, my first one, I had to get someone us to fix it for me. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
(Also replying to Mhawk10) Thanks for the effort you put into your collegial reply. I agree that PE fails to meet NBASIC. I thought that being multiply "name-checked" and occasionally quoted added up to being "widely cited." Just to clarify, I do not like Escobar's politics, but feel that should have no bearing on if he is notable or not. I suppose I was being stubborn about this because I did the work to see if he was Notable or not and thought I had discovered that he was--also probably also because EnlightenmentNow1792 seemed to me to be motivated by his own political POV. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: Did you really just say that? What has anything I've written implied that I was coming at this from a political angle? Seriously, please, I'd love to know. What do you think my "political POV" is? I'm genuinely curious, I won't be upset I promise. I just can't see you being able to deduce that from what I've written here. I'll give you massive props if you do get it, honestly. My own siblings don't even know that, and we talk about political issues often. It's just that they never ask too many probing questions like that, because they know I'll have them bored to tears and still be trying to explain myself 20mins later EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: You are! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: It is a strange discussion. The article has been around since 2008 and articles about PE are in several other wikis. The mentions, cites, and name-checks I uncovered may or may not add up to bare NJOURNALIST. PE's pro-Russia, anti-US POV isn't relevant to AfD. Nor is the guilt-by-association argument that neo-Nazis and anti-Semites hang out in his fringe spaces. Nor is the STRAWMAN argument that cites and quotes I offered to support NJOURNALIST would not suffice if I had instead been trying to show NBASIC. I will be glad when this closes, one way or the other. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
He's published for an explicitly far right, antisemitic, holocaust-denying website ("Russia Insider"). That's not "guilt-by-association". I can see why you'll be glad this closes, indeed. Maybe next time you'll think twice before you double-down on a "keep" for a BLP fringe personality. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@EnlightenmentNow1792: On the contrary, citing a connection to Russia Insider to criticize PE is a classic "guilt by association" argument, as is the red herring following from it, that Pepe Escobar is a bad person and therefore I should not express my opinion that he is Misplaced Pages-notable. Misplaced Pages is not censored, and especially it is not censored by deleting information about notable topics. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: - Why have you still not learned that you must read the sources you bring forward? The only reliable sources you've brought forward so far, that specifically discuss him as a peer, just as WP:JOURNALIST demands, have done so in a disparaging manner. And the only one that does so at any length at all, you've not just ignored and not bothered to even read it, but you actually doubted that it at face value, it, and not the sundry White Supremacist ones Pepe usually writes for. The RS reads in part:
"In the Grayzone-affiliated podcast and video series designed to discredit secular opposition to Assad sarcastically called “Moderate Rebels”, they invited Pepe Escobar to discuss his theories about how the US is using the coronavirus as a weapon against China. Pepe Escobar has over 300 articles as a contributor to the fascist website Russia Insider. He writes about hanging out with Aleksandr Dugin... as well as writing for the Russian state affiliated Duginist outlet Katehon. On another podcast, Pepe spoke with the Veterans Today–affiliated Holocaust denialist Kevin Barrett and Anthony Hall stating Pepe was one of their main reasons for going to the New Horizon conference. When Gareth Porter of Grayzone later stated regret about having attended the New Horizon conference, he insisted Pepe... also surprised and dismayed by the antisemitism and other conspiracy theories. Yet, his defense of Pepe and his regret comes off as disingenuous because Pepe is, as we’ve seen, something of a pillar in these networks. He must not have regretted it much though, because he went back again in 2019.
That's not guilt by association, that's association, pure and simple. How many fascist, holocaust-denying individuals (three mentioned there, I know of many more), outlets (two mentioned there, I know at least two more he still writes for) and conferences must someone posing as a serious "journalist" and "analyst" attend before the "they're just all a series of coincidences" no longer seems credible to you? Does not the fact that he echoes pretty much 90% of their talking-points give you a slight hint? Evidently not. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I did read their piece, I also read US State Department document it's based on, which may be excluded by WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need extra-good RS to put "contentious material about living persons" into Misplaced Pages. PE's alleged bad character is, however, irrelevant to the question of whether or not his pre-Trump journalism career was "notable." HouseOfChange (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
HouseOfChange, if I may be so bold, can I ask you a couple of questions? You said on my Talk page (your titled your entry "Caution regarding your edits" or something) that I am "not improving Misplaced Pages", and that you on the other hand, are a harmless "boring wikignome with a boring interest in biographies and NPOV". I don't consider either of those two things boring, for what it's worth. Then you again posted a big scary sticker on my Talk page, saying my edit summaries weren't civil and I was not AGF. I totally disagree with the civility, but yes I do admit I was wrong to not AGF. However, I must say, you started that message on my Talk Page with the words: "You seem to be a new editor, at least with this account..." Should I take that as a accusation or just a suspicion of sockpuppetry? Do you still think I am or might be a sockpuppet? And, finally, considering all the time and energy you put into trying to keep this article (that I don't understand at all - why? I love interesting people with interesting lives and interesting things to say? Why would you spent so much time on this? That's why I initially didn't AGF) and considering the fact that you repeatedly kept coming back with the same low-quality, sources, from the strangest of places... do you think someone should maybe go through some of your edits to check just in chase you've made similar mistakes elsewhere? I mean, if I had just added a source that revealed that someone wrote for a website crawling with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and either (a) didn't bother to read the read it; or (b) didn't notice by looking at the site? I'd wanna take a good hard look at myself, and my whole process. Anyways, no hard feelings, - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I explained my reasoning above. I have no desire to chat, justify myself to you, etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'll be so kind as to stop bombing my Talk page with warnings/threats/accusations. Thanks. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. It’s not a great article, he’s not a great writer and this is not a great discussion; but fifteen seconds on Google is enough to demonstrate to any fair-minded observer that he is significant enough to warrant a (better) article. Nwhyte (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Nwhyte Fortunately, "fifteen seconds on Google" is not how Misplaced Pages determines notability. Read: WP:JOURNALIST. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak delete: I do weight the mentions in academic journals strongly in determining whether Pepe meets WP:NJOURNALIST#1, but three mentions are not quite sufficient. There seems to be one independent review of his book "Empire of Chaos", not in a great source. The couldn't find independent reviews for his other books, so he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR#3. I think it's a shame there isn't more coverage of journalists in general.. Femke (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: (1) There actually aren't three mentions of his journalism in "academic journals", there are precisely zero. Unless you count a student thesis, a footnote in a medical journal, or a citation in an unrated, unrecognized, self-published "think-tank"; (2) Again "Foreign Policy Journal" might sound rather grand and be possessed of a fortuitous domain name, but it's just a website, essentially a blog, full of fringe conspiracy theories and theorists . It is not an academic journal, it is not a reliable source of any kind (crackpots galore), and, moreover, it ceased to exist in 2020. Needless to say, the author of that "independent review", one "Jim Miles", is not an author/journalist/academic of any repute, but is instead a Canadian school teacher who has an unhealthy hobby of writing on "alternative" websites about the usual "Alex Jones-esque" conspiracy theories. (3) "I think it's a shame there isn't more coverage of journalists in general" - that's where you're mistaken, in this case. Escobar isn't a "journalist" anymore than Vanessa Beeley or Eva Bartlett are. The only reason why the latter two bloggers are explicitly defined in Misplaced Pages's editorial voice as "activists" and "conspiracy theorists" is because they became notable enough to reach a broad online audience in light of their activism and conspiracy theory propagation in favor of Assad in those few years when the US public still cared about the Syrian Civil War. Escobar espouses an essentially identical worldview, and would be commensurably pilloried if only he managed to make himself as "notable" - i.e. notorious - as they did. My point being, merely calling yourself an "independent journalist" does not mean that you are, in fact, a journalist. Let alone one deserving of an entry in an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately Misplaced Pages is rife with such vanity BLPs because if you "spend 15 seconds on Google" their name pops up everywhere - and they exist and grow simply because there is no one around to enforce policy. Meanwhile, serious, respected, award-winning journalists with decades-long careers filled with thousands of bylines in the most prestigious of publications, don't even feature at all on Misplaced Pages. Whereas the likes of Jon Gaunt, who, if we're being honest, doesn't actually qualify as a journalist himself, has a lengthy semi-protected article. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'd like to echo the advice of fellow editors: you're more likely to convince people when you use fewer words. You're using a lot of words for something that could be said in few words. Femke (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Oaktree b: I would've thought that being an editor of an encyclopedia would more or less necessitate occasionally spending 10 mins or so actually, ye know, reading.. kind of an occupational hazard I would of thought? Yet I'm repeatedly dumbstruck at just how averse so many editors - especially the most bullish ones - are to reading any more than a few sentences at at time, or engaging in any more "research" than 10-60secs of Googling. Doesn't seem to stop them from reverting or commenting though of course. So, thanks for your comment. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
It's almost 12 pages of text above. Post the TL:DR version then. Still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
TLDR summary @Oaktree b:@Femkemilene:@Mhawk10: Does Pepe Escobar meet the very low bar of NCREATIVE #1 "widely cited by peers"? (Not one person asserts that he meets GNG, and most of the text above denounces various bits of evidence for NCREATIVE #1 as insufficient to show GNG.) Here are a few examples of people well-qualified to judge who "cite" Escobar as a journalist/writer:

We show NCREATIVE #1 by showing the opinion of people able to judge whether or not PE is a widely-read journalist/writer. Bare mentions of his name in a list of others actually establish exactly that the writer expects readers to know the name of PE. Just one factual correction to the text above: Citing three results in English from 2020 or later taken from more than 1,000 results for "Pepe Escobar" in Google Scholar is not equivalent to saying that Google Scholar has only 3 results showing the opinion of people qualified to judge that Pepe Escobar is a notable journalist/writer. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to reiterate—being cited in <10 pieces is not being widely cited for a journalist. The bar for being widely cited is high, not absurdly low. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I can't believe he's had another go, and make exactly the same mistakes again. I'll be as brief as possible:
(1) Jesse Zwick (yes, that Jesse Zwick, I believe) isn't "citing" Escobar in his 2020 piece for TNR as a "peer", he's lumping him in with all the other crackpot conspiracy peddling LaRouche movement far-right and antisemitic "journalists" for RT, Sputnik, and the like. Zwick mentions Lawrence Freeman, a self-described "Political-Economic Analyst" whose "stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton." That alone makes his moral character lightyears ahead of the warmongering, hate-filled Escobar. Zwick quotes Escobar because presumably he gave him the best one, he, again, unconsciously, makes himself look a fool for saying he was worried about moving to RT but the money's great and their videos get so many hits on YouTube!
(2) You second source is F. William Engdahl. You didn't bother to read his Wiki? He's even less of a journalist that Escobar. Again, doesn't have a single byline to a reputable publication to his name. His a life-long member of the far-right LaRouche movement, writes for self-consciously bogus websites (beforeitsnews), is openly antisemitic and espouses his Holocaust Denial and Jewish/Rothschild New World Order crankery on Russia Insider (just like our Pepe), the openly antisemitic and Iran-run Veterans Today (which also publishes Fake News constantly) conspiracy outlets like GlobalResearch.ca, InfoWars, all Rockefellers and Soros anti-vaxx, and 9/11 was an inside job, 5G, I need not go on. Oh, except he's also a fan of Dugin's neo-Fascist "Eurasianism" too, which nicely rounds out the picture.
(3) Your third source is a self-published website (not RS) of a lecturer in International Relations at a 3rd-rate provincial British university, who actually is interviewing someone who is notable enough (or at least notorious/criticized enough) to warrant a BLP himself. He is a philosopher, who, well, writes a lot and seems to have made quite a good career for himself (despite never having expressed a single original thought in his life, and is possessed of such intellectually juvenism that he can write things like this, a direct quote, a closing sentence, and think they're profound (nevermind utterly nonsensical): "But we believe philosophy may provide us with an escape-hatch from the gulag of neoliberalism and other totalitarian regimes, leading us into a future committed to freedom, democracy, and the celebration of differences." Anyway, Zabala is not a journalist or "political analyst", as Escobar claims to be, and the philosopher merely makes a trivial mention of Escobar, as one of his sources for political insight. Which explains why he thinks his ideology of "Hermeneutic Communism" could work in the real world. Oh, and he's a self-described Catholic religious atheist too.
(4) Ironically, quite sadly really, your fourth source that you dismissed out of hand, is the only one that would qualify as an RS. It is staffed by legitimate experts, university professors, with decades worth of published research in peer-reviewed academic journals, and is partnered with genuine NGOs, with Nobel Laureates, de-radicalization charities, and like-minded non-profits like the German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies. But what's more, that very article you post but didn't bother to read, was spot on. Perfect. You really, really need to read it. It mentions both Escobar and F. William Engdahl among many others who have unwittingly - through either ego or simple naivete - become willing and enthusiastic (and well paid, I might add) disseminators of far right extremist tropes and anti-scientific, anti-democratic disinfo, all through a well-supported network of Puninist and Khomeinist outlets. The article lists literally all the ones I mentioned here and more. Even LaRouche and Russia Insider.
I am genuinely worried about your competence now. You little just wrote "Journalist F. William Engdahl wrote in Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia(2012): "Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality..." followed by your glib dismissal of the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right as though I doubt this is a reliable source...
Maybe it's just the topic area, I don't know, but you still seem utterly incapable of distinguishing not just reliable sources from unreliable ones, but even from really, really bad ones. Like, literally, actual Nazi bad... repeatedly... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I hope you're kidding. In which case, nice one. If you being serious? Why even bother to come on comment on such things you have no interest in learning about and can't be bothered spending 15mins reading to get a basic understanding of? We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, right? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment I give up, I think it's worth keeping and OP still refuses. Can we close this out as a matter of procedure at this point? Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's very clear to me that a notable journalist who does not toe the Western narrative and does not belong to what is considered mainstream media is trying to be removed/silenced or deleted from Misplaced Pages. I have to note, this is really appalling, the pro-delete camp ignores the significant google search results that do indeed show notability, but the fact that a non-Western-narrative journalist is not warning us or screaming about an "imminent" Russian invasion of Ukraine, is too inconvenient for them. George Al-Shami (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@George Al-Shami: - How can you be a "notable journalist" if you've never written for a notable publication, or been cited by one? Google results do not determine notability. Notability ≠ Notoriety. Serial killers get more google hits than academics. Read WP:JOURNALIST, the person has to be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or be known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." If still to see a single "peer" cite him in a RS. Because "peers" in this case would be journalists. And he's never done any, ye know, journalism to speak of (breaking stories, insightful commentary, etc). That's why no serious outlet has ever published his work.
If only you could appreciate the irony of your personal attack on me. Would you be surprised to learn that I am not, in fact, Western, and that I am, as we speak, a legal resident of one of the two countries who pay their inflated salaries of the likes of Escobar, Bartlett, Blumenthal, Engdahl, Beeley and all the rest? I wonder if that's your real name - impossible, you've made a crucial mistake - but if it's indicative of where you're from, we might be a lot closer to each other than you would've thought! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@EnlightenmentNow1792: your repeated claim that Escobar has never written for a notable publication, or been cited by one is mistaken. Notable publications that publish an Escobar page listing his articles there include Common Dreams, Mother Jones, and The Nation. Aggregator RealClearPolitics also has many search results in its international section linking to articles by Escobar. Surely the choice by all these outlets to publish multiple articles by Escobar should count as peer recognition suited to NJOURNALIST1. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Wow. You've confused things a little, but you're right, I didn't go beyond the thousands of articles that are still live, online, accessible that he's published 10 or 15 years ago to see his writing didn't used to be so outrageous. Nothing original or newsworthy, certainly never gonna win any awards (I never heard of him back them, and I'm pretty sure I've been at the same functions as him - in the same countries even - during the late 20EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)00s and early teens) - but he can sure keep those old dozen or so articles right at the back of this Portfolio of tens of thousands of unhinged rants on extremist websites. They're not quite "notable" or "prestigious" in my opinion (hell, I was published in both MJ and the Nation in my early 20s, I'm embarrassed about it now, but do you think I deserve an article?), so I'd still say the same thing, use the same words, but I wasn't aware of it, good researching. (rearclearworld just re-prints his Asia Times articles by the way, as it does for all sorts of wing-nuts). Still no peer recognition though is there? Have you noticed MJ have actually taken down his text? Think you can guess why that might be? Any thoughts on the why the Arnaud de Borchgrave blog might be one of your worst efforts yet?

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Draftify - Whilst there does not seem to be a consensus forming around keeping or deleting this article (the issue appears to be notability) I think that there is at least some consensus that the page could be improved and a move to draft space would offer a compromise that would allow for the page to be improved without the time pressure of an active AfD. Those who argue for the page to be kept would then have the opportunity to work on and develop the page before it is approved to be moved to main space. Gusfriend (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gusfriend: I'd be more than happy to write a neutral, objective BLP of Escobar in the manner of his fringe colleagues such as Vanessa Beeley and Co. It would of course have to be briefer because he hasn't quite attracted the level of notoriety they have, despite being around for a lot longer. Probably because he started out reasonably sane and never appeared on cable TV wild-eyed and frothing at the mouth. He actually comes across as quite likeable - if you don't listen to the substance of what he's actually alleging. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Per HouseOfChange. Seems to meet GNG, even if WP:JOURNALIST might not be met. The arguments by the nominator are unfortunately long-winded, confusing and include personal opinions about the article subject. However, as HouseOfChange said "PE's pro-Russia, anti-US POV isn't relevant to AfD." RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
@RoseCherry64: There's plenty of notable "pro-Russia, anti-US journalists". It's a good thing I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that Misplaced Pages policy be applied. Making hundreds of appearances in fringe, non-notable self-published websites/blogs - many of which are explicitly Far Right, White Nationalist, outright fascist, and some deny the Holocaust as an editorial policy, and he's written hundreds of articles for them! - is does not meet the requirements for notability as per WP:JOURNALIST, which require that he be "regarded as an important figure" or be "widely cited by peers". He ain't. The only time's he's ever mentioned is trivially, in passing, usually amongst a list of other crackpots, or as a figure of mockery. I can provide you with the sources if you want, but you seem to have made it clear that you are one of the many denizens of Misplaced Pages had has an aversion to reading. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
You don't understand my point. I don't think any opinions the subject holds or have expressed publicly has anything to do with arguments made on AfD, and bringing those up will turn people off immediately. There's over a hundred Holocaust deniers who have articles here. Fringe political ideas are widely covered on Misplaced Pages.
For the record, I looked up mentions of the author on JSTOR and Google Scholar, not fascist blogs. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Passing mentions don't count towards notability, neither do articles written by the subject, even if a lot of them can be found. It doesn't seem like he easily meets any of the journalist specific criteria either. Deleting the page isn't like "silencing" him, it just makes sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment Move that we make a decision, one way or another, this has gotten silly. I voted to keep with new sources found and OP is still refusing to accept it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Request to closer Could the article be draftified as suggested by Gusfriend, so its history is not deleted? I don't think I've done a good job supporting my spidey-sense that Escobar was a notable journalist when he was running around Eurasia doing research on what he called "Pipelineistan" (his theory that the US-Russia-China struggle for control of oil/gas pipelines is the modern Great Game in Eurasia.) But those references are hard to Google and I am still finding them. I don't want to create a sanitized biography, and I will also look for RS to describe his recent espousal of several conspiracy theories. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bret Kugelmass

Bret Kugelmass (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)

BLP masquarding as a business article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep 01:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 04:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yarmouth-Barnstable Regional Transfer Station

Yarmouth-Barnstable Regional Transfer Station (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. I found no significant coverage. An admin removed a prod in 2020 which said "It is literally a local garbage dump. Fails WP:GNG" with the edit summary "That doesn't make it non-notable". It's true that the first sentence doesn't make it non-notable, but the WP:GNG mention certainly does. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. Charles Stewart, while in the minority, has made substantial arguments for their view that the term is relatively widely used, and the other opinions don't really address these arguments. Sandstein 21:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Impalefection

Impalefection (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 to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CellSqueeze, this seems to be another cell transfection methodology where a single group coined a term and it hasn't caught on that widely. Searching pubmed gives two results with mostly the same authors. On Google I'm mostly just seeing sites mirroring our content. I don't see anything to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - while the technique has limited uptake, pace the nom, the term has been used by many researchers besides the proposers. The substantial references suffice for SIGCOV and the uptake of the term from researchers making long list of techniques for getting genetic materials into cells show it is not a bad neologism from the point of view of our policy. I'm wondering at the nom only finding two references: even the relatively conservative Semantic Scholar finds far more than that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - To recap the discussion and provide a little more detail, in the hope that this might help the next would-be closer, there are five key substantial references that document the development and application of the technique: the original paper on carbon nanofibre arrays (McKnight, T. E., Melechko, A. V., Hensley, D. K., Mann, D. G., Griffin, G. D., & Simpson, M. L., 2004. Tracking gene expression after DNA delivery using spatially indexed nanofiber arrays. Nano Letters, 4(7), 1213-1219), which seems to predate the coining of the term impalefection, and the four articles using the term indexed on Semantic Scholar. All of these five papers have many coauthors, but one, T.E. McKnight, occurs in all of them. These citations would reach the SIGCOV criterion by themselves except for the worry about independence. I'm inclined to give these papers a pass from the point of verifiability, since McKnight is only the principal author on one of these five papers, but I can absolutely sympathise with Ajpolino's delete rationale in the part that raises GNG: it seems this may be a place where we simply differ in how we apply the criterion in this grey area. The part of the nom that mentions the broader literature of slight mentions of the topic I don't agree with: the occurrences in the literature seem to be generally lists of techniques for insertion of cell material and while some might come from Misplaced Pages, I'd really want more evidence that all of these articles are so lazy before accepting this case. I'm generally pretty prone to use our policy against neologisms to reach 'delete' opinions, but this just does not cut it for me. Generally speaking, this material seems well-written and verifiable enough that I want an ATD outcome to this debate, so in the absence of a decent merge target, my !vote is keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a basic WP:NEOLOGISM deletion. I don't really see justification in the above mostly monologue to satisfy notability requirements like WP:SIGCOV. KoA (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism only used by members of the original team.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Karin Putsch-Grassi

Karin Putsch-Grassi (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 she is an accomplish ceramicist, I cannot find any reliable independent sources to cite the information stated in the article. No evidence of participating in major exhibitions or in any collections. I think this may be WP:TOOSOON or non-notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


This is an interesting point. I agree sources generated by the person alone are not sufficent. But let's say if an artist or author says something in an interview or an autobiography - couldn't this contain interesting information and thus be a relevant source? Provided the overall number of "objective" sources is satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radulf (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
A limited number of primary sources (including interviews) is allowed, but they should be a minor component of the overall reliable sources. Also, if you have access to the book sources referenced in the article, it would go a long ways towards proving notability if you could provide inline citations to specific page numbers. Curiocurio (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
OK,I will provide additional material in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radulf (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Article remains largely unsourced for year and place of birth, education, technique, and some awards. Additionally the reference to Académie Internationale de la Céramique and her membership is not RS. She is a member of the association and essentially create that page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
In order to provide the needed information I would like to understand what type of information we need to attach. Is an official birth document required for date and place of birth? Or is a magazine, book, other document stating this information sufficient? Same for the College which unfortunately does not release a browsable documentation on their alumni site, what document is needed in this case? In 2021 a guide was published by the newspaper La Repubblica in which they mention the German origin and studies at Goldsmith College, could it be sufficient? About the Académie Internationale de la Céramique, what do you mean by "RS"? Thank you. MrCarloGrassi (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
MrCarloGrassi, Usually when an artist's work is in a notable collection, the institution lists the artists nationality and year of birth. I am not finding Putsch-Grassi listed in any online collections/museums. If there is a book or magazine listing this information, you should add an inline citation to the article. RS means "reliable source". You can read the article Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. I have updated the article to show precisely what needs to have a citation (or be removed). Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I just added official certification from the National Museum of Slovenia, i hope this material is allowed as only the official document is available and no statement can be found on the museum website. As for the Riga Porcelain Museum, she donated the work of this exhibition to the permanent collection, but official proof is not available at the moment. MrCarloGrassi (talk) 21:46, 01 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Golden State School of Theology

Golden State School of Theology (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 found no significant coverage for this unaccredited college. SL93 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles (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)

Deprodded in an attempt to complete the list. This index is more narrow in scope than other country indices, focusing only on the core topics such as major cities, but Outline of Uzbekistan already serves that purpose. There are nearly 40,000 articles in the Category:Uzbekistan tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was 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 03:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WAAR TV

WAAR TV (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)

Unsure of notability of this Kurdish TV station—no claim is made. Bringing to AfD instead of PROD so that sourcing can be found by editors who understand Kurdish. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 01:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Telangana-related articles

Index of Telangana-related articles (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)

Huge wall of over 5,600 articles, 439 categories, and 5 navboxes, out of around 15,000 in Category:Telangana, is useless for navigation and burdensome to edit on some systems. Some entries are anachronistic or misplaced, since the state was separated from Andhra Pradesh in 2014. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles

Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles (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)

Huge wall of over 5,500 articles and 340 categories, and 11 navboxes and sidebars, out of around 17,000 in Category:Andhra Pradesh, is useless for navigation and burdensome to edit on some systems. There are still some articles about the state of Telangana, created in 2014, that haven't been moved to the corresponding Index of Telangana-related articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Korea-related articles

Index of Korea-related articles (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)
Index of Korea-related articles (0–9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (P) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (U) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (W) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Y) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of North Korea–related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of South Korea–related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aside from precedent, I have no fucking clue why we have indices covering both Koreas for numerals and each letter of the alphabet, some of which are very short, in addition to separate indices for North Korea and South Korea. There are over 97,000 articles in a subcategory of Category:Korea. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. As noted, WP:NPOV concerns aside, the article is sufficiently sourced to pass WP:GNG. While it may well need to be rewritten, it can be sufficiently improved through normal editting. Rollidan (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Cruelty-free

Cruelty-free (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 started out as a school project ten years ago and it still shows. It has not significantly improved since then and employs language which lacks objectivity. I also fail to see how it contributes anything that is not already covered in the well-written article on Testing cosmetics on animals which explains the term "cruelty free" in its third paragraph and has a section on non-profits like "Cruelty Free International."

The following passages illustrate my concerns with objectivity:

  • "tests are often painful and cause the suffering and death of millions of animals every year"
  • "guinea pigs are sometimes forced to eat or inhale substances"
  • "they are killed and cut open to examine the effects"
  • "animal testing is being replaced with quicker, cheaper and more accurate methods"

I therefore propose the deletion of this article. Caecilia24 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep The article is well sourced, not all such content is found elsewhere on testing cosmetics on animals. The suggestions above look like suggestions to improve the article, not delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe the problems highlighted here are more suggestions for improvement and do not meet the criteria for deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I share your concern to first consider alternatives to deletion, but this article would have to be rewritten in its entirety and given that its topic is already well-covered in the two articles I mentioned above, I don't see a need to do so. The passages I mentioned were only examples meant to illustrate a broader pattern of a lack of objectivity and improper style. Caecilia24 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 01:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The article started in 2004, not ten years ago, and did not start as a school project. Uncle G (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: You're technically correct. The article started 13:42, 1 February 2004 as a five-sentence explanation of the word "cruelty-free". It remained nearly unchanged until 02:41, 17 February 2011 when Lizmarion made edits that were reverted on 06:45, 28 June 2011‎ by SQGibbon because they suffered the same problems that I am addressing today: "OR, POV, unsourced claims, editorializing, etc."

      However, the bulk of the article was written roughly ten years ago on 14:08, 4 April 2013‎ by NewKindofMedia as part of "a school assignment" and "first ever wiki edit". These edits have stayed in place since then and the article has not materially improved. Caecilia24 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

      • Again, you haven't got it right, though. It didn't start as an explanation of words, at all. It started out as an article about "the cruelty-free movement", and that was how it was first expanded. Sad to say, no-one had read Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (adjectives) in all of those years. Ironically, what it should have been about all along, and indeed part of it tried to be, was about cruelty-free labels and products. There's a fair amount to say, from academic sources no less, about the product labelling. I've put two good sources for stuff that Misplaced Pages does not have anywhere into the Further Reading. The first is useful for its preliminaries which address market impact and supply chains, and indicate further avenues for finding sources with the sources that it cites. The second has to be used with care, but Misplaced Pages does not even mention a Humane Cosmetics Standard.

        An editor coming along in 2022 and doing the bare-minimum before-nomination work of a Google Books search should notice that Testing cosmetics on animals mentions naught about these, and perhaps try to tell poor readers like me what the HCS is. But even one who did not notice the copious opportunity for writing more and better would be capable, even if xe didn't have an account, of dealing with the overlap using just the ordinary editing tool, as we know what to do with Misplaced Pages:duplicate articles. An editor who had seen SQGibbon's edits should know exactly how to deal with the things that you mention in your nomination, because there's the example right in front of that editor's very nose.

        Bringing it to AFD, in contrast, is not only a waste of 3 edits, but a waste of other people's time on a problem that you were quite capable of dealing with yourself. I suggest that you try to write Misplaced Pages so that it tells poor readers like me what this HCS that people talk about is. Because we poor readers currently have to understand Finnish at fi:Testattu ilman eläinkokeita -standardi or Vietnamese at vi:The Body Shop to find out from Misplaced Pages anything at all about it.

        Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

        • I was correct in stating that this article in its current form is largely the product of a school assignment and that it has had glaring issues with POV and editorializing for the last 10 years. Both of which you initially disputed. Caecilia24 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Good grief! You don't even get your own nomination right. "This article started out as a school project ten years ago" is what you actually said, visible right there above, and you clearly were not correct. You cannot even get what I said correct, which didn't say anything about editorialization, the only person having mentioned that is you. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • keep - if an article needs improvement, you don’t delete it, you improve it. If an article has NPOV concerns, there’s a separate template for that. However, I don’t understand why any of those examples are not considered objective if they are supported by citations. Just because a fact is grisly doesn’t make it subjective. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. I definitely notice some WP:POV issues within the article and a need for more independent non-advocacy sources, but the term itself is notable. KoA (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Aage Leidersdorff

Aage Leidersdorff (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 indication of WP:SIGCOV in the article, in the Danish article, or generally - fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

In Denmark, I will say it is a "well-known and significant award". World wide maybe not, but in Denmark, yes. --- Løken (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
It's a tabloid award; not much different from The Sun giving such an award. And that example you provided is of the countries Badminton organization writing that a Badminton player had won the award; it's not indicative of the award being significant today, let alone in 1945. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
While the newspapers billed as tabloid in Scandinavia have their flaws, media scholars would not assess them on quite the same level of untrustwhortiness as The Sun or the German Bild. Geschichte (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 00:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Note for the next closing admin that this was closed as keep by Liz on 12th Feb, before the nom requested it to be reopened.. Lugnuts 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Link to request for convenience; Lugnuts link is to my subsequent response to Liz, after she agreed to reopen the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I verify that this is true. I closed this discussion as a "Keep" and was asked to revert and relist which I did. I was hoping that more time could make this decision more conclusive. Liz 04:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
And given the lack of additional participation, I'd still close it as "Keep". Liz 07:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - digitised Danish newspapers are freely available after 100 years, so currently up to 1922. After that, access is restricted, apparently to academic researchers located in Denmark: see here, here and here. So accessing coverage for 1932 and onwards is not straightforward, and until it has been properly examined it's not possible to reach a safe conclusion about the existence of SIGCOV, as with similar articles about Danish Olympians. There is after all WP:NODEADLINE. I must add that I thought Liz's previous Keep closure was correct: I don't agree with this relisting.
If however the decision here were not to keep then the article should be redirected - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, you are !voting "keep" for ten years until sources might be convenient to access? And if it turns out there are no sources, I assume you will want to keep for another 14 years, until sources from 1945 are convenient to access? BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry I was not clear: I am !voting "keep" because I think the previous AfD closure was correct and should not have been challenged, and because I agree with the other "keep" !votes. In addition, however, I am pointing out that establishing SIGCOV is made difficult here because the principal probable sources, which is to say the contemporary Danish newspapers, are restricted in access for 100 years unless a Denmark-based researcher cares to tackle them. Otherwise NOTPAPER and NODEADLINE. Ingratis (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Assuming by agreeing with the other keep voters you mean you believe the award meets WP:ANYBIO, can you explain why you consider it significant given the evidence I presented above that it is not? And WP:NODEADLINE also applies to creating the article; we don't need to assume there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, we can wait until we can check in 2045 and create an article then, if the sources actually exist. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you searched carefully enough for there to be "evidence" of anything. Here are three Danish press reports of the 2021 B.T. Guld Prisen: Politiken, DK Nyt and Avisen Danmark, and this is not nearly an exhaustive search. It is thus clearly not correct that the award is insignificant, as you claim. As for Leidersdorff it is also not insignificant that the 1945 award in the last year of the war and the Nazi occupation went to a Danish Jewish sportsman, and that won't have passed unreported. There is enough here to warrant keeping this as a stub with every prospect of expansion in due course as the Danish copyright period unrolls. That makes more sense to me than deleting it now with a hypothetical note in a non-existent diary to look again 2045. As for WP:MUSTBESOURCES it's an essay, not even a guideline, and doesn't apply here in any case as the sources are so highly probable. Ingratis (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If you read above, I did find a small amount of coverage of the current award, but not enough to make the award "significant or well known", which is a higher bar than "has coverage". And while WP:MUSTBESOURCES is an essay, WP:V is a policy - and you need to make your claim that Leidersdorff is sufficiently notable for an article verifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I found more coverage than you did (links provided), enough to show that the award is significant and well-known (at least in Denmark) and it is established that Leidersdorff won this significant and well-known award. There is enough here for a stub, with a prospect of expansion in due. And that's it. Ingratis (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
But what is not established is that the award is "significant and well-known", which is a higher bar than receiving a small amount coverage. And I believe the coverage you found is the same coverage I found. Regardless, WP:ANYBIO doesn't provide a presumption of notability, it merely suggests that they are likely to be notable - WP:GNG still has to be met, which means you need to show these sources you believe exist. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
You've had your say - you don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion for those who don't agree with you. Lugnuts 10:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Index of Thailand-related articles

Index of Thailand-related articles (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)
Index of Thailand-related articles 0 to J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles K to N (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles O to S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles T to Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is consensus from previously closed and pending AfD nominations. I'm nominating this one separately solely because it is divided into sublists. The Category:Thailand tree has over 55,000 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • There are actually 14,601 15,291 items on the WikiProject page, which had its most recent major update in July 2021 just now. (Going through the Category:Thailand recursively will inevitably lead to a huge amount of false positives such as History of Thailand → History of Thailand by topic → Military history of Thailand → Wars involving Thailand → Vietnam War → North Vietnam.) In any case, anyone who's interested can click the link to the Related changes special page and peruse the updates as they would their watchlist. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. This is a redirect, and redirects belong at WP:RFD. I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#IPhone 14 -- Tavix 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

IPhone 14

IPhone 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was initially tagged by Tavix as Speedy (speedydeletion) and the most recent rationale was: because the page appears to be a repost of material tha was previously deleted following a deleion discussion, at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 1#IPhone 14. However, I think redirect is okay because it is a device to be released this year, but I want to hear other people's opinions, so I start AFD. --Hajoon0102 💬 02:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

See User talk:Hajoon0102#Speedy deletion nomination of IPhone 14. The deletion request log was deleted because the article was deleted earlier. --Hajoon0102 💬 03:01, 13 February 2022 (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.