Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 26

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 02:13, 26 December 2024 (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Permanent Revolution (group) (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:13, 26 December 2024 by Daniel (talk | contribs) (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Permanent Revolution (group) (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday December 25 (Wed) December 24 (Tue) December 23 (Mon) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 25	December 27 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to List of Trotskyist internationals#Defunct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looked at this, problem with this redirect is that there's no reliable evidence they ever became an established "International", just that they had a handful of supporters outside of the UK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Haven't you just described half of all Trotskyist internationals? :) FWIW, WP:NLIST does not require individual entries in a list to be notable, just the class itself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn while that first comment is definitely something I agree with, with this one it's not the lack of notability but the complete lack of any evidence it was effectively organised beyond the UK. There doesn't appear to be any list of national sections elsewhere, so I don't think it meets the definition of even being an international. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
In French, I can find this, a translation from the Permanent Revolution group, on the site of their French sympathising group, indicating that 33 members from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and Sweden were expelled from the LCI. At the end of the statement it indicates that the Australian section of the League (WPA) has joined them, along with members from Sweden and Ireland. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep - In addition to the SyFy article, there's a review by Ex.org (reliable source per WP:A&M/RS). Technically enough for notability but there's also a short review in Manga: The Complete Guide: . And I wouldn't call this article by CBR trivial: , although CBR is marked as "generally unreliable", the author in this case has also written for reliable outlets like Polygon and Nintendo Life, so I wouldn't dismiss it as outright unreliable. And there's a sales article by Comichron (listed at WP:CMC/REF), written by a subject matter expert John Jackson Miller. --Mika1h (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Found a review from Spanish print magazine Minami: --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I found these sources (brief mention), (sales), (Plot). Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per the above sources; I also found a good article in Screen Rant (considered marginally reliable) and this Mania article is linked in the external links, which is a reliable source. Not to mention Anime News Network previously reported that at one point it was the best-selling comic book in the US . Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Mania reviews are for the anime series, they should be removed from external links. --Mika1h (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed them. Timur9008 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not realize it was an anime review (admittedly was too lazy to read it); that being said, my vote does not change. Link20XX (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This isn't an argument for retention, but something that might point towards sourcing that could show notability. I seem to remember that this series was the first Pokemon manga to be brought over to the United States and given an official translation. The English release dates seem to back this up as well. I'm pulling up some hits in Newspapers.com - I'll go through those and see if they're for this series or not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This was indeed the first English language translation (official, anyway) of any Pokémon manga. I've found some news coverage of this - I'm uncertain of one of the reviews, but did find at least one good one. The one I'm not certain of, it's because the reviewer looks to be young. The picture is low quality so I'm not certain and the review isn't given any of the "reviewed by Jane Smith, age 8" or "Kiddie Korner" type additions that usually accompany child reviews, so I have to assume that it might have gone through more editorial oversight than some of the other reviews, if she is as young as I think she might be.

I'd have liked to have added more. I actually think that there is a very strong chance that there are more sources out there, they're just harder to find because of one (or both) of two reasons: The sources are not available on the Internet or do not allow for searching as one would with Newspapers.com. The sources do not use the specific title of "The Electric Tale of Pikachu" and instead refer to the series along the lines of "Pokemon comics", something that would be pretty easy to do as Viz began publishing the original, longer series immediately after completing the four volumes of TETOP. This newspaper article is a good example of this. It's a short mention about how the first issue of the comics (mentioned in the lead and backed up by the Yadao source) sold extremely well.

With this in mind, when you consider what I did find - and that some of those sources were released years after the last volume was released in 2000 - it does give off the strong impression that more sourcing is probably available. However even without that, I think that the currently available sourcing is enough to establish how the series passes notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Something to back this up is that it's extremely likely that some of the anime and manga themed magazines of the time would have reviewed the series as well. Pokemon related topics were kind of a license to print money, so I could see one of the early magazines like Mangazine, Protoculture Addicts, and so on reviewing this. Sure, it's not a guarantee, but this is one of those cases where the existence of such mainstream sources gives off a good faith assumption that more likely exists.

Of note is that we also haven't searched for Japanese language sourcing. The same issues I mentioned above for the English language sources would apply here, but I think it's likely that more reviews and coverage exist in Japanese as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've asked for help at the Pokemon and anime/manga WikiProjects, in the hopes that someone fluent can perform searches. I'm bringing up a lot of hits, but since I'm not fluent I'm unable to refine this so that the results bear fruit more easily. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Withdraw as a result of some of the finds here. I'm impressed with a few of the more obscure finds I wasn't able to locate, primarily the Ex.org review. Combined with the SyFy source and some of the other sources, this more than passes WP:GNG. I'll see about trying to incorporate some of this content into the article soon. Thank you all for the finds! I honestly thought this wasn't notable at all, so I'm glad to have been proven wrong here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award and a nomination at Young Artist Award thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANU 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Misplaced Pages article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Misplaced Pages entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Misplaced Pages failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Uladzislau Palkhouski

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete, has exactly the same competition results as Kalehanova (AfD below), so also doesn't meet NSKATE. Searching for sources under romanized and cyrillic names only turned up non-sigcov . Toadspike 12:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Emiliya Kalehanova

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet NSKATE, web searches for romanized and cyrillic names did not turn up any secondary sources. Toadspike 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Walter Irving Scott

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Magic, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nelli Ioffe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet NSKATE and could not find any sigcov with a quick web search. Toadspike 12:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

John Ward (pitcher)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Withdrawing thanks to the finding of sources, not sure how you found some of those but happy to see it. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Providence Grays all-time roster. He has an entry at Baseball-reference.com for the time being which is good enough to prevent deletion. Looks like we're going to need a List of MLB players who don't meet NSPORTS. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per BX. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This source (which doesn't even give a first name for pitcher "Ward") is not SIGCOV. The search is complicated by the fact that this player and John Montgomery Ward (sometimes referred to as "John Ward", e.g., here) were both pitchers for Providence in the 1880s. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Further note: His death announcements include some further biographical details. See here, here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. I expanded it a bit this morning, and given the difficulty of finding sources from the 1880s (for example, the Providence newspaper is not avaialable online from that era), I think the sourcing is now strong enough to keep under WP:NBASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep passes NBASIC per Cbl62. Literally no MLB player whose full name is known has ever been deleted in the 20-plus year history of Misplaced Pages (see also List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names) WP:NSPORTS is just a guideline, not a policy. Baseball players were never a problem with NSPORTS. The baby (WP:NBASEBALL) was just thrown out with the bathwater (WP:NSPORTS2022). I think it's silly modern minor leaguers can get articles by passing GNG without ever actually playing in MLB and old-timers like this can get deleted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep after expansion - a decent amount of news sources now. ~Darth Stabro 00:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Khilkov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ~Darth Stabro 02:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG. QEnigma talk 13:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Traditional monarchy

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 26. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: Most of the article's content has been added by one user, Sr L, since 24 November. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I have been the most interested in develop the article, there were others that preceded me and even are equivalent of this articles in other wikipedias. Sr L (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I feel that it is very picky to focus on a largely nominal and terminological issue to propose deleting the page. For those, I think it would be better to rename the article as "Integral Monarchy" (used in Tsarist circles), "Corporate Monarchy" (used in Habsburg loyalist circles), "Classical Monarchy" (used in some academic circles), "Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism" (which could be the most formalist possible name for Misplaced Pages), etc. of alternative names that exist for this type of monarchy that the article describes according to what various legitimist and counterrevolutionary groups, that are anti-liberal and anti-absolutist alike, adhere to.

Secondly, I must mention that the concept of "Traditional Monarchy", according to the definition that it adheres to on a corporate and aristocratic form of government according to medieval political philosophy or "scholasticism" (such as the Thomistic philosophy of law and Augustinian political theology in the Christian context, which also develop Aristotelian and Platonic political philosophy, which in turn its followers admit to having conclusions similar or equal to those of other traditional philosophies that are grouped as "non-modernist" such as Confucianism or Vedism), allows that naturally the Iberian concept of "Traditional Monarchy" can also refer to such forms of monarchical government that maintain similar qualities in reaction to the Political Modernization initiated by the Secular Humanism of the Renaissance and consolidated with the Age of Enlightenment, which is what all these "classical reactionary" groups have in common, which have brotherly relations with the Carlist and Integrist groups, which are the ones that most allege the concept (despite that even italian, french and polish monarchical groups uses the concept and I referenced some of those). There is even an entire philosophical school that defends this specific form of "pre-modern Monarchy" according to the characteristics of a perennial tradition (Perennialist School, although they are obviously not the only defenders of this type of government and in any case they have an emphasis on questions of mysticism and metaphysics rather than politics)

Finally, it can be empirically verified, after reviewing the sources of the article (specifically looking for the statutes and declaration of principles of the monarchical groups mentioned), that all these groups that perceive themselves as "authentic reactionaries" come to defend a form of government that is essentially common, despite the specific name they give it. There is even a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups along with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. From this we can conclude that all these legitimist groups, which have historically collaborated with each other (like the White Russian movement associating with the Carlists in anti-communist alliances during the interwar period, the Polish monarchists of the magazine Rojalisci-pro Patria having integrists in their ranks and basing themselves on Carlism, the intellectual collaborations between the legitimists of the houses of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, etc.) consider themselves to defend what the Iberian traditionalists understand as "Traditional Monarchy" and which perhaps other traditionalisms or "classical conservatives" names in a different way. Which, again, would be a more nominal and terminological question (which could be resolved by renaming the article, although I personally would not suggest it), not a proof of the insubstantiality or inaccuracy of the article. Sr L (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

While renaming the article would solve some issues, I believe that it does not fix the notability of this concept. When searching on both Google and Google Scholar, the terms Integral Monarchy, Corporate Monarchy, Traditional Monarchy, Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism and Classical Monarchy are either scarcely used or scarcely used in the way this article uses the term. These ideologies may all have common beliefs and roots, but without a widely recognized term grouping these ideologies together this bars on being original research.

My main concern is not that the groups categorized under Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism, or any synonymous terms, are not related but that the notion of categorizing them this way is not notable enough to be its own article. Clubspike2 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this by seeing this edit, which is adding a bunch of text referenced to a glaringly unreliable source, some NGO that promotes some oddball fringe views. If this is the standard for the rest of the text, then yes, it should absolutely be deleted because this is a policy violation. --Joy (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Like most such hobby horses, it's a curious and overwhelmingly excessive mix of original research and synthesis. I'm not going through this entire thing, and one thing must suffice, for now: this source, a page on WordPress that claims to cover the genesis of the "modern state" in a couple paragraphs, and it is used to verify (pardon me for the long quotes):
The first attempts to develop organized traditionalist monarchists movements appeared in Spain and Portugal during the context of Carlist Wars and Liberal Wars, in which Carlists and Miguelists launched proclaims (like Manifiest of the Persians) that later defined a series of political doctrines to reject the paradigms of liberal revolutions (as Liberalism was perceived as a political philosophy contrary to a Christian social order), but also trying to reject the monarchical absolutism that caused the perceived social decline of Christendom by having harmed the "Intermediate Bodies" (popular institutions of the plebeians, like Municipalities, Guilds, Corporations, Parliaments, etc. that were guarantors of Class collaboration), local Customary Law (guarantors of Regional Autonomies and Subsidiarity) and the social role of the clergy (the autonomy of the church from the state, guarantors of Natural law) in the name of erroneous ideological assumptions of Modern Philosophy (like Anthropocentrism, Nominalist anti-Metaphysical Realism, Immanentism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Secular humanism, Regalism, Enlightened absolutism, etc.) to achieve apparently more "efficiency" and "rationality" in governments that instead led to the Ancien régime crisis
and
Then it would be stablished the absolutist model of monarchy during the Protestant reformation and normalized in Europe by the Westphalian system, in which there would be attacks against the political power of the Social Corporations (that were mostly in good convivence until the European wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, along the wars of French system of Alliances based on Raison d' etat instead of Universitas Christiana) in the name of Political stability. And finally it would be a popular political system among Western intellectuals (specially followers of Modern philosophy) during XVI to XVIII century, like Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius or Thomas Hobbes.
Note how careless the editing and how argumentative the writing is in those paragraphs, sweeping through history with the broadest possible brush. This is how we get 300k of excessive (and excessively overlinked, another hallmark of such writing) and overformatted (another hallmark) writing. No, burn it. This is an essay. It is possible that somewhere in here is a concept worth noting, but even the lead doesn't make that clear. Delete. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I was considering, after looking at the history, to advocate a return to this version, but that is also problematic, because both versions take this concept to be something specific to the Iberian situation, and a quick search through JSTOR shows that this is unwarranted: the term "traditional monarchy" is simply a word to denote traditional monarchy, nor does anything in the definition by António Sardinha cited in the earlier version point at something specific, except maybe for the word "Catholic". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

J. Steven Svoboda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Fails GNG/NBIO, unlikely to ever pass that threshold. Unclear if he would meet NACADEMIC in regard to the scientific subjects related to his focus. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep just found him as an author of a paper on legal aspects of circumcision / MGM - one of relatively few on its topic ('Circumcision of healthy boys - Criminal assault?'), article could definitely stand to be improved and expanded esp. lede but plenty of material to prove notability Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Fails GNG/NBIO and NACADEMIC. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I added the two American Journal of Bioethics articles mentioned and three others: a 2003 New York Times, a 2006 Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a 2013 National Post. Is that enough to keep the article? At least for now (my computer has some problem)? There now seems to be enough academic/scientific articles but I'll try to find some more news/media content. Also, probably don't take into account RomanianObserver41's opinion? This newly created user and another created one, ConeflowerDave, have recently deleted useful information, particularly the two American Journal of Bioethics articles, on another child genital cutting expert: bioethicist Brian Earp. They seem likely part of a relatively long list of, now blocked, accounts used by at least one person to make it difficult to update and improve child genital cutting-related articles. Maybe I should request to investigate them? https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive Chrono1084 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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