Home • Search • Translate
Photos • Location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 November 30 November >

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 speedy keep. No reason given by Nominator, AfD#1 is still ongoing and not closed yet. Consensus below is to speedy Keep. Please share your opinions at ongoing AfD#1 (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 05:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Tarini Choudhury Govt. Girls H.S. & M.P. School

AfDs for this article:
Tarini Choudhury Govt. Girls H.S. & M.P. School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vrisle ( talk) 22:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as the first nomination has not been closed yet. Ajf773 ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT#2, without prejudicing the results of the already-running AfD. The nominator has tried tagging the article for speedy deletion multiple times with multiple (inappropriate) rationales, without success, and is now trying multiple AfD nominations. Whatever its cause, this disruptive behavior wastes community time and attention. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Here is the problem with the deletion process. An article could be kept 100 times through AfD, and then be deleted on the 101st nomination. What is the true result there? The complementary situation with multiple deletions or even one deletion will rarely be overturned by a single "keep", as it is a far more difficult process – admins tend to frown on an article being recreated quickly after a deletion. The system is faulty because it promotes multiple nominations of the same article by those who prefer deletion. This one just happens to be a little early. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Normally, for something which was previously a redirect, I would go back to that, but the one person who commented on the redirect thought it wasn't needed. If somebody wants to redirect on their own, they can do that. There was a suggestion to salt, but no discussion on that, so I'm not going to salt. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Decimal sequences for cryptography

Decimal sequences for cryptography (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources to establish notability. Although "decimal sequences" are used in at least two published computer science papers, this does not suffice to meet the general notability guidelines. BenKuykendall ( talk) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: no usable content and no particular hope of this title supporting an article. It seems like the only reason this exists is as a ridiculous plug of a the crankish looking Subhash Kak. The article was formerly a redirect to the Kak article, but an IP editor un-redirected it and two similarly dubious other articles back in 2007, and I see no reason to think the redirect is worth having, either. -- JBL ( talk) 02:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: it is based on a single fringe journal article and is nonsense. Tangentially, I'd like to echo JBL's point that the author of said journal article is a crank, which is not at all hinted at on his Wikipedia page. -- Arvindn ( talk)
Why is it nonsense? I ask because this is clearly a very poort article, hinting at an interesting topic. I don't know enough about it (and certainly didn't learn enough!) to know whether it's "nonsense" or not. Is there some clear reason to demonstrate that it clearly ought to be discarded as such? Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The first two paragraphs (through the example) give definitions of mathematical objects that are meaningful, described properly elsewhere, and have nothing to do with cryptography. The connection with cryptography comes only from the last two sentences, and they are merely an advertisement for a paper by a crank. They have no actual content, and there is no hope of replacing them with something that does have content (because, for example, the sequences described above absolutely could not serve as pseudorandom sequences). -- JBL ( talk) 16:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SK1: nominator has withdrawn deletion rationale and no one else recommends deletion czar 03:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Jiangda, Nagqu

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

The article has no sources and only consist of one sentence. The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability as there is not a lot (if any) coverage of the village and I can't seem to find any information about the village beside what's in the article, all the article says is it's a village in Tibet.– BrandonXLF (t@lk) 03:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep the article has been expanded and now has sources, the article is notable and seems good enough to keep. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment villages are notable per per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Before making up my mind, however, I would like to know the exact location of this village. Our coordinates point at an uninhabited ridge. There is a hamlet south of the marker but that may or may not be Jamda. gidonb ( talk) 14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Jiangda seems to be the modern name, and has "xiang" on the end indicating that it is a town/township-level place, so probably notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sebastian Kind

Sebastian Kind (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Melcous previously identified that the article has notability problems over a month ago, and despite some attempts by the initial editor to rectify this and provide sourcing, two weeks later the article is no better off. There's a lot of mere-mentions of the subject in RS, but no in-depth coverage that would satisfy GNG. The awards that the subject has received are like-lists of "Young Leaders", which would not appear to be sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. It is possible that as Undersecretary of Renewable Energy in Argentina, the subject qualifies for WP:NPOLITICIAN, but in my opinion this doesn't appear to be a high enough position to qualify for the guideline, given that the title appears to be well below the top level position in the Ministry of Energy at the national level.
While searching for sources online, I was able to find [2], which does provide in-depth coverage. On closer examination, however, I can't find anything about the publication's editorial policies, and its parent organization ( [3]) appears to be some sort of PR firm or otherwise not an RS, which means that this article does not count toward notability. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While accomplished, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability guidelines. Kudos to Rosguill on researching that one source. I thought the fellowship at the Eisenhower Foundation might qualify them, but that does not appear to be the case. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion of what Coolabhapple posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Afetsi Awoonor

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

fails WP:ANYBIO of the 12 source #1 is affiliated #2 is a blog #3 is about his father and mentions him in passing #4 is an interview about the shooting that killed his father #5 is about his father and mentions him in passing #6 is about his father and mentions him in passing #7 is a dead link that has no title #8 is about his father and mentions him in passing #9 is about his father and mentions him in passing #10 doesn't mention him #11 is a passing mention #12 is affiliated. So to summarise there is no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Had he not had a famous father and had not been wounded when his father was killed there would be 2 affiliated sources and 1 blog. This fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This is well noted. Seen the links I will improve this. Kwamevaughan ( talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network#Programming blocks. Sandstein 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Acme Hour

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

Like Toonami, this aired as a programming block on Cartoon Network, but its significance is not enough (or has not been presented as enough) to justify its own article. There are no references, the content is very short, and it could all be appropriately summarized in the CN programming article. Paper Luigi T • C 08:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 19:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is entirely a duplicate of the candidate sections in 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. It serves no purpose and is confusing to maintain. Only the section about "declined" candidates is separate content, and that was considered not notable enough to keep at the main article. Useless WP:CFORK. — JFG talk 19:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Donald Jeffrey Large

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, the subject was never an officeholder at international, national or sub-national level. There is also a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject, fails WP:GNG. I'm even unable to verify if this person's still living or not as there's not much about him in search results. Many of the sources in the article might be considered routine coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 17:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient independent sourcing, as distinct from pure interview pieces, to provide notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Asaf Romirowsky

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

I read the bio and googled his name, but could not find any reason as to why this man is worthy of a Wikipedia page. I could not find out anything about him such as his nationality or age, and his academic title appears to be PhD, which is not that impressive. :) ImTheIP ( talk) 15:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable author and speaker. He is interviewed alot, which makes finding sources on him (as opposed to quoting him) is difficult, however they do exist - [11] [12] [13] and it is seems he is also re-quoted and analyzed - e.g. [14]. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEY, keep. I did a little expand, source. Lots more still to be added. Guy has been an extremely widely quoted and cited Middle East expert for years, lots of incoming links from pages where his writing is cited. He's a notable political commentator, publishing regularly in major media like Canada's National Post: [15]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi E.M.Gregory! You certainly elongated the article, but I'm still unsure on why he needs a Wikipedia bio? On the other side of the spectrum we have Adam Horowitz (of Mondoweiss, whose Wikipedia article [16] was deleted (actually turned into a redirect). And I would say that Asaf Romirowsky is less notable than Adam Horowitz. ImTheIP ( talk) 19:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

South Bronx Classical Charter School

South Bronx Classical Charter School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. We generally don't keep articles on K-8 schools. This one in particular has no references. My own searching came up with lots of directory listings, but not much else. The best I found was an announcement in a real estate site about construction funding. Created by User:Lester Long, whose name happens to match the school's founder. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - normally an article on a lower school would be redirected to the school district, but it isn't even clear whether this school has any association with the New York Public Schools. Redirecting to the Bronx, which is larger than most major cities, would be equally futile. If anyone can propose a reasonable target, I'd be all for a redirect per WP:ATD, but I just don't see a good choice. John from Idegon ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Easy Delete: Per above NSCHOOL. One primary source (official web page) and should have at least one reliable source before redirecting anywhere.

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. ( non-admin closure) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Acephobia

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

The term acephobia is barely used in WP:Reliable sources. The term is a neologism; see WP:NEO. The article relies on sources that don't use the term, and on unreliable or poor sources that do...such as medium (website)...with Gay Star News being an exception (as a decent source using the term). Some of the content in the article was taken from the "Discrimination and legal protections" section of the Asexuality article. The Acephobia article is very small, and what is here can be easily regulated to the aforementioned section of the Asexuality article; see WP:No page. If the article is to be kept, it should be retitled "Discrimination against asexual people" or "Discrimination against asexuality," similar to Discrimination against non-binary gender people, Discrimination against intersex people, Discrimination against atheists, Discrimination based on skin color, etc. And the unreliable and other poor sources should be removed, along with the associated text unless better sources can be used in their place. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett ( talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett ( talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the nom suggests a series of editorial options, none of which require deletion. Whatever you want to call the page, the topic is valid and can be expanded. If the plan is to merge it, fine, but then this would be a redirect as a valid search term. Legacypac ( talk) 19:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Legacypac, yeah, on Adam9007's talk page, I saw that you accepted this article for creation via WP:Articles for creation. Per above, I obviously don't agree that it should have been accepted. I know that many editors are unfamiliar with WP:No page or fail to consider it, but this is very much a WP:No page case. At the very least, sourcing like medium (website) should not have been allowed to stand and the article should have been retitled per WP:Neo and WP:Precise. Deletion discussions can also involve merge votes. I'll see what others have to state. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I just added 4 good sources from [17] that use the term, going back a few years. Yes it is a new term, but is used fairly widely and in RS contrary to the nom's assertion. I am well aware of WP:NOPAGE. Again, if a merge is desired, that is an editorial decision, but claiming this title needs deletion is not correct. I'm guessing User:Adam9007 also wants to keep the page. Legacypac ( talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Legacypac, no, it is not "used fairly widely," as a simple Google search shows, whether on regular Google, Google Books or Google Scholar. You mention sources on Wiktionary.org. I only see three sources there, and there is nothing substantial in this issuu.com source about the term acephobia or in the others. Passing mentions do not make a term WP:Notable, as many deletion discussions have proven. Adam9007 already added a source where some random person states, "I now give asexual workshops, screen the film (A)sexual with a postfilm discussion, and try to have conversations with my friends and colleagues about asexual identity and acephobia." In what way do you think that this shows WP:Notability with regard to the term? Indeed, per WP:Neo and WP:Precise the article should not be titled "Acephobia" and a WP:Requested moves discussion would no doubt close with that conclusion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't find that source useful. I do find the sources I added useful. You have not advanced an arguement to delete the page, you seem to want to move it. This is AfD not a requested move discussion. Legacypac ( talk) 10:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
In what way are the sources you added useful? They are passing mentions that do not establish the notability of the term and are being used in somewhat of a WP:Synthesis way -- meaning when they are used to support material that is not stated in the sources. One was already in the article and so is redundant and is empty inflation. You are arguing that we should keep the article. I am arguing that we should not keep it, which is why I started this AfD. And, again, AfDs can involve redirect and/or merge votes, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phobia, which I also started, did. As for moving the article, I am arguing that if it is to be kept, it should not be kept under the current title. I am arguing that the term is not WP:Notable. That this article relies on the sources it relies on and exists under a non-WP:Notable term is argument enough to delete or merge it. If merged, only the content not already in the Asexuality article and the material not poorly sourced should be kept. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I think what Legacypac is saying is that although AfD discussions can result in move or merge, if it's one of those you're seeking then you should instead use WP:RM or {{ merge to}} respectively. Even if the term is not (yet) notable, I'd be very surprised if the topic also isn't. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I know what Legacypac is saying. If you are open to a merge, good. I felt that you would be against one and fight me on it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
And, no, university sources and activist sources (whether programs, their own studies, etc.) like these are not good sources to use. And it's still "in passing" use. I would retain none of these sources. Some of this material would not be retained in a merge; I would cut some of it. It's safe to state that if you have to go to a university's website and reference their graduate thesis/study (a WP:Primary source) just to find another use of the term acephobia, the term is non-WP:Notable. Rainbowcoalitionyk.org is not a WP:Reliable source. It is "an outreach organization based in Yellowknife that works to support 2SLGBTQQIPAA+ youth in the Northwest Territories." Artificial inflation of the article does not make it better. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether or not the term "acephobia" is sufficiently notable, the concept of discrimination against asexuals is. Moving the page to "Discrimination against asexual people" would probably be for the best, while keeping acephobia as a redirect. Linguistical ( talk) 03:21, 2 December 2018‎ (UTC) reply
Linguistical, remember to sign your username when commenting on the talk page. I've signed it for you. As for "the concept of discrimination against asexuals" being WP:Notable, there is little material on the matter, which is why I suggested a merge. Anthony Appleyard moved the article during this AfD without weighing in here, and that move obviously gives this article a better chance of being kept. Anyway, time for me to start cutting the article and removing the WP:Synthesis and poor sources. If the article is kept now that it's been moved to a proper title, I will likely start a merge discussion RfC on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, with the title move, and cleanup of the article by me, seen here (followup edits here and here), I've withdrawn the AfD nomination. I now feel better about the article existing and will give it time to develop before proposing a merge. Take note, though, that since study of asexuality is slow-moving, more research on discrimination against asexual people will take years. In the meantime, there will be reliable media commentary on the topic. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jayaprakash Mavinakuli

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Premature after the Notability and More Sources tags have only been applied for one day. WP:NPPDRAFT would be more appropriate." Which actually isn't correct, as the first line of that, is "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic", which this isn't. Woefully undersourced article. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage (some trivial mentions), and he has a virtually zero citation count. Has since had a press release about a very minor award, and a "Who's Who" ref added. Onel5969 TT me 11:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Doesn't meeet WP:PROF and hasn't been improved in the time given. I don't think this guy has enough mentions to be considered notable. Every tom, dick, or harry doesn't belong on WP just because they're a professor at place X.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Academic Challenger ( talk) 21:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Hannah Smith (supercentenarian)

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age and being the world's oldest (known) person for a few months. The article offers no significant detail about her life and deeds, and she is now too "young" to appear among the top 100 British supercentenarians. Nothing to preserve. Newshunter12 ( talk) 11:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was disambiguate. Consensus is clear that this article should not exist as is. Since there are in fact multiple possible targets named "Clouded Hills" that meet WP:DABMENTION, I am calling an audible and disambiguating the title. bd2412 T 03:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Clouded Hills

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

Not Notable. Only things that mention it mention it solely as something else alongside it. [ Username Needed 10:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NBOOK. It is listed at author's page, and that suffices. I oppose a redirect since the phrase "clouded hills" has had other uses, including in one of Blake's poem "Jerusalem," and as title of genre novel turned up in searches). no hits for "clouded Hills" + Moorhead on JSTOR. Search of Proquest news archive failed to show sufficient reviews or feature stories or other coverage of this boo from back in the day. I did find one review, in the New York Times, maybe 3 paragraphs, in a an article reviewing a number of new novels. I added the Times to the author's page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 02:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

ScumGang Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Probably only "known" for its association with rapper 6ix9ine but notability is not inherited. Flooded with them hundreds 10:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This page is blatantly promotional. Most sources are just links to social media pages. WillPeppers ( talk) 12:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep When looking at notability of record labels, I consider the following things, in order of importance.

1. General public awareness (chart action, sales):

6ix9ines “Gummo,” climbed to No. 5 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs last December. 1 Tekashi’s Day 69 project earned 55,000 units in first week sales. The numbers break down was 22,000 in traditional album sales, 33,000 in streaming equivalent albums and 2,000 track equivalent albums. In the first seven days, it also generated an equivalent of 50 million on-demand audio streams across platforms, which is unheard of for most independent artists. 2 Trippie Redds 3 earns top 10 on Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, as Life’s a Tripdebuts at No. 4 on the chart (dated Aug. 25). The set, which is his debut studio full-length, starts with 72,000 equivalent album units earned in the week ending Aug. 16. 4

Summary: The label got artist who is popular and notable. That is something that should be important.

2. Longevity:

The label consist of musicians who has marked their place in the music industry. 6ix9ine has worked with the label since 2016 and the same goes for Trippie Redds. They continues to show longevity with the label.

3. Influence within a particular genre or social group:

ScumGang Records have formed/influenced the hip hop subgenre, Soundcloud rap. 5 6 A Google search for “scum gang” gives around 4 990 000 results. For the social aspect the label sales merch to be visible. 6

For ScumGang Records it's hard to find independent coverag, even on ones that have been around for some years, because the labels are "business" and boring, and don't tend to attract a lot of attention. - MakesNoMistakes ( talk) 13:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Firstly, it doesn't matter if something fails to attract attention. We need proof in sources that A) ScumGang is associated with 6ix9ine in a notable manner and B) That ScumGang had any connection at all to those thousands of sales. Google search results don't mean that the subject is notable, however, I won't argue that there may be notability here, you just have to prove it with independent sources. WillPeppers ( talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 13:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jenny Y Yang

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

Non-notable academic - does not meet WP:NPROF PRehse ( talk) 10:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 13:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And move to Paradisus Judaeorum. There is reasonably strong consensus to not delete this for notability reasons. A more difficult question is whether there is consensus to move the page to Paradisus Judaeorum. As has been pointed out, AfD is not the forum for renaming discussions, and a recent RM resulted in no consensus, but this AfD is (slightly) more recent and more well-attended. Ultimately, I consider this AfD to have more depth and detail than the earlier RM, and it more clearly indicates a consensus in one way or the other. The article is therefore moved. Any review of this closure in respect of the move should, in my view, take place at WP:Move review, not WP:DRV. Sandstein 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIC and WP:GNG fail. The article also has SYNTH, OR, and NPOV issues (beginning with the title itself - a form of phrase in English not used outside of Wikipedia (googling the title in quotes leads mainly to Wikipedia clones), and use of an anti-Semitic phrase as a Wikipedia title) - however deletion is generally not cleanup.

Note that a recent RM concluded that this article is about the full phrase - "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" and not about "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is a DICTDF and GNG fail . Phrases, for Wikipedia notability, may be notable when they are discussed at length in secondary sources as a topic. This is even true for hate speech. However, this requires actual in-depth secondary analysis of the topic.

While the article contains a seemingly long list of references, they are in fact a WP:REFBOMB. Many references don't contain the phrase at all. Some references are PRIAMRY 17th-18th-19th century uses of this hate speech. Some references discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" - but not the full phrase. In others, the full phrase is briefly mentioned as an introduction to "Paradisus Judaeorum" or to the status of nobility in Poland. In fact - of the sources available online - there is but a single source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - which is a secondary source (in Polish) of a reasonable quality that discusses the phrase itself - and this in approx. 2 paragraphs - which would be stretching the definition of WP:INDEPTH.

Please see analysis of sources below (numbering - based on this version, from the time of the nomination):

ref1 - "You need to speak Polish": Antony Polonsky interviewed by Konrad Matyjaszek) - discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is not present (though it is mentioned as anti-Semitic), there is a 4.5 line footnote mentioning the 1606 text.

ref2 - Krzy?anowski, Julian Madrej glowie do?? dwie slowie: Trzy centurie przys?l?w polskich (1960) - PRIMARYish collection of sayings, does contain the phrase.

ref3 - Adalberg, Samuel. "Ksi?ga przys??w, przypowie?ci i wyra?e? przys?owiowych polskich (1889 !!!) - dictionary style collection of sayings - entirely PRIMARY. Merely contains the phrase (under phrases beginning with Polska) - no analysis.

ref4 - Haumann, Heiko (2002-01-01). A History of East European Jews - The source does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" at length, however it does not discuss the phrase - it merely mentions it in a sentence as part of the wider discussion in the source on the Golden Age in Poland (with a question mark in the title).

ref5 - kinner, Quentin; Gelderen, Martin van (2013-03-07). Freedom and the Construction of Europe - merely mentions the saying, before discussing the status of nobility in Poland. The saying is not analyzed or discussed.

ref6 - Moskalewicz, Marcin. Jewish Medicine and Healthcare in Central Eastern Europe - does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum", however the full saying isn't even mentioned.

ref7 - Janicka, El?bieta (2016-12-28). "The Embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relation - mainly discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum" as an anti-semitic trope (including by the Nazis and nationalists in the Polish second republic) and its questionable use in the Polin musuem. The full phrase itself is not even present, though Janicka does discuss its origin in an antisemitic 1606 pamphlet.

ref8 - Norman Davies (24 February 2005). God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 - does not contain the phrase. It does mention "Paradise of the Jews" and says a better label would be "Paradise of the Nobles" - in any event it is not about the phrase.

ref9 - Garbowski, Christopher (2016). "Polin: From a "Here You Shall Rest" Covenant to the Creation of a Polish Jewish History Museum. An interview with Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett" - brief mention of the origins of the phrase in the context of the museum exhibit.

ref10 - Modras, Ronald (2000). The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 - quote of phrase (+short sentence it is an exaggeration) as a lede to a discussion on the state of Jews in Poland

ref11 - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004). Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia - discussion titled "Paradisium Iudeorum" of 1.5 pages in a paper on Polish antisemitic sayings. The 1.5 pages consist mainly of primary quotations and also discuss an unrelated "poem" of "Judas and his sack". In total, there are approx. 2 paragraphs discussing our phrase.

ref12 - Starowolski, Szymon (1636). Stacye zo?nierskie: Abo W wy?i?g?niu ich z dobr ko??ielnych potrzebne przestrogi. Dla Ich M?iow P?now Zo?nierzow st?rych, y inszych m?odych, co si? n? Zo?niersk? vs?ug? sposabi?? b?d? - anti-semitic tract from 1636 (!!!) - The saying is present - but is not discussed as a topic - this is a PRIMARY attestation of use - which is not relevant for notability.

ref13 - Palmer, William (1876). The Patriarch and the Tsar ... Tr?bner and Company. p. 58. - contains a markedly different phrase (Nova Babylonia) which contains some common (though modified) clauses, adds others, omits others. Connection to this article is WP:OR - and in any event there is no discussion in the source of the "Nova Babylonia" phrase - it is merely a PRIMARY attestation of use - and is not relevant for notability.

ref14 - Archivio storico lombardo (in Italian). Societ? storica lombarda. 1907 - old book containing the phrase and nothing else.

ref15 - Monumenta hungariae historica: Ir?k (in Hungarian). Magyar Tudom?nyos Akad?mia. 1894 - another reprint of one of the original 17th century "poems" in Latin.

ref16 - Polin. Basil Blackwell for the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies. 1986. - seems to be a mere mention of an 18th century use.

ref17 - J?zef Ignacy Kraszewski (1875). Polska w czasie trzech rozbior?w 1772-1799: studia do historyi ducha i obyczaju. 1791-1799 - a reference to the phrase as "old proverb".

ref18 - D?blin, Alfred (1991). Journey to Poland. Tauris. - written in the 1920s (this is a 1991 reprint). Merely mentions this as an old saying.

ref19 - Walsh, William Shepard (1892). Handy-book of Literary Curiosities - old book, seems to be a brief mention.

ref20 - Proverbs of All Nations, Compared, Explained. W. Kent & Company. 1861 - contains a different phrase (with goldmine), attributed to a German source (no Latin or Polish). Connection to this article is WP:OR, and regardless - the source contains nothing beyond a German langauge sentence and a translation of it to English.

ref21 - "A Virtual Visit to the Museum of the History of Polish Jews". Culture.pl. - probably not a reliable source, but this discusses the "Paradisus Iudaeorum" musuem exhibit. The phrase isn't actually present, though it is discussed in the opening paragraph as the source for the two word term.

ref22 - Despard, Matthew K. (2015-01-02). "In Search of a Polish Past". Jewish Quarterly - contains a discussion of the Polish museum, not the phrase.

ref23 - Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. (2016-09). "Mixed Metaphors in Muran?w: Holocaust Memory and Architectural Meaning at the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews" - ditto.

ref24 - "Russia Gathers Her Jews. The Origins of the "Jewish Question" in Russia, 1772–1825. John Doyle Klier. Northern Illinois University Press - "Paradise for Jews" appears in a chapter heading. No indication the phrase is discussed at all.

ref25 - Hundert, Gershon David (1997-10-01). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum" - article is on the concept of "Paradisus Judaeorum". The Polish phrase is merely mentioned and then discussed in a single sentence.

ref26 - Byron L. Sherwin (24 April 1997). Sparks Amidst the Ashes: The Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry - a discussion on the history of Jews in Poland. A 3-term saying (varying from the one here - connection is somewhat WP:ORish) is mentioned as an introduction to a paragraph discussing Jewish life in Poland but not the phrase.

ref27 - "Paradisus Iudaeorum (1569–1648)". POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews - musuem exhibit on "Paradisus Iudaeorum". The full phrase is actually not present nor discussed on the linked webpage. The full phrase is present (one of many sayings presented) on the wall in the museum itself.

ref28 - Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2016-12-28). "Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object"". Studia Litteraria et Historica - paper on Polin museum. The phrase itself (which isn't even quoted) is discussed in a single sentence + in footnote8 the author devotes 4.5 lines to a previous 14th century Austrian use of "Paradisus Judaeorum" (but not the full phrase).

ref29 - Kijek, Kamil (2017). "For whom and about what? The Polin Museum, Jewish historiography, and Jews as a "Polish cause" - about the museum. Discussion of "Paradise for Jews" as a meta-narrative of the museum. Highly WP:SYNTH to include this (seems this was included to criticize Janicka by cherry-picking the author disagreeing with her that this is the sole narrative - while omitting the author's agreement that that is a narrative, a troubling use of words, and the author referring to "Janicka has compiled a much longer convincing enumeration of the elements of interwar antisemitism absent from the core exhibition"). In any event - this simply does not discuss the phrase.

Icewhiz ( talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This is awkward. I think your argument based on analysis of the references is logical and pretty strong and it directs me to suggest that the clear way forward is for this to article to be retitled Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. However, we just had a RM that found consensus against the former. But as I don't see the strong attention to the sources at that RM that you're presenting above, I'd stick with move to either of those two terms. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The RM, while related, was on the primary topic of the article. Opposers of the move argued, correctly, that the present article is on the phrase (and this would not be just a move to Paradisus Judaeorum - but a major re-organization and re-write of the article (the phrase being merely background material for the concept - some discussions of "Paradisus Judaeorum" don't even mention it) - furthermore, many opposers mentioned that the present article could exist side-by-side with a Paradisus Judaeorum article. The RM, however, did not assess notability of the phrase itself. As an WP:ATD - I believe the RM discussion (to a topic that would clearly pass notability and is missing) was a correct first step to consider prior to nominating for deletion and assessing notability. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm. Given there are so many reliable sources showing the notability of Paradisus, I'd be happy to roll up my sleeves and do the rewrite myself. We could !vote here for a delete and I'll rework it from the deleted text, I don't mind. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wow, excellent catch. You're right, I just finished reading 3 of the scholarly references which I'd searched for the fragment 'paradis' in order to get both Paradisus and paradise, and in over 150 pages none of the three actually talk about the proverb itself. All three mention Paradisus Judaeorum and/or some paraphrase of 'Jewish paradise' instead. One says the expression "Paradisus Judaeorum" was "a 17th century polemical concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" and criticizing its use in a museum exhibit's title. Another mentions the proverb's roots, doesn't quote it but rather just refers to it as the "Paradisus Judaeorum" and mentions the original source is a 1606 antisemitic pamphlet, also using this to criticizes the museum for using it. That's it. Nothing about the proverb itself. I'm kind of gobsmacked, here. valereee ( talk) 10:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. My logic is this – deletion isn't cleanup, so the state of the current article isn't an issue, only the notability of the topic. Clearly, the phrase "Paradisus Judaeorum" and its variants is notable. The question is whether this larger proverb in which the phrase is embedded is notable enough for an article? I think, clearly it is notable enough to be mentioned, at least briefly, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article; but I think the nominator is most likely right that it isn't sufficiently notable for a standalone article. So, then should this article be deleted entirely, or survive as a redirect to "Paradisus Judaeorum"? I think, if the later article mentions the proverb (I think it should), this title should survive as a redirect to it. So, if this becomes a redirect to new article "Paradisus Judaeorum", do we need to wipe the history of this article? And must that new article start from scratch? I think, keeping the history isn't harmful, and some of the content (especially references) of the existing article might be useful for the new one. Given all that, Move/Redirect rather than Delete. SJK ( talk) 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Agree with above sentiments, and will trust the literature reflects this. The few I double checked definitely lend notability to this term, which would necessitate a re-write of some sections in this article, but I feel the topic is notable, if inappropriately titled. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 12:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move I concur with SEMMENDINGER. I found the article very interesting and should meet requirements for scholarly articles on Wikipedia. Cleaning is necessary, but a simple move and cleanup should sufficiently rectify the biggest issues here. WillPeppers ( talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Golden_Liberty#Proverb which already contains details of another proverb about this political era. Having this as a separate page which focusses on the Jewish aspect rather than the other parts of society seems undue. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Why would that be considered undue? It's literally a page in regard to Judaism, so it makes sense it should solely cover just that one religion, no? SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 13:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I'll note that Golden Liberty already mentions the proverb (it currently links to the article in its current title, but prior to creation of this article - version of 27 August - is contained a discussion on this: The Commonwealth was called Noble's Paradise, sometimes—the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk (Burghers) and Hell for the Peasants.[16] And even among the nobility (szlachta), the Golden Liberty became abused and twisted by the most powerful of them (magnates).[14][17] However, this "the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk and Hell for the Peasants" was retrospectively coined in the 20th century by Jewish-German novelist Alfred Döblin, not by the people of that time, and it should be evaluated whether this really reflects the fact of the age. In fact it is also true that a number of Russian peasants fled from their far more brutal lords to settle in liberal Poland,[18] which might stand out as example of counterevidence to the "Hell for the Peasants" claim.. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my !vote to Don't delete, Undecided on move while I watch and see where Pharos is going with the argument below. Free clue: I am looking for fewer comments about what other editors did and more arguments regarding why the present title is better than the proposed title. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do you agree that this is a notable topic, and that it should include coverage of the poem/proverb as well as the two-word phrase? I can understand objection to a name that sounds offensive, although I do disagree.-- Pharos ( talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Guy Marcon: You do understand, I hope, that the current title is less incidental than the one you now support moving to? Not a single source has criticized the proverb as anything but an exaggeration (no stronger words were used), while (a single) source (Janicka) has explicitly called the term "Jewish Paradise" antisemitic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly. The WP:NOTDIC argument is a nonsensical one, we have many articles in Category:Proverbs, and there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one. It is true that there are more sources for the popular two-word phrase than for the poem/proverb, but both aspects have scholarly sources and are notable, and clearly it make sense to treat the two together. The two-word phrase is covered in greater depth in the #Paradise for the Jews section as is appropriate for its historical resonance. For what it's worth, my original title for this article was Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews, and many other variations in order and vocabulary also appear in the secondary literature in at least four languages, which is why it is not strange that "googling the title in quotes" of one particular version is not so simple. As the original creator of this article, I strongly object to the idea that I am somehow promoting an anti-Semitic idea by discussing the history of anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitic reaction to tolerant Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth policies of the 17th century.-- Pharos ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    "there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one" if you could present just two that would probably switch a lot of the !votes on this page. I don't think most of us are too fussed about DICDEF, it's GNG or rather WP:V that's the problem here. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Dweller: Please see two I link in my keep vote below. Let me know if you have questions, but check the article's talk page where I went into more depth on those two sources already (only to be ignored by this AfD's nom). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, I'm not sure how many people are worried about GNG, as the above sentiments seem to think it meets notability. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 22:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, don't move. First, a WP:RM just finished on article's talk with no consensus to move. Second, this is a bad faith nomination, as the nominator was told, multiple times, that they are in-depth, multiple, academic treatments of this very proverb - they just choose, again and again, to ignore this, up to and including this AfD. This is WP:POINT disruption and waste of community time. Anyway, the PROVERB is subject to in-depth treatment in a chapter of a book by one of most famous Polish language scholars, Julian Krzyżanowski and it has also been the subject of a dedicated article by Polish historian Stanisław Kot (both are present as refs in the article and have been pointed out at talk). As such, the proverb passes WP:GNG. If anyone feels the topic of 'Jewish Paradise' needs to be covered in a separate article, well, they can split it. But the proverb is the unifying element for the poem and the two-word construct. PS. I think some of the content from this article could be copied to POLIN Museum, as majority of discussion of the two-word construct seems to be concerned with the minor controversy over naming of one of their galleries (that never made it to mass media, just a few academic back and forth articles a few years back). On that note, please consider that the two-word construct of 'Jewish paradise' doesn't even seem to have, IMHO, independent notability outside this very controversy... Let me stress again: not a single, in-depth source have been presented about the two-word construct. Sure, it is used a lot in passing, but there's no in-depth analysis of its use, history, etc. The only in-depth treatments we have are (sadly, mostly offline and in Polish) works that focus on the longer phrase, i.e. proverb. Ideally, someone with access to a Polish library should read them and present a proper review for us, but it will be a month+ before I have the opportunity to do myself, at earliest. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    The 1937 source by Kot (a politician in the second republic and a historian) has not been seen nor analyzed by anyone involved here. The 1960 source by Krzyżanowski (which no one examined outside of snippet view, I believe) is a 609 page dictionary-style tome containing Polish sayings. Of the source actually in use in the article - the phrase is not even mentioned, or mentioned in passing by most. There is one source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - that has 2 paragraphs of content (net). In the RM you argued that the anti-Semitic "poem" (actually a few different ones), the 4-clause phrase (title here), and "Paradisus Judaeorum" are 3 distinct topics - you can't have it both ways - if the 4-clause phrase is a distinct notable topic - you should present several in-depth secondary works on it, preferably modern pieces of scholarship. At present - most of the sources in the article that contain the 4-clause phrase in the article are neither secondary nor in-depth. Some of them are actually references to 17th century anti-Semitic works which just contain the phrase (or variant) as a polemic against Jews (and in some, but not all, also anti-Noble). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Chipping back in here, I see no bad faith, only logical process. The RM was about one issue, an AfD is about others. I agree with Icewhiz that the sources currently presented do not warrant passing GNG and therefore point to delete. Much of the material present, however, is valid good content for the other title, which makes me suggest what I have. If you think this is a notable topic, we need multiple occurrences of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)r reply
    Errr, so what? We still have two in-depth sources about this proverb by top-notch academics (yes, the sources are a bit dated, but notability is not temporary, and the subject is pretty obscure). A 20+ page monograph and a 2-3 page analytical entry in a dictionary are quite sufficient for this. If someone wants to create a separate article about the two-word saying, it's not like anyone is stopping that person from copying relevant content there, if you think that topic is notable and needs to be separated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    We have? Have you examined Stanislaw Kot's piece from 1937? Is it on the phrase? The "poems"? We do not know it is in topic beyond a few brief quotes of it elsewhere. Futhermore is the 1937 publication a RS for antisemitism? I would doubt it. Kot is far from being a detached scholar - beyond being a leading member of the Polish Peasents Party - and his extremely nationalist politics, filling various government posts in the 30s and 40s (exile) - Kot himself is a topic of study in Polish antisemitism. For instance, in 1940 he is on record saying Jews are a "foreign body" in Poland and that there were too many Jews in Poland - he was "generous" in that he thought a third could remain, the rest should go elsewhere. "stanislaw+kot"+third+foreign+body&source=bl&ots=xmgDnoAQQG&sig=Fl_8DRYI1a_6UluMNRsqkEY6ow8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYvorV5vzeAhUD3KQKHaiDDUcQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="stanislaw%20kot"%20third%20foreign%20body&f=false He also promoted Judeo-communism in concert with Jews and money stereotypes - in Nov 1941 he was concerned of "international financial Israelite magnates excessive power" and the possibility of Poles being subjugated to "economic Jewish slavery". "international+financial+Israelite+magnates+excessive+power+…”"+kot&source=bl&ots=rsa9OPi5t0&sig=8ZFgZEjcrwBawQ_n6Il_gc_PiBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjByoyo6vzeAhUCsqQKHffGANoQ6AEwCnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q="international%20financial%20Israelite%20magnates%20excessive%20power%20…”"%20kot&f=false Kot is featured extensively in modern works which study Polish antisemitism - to use him as a secondary RS for Polish antisemitism? Truly novel. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Everything to you is about antisemitism. Well, face it - this proverb is not about antisemitism. As majority of sources show, it is about the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Antisemitism is only a side issue here. To the anonymous author of the 17th century poem, dislike of Jews was just as important as dislike of nobles, for example. And sny negative exaggerations became forgotten since as the proverb, detached from its xenophobic roots, is used in positive context to talk about vibrant Jewish medieval culture. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    You actually raised a 1937 source, as in indication of notability, whose author was advocating in his rather major political role (at the same time it was written) mass expulsion of the Jews in Poland (to be precise - 66% of the Jews of Poland) as they were a "foreign body". What's next? Janicka says the Nazi IDO institute in Krakow published a paper on Polish expresssions and Jews in 1942, and came to the conclusion that this saying provides a "valid insight" - are we going to try and pass that off as a secondary RS? Icewhiz ( talk) 06:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    I can't believe you are serious - everything to you is Reductio ad Hitlerum, or rather, Reductio ad Antisemitium. Kot is good enough for Janicka - she treats him as a perfectly reliable source. When he says and she repeats that the author was likely a Catholic and the proverb is not favorable to Jews, you accept him. But if someone wants to use his to support a claim you disagree with, Kot is an unreliable antisemitie. Kali's morality, eh? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Piotrus if I may -- while I would never want to reduce peoples' statements/views/etc to their backgrounds in any way, perhaps at times it also must be acknowledged. Whether it is anti-Semitic, unintentionally perpetuating anti-Semitism by making Jews sound as if they were some socioeconomic class (Jews/money, you know … :/), a case of white-washing, or totally innocent, citing an anti-Semite saying someone else is "unfavorable" to Jews for that point specifically is quite different from using what he says for almost anything else where Jews are concerned, and using sources from the 1930s/1940s is a thing that will instinctively put Jewish editors and also readers, even those who are perfectly in control of their emotions, on edge, whatever the intentions are. Perhaps it is similar for Poles regarding sources coming from Germany or Russia in those times. Personally, editing in my main area currently which is the Balkans, I prefer to avoid anything that is before 1945 and published in the area, and also anything from former Yugoslavia between 1985 and 2000, for similar though less drastic reasons. Admittedly, I'm saying this without having kept up with the exact specifics on your past spats with Icewhiz, but just one perspective, which is admittedly a Jewish one.-- Calthinus ( talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Kot's monograph as cited by several modern scholars does I think do much to establish the general notability of the topic. I don't think "unfavorable" is a quote from Kot, and that's not what Wikipedia or modern scholars have cited from him. Instead they've referred to his scholarship on the original authorship of the poem. Certainly modern scholars should be given precedence on the issue of anti-Semtitism or related topics.-- Pharos ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Calthinus: Of course if we were discussing anti-semitism, a 1930s source is too obsolete to be considered. But we are not. We are discussing an obscure literary construct, a poem or a proverb, and for that, an old but in-depth monogoraph (~20 pages) by a respected historian seems perfectly feasible. The only thing under discussion here is whether the proverb, which is in the monograph title and is discussed by it in-depth (as suggested by modern scholars like Janicka who cite it, presumably having accessed it offline) is notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Piotrus: (Straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but still) I've no doubt everyone here are acting in good faith, but this treatment of a clearly anti-Semitic phrase is reminiscent of how many white Americans treat blackface: "Insulting? I don't think it's insulting at all!" Sometimes the bigotry and prejudice are so deeply ingrained in a culture, that they becomes nearly invisible to anyone not experiencing them. Here we have a populist phrase contrasting the elites with the people, and who are the elites? The nobility and the Jews; the Jews - a marginalized, abused and historically persecuted minority - are placed on the same pedestal with the privileged landed gentry. Does this ring a bell? Perhaps it reminds you of some stereotype or conspiracy theory? This phrase wasn't born in a societal vacuum, and is no more an "innocent representation" of reality than blackface was; but for those who never experienced the other end of it it looks as normal as to be perfectly benign. François Robere ( talk) 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ François Robere: Except that for blackface we can find plenty of academic discussion of how this concept can be seen as offensive, pejorative, etc. and there is consensus in literature (and media) for that view. For this proverb, the best we have is pretty much a single source that makes such a claim in passing. All other sources treat the proverb in a neutral or positive way, as the Golden Age reference. Arguing that it is offensive is an extremely fringe OR. And if you want to talk about OR, I'd argue that this proverb, while originating from a xenophobic (and among others, antisemitic) poem, has been subject to reappropriation and obliteration by incorporation and that arguing otherwise is doing a disservice to the Jewish culture, by refocusing the public attention away from the positive (the Golden Age) to the negative (intergroup hatred). Here's food for thought.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Which has more to do with the lack of sources on this phrase, than with its supposed neutrality. However, just like "blackface" is part of a wider topic, so is this phrase - and the research on that wider topic supports this "fringe" claim very clearly. But regardless, if you want to concentrate (or have more sources on) only a part of the phrase, which may or may not be related to the xenophobic and anti-Semitic original (does any of the sources actually relate the two?), then why object to the rename? François Robere ( talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move, and hand over to User:Dweller. If their rewrite results in anything more than a stub, then deletion can be reconsidered. François Robere ( talk) 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move relevant/valuable material to Paradisus Judaeorum -- a much less and incendiary title -- and also potentially Antisemitism in Poland and History of Jews in Poland. There is certainly useful material here but I'm not sure a whole page on the concept is necessary and useful, while on the other hand there are some issues that arise with the sourcing (so far, that is -- to give Piotrus and Pharos the benefit of the doubt here, it is possible that more sources in Polish exist I suppose) and the topic itself seems a bit hard to uncontroversially define. Is it one poem that became a proverb? Is it an -- alleged -- feeling among the ethnic Polish/Catholic majority? Is it an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? There seems to be uncertainty here, which is really not great given the nature of the topic and past conflicts in the "Jewish-Polish" bilateral area on wiki -- lots of room for misunderstanding both by editors and more importantly readers. Paradisus Judaeorum -- the idea that Poland was a Jewish "paradise" and discourse about that idea through the subsequent ages -- is notable, from a Jewish as well as a Polish perspective. -- Calthinus ( talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly per User:Pharos. The subject is clearly notable as demonstrated by Piotrus. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for nominating an article for deletion.-- Darwinek ( talk) 00:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, don't move. No good reason for deleting this article. Piotrus makes valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatzref ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Welcome back from your 5 month wikibreak. @ Tatzref: - please confirm that in endorsing Piotrus's reasoning, that you consider a 1937 paper written by a politician who at the time was advocating for the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland - a secondary reliable source? Icewhiz ( talk) 07:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move or Delete I think it should be deleted per WP:TNT or moved to moved to more appropriate title.Right now its reads like one big WP:OR essay most of the sources doesn't even mention the topic of the article.Some of the sources are 400 years old and hence WP:PRIMARY.There is no modern scholarship that discuss the topic of the article. -- Shrike ( talk) 07:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Shrike: The primary historical sources added by User:Pharos are just for the samples of original poem text. The proverb itself is discussed by in-depth 20th century sources (Kot and Krzyzanowski). Two in-depth sources (academic monograph and a 2-3 pages dedicated chapter is a book discussing famous Polish proverbs) should be sufficient to prove notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Neither of which anyone here read. Krzyzanowski is a 1960 dictionary style collection of sayings. Kot wrote his paper in 1937, in modern use he is used attributed, and Kot himself is better known for his politics (one of the leaders of the Peasent Party, ambassador to Soviet Union, Propaganda minister) than for scholarship - he is a topic of study in regards to his stmts on Jews - which included advocating the mass expulsion of most of Poland's Jews. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Your attempt to discredit Kot because at some point in life he made some comments during his political career that others have criticized is simply irrelevant. What matters here is that he was a historian, and modern scholars cite him and consider him a reliable source. Notably, Tokarska-Bakir, wrinabout antisemitism in Poland, cited from Kot, calling his literature review and study of the proverb in question 'solid', and she did not deem it relevant to discuss any biases of his. Ditto for Janicka, who quotes Tokarska-Bakir's assessment of Kot. Neither of those tw modern scholars of antisemitism seem to have any problems considering Kot reliable. You are trying to me more holy that the proverbial Pope and presume you understand which sources are good or not better than experts - to me this is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Since this AfD has a possibility of overturning the prior, recent RM I am going to ping each editor who took part in that RM but has not posted here. @ Catrìona, StarryGrandma, GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Serial Number 54129, Thryduulf, and Xx236: -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move for the reasons I gave in the RM - the "Paradise for the Jews" is the only part that has apparently gained significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Even in the article as it was then, the rest of the phrase was just background context. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - (and a strong one) per my argumentation at the RM (just recently closed!), I also just added an additional reference to the main body of the article [18]. I'll continue my remark later (sorry I'm busy at the moment) GizzyCatBella ( talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move or delete. I think Icewhiz has presented a strong argument that the article has been ref bombed and the full phrase is not notable. Catrìona ( talk) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a separate article. This is a proverb with ample references for its use as a proverb in the way that the articles in Category:Proverbs are written. Those articles also note how much proverbs vary in phrasing. Much of this article is about the historical topic of Paradisus Judeorum, the Jewish Golden Age, a term which is used by both Jewish and non-Jewish historians. That material should be moved to its own article instead of being in this one. Even if the historians just used the proverb in passing, one would like to be able to find out more about it by looking in WIkipedia. However the analysis of the historians' references given above is not correct:
  • One of the references in the article (ref4 above), A History of East European Jews by the German historian de:Heiko Haumann, goes into the economic role of the Polish Jews in detail on pages 4-18 and 27-29, including their relationships with the nobles, peasants, and Christian merchants and craftsmen before citing the proverb. And he cites the proverb as an introduction to explaining exactly what happened as feudal control was extended: Jews were caught between the lords of the manor and the peasants. [1]
  • Another (ref25 above), by the Canadian Jewish historian Gershon David Hundert also uses the proverb as a introduction to a detailed discussion of the economic role of the Jews as intermediaries between the landowners and the peasants. [2]
In neither case is the proverb just a "mention in passing". These references are readable online and worth looking at.
The proverb at the time was a satirical but largely true statement, and this has been supported by historians. The proverb has been used both in praise of Jews and by those who are anti-Semitic. I am sorry that Icewhiz is uspset by the phrase, but normally we don't censor Wikipedia in this way. In some circles there is a feeling that anything about the Jews coming out of Poland must be anti-Semitic. However Hundert, in his article Paradisus Judaeorum says:
The third problem or obstacle is what might be termed the conventional wisdom of contemporary Jews, which has it that the terms Pole and anti-Semite are synonymous; indeed, as a former Prime Minister of the State of Israel so memorably phrased it, that Poles receive anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. It is this conception that I wish now to contest. Whatever its accuracy in the context of twentieth-century Poland, it is a fundamental distortion of Jewish experience in the Polish Commonwealth of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. [2]

References

  1. ^ Heiko Haumann (2002). A History of East European Jews. Central European University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN  978-963-9241-26-8.
  2. ^ a b Hundert, Gershon David (1997). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum". Journal of Jewish Studies. 48 (2): 335–348. doi: 10.18647/2003/JJS-1997. ISSN  0022-2097.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
StarryGrandma, I don't believe that the references you mention give in-depth coverage to this phrase, only passing mentions. I'd be very happy if you proved me wrong and told me that there were several that offer in-depth coverage. I'd soon switch to keep, and so would others, I'm sure. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 23:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Yet sources about "Jewish Paradise" provide at most as much or less coverage. I can't understand why you can criticize the sourcing for the longer proverb, without criticizing the even less in-depth discussion of the two-word phrase. As I noted, the proverb at least seems to have in-depth coverage in the 1937 monograph and the 1960 (reprinted in 1994) book (both cited by modern scholars). The two-word phrase has not been subject to any in-depth treatment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Dweller, in-depth varies with the topic. The proverb part of this article, which is under consideration here, consists of just a few words. Looking at Category:Proverbs, most of the articles there have two or more of the following types of references:
  1. listing in a dictionary or collection of proverbs
  2. history of the proverb
  3. brief explanation of the proverb
  4. various versions of the proverb
  5. famous peoples' use of the proverb
  6. use of the proverb as the theme in subsequent writing
The article has one or more references of each of these types. The two historians I cite above use the proverb as the theme of their article or chapter section. Rather than use the proverb to take off into a related area, they go on to explain in depth exactly what was going on at the time that led to the proverb. Please give me an example of the type of reference in use in proverb articles that you feel we are missing here. StarryGrandma ( talk) 03:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I'll just note that being included in a dictionary of proverb, with several paragraph of discussion of the proverb (and as I said, probably 2 if not 3 pages based on snippet view of ToC) seems like more than most proverb articles can expect. Then there's the usual 'rule of thumb' - if something is good enough for a specialized encyclopedia or similar work, it is probably good enough for us. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • François Robere, I think you may be confused. The two sources that I listed are not the only sources for the proverb. If you look at the article and at my list of the types of references for proverbs, you will see that the article contains one or more separate sources for the proverb of each of those types. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • François Robere, editors contributing to an AfD discussion are expected to have read and analyzed the article themselves rather than just relying on the nominator's and other editor's assessments. Many of the sources are linked online and you can check this for yourself. StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Doesn't really matter. If an article is completely on-point, well sourced and well written and still offensive, then there's no grounds for deletion. But if an article is biased in such a way as to be offensive, then there is. In either case the emotional response of the reader is secondary to the informative value of the content. That being said, there could be multiple ways to present the same content, and we should tend towards those that keep the reader engaged. François Robere ( talk) 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Promotion of antisemitic hate speech should not be tolerated - such topics should be covered in a neutral and balanced manner that clearly states that the topic is hate speech. In this particular case this particular phrase does not have INDEPTH secondary coverage. Suggestions to use the writings of an antisemitic Polish politician who advocated the mass expulsion of Jews, written in 1937, as a secondary source is a travesty. The article is full of OR, quoting hate speech at length, and lacks proper balance due to the lack of reliable secondary sources that actually treat the chosen topic in a secondary manner.-- יניב הורון (Yaniv) ( talk) 19:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Is this an authentic, documented text? Yes. Does it exist in variant versions? Yes, as do many texts. Is it of notability in the country to which it refers? Yes. Is it a commentary, a satire, a proverb, a poem, a saying? It may be one or all of these, depending on how one is inclined to view it. Some here have called it a poem. Are poems not, by their very nature, often ambiguous in their interpretation? Leave the text under its most complete title, and add any worthwhile interpretations to the body of the article. Transfer the massive POLIN discussion to the POLIN Museum article. Write, if you wish to, a separate article on "Paradise for the Jews", an expression which may or may not have been cognate with the principal saying under discussion here. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move after reading this wall of text I am concluding that many of the keep votes didn't actually read the sources closely. Many of these sources are being used for original research and synthesis to support the idea that this title is the correct title. Yes, this is a notable subject, but the sources don't talk about this title. They talk about Paradesus Judaeorum so that is where the article should be. That is the most important point, and I feel like people are taking a quick look, seeing there are multiple long scholarly sources, a wall of text at the talk page, and assuming those sources are being used according to wikipedia policy. I feel the article's primary editor is operating in good faith but has an unconscious conflict of interest that is causing him, in all good faith, to push an agenda. Check the talk page; it's a war of attrition. valereee ( talk) 12:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum and then merge usable content to History of the Jews in Poland. Neither the full saying nor the shorter phrase appear to be independently notable. On the 1960s source, it's unclear what's in it and whether it's "academic"; it cannot be used to establish notability. On Stanisław Kot, in addition to being a scholar, he was also a politician, who "joined the right wing of the People's Party". Related to the age of the source, if other sources are discussing Kot's approach to the topic, I would consider these sources to be secondary, while the source they are analysing (Kot) is primary. Resulting in much of the content about the entire saying being OR, in addition to what's cited to 19th-century sources. Lastly, the 1930s source would obviously not be authoritative on whether the saying is antisemitic or not, resulting in WP:NOPAGE situation; there's insufficient sourcing to develop an NPOV article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In full disclosure, I know the author, and he's anything but anti-Semitic. I agree with him that the article is notable, and scholarly discussion of this unpleasant historical work is not an endorsement of its meanings. I concede that it might be better labeled as satire (perhaps in the title?) or even categorized explicitly as anti-Semitic literature. Ken Eckert ( talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move what is valuable content to Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. The rest should be deleted. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum and then merge usable content to History of the Jews in Poland. Precisely as User:K.e.coffman suggests, and for very much his reasons. The sourcing alleged to support notability for this phrase is highly problematic, not least because of the extremely politically inflected nature of Stanisław Kot's writing, and, as Coffman wrote above, unreliable nature of Polish sources about Jews from the anti-Semitic 1930s. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation; not to mention the demonstrated impossibility of developing a NPOV article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Prithviraj Gulabrao Patil

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

His father ( Gulabrao Patil) seems to be a notable politician, and all sources for this article are also about his father's notability, not him. At the best this person is the party president for his town, not notable and has no proper references. I suspect COI as the grandson of Gulabrao Patil is named Ruturaj patil, who also seems to be the uploader of photos in a picasa page, linked as source, and the username who created this page is also named rutubaba. Daiyusha ( talk) 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

On further research, I suspect that the creator of the page Gulabrao Patil, is likely the actual Ruturaj patil, as his userpage pretty much matches the profile of Ruturaj: User:Patil.ruturaj, seems to be using multiple accounts similary named to edit the Gulabrao Patil page. There are edits by him trying to create(and as per policy rejected) the articles of "his" family members since the last 10 years ago. Daiyusha ( talk) 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jane Horn

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

Other than sites selling her books I can’t find any sources so I don’t think she’s notable. Mccapra ( talk) 05:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Can't find anything that would indicate that she's notable as a golfer, unless under a maiden name I haven't found. The question then is whether writing books and running a teaching establishment makes you notable. Personally I would say definitely no. Nigej ( talk) 07:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
One of her books get into this list of "The 8 Best Instructional Books for Women Golfers to Buy in 2018". https://www.tripsavvy.com/best-instructional-books-for-women-golfers-1566574 Nigej ( talk) 07:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Marlabs

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

Recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. From the prior AfD: Fails to meet notability requirements. Most third-party online coverage consists of paid articles, press releases, etc. UnstableAngina ( talk) 04:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. It's hard to even find a source that objectively describes what the company does e.g. The Deccan Herald article describes the company's activites thus: "Marlabs enables digital innovation for enterprises and technology providers by delivering seamless customer experience and business efficiency." Meanwhile The New Indian Express article says they offer "360-degree digital transformation frameworks". Fails WP:ORGCRIT.-- Pontificalibus 07:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - still fails GNG as it did before Spiderone 08:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stub - While the company itself doesn't have a lot of coverage around what it is or what it does, the two articles as referenced by Pontificalibus are consistent with what they do. I cross-referenced the article with their technology related offerings. Digital360 is apparently a four-pronged offering, which includes - Digital Infrastructure, Digital Security, Digital Experience, and Digital Operations. The article by The Deccan Herald that describes it as a company which delivers seamless customer experience and business efficiency fall under their Digital360 premise of Digital Experience and Digital Operations, as referenced once more by The New Indian Express. Other classifications for notability can be met with recent accomplishments as well, I believe. For example, The AI Authority covered NASSCOM awarding the company with the AI Game Changers award in 2018 - 50 Best AI Related Innovations of 2018. It's also on the NASCOMM website. [1] You can use the cited reference to access the report, which is free and easily accessible as well. Another example of notability might be recorded in Forrester identifying Marlabs among a handful of companies as a pioneer in Natural Language Generation for Analytics. [2] The CIO Review identified them in 2014 among the twenty best companies providing cloud solutions. This should provide a strong enough reason for this article to at least qualify as a stub article, which can be improved upon through the months. I seem to have missed adding the Forrester reference, which I will now. Might help clear out some confusion, I guess. I was warned about the article being one that had faced deletion, I think twice, before I started work on it, but this seems to be decently referenced and clean. I don't think it fails WP:ORGCRIT. Thanks. MakersBreath ( talk) 06:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasscom.in/knowledge-center/publications/top-50-ai-game-changers-compendium-best-ai-solutions-use-cases
  2. ^ https://www.forrester.com/report/The+Forrester+New+Wave+Natural+Language+Generation+For+Analytics+Q4+2018/-/E-RES142736#
  • Delete - A search found references that were brief mentions, press releases, unreliable, or general announcements. Nothing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. A stub article has nothing to do with notability. The company is either notable or it is not. In this case, I believe it is not based on not receiving the type of in-depth coverage required. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stub - Alright. I'm currently working on the article as well. Based on everything you've said, and with a ton of help from Wiki Chat, I've stripped the article of anything that might even remotely be sourced from Marlabs itself. Press Releases, own company citations, all of that. Still a little new at this, so I'm sorry for not being more thorough. Anyway, please take a look and let me know how it looks now. There are still a couple of links that allude to Marlabs in a list as a "name drop", but I've kept those considering they are announcements on the native website. If "Best Places to Work - NJ" releases a list citing that a company won their own award, I'd call that a valid reference. Same with the others, I've only cited lists that are more an announcement than anything else. This adds to the credibility of the source as well; from the horse's mouth, right? I still think it's notable enough to be included into Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, yes, and it should give information about breakthroughs as well. As an engineer with a minor in artificial intelligence, I do think that winning the NASSCOM award puts them in that stratosphere. The link to NASSCOM's report is on it as well, and it's a free report in which they've identified the 50 best companies in the AI sphere. The controversy is also supported by court documents, which I believe is important. It's the truth, again from the horse's mouth. I know I'm new and I may not understand a lot of the finer details around Wikipedia, but wouldn't it be better for all of us to actually work to improve the article than rush it into deletion? There is a decent amount of third-party coverage, still. Isn't that why there are tags that read, "Article requires improvement" or "Article requires valid references". Why the need to rush it into deletion after its barely gasped for its first breath? Thanks. MakersBreath ( talk) 05:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't consider that any of the awards listed can establish notability.
- www.bestplacestoworknj.com requires companies to apply, pay a fee and submit a survey. Maybe even all companies paying recieved this award. Certainly only a small fraction of comapnies in NJ applied, so the award is meaningless.
- Ranking 266 of 500 "solution providers" in North America by revenue does not establish notability either
- CIO review - This is a PR publication where companies pay to be featured in lists. See: here for example.
- NASSCOM is an Indian trade association, the AI Game Changer awards involved tech companies submitting case studies for consideration. There is no indication that being among the 50 companies selected confers any degree of notability.
These all fall under "examples of trivial coverage" listed under WP:ORGDEPTH, and we have nothing that would comapre with the "examples of substantial coverage" listed thereafter.- Pontificalibus 09:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Infostretch

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

WP:NCORP - Non-notable company – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 04:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Curt Weiss

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

Potentially not notable, failing WP:BIO. No single secondary source established bona fides. Seems to be a mix of name drops, Non RS and sources from own book. scope_creep ( talk) 22:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete this is one of those tricky bios where the subject almost meets multiple different subject-specific guidelines but ultimately don't actually satisfy any of them. Ultimately the lack of coverage in secondary sources seals the deal here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Subject received over 30 independent book reviews and has a long history of reviews as a musician throughout the 1980s. TV appearances for both book and music. Also, independent articles for TV work and 8 awards for company he helps manage. That all sounds pretty notable to me, especially when I look at some of the other articles on Wikipedia of musicians with much sparser background)(Smutty Smiff, Tessa Pollitt, Shirley O'Loughlin.) Signed Barkmingo 08:50 November 28, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkmingo ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Edith Corse Evans

AfDs for this article:
Edith Corse Evans (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG; no significant coverage beyond being a Titanic passenger. – dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Marjorie Newell Robb

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

Non-notable Titanic passenger, insufficient RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Half Alive (band)

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Weak keep. I think these sources qualify this artist for WP:NMUSIC. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (plus the AP) Awsomaw ( talk) 17:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Awsomaw, these are blogs (1, 2, 3) and primary sources (4, 5). Flooded with them hundreds 17:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Flooded with them hundreds: I know blogs usually aren't accepted because they're non-reliable, but onestowatch is owned by Livenation and frtyfve is owned by Instrumental. I read through rules about blogs, and in both of these blogs, the writers are professionals and there is editorial control, so they are reliable, no? Also, can you explain how #4 is primary? Thanks. Awsomaw ( talk) 18:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    FranceRocks is an artist management company and is likely associated with the band. I don't know if these blogs are reliable or not but they look like fan blogs according to their descriptions - Onestowatch (collective of bloggers, music geeks, & concert fanatics based in sunny L.A.), Spinorbinmusic ("As a music junkie, I decided to change that. And to create a blog so that people can find a site..."), Frtyfve ("an independent music blog and your destination for new music"). As publications are not inherently reliable, their parent companies have little relevance to their essence in establishing notability for a topic on Wikipedia. Flooded with them hundreds 19:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Fair. The NPR article (although not a full article) and the AP article makes up 2 sources. Here's another source that passes this band for WP:MUSIC #4. This is not a lot, but this band really does deserve a wiki article (personal opinion). Awsomaw ( talk) 22:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Doesn't appear to meet the basic level of notability for a band yet. Has not been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Has not charted, must less had a certified gold record; has not released "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels"; has not won a music award, or placed in a music competition. The band only performed their first live show in October 2018. In short, too soon. -- Leflyman Talk 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. - per Awsomaw's reasoning. Aleccat 02:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Still Delete (or, alternatively, Draftify)- This band may have received some online coverage, but all the sources listed above by the article's creator are actually actually promotional blog entries, contrary to the Notability guidelines for Bands ("[E]xcept...Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings.") The two "Rock Sounds" entries even start exactly the same way, "Have you heard of half•alive yet? Well allow us to introduce you." The band's sole album, a debut "EP" came out last year with 3 songs, of under ten minutes. That's not an EP; that's a demo. EPs are a minimum of four tracks, up to 25 minutes. They are a new band; and haven't even released a proper album, on any indie label, much less a major record company. The individual members aren't notable in and of themselves. There are countless indie bands with similar credentials who haven't met the requirements to be covered on WP yet. Until "half•alive" meets that threshold, this article is promotional, not descriptive.-- Leflyman Talk 23:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Still Keep, but I really get the reasons to delete, so alternatively I would be fine with Draftify, so I could improve the article if necessary and if they receive further coverage (or chart), see if it then merits and article. MikeOwen discuss 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Comparison of Cantonese and Standard Chinese

Comparison of Cantonese and Standard Chinese (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have an article called Varieties of Chinese. I see more hope for expansion on that one than creating a useless one, focusing specifically on "Cantonese" (pretty sure it's referring to HK Cantonese) and Standard Vernacular Chinese. SSS ( talk) 01:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

However, I think some links on that page should be saved and transferred onto the Varieties of Chinese page. SSS ( talk) 02:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are no plausible counterarguments that this passes MUSICBIO #5. As there is enough verifiable material to create a sufficiently contextual article, it is not shown how deleting this article about a likely notable subject would improve the encyclopedia. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Noah K

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly does not meet any of items 2-12. I examined all the references in the article, and did my own searching, to see if he meets item 1 (subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works...).

What I found was short reviews of album releases, routine biographical blurbs from places selling his recordings, and self-published or self-authored material. Many of these are in WP:RS, but do not meet the non-trivial and/or independent requirements.

My searching included, in addition to Google, New York City newspapers which might cover local talent. I searched NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Village Voice, and DNA Info. All I could find is another Noah Kaplan who is a real estate agent.

The primary author of this article is a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI, and possibly WP:UPE. Article was originally in draft space, then moved to mainspace by the author, bypassing the review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Roy Smith:. First of all, he passes WP:MUSICBIO #10 since he composed and performed music in Once and Again. That line was recently removed from the article because it cited IMDb, but should be returned with the episode of the show itself ("Chance of a Lifetime") as the source, since K appeared as himself in the show performing his music on saxophone. In addition, K passes WP:MUSICBIO #5. The Noah Kaplan Quartet has two albums on HatHut Records, one of the most important jazz labels in the history of jazz and classical music (take a look at its roster). It is distributed in the US by Naxos of America, which is major distribution. Further, WP:MUSICBIO #1 is met through reviews in Downbeat, the preeminent magazine in Jazz. Multiple in depth reviews of K's work in All About Jazz (another major Jazz outlet) are full of biographical details. Not to mention the WNYC feature on Soundcheck, his music on NPR's All Things Considered, interviews with major music promoters (Annie O) and articles in New Music Box. The book he edited (Manual of Quarter-Tone Harmony- WorldCat source is cited) is in many leading university libraries across the country and in Europe and New Zealand. AllMusic is another source used in almost all music biographical articles to substantiate album info etc. Please stop accusing me of WP:UPE I've told you multiple times that I was not paid in any way to write this article. The article is neutral, non-promotional and well sourced by independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Please remove the deletion tag. Artaria195 ( talk) 15:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO, this is non-notable Skirts89 ( talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Skirts89: Aren’t you supposed to provide support and evidence for your assertion in this forum? How exactly does he not meet WP: MUSICBIO #5, #1 and #10? Artaria195 ( talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. I was asked to wade in by the article's creator. My main area of editing is jazz. Noah K has had two albums released by Hathut Records. As the Hathut article states, that label has existed for decades and has released albums by lots of well-known jazz musicians. Noah K therefore meets criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." This is sufficient in itself for the article to be kept. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Update: I've added some more sourced material. He's not exactly a major figure, but there's plenty of material about him out there. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. I don't know anything about Noah K. But I looked at the article and I asked the question we are all supposed to ask about articles proposed for deletion. Not: Do I like him, is he any good, is he important, or will his name go down in history. But: Are there enough sources to support an article of substance? The answer is yes. Not potential sources in the future, mind you, not something buried that someone someday might find, but sources that exist in the article here and now. The answer is yes. If you want examples of jazz articles that have much less content and few or no sources, see the Jazz Cleanup Listing here. Over five thousand articles need work and some of them aren't even jazz. The backlog goes back eleven years.
Vmavanti ( talk) 19:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. I've gone through the same review of the sources and he does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I considered rejecting the article in draftspace but considering I was a participant in a related AfD I sent it through to the 'keeper, only for the article creator to bypass AfC completely. There's also clearly canvassing happening here. SportingFlyer talk 23:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
What? He has 2 albums released by an important independent label, thereby meeting #5. Do you dispute this? If so, please explain in what way(s). If not, then please change your "delete". EddieHugh ( talk) 23:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Can you explain why that label meets #5? I did some research and they appear to be a very niche label, without much discussion in independent secondary sources, in spite of what looks like a long list of releases. SportingFlyer talk 00:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure. #5 requires a label to have "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This one was formed in 1974 and its roster can be seen at Hathut Records. Its roster includes many of the key people of free jazz, such as Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang and Anthony Braxton. I appreciate that this is not exactly mainstream, chart-topping stuff, but these musicians are pivotal in this particular field. Anyway, don't just take my word about the label being important, you can read the Grove entry here (or at least, if a non-subscriber, enough to get the point, given that this is a key reference work for music). EddieHugh ( talk) 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Looking through its discography, it still doesn't appear to me to be a label which would automatically grant someone notability, especially in their more recent releases. SportingFlyer talk 02:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
"a label which would automatically grant someone notability" is not a criterion, either for a musician's notability or a record label's. In fact, it's directly contradicted by the actual criterion (#5), which requires at lease 2 releases, making 'automatic notability' impossible. I've quoted the actual criterion (#5, the one that we are obliged to follow) above twice; Hathut meets it, so Noah K does too. (As an aside, go to the list of recent releases... the 4 most recent are all by people/ensembles that have Wikipedia articles.) EddieHugh ( talk) 14:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Going back to the actual criterion: "many of whom are independently notable". How many is "many"? Here's a list from the first four tables at Wikipedia's Hathut page (covering a lot less than half of their listed discography): Joe McPhee, Steve Lacy, Baikida Carroll, Phillip Wilson, David Murray, David S. Ware, Irène Schweizer, Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang, Dave Burrell, Max Roach, Anthony Braxton, Jerome Cooper, Léon Francioli, Radu Malfatti, Archie Shepp, Burton Greene, Alan Silva, Sun Ra, Irene Aebi, Steve Potts, Sunny Murray, Pierre Favre, Michel Portal, Mal Waldron, Karen Borca, Brion Gysin, Lauren Newton, Denis Charles, Donald Knaack, Vienna Art Orchestra, Tony Coe, Tony Oxley, Mike Westbrook, Rova Saxophone Quartet, Werner Lüdi, Pauline Oliveros, Fritz Hauser, Vyacheslav Ganelin, Marianne Schroeder, John Zorn, Franz Koglmann. Is that enough for "many"? If anyone would like a complete list from the same page, please let me know, but 43 is enough for me. EddieHugh ( talk) 15:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: As the article's original creator I've been staying out of the conversation for a while to see what the consensus is. But, since it has been relisted, I'm curious if you are willing to change your delete vote given that K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5. If not, can you and other editors who've voted delete please explain your reasoning in light of the thorough explanation provided for how HatHut and K meet #5 as well as the updated sources in the article including the Irish Times? I appreciate your thoughtful and good faith consideration, Artaria195 ( talk) 14:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 14:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I say this respectfully and in good faith, but having watched this process play out through your constant canvassing/trying to draw users back into discussion on the two articles you actually care about/refusal to accept other users disagree with you on the notability of your WP:SPA topics, I'm convinced you're WP:NOTHERE, and I don't care to comment on the articles you're pushing any further. Please leave me alone going forward, and good luck. SportingFlyer talk 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I waited until after the article was relisted, and when no one posted any further opinions, I asked the nominator and editors who had simply voted "delete per nom" to reconsider in light of the thorough discussion of WP:MUSICBIO #5, the revisions and the source additions. According to WP:PERNOM, "delete per nom" is an "argument to avoid in deletion discussion" as " AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes." More generally, this discussion should be about the article, not an attack on me personally. I find it frustrating that there has been a serious and good faith effort to address RoySmith's initial objections through a discussion of how K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5, the addition of sources to the article and substantial revisions. I'm a little confused as to why amongst the deletion votes there is a refusal to reconsider or explain the objections when I and others have acted in good faith to address them. The notability of K is no longer an issue here. Artaria195 ( talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician may be notable if at least one of the criteria are met. Put another way: even assuming that one of the criteria on the list is met, notability is not automatically granted to the subject. Wikipedia's general notability guideline provides that a topic is presumed notable if the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article do not meet this threshold. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Aoi: according to general notability guideline "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Are you saying that the sources don't contain this? If so, please read the DownBeat articles, NYC Jazz Record articles and All About Jazz articles as a starting place. None of these are "trivial mentions" and these are three of the most influential jazz publications, with DownBeat being the most influential in the field (akin to Rolling Stone for rock, you can read about that here). Further, K had a cover story length feature article in a Greek Jazz Magazine that is cited. There are plenty more sources still. Is that not enough to meet guideline #1? In addition, he clearly meets #5 beyond any further discussion and meets #10. The fact that he clearly meets #5 puts the onus on those voting to "delete" to really prove how he can meet the guideline, yet still not be notable. That means doing the research necessary to evaluate the quality of the sources if jazz and other niche music isn't an area of expertise. Two expert editors from WikiProject Jazz, who have edited many articles on jazz musicians and deleted many too, have both voted to keep the article based on their evaluations. Artaria195 ( talk) 03:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: I've done some more research and found articles in All About Jazz Italy, Italy's main jazz magazine, about K as well. I've added a citation for the most recent one to the article. The multiple articles in All About Jazz Italy plus the Jazz and Tzaz article show significant coverage in reliable international publications. Earlier this year he was also featured in All About Jazz Italy's column "What I'm listening to Now" here which though not a fully independent source itself, is further proof that he is considered notable by All About Jazz Italy. Additionally, according to K's website, he has been written about in The Wire, Dusted Magazine and a several online blogs and magazines. These are more independent reliable sources that can be included if one is inclined. All this to say that there are more than enough sources available that easily meet the general notability guideline to prevent this article from being deleted. Artaria195 ( talk) 20:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_29&oldid=1142615347"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 November 30 November >

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 speedy keep. No reason given by Nominator, AfD#1 is still ongoing and not closed yet. Consensus below is to speedy Keep. Please share your opinions at ongoing AfD#1 (non-admin closure) DBig Xrayᗙ 05:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Tarini Choudhury Govt. Girls H.S. & M.P. School

AfDs for this article:
Tarini Choudhury Govt. Girls H.S. & M.P. School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vrisle ( talk) 22:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close as the first nomination has not been closed yet. Ajf773 ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT#2, without prejudicing the results of the already-running AfD. The nominator has tried tagging the article for speedy deletion multiple times with multiple (inappropriate) rationales, without success, and is now trying multiple AfD nominations. Whatever its cause, this disruptive behavior wastes community time and attention. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Here is the problem with the deletion process. An article could be kept 100 times through AfD, and then be deleted on the 101st nomination. What is the true result there? The complementary situation with multiple deletions or even one deletion will rarely be overturned by a single "keep", as it is a far more difficult process – admins tend to frown on an article being recreated quickly after a deletion. The system is faulty because it promotes multiple nominations of the same article by those who prefer deletion. This one just happens to be a little early. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Normally, for something which was previously a redirect, I would go back to that, but the one person who commented on the redirect thought it wasn't needed. If somebody wants to redirect on their own, they can do that. There was a suggestion to salt, but no discussion on that, so I'm not going to salt. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Decimal sequences for cryptography

Decimal sequences for cryptography (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources to establish notability. Although "decimal sequences" are used in at least two published computer science papers, this does not suffice to meet the general notability guidelines. BenKuykendall ( talk) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: no usable content and no particular hope of this title supporting an article. It seems like the only reason this exists is as a ridiculous plug of a the crankish looking Subhash Kak. The article was formerly a redirect to the Kak article, but an IP editor un-redirected it and two similarly dubious other articles back in 2007, and I see no reason to think the redirect is worth having, either. -- JBL ( talk) 02:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: it is based on a single fringe journal article and is nonsense. Tangentially, I'd like to echo JBL's point that the author of said journal article is a crank, which is not at all hinted at on his Wikipedia page. -- Arvindn ( talk)
Why is it nonsense? I ask because this is clearly a very poort article, hinting at an interesting topic. I don't know enough about it (and certainly didn't learn enough!) to know whether it's "nonsense" or not. Is there some clear reason to demonstrate that it clearly ought to be discarded as such? Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The first two paragraphs (through the example) give definitions of mathematical objects that are meaningful, described properly elsewhere, and have nothing to do with cryptography. The connection with cryptography comes only from the last two sentences, and they are merely an advertisement for a paper by a crank. They have no actual content, and there is no hope of replacing them with something that does have content (because, for example, the sequences described above absolutely could not serve as pseudorandom sequences). -- JBL ( talk) 16:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SK1: nominator has withdrawn deletion rationale and no one else recommends deletion czar 03:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Jiangda, Nagqu

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

The article has no sources and only consist of one sentence. The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability as there is not a lot (if any) coverage of the village and I can't seem to find any information about the village beside what's in the article, all the article says is it's a village in Tibet.– BrandonXLF (t@lk) 03:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep the article has been expanded and now has sources, the article is notable and seems good enough to keep. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 21:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment villages are notable per per WP:GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Before making up my mind, however, I would like to know the exact location of this village. Our coordinates point at an uninhabited ridge. There is a hamlet south of the marker but that may or may not be Jamda. gidonb ( talk) 14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Jiangda seems to be the modern name, and has "xiang" on the end indicating that it is a town/township-level place, so probably notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sebastian Kind

Sebastian Kind (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Melcous previously identified that the article has notability problems over a month ago, and despite some attempts by the initial editor to rectify this and provide sourcing, two weeks later the article is no better off. There's a lot of mere-mentions of the subject in RS, but no in-depth coverage that would satisfy GNG. The awards that the subject has received are like-lists of "Young Leaders", which would not appear to be sufficiently notable to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. It is possible that as Undersecretary of Renewable Energy in Argentina, the subject qualifies for WP:NPOLITICIAN, but in my opinion this doesn't appear to be a high enough position to qualify for the guideline, given that the title appears to be well below the top level position in the Ministry of Energy at the national level.
While searching for sources online, I was able to find [2], which does provide in-depth coverage. On closer examination, however, I can't find anything about the publication's editorial policies, and its parent organization ( [3]) appears to be some sort of PR firm or otherwise not an RS, which means that this article does not count toward notability. signed, Rosguill talk 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While accomplished, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass notability guidelines. Kudos to Rosguill on researching that one source. I thought the fellowship at the Eisenhower Foundation might qualify them, but that does not appear to be the case. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs discussion of what Coolabhapple posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Afetsi Awoonor

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

fails WP:ANYBIO of the 12 source #1 is affiliated #2 is a blog #3 is about his father and mentions him in passing #4 is an interview about the shooting that killed his father #5 is about his father and mentions him in passing #6 is about his father and mentions him in passing #7 is a dead link that has no title #8 is about his father and mentions him in passing #9 is about his father and mentions him in passing #10 doesn't mention him #11 is a passing mention #12 is affiliated. So to summarise there is no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Had he not had a famous father and had not been wounded when his father was killed there would be 2 affiliated sources and 1 blog. This fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This is well noted. Seen the links I will improve this. Kwamevaughan ( talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 19:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network#Programming blocks. Sandstein 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Acme Hour

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

Like Toonami, this aired as a programming block on Cartoon Network, but its significance is not enough (or has not been presented as enough) to justify its own article. There are no references, the content is very short, and it could all be appropriately summarized in the CN programming article. Paper Luigi T • C 08:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 08:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 19:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is entirely a duplicate of the candidate sections in 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. It serves no purpose and is confusing to maintain. Only the section about "declined" candidates is separate content, and that was considered not notable enough to keep at the main article. Useless WP:CFORK. — JFG talk 19:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Donald Jeffrey Large

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, the subject was never an officeholder at international, national or sub-national level. There is also a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject, fails WP:GNG. I'm even unable to verify if this person's still living or not as there's not much about him in search results. Many of the sources in the article might be considered routine coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 17:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient independent sourcing, as distinct from pure interview pieces, to provide notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Asaf Romirowsky

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

I read the bio and googled his name, but could not find any reason as to why this man is worthy of a Wikipedia page. I could not find out anything about him such as his nationality or age, and his academic title appears to be PhD, which is not that impressive. :) ImTheIP ( talk) 15:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable author and speaker. He is interviewed alot, which makes finding sources on him (as opposed to quoting him) is difficult, however they do exist - [11] [12] [13] and it is seems he is also re-quoted and analyzed - e.g. [14]. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:HEY, keep. I did a little expand, source. Lots more still to be added. Guy has been an extremely widely quoted and cited Middle East expert for years, lots of incoming links from pages where his writing is cited. He's a notable political commentator, publishing regularly in major media like Canada's National Post: [15]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi E.M.Gregory! You certainly elongated the article, but I'm still unsure on why he needs a Wikipedia bio? On the other side of the spectrum we have Adam Horowitz (of Mondoweiss, whose Wikipedia article [16] was deleted (actually turned into a redirect). And I would say that Asaf Romirowsky is less notable than Adam Horowitz. ImTheIP ( talk) 19:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

South Bronx Classical Charter School

South Bronx Classical Charter School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. We generally don't keep articles on K-8 schools. This one in particular has no references. My own searching came up with lots of directory listings, but not much else. The best I found was an announcement in a real estate site about construction funding. Created by User:Lester Long, whose name happens to match the school's founder. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 17:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - normally an article on a lower school would be redirected to the school district, but it isn't even clear whether this school has any association with the New York Public Schools. Redirecting to the Bronx, which is larger than most major cities, would be equally futile. If anyone can propose a reasonable target, I'd be all for a redirect per WP:ATD, but I just don't see a good choice. John from Idegon ( talk) 10:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Easy Delete: Per above NSCHOOL. One primary source (official web page) and should have at least one reliable source before redirecting anywhere.

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. ( non-admin closure) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Acephobia

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

The term acephobia is barely used in WP:Reliable sources. The term is a neologism; see WP:NEO. The article relies on sources that don't use the term, and on unreliable or poor sources that do...such as medium (website)...with Gay Star News being an exception (as a decent source using the term). Some of the content in the article was taken from the "Discrimination and legal protections" section of the Asexuality article. The Acephobia article is very small, and what is here can be easily regulated to the aforementioned section of the Asexuality article; see WP:No page. If the article is to be kept, it should be retitled "Discrimination against asexual people" or "Discrimination against asexuality," similar to Discrimination against non-binary gender people, Discrimination against intersex people, Discrimination against atheists, Discrimination based on skin color, etc. And the unreliable and other poor sources should be removed, along with the associated text unless better sources can be used in their place. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett ( talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett ( talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the nom suggests a series of editorial options, none of which require deletion. Whatever you want to call the page, the topic is valid and can be expanded. If the plan is to merge it, fine, but then this would be a redirect as a valid search term. Legacypac ( talk) 19:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Legacypac, yeah, on Adam9007's talk page, I saw that you accepted this article for creation via WP:Articles for creation. Per above, I obviously don't agree that it should have been accepted. I know that many editors are unfamiliar with WP:No page or fail to consider it, but this is very much a WP:No page case. At the very least, sourcing like medium (website) should not have been allowed to stand and the article should have been retitled per WP:Neo and WP:Precise. Deletion discussions can also involve merge votes. I'll see what others have to state. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I just added 4 good sources from [17] that use the term, going back a few years. Yes it is a new term, but is used fairly widely and in RS contrary to the nom's assertion. I am well aware of WP:NOPAGE. Again, if a merge is desired, that is an editorial decision, but claiming this title needs deletion is not correct. I'm guessing User:Adam9007 also wants to keep the page. Legacypac ( talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Legacypac, no, it is not "used fairly widely," as a simple Google search shows, whether on regular Google, Google Books or Google Scholar. You mention sources on Wiktionary.org. I only see three sources there, and there is nothing substantial in this issuu.com source about the term acephobia or in the others. Passing mentions do not make a term WP:Notable, as many deletion discussions have proven. Adam9007 already added a source where some random person states, "I now give asexual workshops, screen the film (A)sexual with a postfilm discussion, and try to have conversations with my friends and colleagues about asexual identity and acephobia." In what way do you think that this shows WP:Notability with regard to the term? Indeed, per WP:Neo and WP:Precise the article should not be titled "Acephobia" and a WP:Requested moves discussion would no doubt close with that conclusion. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't find that source useful. I do find the sources I added useful. You have not advanced an arguement to delete the page, you seem to want to move it. This is AfD not a requested move discussion. Legacypac ( talk) 10:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
In what way are the sources you added useful? They are passing mentions that do not establish the notability of the term and are being used in somewhat of a WP:Synthesis way -- meaning when they are used to support material that is not stated in the sources. One was already in the article and so is redundant and is empty inflation. You are arguing that we should keep the article. I am arguing that we should not keep it, which is why I started this AfD. And, again, AfDs can involve redirect and/or merge votes, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet phobia, which I also started, did. As for moving the article, I am arguing that if it is to be kept, it should not be kept under the current title. I am arguing that the term is not WP:Notable. That this article relies on the sources it relies on and exists under a non-WP:Notable term is argument enough to delete or merge it. If merged, only the content not already in the Asexuality article and the material not poorly sourced should be kept. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I think what Legacypac is saying is that although AfD discussions can result in move or merge, if it's one of those you're seeking then you should instead use WP:RM or {{ merge to}} respectively. Even if the term is not (yet) notable, I'd be very surprised if the topic also isn't. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I know what Legacypac is saying. If you are open to a merge, good. I felt that you would be against one and fight me on it. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
And, no, university sources and activist sources (whether programs, their own studies, etc.) like these are not good sources to use. And it's still "in passing" use. I would retain none of these sources. Some of this material would not be retained in a merge; I would cut some of it. It's safe to state that if you have to go to a university's website and reference their graduate thesis/study (a WP:Primary source) just to find another use of the term acephobia, the term is non-WP:Notable. Rainbowcoalitionyk.org is not a WP:Reliable source. It is "an outreach organization based in Yellowknife that works to support 2SLGBTQQIPAA+ youth in the Northwest Territories." Artificial inflation of the article does not make it better. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether or not the term "acephobia" is sufficiently notable, the concept of discrimination against asexuals is. Moving the page to "Discrimination against asexual people" would probably be for the best, while keeping acephobia as a redirect. Linguistical ( talk) 03:21, 2 December 2018‎ (UTC) reply
Linguistical, remember to sign your username when commenting on the talk page. I've signed it for you. As for "the concept of discrimination against asexuals" being WP:Notable, there is little material on the matter, which is why I suggested a merge. Anthony Appleyard moved the article during this AfD without weighing in here, and that move obviously gives this article a better chance of being kept. Anyway, time for me to start cutting the article and removing the WP:Synthesis and poor sources. If the article is kept now that it's been moved to a proper title, I will likely start a merge discussion RfC on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Okay, with the title move, and cleanup of the article by me, seen here (followup edits here and here), I've withdrawn the AfD nomination. I now feel better about the article existing and will give it time to develop before proposing a merge. Take note, though, that since study of asexuality is slow-moving, more research on discrimination against asexual people will take years. In the meantime, there will be reliable media commentary on the topic. WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jayaprakash Mavinakuli

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "Premature after the Notability and More Sources tags have only been applied for one day. WP:NPPDRAFT would be more appropriate." Which actually isn't correct, as the first line of that, is "A newly-created article may be about a generally acceptable topic", which this isn't. Woefully undersourced article. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage (some trivial mentions), and he has a virtually zero citation count. Has since had a press release about a very minor award, and a "Who's Who" ref added. Onel5969 TT me 11:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Doesn't meeet WP:PROF and hasn't been improved in the time given. I don't think this guy has enough mentions to be considered notable. Every tom, dick, or harry doesn't belong on WP just because they're a professor at place X.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Academic Challenger ( talk) 21:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Hannah Smith (supercentenarian)

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

This person's only claim to notability was reaching an advanced age and being the world's oldest (known) person for a few months. The article offers no significant detail about her life and deeds, and she is now too "young" to appear among the top 100 British supercentenarians. Nothing to preserve. Newshunter12 ( talk) 11:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was disambiguate. Consensus is clear that this article should not exist as is. Since there are in fact multiple possible targets named "Clouded Hills" that meet WP:DABMENTION, I am calling an audible and disambiguating the title. bd2412 T 03:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Clouded Hills

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

Not Notable. Only things that mention it mention it solely as something else alongside it. [ Username Needed 10:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NBOOK. It is listed at author's page, and that suffices. I oppose a redirect since the phrase "clouded hills" has had other uses, including in one of Blake's poem "Jerusalem," and as title of genre novel turned up in searches). no hits for "clouded Hills" + Moorhead on JSTOR. Search of Proquest news archive failed to show sufficient reviews or feature stories or other coverage of this boo from back in the day. I did find one review, in the New York Times, maybe 3 paragraphs, in a an article reviewing a number of new novels. I added the Times to the author's page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 02:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

ScumGang Records

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Probably only "known" for its association with rapper 6ix9ine but notability is not inherited. Flooded with them hundreds 10:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Flooded with them hundreds 11:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This page is blatantly promotional. Most sources are just links to social media pages. WillPeppers ( talk) 12:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep When looking at notability of record labels, I consider the following things, in order of importance.

1. General public awareness (chart action, sales):

6ix9ines “Gummo,” climbed to No. 5 on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs last December. 1 Tekashi’s Day 69 project earned 55,000 units in first week sales. The numbers break down was 22,000 in traditional album sales, 33,000 in streaming equivalent albums and 2,000 track equivalent albums. In the first seven days, it also generated an equivalent of 50 million on-demand audio streams across platforms, which is unheard of for most independent artists. 2 Trippie Redds 3 earns top 10 on Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, as Life’s a Tripdebuts at No. 4 on the chart (dated Aug. 25). The set, which is his debut studio full-length, starts with 72,000 equivalent album units earned in the week ending Aug. 16. 4

Summary: The label got artist who is popular and notable. That is something that should be important.

2. Longevity:

The label consist of musicians who has marked their place in the music industry. 6ix9ine has worked with the label since 2016 and the same goes for Trippie Redds. They continues to show longevity with the label.

3. Influence within a particular genre or social group:

ScumGang Records have formed/influenced the hip hop subgenre, Soundcloud rap. 5 6 A Google search for “scum gang” gives around 4 990 000 results. For the social aspect the label sales merch to be visible. 6

For ScumGang Records it's hard to find independent coverag, even on ones that have been around for some years, because the labels are "business" and boring, and don't tend to attract a lot of attention. - MakesNoMistakes ( talk) 13:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Firstly, it doesn't matter if something fails to attract attention. We need proof in sources that A) ScumGang is associated with 6ix9ine in a notable manner and B) That ScumGang had any connection at all to those thousands of sales. Google search results don't mean that the subject is notable, however, I won't argue that there may be notability here, you just have to prove it with independent sources. WillPeppers ( talk) 04:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 13:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jenny Y Yang

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

Non-notable academic - does not meet WP:NPROF PRehse ( talk) 10:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 13:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And move to Paradisus Judaeorum. There is reasonably strong consensus to not delete this for notability reasons. A more difficult question is whether there is consensus to move the page to Paradisus Judaeorum. As has been pointed out, AfD is not the forum for renaming discussions, and a recent RM resulted in no consensus, but this AfD is (slightly) more recent and more well-attended. Ultimately, I consider this AfD to have more depth and detail than the earlier RM, and it more clearly indicates a consensus in one way or the other. The article is therefore moved. Any review of this closure in respect of the move should, in my view, take place at WP:Move review, not WP:DRV. Sandstein 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews

Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIC and WP:GNG fail. The article also has SYNTH, OR, and NPOV issues (beginning with the title itself - a form of phrase in English not used outside of Wikipedia (googling the title in quotes leads mainly to Wikipedia clones), and use of an anti-Semitic phrase as a Wikipedia title) - however deletion is generally not cleanup.

Note that a recent RM concluded that this article is about the full phrase - "Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews" and not about "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is a DICTDF and GNG fail . Phrases, for Wikipedia notability, may be notable when they are discussed at length in secondary sources as a topic. This is even true for hate speech. However, this requires actual in-depth secondary analysis of the topic.

While the article contains a seemingly long list of references, they are in fact a WP:REFBOMB. Many references don't contain the phrase at all. Some references are PRIAMRY 17th-18th-19th century uses of this hate speech. Some references discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" - but not the full phrase. In others, the full phrase is briefly mentioned as an introduction to "Paradisus Judaeorum" or to the status of nobility in Poland. In fact - of the sources available online - there is but a single source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - which is a secondary source (in Polish) of a reasonable quality that discusses the phrase itself - and this in approx. 2 paragraphs - which would be stretching the definition of WP:INDEPTH.

Please see analysis of sources below (numbering - based on this version, from the time of the nomination):

ref1 - "You need to speak Polish": Antony Polonsky interviewed by Konrad Matyjaszek) - discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum". The full phrase is not present (though it is mentioned as anti-Semitic), there is a 4.5 line footnote mentioning the 1606 text.

ref2 - Krzy?anowski, Julian Madrej glowie do?? dwie slowie: Trzy centurie przys?l?w polskich (1960) - PRIMARYish collection of sayings, does contain the phrase.

ref3 - Adalberg, Samuel. "Ksi?ga przys??w, przypowie?ci i wyra?e? przys?owiowych polskich (1889 !!!) - dictionary style collection of sayings - entirely PRIMARY. Merely contains the phrase (under phrases beginning with Polska) - no analysis.

ref4 - Haumann, Heiko (2002-01-01). A History of East European Jews - The source does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum" at length, however it does not discuss the phrase - it merely mentions it in a sentence as part of the wider discussion in the source on the Golden Age in Poland (with a question mark in the title).

ref5 - kinner, Quentin; Gelderen, Martin van (2013-03-07). Freedom and the Construction of Europe - merely mentions the saying, before discussing the status of nobility in Poland. The saying is not analyzed or discussed.

ref6 - Moskalewicz, Marcin. Jewish Medicine and Healthcare in Central Eastern Europe - does discuss "Paradisus Judaeorum", however the full saying isn't even mentioned.

ref7 - Janicka, El?bieta (2016-12-28). "The Embassy of Poland in Poland: The Polin Myth in the Museum of the History of Polish Jews (MHPJ) as narrative pattern and model of minority-majority relation - mainly discusses "Paradisus Judaeorum" as an anti-semitic trope (including by the Nazis and nationalists in the Polish second republic) and its questionable use in the Polin musuem. The full phrase itself is not even present, though Janicka does discuss its origin in an antisemitic 1606 pamphlet.

ref8 - Norman Davies (24 February 2005). God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795 - does not contain the phrase. It does mention "Paradise of the Jews" and says a better label would be "Paradise of the Nobles" - in any event it is not about the phrase.

ref9 - Garbowski, Christopher (2016). "Polin: From a "Here You Shall Rest" Covenant to the Creation of a Polish Jewish History Museum. An interview with Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett" - brief mention of the origins of the phrase in the context of the museum exhibit.

ref10 - Modras, Ronald (2000). The Catholic Church and Antisemitism: Poland, 1933-1939 - quote of phrase (+short sentence it is an exaggeration) as a lede to a discussion on the state of Jews in Poland

ref11 - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004). Rzeczy mgliste: eseje i studia - discussion titled "Paradisium Iudeorum" of 1.5 pages in a paper on Polish antisemitic sayings. The 1.5 pages consist mainly of primary quotations and also discuss an unrelated "poem" of "Judas and his sack". In total, there are approx. 2 paragraphs discussing our phrase.

ref12 - Starowolski, Szymon (1636). Stacye zo?nierskie: Abo W wy?i?g?niu ich z dobr ko??ielnych potrzebne przestrogi. Dla Ich M?iow P?now Zo?nierzow st?rych, y inszych m?odych, co si? n? Zo?niersk? vs?ug? sposabi?? b?d? - anti-semitic tract from 1636 (!!!) - The saying is present - but is not discussed as a topic - this is a PRIMARY attestation of use - which is not relevant for notability.

ref13 - Palmer, William (1876). The Patriarch and the Tsar ... Tr?bner and Company. p. 58. - contains a markedly different phrase (Nova Babylonia) which contains some common (though modified) clauses, adds others, omits others. Connection to this article is WP:OR - and in any event there is no discussion in the source of the "Nova Babylonia" phrase - it is merely a PRIMARY attestation of use - and is not relevant for notability.

ref14 - Archivio storico lombardo (in Italian). Societ? storica lombarda. 1907 - old book containing the phrase and nothing else.

ref15 - Monumenta hungariae historica: Ir?k (in Hungarian). Magyar Tudom?nyos Akad?mia. 1894 - another reprint of one of the original 17th century "poems" in Latin.

ref16 - Polin. Basil Blackwell for the Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies. 1986. - seems to be a mere mention of an 18th century use.

ref17 - J?zef Ignacy Kraszewski (1875). Polska w czasie trzech rozbior?w 1772-1799: studia do historyi ducha i obyczaju. 1791-1799 - a reference to the phrase as "old proverb".

ref18 - D?blin, Alfred (1991). Journey to Poland. Tauris. - written in the 1920s (this is a 1991 reprint). Merely mentions this as an old saying.

ref19 - Walsh, William Shepard (1892). Handy-book of Literary Curiosities - old book, seems to be a brief mention.

ref20 - Proverbs of All Nations, Compared, Explained. W. Kent & Company. 1861 - contains a different phrase (with goldmine), attributed to a German source (no Latin or Polish). Connection to this article is WP:OR, and regardless - the source contains nothing beyond a German langauge sentence and a translation of it to English.

ref21 - "A Virtual Visit to the Museum of the History of Polish Jews". Culture.pl. - probably not a reliable source, but this discusses the "Paradisus Iudaeorum" musuem exhibit. The phrase isn't actually present, though it is discussed in the opening paragraph as the source for the two word term.

ref22 - Despard, Matthew K. (2015-01-02). "In Search of a Polish Past". Jewish Quarterly - contains a discussion of the Polish museum, not the phrase.

ref23 - Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. (2016-09). "Mixed Metaphors in Muran?w: Holocaust Memory and Architectural Meaning at the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews" - ditto.

ref24 - "Russia Gathers Her Jews. The Origins of the "Jewish Question" in Russia, 1772–1825. John Doyle Klier. Northern Illinois University Press - "Paradise for Jews" appears in a chapter heading. No indication the phrase is discussed at all.

ref25 - Hundert, Gershon David (1997-10-01). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum" - article is on the concept of "Paradisus Judaeorum". The Polish phrase is merely mentioned and then discussed in a single sentence.

ref26 - Byron L. Sherwin (24 April 1997). Sparks Amidst the Ashes: The Spiritual Legacy of Polish Jewry - a discussion on the history of Jews in Poland. A 3-term saying (varying from the one here - connection is somewhat WP:ORish) is mentioned as an introduction to a paragraph discussing Jewish life in Poland but not the phrase.

ref27 - "Paradisus Iudaeorum (1569–1648)". POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews - musuem exhibit on "Paradisus Iudaeorum". The full phrase is actually not present nor discussed on the linked webpage. The full phrase is present (one of many sayings presented) on the wall in the museum itself.

ref28 - Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2016-12-28). "Polin: „Ultimate Lost Object"". Studia Litteraria et Historica - paper on Polin museum. The phrase itself (which isn't even quoted) is discussed in a single sentence + in footnote8 the author devotes 4.5 lines to a previous 14th century Austrian use of "Paradisus Judaeorum" (but not the full phrase).

ref29 - Kijek, Kamil (2017). "For whom and about what? The Polin Museum, Jewish historiography, and Jews as a "Polish cause" - about the museum. Discussion of "Paradise for Jews" as a meta-narrative of the museum. Highly WP:SYNTH to include this (seems this was included to criticize Janicka by cherry-picking the author disagreeing with her that this is the sole narrative - while omitting the author's agreement that that is a narrative, a troubling use of words, and the author referring to "Janicka has compiled a much longer convincing enumeration of the elements of interwar antisemitism absent from the core exhibition"). In any event - this simply does not discuss the phrase.

Icewhiz ( talk) 09:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This is awkward. I think your argument based on analysis of the references is logical and pretty strong and it directs me to suggest that the clear way forward is for this to article to be retitled Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. However, we just had a RM that found consensus against the former. But as I don't see the strong attention to the sources at that RM that you're presenting above, I'd stick with move to either of those two terms. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The RM, while related, was on the primary topic of the article. Opposers of the move argued, correctly, that the present article is on the phrase (and this would not be just a move to Paradisus Judaeorum - but a major re-organization and re-write of the article (the phrase being merely background material for the concept - some discussions of "Paradisus Judaeorum" don't even mention it) - furthermore, many opposers mentioned that the present article could exist side-by-side with a Paradisus Judaeorum article. The RM, however, did not assess notability of the phrase itself. As an WP:ATD - I believe the RM discussion (to a topic that would clearly pass notability and is missing) was a correct first step to consider prior to nominating for deletion and assessing notability. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm. Given there are so many reliable sources showing the notability of Paradisus, I'd be happy to roll up my sleeves and do the rewrite myself. We could !vote here for a delete and I'll rework it from the deleted text, I don't mind. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wow, excellent catch. You're right, I just finished reading 3 of the scholarly references which I'd searched for the fragment 'paradis' in order to get both Paradisus and paradise, and in over 150 pages none of the three actually talk about the proverb itself. All three mention Paradisus Judaeorum and/or some paraphrase of 'Jewish paradise' instead. One says the expression "Paradisus Judaeorum" was "a 17th century polemical concept condemning the rampant prevalence of infidels" and criticizing its use in a museum exhibit's title. Another mentions the proverb's roots, doesn't quote it but rather just refers to it as the "Paradisus Judaeorum" and mentions the original source is a 1606 antisemitic pamphlet, also using this to criticizes the museum for using it. That's it. Nothing about the proverb itself. I'm kind of gobsmacked, here. valereee ( talk) 10:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. My logic is this – deletion isn't cleanup, so the state of the current article isn't an issue, only the notability of the topic. Clearly, the phrase "Paradisus Judaeorum" and its variants is notable. The question is whether this larger proverb in which the phrase is embedded is notable enough for an article? I think, clearly it is notable enough to be mentioned, at least briefly, in the "Paradisus Judaeorum" article; but I think the nominator is most likely right that it isn't sufficiently notable for a standalone article. So, then should this article be deleted entirely, or survive as a redirect to "Paradisus Judaeorum"? I think, if the later article mentions the proverb (I think it should), this title should survive as a redirect to it. So, if this becomes a redirect to new article "Paradisus Judaeorum", do we need to wipe the history of this article? And must that new article start from scratch? I think, keeping the history isn't harmful, and some of the content (especially references) of the existing article might be useful for the new one. Given all that, Move/Redirect rather than Delete. SJK ( talk) 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum. Agree with above sentiments, and will trust the literature reflects this. The few I double checked definitely lend notability to this term, which would necessitate a re-write of some sections in this article, but I feel the topic is notable, if inappropriately titled. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 12:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move I concur with SEMMENDINGER. I found the article very interesting and should meet requirements for scholarly articles on Wikipedia. Cleaning is necessary, but a simple move and cleanup should sufficiently rectify the biggest issues here. WillPeppers ( talk) 13:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Golden_Liberty#Proverb which already contains details of another proverb about this political era. Having this as a separate page which focusses on the Jewish aspect rather than the other parts of society seems undue. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Why would that be considered undue? It's literally a page in regard to Judaism, so it makes sense it should solely cover just that one religion, no? SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 13:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I'll note that Golden Liberty already mentions the proverb (it currently links to the article in its current title, but prior to creation of this article - version of 27 August - is contained a discussion on this: The Commonwealth was called Noble's Paradise, sometimes—the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk (Burghers) and Hell for the Peasants.[16] And even among the nobility (szlachta), the Golden Liberty became abused and twisted by the most powerful of them (magnates).[14][17] However, this "the Jewish Paradise, but also Purgatory for the Townsfolk and Hell for the Peasants" was retrospectively coined in the 20th century by Jewish-German novelist Alfred Döblin, not by the people of that time, and it should be evaluated whether this really reflects the fact of the age. In fact it is also true that a number of Russian peasants fled from their far more brutal lords to settle in liberal Poland,[18] which might stand out as example of counterevidence to the "Hell for the Peasants" claim.. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my !vote to Don't delete, Undecided on move while I watch and see where Pharos is going with the argument below. Free clue: I am looking for fewer comments about what other editors did and more arguments regarding why the present title is better than the proposed title. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Do you agree that this is a notable topic, and that it should include coverage of the poem/proverb as well as the two-word phrase? I can understand objection to a name that sounds offensive, although I do disagree.-- Pharos ( talk) 01:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Guy Marcon: You do understand, I hope, that the current title is less incidental than the one you now support moving to? Not a single source has criticized the proverb as anything but an exaggeration (no stronger words were used), while (a single) source (Janicka) has explicitly called the term "Jewish Paradise" antisemitic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly. The WP:NOTDIC argument is a nonsensical one, we have many articles in Category:Proverbs, and there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one. It is true that there are more sources for the popular two-word phrase than for the poem/proverb, but both aspects have scholarly sources and are notable, and clearly it make sense to treat the two together. The two-word phrase is covered in greater depth in the #Paradise for the Jews section as is appropriate for its historical resonance. For what it's worth, my original title for this article was Heaven for the nobles, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews, and many other variations in order and vocabulary also appear in the secondary literature in at least four languages, which is why it is not strange that "googling the title in quotes" of one particular version is not so simple. As the original creator of this article, I strongly object to the idea that I am somehow promoting an anti-Semitic idea by discussing the history of anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitic reaction to tolerant Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth policies of the 17th century.-- Pharos ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    "there are numerous RS that support the notability of this one" if you could present just two that would probably switch a lot of the !votes on this page. I don't think most of us are too fussed about DICDEF, it's GNG or rather WP:V that's the problem here. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Dweller: Please see two I link in my keep vote below. Let me know if you have questions, but check the article's talk page where I went into more depth on those two sources already (only to be ignored by this AfD's nom). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually, I'm not sure how many people are worried about GNG, as the above sentiments seem to think it meets notability. SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 22:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, don't move. First, a WP:RM just finished on article's talk with no consensus to move. Second, this is a bad faith nomination, as the nominator was told, multiple times, that they are in-depth, multiple, academic treatments of this very proverb - they just choose, again and again, to ignore this, up to and including this AfD. This is WP:POINT disruption and waste of community time. Anyway, the PROVERB is subject to in-depth treatment in a chapter of a book by one of most famous Polish language scholars, Julian Krzyżanowski and it has also been the subject of a dedicated article by Polish historian Stanisław Kot (both are present as refs in the article and have been pointed out at talk). As such, the proverb passes WP:GNG. If anyone feels the topic of 'Jewish Paradise' needs to be covered in a separate article, well, they can split it. But the proverb is the unifying element for the poem and the two-word construct. PS. I think some of the content from this article could be copied to POLIN Museum, as majority of discussion of the two-word construct seems to be concerned with the minor controversy over naming of one of their galleries (that never made it to mass media, just a few academic back and forth articles a few years back). On that note, please consider that the two-word construct of 'Jewish paradise' doesn't even seem to have, IMHO, independent notability outside this very controversy... Let me stress again: not a single, in-depth source have been presented about the two-word construct. Sure, it is used a lot in passing, but there's no in-depth analysis of its use, history, etc. The only in-depth treatments we have are (sadly, mostly offline and in Polish) works that focus on the longer phrase, i.e. proverb. Ideally, someone with access to a Polish library should read them and present a proper review for us, but it will be a month+ before I have the opportunity to do myself, at earliest. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    The 1937 source by Kot (a politician in the second republic and a historian) has not been seen nor analyzed by anyone involved here. The 1960 source by Krzyżanowski (which no one examined outside of snippet view, I believe) is a 609 page dictionary-style tome containing Polish sayings. Of the source actually in use in the article - the phrase is not even mentioned, or mentioned in passing by most. There is one source - Joanna Tokarska-Bakir (2004) - that has 2 paragraphs of content (net). In the RM you argued that the anti-Semitic "poem" (actually a few different ones), the 4-clause phrase (title here), and "Paradisus Judaeorum" are 3 distinct topics - you can't have it both ways - if the 4-clause phrase is a distinct notable topic - you should present several in-depth secondary works on it, preferably modern pieces of scholarship. At present - most of the sources in the article that contain the 4-clause phrase in the article are neither secondary nor in-depth. Some of them are actually references to 17th century anti-Semitic works which just contain the phrase (or variant) as a polemic against Jews (and in some, but not all, also anti-Noble). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Chipping back in here, I see no bad faith, only logical process. The RM was about one issue, an AfD is about others. I agree with Icewhiz that the sources currently presented do not warrant passing GNG and therefore point to delete. Much of the material present, however, is valid good content for the other title, which makes me suggest what I have. If you think this is a notable topic, we need multiple occurrences of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)r reply
    Errr, so what? We still have two in-depth sources about this proverb by top-notch academics (yes, the sources are a bit dated, but notability is not temporary, and the subject is pretty obscure). A 20+ page monograph and a 2-3 page analytical entry in a dictionary are quite sufficient for this. If someone wants to create a separate article about the two-word saying, it's not like anyone is stopping that person from copying relevant content there, if you think that topic is notable and needs to be separated. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    We have? Have you examined Stanislaw Kot's piece from 1937? Is it on the phrase? The "poems"? We do not know it is in topic beyond a few brief quotes of it elsewhere. Futhermore is the 1937 publication a RS for antisemitism? I would doubt it. Kot is far from being a detached scholar - beyond being a leading member of the Polish Peasents Party - and his extremely nationalist politics, filling various government posts in the 30s and 40s (exile) - Kot himself is a topic of study in Polish antisemitism. For instance, in 1940 he is on record saying Jews are a "foreign body" in Poland and that there were too many Jews in Poland - he was "generous" in that he thought a third could remain, the rest should go elsewhere. "stanislaw+kot"+third+foreign+body&source=bl&ots=xmgDnoAQQG&sig=Fl_8DRYI1a_6UluMNRsqkEY6ow8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYvorV5vzeAhUD3KQKHaiDDUcQ6AEwDXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q="stanislaw%20kot"%20third%20foreign%20body&f=false He also promoted Judeo-communism in concert with Jews and money stereotypes - in Nov 1941 he was concerned of "international financial Israelite magnates excessive power" and the possibility of Poles being subjugated to "economic Jewish slavery". "international+financial+Israelite+magnates+excessive+power+…”"+kot&source=bl&ots=rsa9OPi5t0&sig=8ZFgZEjcrwBawQ_n6Il_gc_PiBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjByoyo6vzeAhUCsqQKHffGANoQ6AEwCnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q="international%20financial%20Israelite%20magnates%20excessive%20power%20…”"%20kot&f=false Kot is featured extensively in modern works which study Polish antisemitism - to use him as a secondary RS for Polish antisemitism? Truly novel. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Everything to you is about antisemitism. Well, face it - this proverb is not about antisemitism. As majority of sources show, it is about the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Antisemitism is only a side issue here. To the anonymous author of the 17th century poem, dislike of Jews was just as important as dislike of nobles, for example. And sny negative exaggerations became forgotten since as the proverb, detached from its xenophobic roots, is used in positive context to talk about vibrant Jewish medieval culture. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    You actually raised a 1937 source, as in indication of notability, whose author was advocating in his rather major political role (at the same time it was written) mass expulsion of the Jews in Poland (to be precise - 66% of the Jews of Poland) as they were a "foreign body". What's next? Janicka says the Nazi IDO institute in Krakow published a paper on Polish expresssions and Jews in 1942, and came to the conclusion that this saying provides a "valid insight" - are we going to try and pass that off as a secondary RS? Icewhiz ( talk) 06:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    I can't believe you are serious - everything to you is Reductio ad Hitlerum, or rather, Reductio ad Antisemitium. Kot is good enough for Janicka - she treats him as a perfectly reliable source. When he says and she repeats that the author was likely a Catholic and the proverb is not favorable to Jews, you accept him. But if someone wants to use his to support a claim you disagree with, Kot is an unreliable antisemitie. Kali's morality, eh? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Piotrus if I may -- while I would never want to reduce peoples' statements/views/etc to their backgrounds in any way, perhaps at times it also must be acknowledged. Whether it is anti-Semitic, unintentionally perpetuating anti-Semitism by making Jews sound as if they were some socioeconomic class (Jews/money, you know … :/), a case of white-washing, or totally innocent, citing an anti-Semite saying someone else is "unfavorable" to Jews for that point specifically is quite different from using what he says for almost anything else where Jews are concerned, and using sources from the 1930s/1940s is a thing that will instinctively put Jewish editors and also readers, even those who are perfectly in control of their emotions, on edge, whatever the intentions are. Perhaps it is similar for Poles regarding sources coming from Germany or Russia in those times. Personally, editing in my main area currently which is the Balkans, I prefer to avoid anything that is before 1945 and published in the area, and also anything from former Yugoslavia between 1985 and 2000, for similar though less drastic reasons. Admittedly, I'm saying this without having kept up with the exact specifics on your past spats with Icewhiz, but just one perspective, which is admittedly a Jewish one.-- Calthinus ( talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Kot's monograph as cited by several modern scholars does I think do much to establish the general notability of the topic. I don't think "unfavorable" is a quote from Kot, and that's not what Wikipedia or modern scholars have cited from him. Instead they've referred to his scholarship on the original authorship of the poem. Certainly modern scholars should be given precedence on the issue of anti-Semtitism or related topics.-- Pharos ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Calthinus: Of course if we were discussing anti-semitism, a 1930s source is too obsolete to be considered. But we are not. We are discussing an obscure literary construct, a poem or a proverb, and for that, an old but in-depth monogoraph (~20 pages) by a respected historian seems perfectly feasible. The only thing under discussion here is whether the proverb, which is in the monograph title and is discussed by it in-depth (as suggested by modern scholars like Janicka who cite it, presumably having accessed it offline) is notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Piotrus: (Straying into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but still) I've no doubt everyone here are acting in good faith, but this treatment of a clearly anti-Semitic phrase is reminiscent of how many white Americans treat blackface: "Insulting? I don't think it's insulting at all!" Sometimes the bigotry and prejudice are so deeply ingrained in a culture, that they becomes nearly invisible to anyone not experiencing them. Here we have a populist phrase contrasting the elites with the people, and who are the elites? The nobility and the Jews; the Jews - a marginalized, abused and historically persecuted minority - are placed on the same pedestal with the privileged landed gentry. Does this ring a bell? Perhaps it reminds you of some stereotype or conspiracy theory? This phrase wasn't born in a societal vacuum, and is no more an "innocent representation" of reality than blackface was; but for those who never experienced the other end of it it looks as normal as to be perfectly benign. François Robere ( talk) 15:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ François Robere: Except that for blackface we can find plenty of academic discussion of how this concept can be seen as offensive, pejorative, etc. and there is consensus in literature (and media) for that view. For this proverb, the best we have is pretty much a single source that makes such a claim in passing. All other sources treat the proverb in a neutral or positive way, as the Golden Age reference. Arguing that it is offensive is an extremely fringe OR. And if you want to talk about OR, I'd argue that this proverb, while originating from a xenophobic (and among others, antisemitic) poem, has been subject to reappropriation and obliteration by incorporation and that arguing otherwise is doing a disservice to the Jewish culture, by refocusing the public attention away from the positive (the Golden Age) to the negative (intergroup hatred). Here's food for thought.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Which has more to do with the lack of sources on this phrase, than with its supposed neutrality. However, just like "blackface" is part of a wider topic, so is this phrase - and the research on that wider topic supports this "fringe" claim very clearly. But regardless, if you want to concentrate (or have more sources on) only a part of the phrase, which may or may not be related to the xenophobic and anti-Semitic original (does any of the sources actually relate the two?), then why object to the rename? François Robere ( talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move, and hand over to User:Dweller. If their rewrite results in anything more than a stub, then deletion can be reconsidered. François Robere ( talk) 13:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move relevant/valuable material to Paradisus Judaeorum -- a much less and incendiary title -- and also potentially Antisemitism in Poland and History of Jews in Poland. There is certainly useful material here but I'm not sure a whole page on the concept is necessary and useful, while on the other hand there are some issues that arise with the sourcing (so far, that is -- to give Piotrus and Pharos the benefit of the doubt here, it is possible that more sources in Polish exist I suppose) and the topic itself seems a bit hard to uncontroversially define. Is it one poem that became a proverb? Is it an -- alleged -- feeling among the ethnic Polish/Catholic majority? Is it an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? There seems to be uncertainty here, which is really not great given the nature of the topic and past conflicts in the "Jewish-Polish" bilateral area on wiki -- lots of room for misunderstanding both by editors and more importantly readers. Paradisus Judaeorum -- the idea that Poland was a Jewish "paradise" and discourse about that idea through the subsequent ages -- is notable, from a Jewish as well as a Polish perspective. -- Calthinus ( talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or minor move to something more search-friendly per User:Pharos. The subject is clearly notable as demonstrated by Piotrus. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for nominating an article for deletion.-- Darwinek ( talk) 00:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, don't move. No good reason for deleting this article. Piotrus makes valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatzref ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    Welcome back from your 5 month wikibreak. @ Tatzref: - please confirm that in endorsing Piotrus's reasoning, that you consider a 1937 paper written by a politician who at the time was advocating for the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland - a secondary reliable source? Icewhiz ( talk) 07:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move or Delete I think it should be deleted per WP:TNT or moved to moved to more appropriate title.Right now its reads like one big WP:OR essay most of the sources doesn't even mention the topic of the article.Some of the sources are 400 years old and hence WP:PRIMARY.There is no modern scholarship that discuss the topic of the article. -- Shrike ( talk) 07:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Shrike: The primary historical sources added by User:Pharos are just for the samples of original poem text. The proverb itself is discussed by in-depth 20th century sources (Kot and Krzyzanowski). Two in-depth sources (academic monograph and a 2-3 pages dedicated chapter is a book discussing famous Polish proverbs) should be sufficient to prove notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Neither of which anyone here read. Krzyzanowski is a 1960 dictionary style collection of sayings. Kot wrote his paper in 1937, in modern use he is used attributed, and Kot himself is better known for his politics (one of the leaders of the Peasent Party, ambassador to Soviet Union, Propaganda minister) than for scholarship - he is a topic of study in regards to his stmts on Jews - which included advocating the mass expulsion of most of Poland's Jews. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
        • Your attempt to discredit Kot because at some point in life he made some comments during his political career that others have criticized is simply irrelevant. What matters here is that he was a historian, and modern scholars cite him and consider him a reliable source. Notably, Tokarska-Bakir, wrinabout antisemitism in Poland, cited from Kot, calling his literature review and study of the proverb in question 'solid', and she did not deem it relevant to discuss any biases of his. Ditto for Janicka, who quotes Tokarska-Bakir's assessment of Kot. Neither of those tw modern scholars of antisemitism seem to have any problems considering Kot reliable. You are trying to me more holy that the proverbial Pope and presume you understand which sources are good or not better than experts - to me this is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Since this AfD has a possibility of overturning the prior, recent RM I am going to ping each editor who took part in that RM but has not posted here. @ Catrìona, StarryGrandma, GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek, Serial Number 54129, Thryduulf, and Xx236: -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move for the reasons I gave in the RM - the "Paradise for the Jews" is the only part that has apparently gained significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Even in the article as it was then, the rest of the phrase was just background context. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - (and a strong one) per my argumentation at the RM (just recently closed!), I also just added an additional reference to the main body of the article [18]. I'll continue my remark later (sorry I'm busy at the moment) GizzyCatBella ( talk) 12:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move or delete. I think Icewhiz has presented a strong argument that the article has been ref bombed and the full phrase is not notable. Catrìona ( talk) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a separate article. This is a proverb with ample references for its use as a proverb in the way that the articles in Category:Proverbs are written. Those articles also note how much proverbs vary in phrasing. Much of this article is about the historical topic of Paradisus Judeorum, the Jewish Golden Age, a term which is used by both Jewish and non-Jewish historians. That material should be moved to its own article instead of being in this one. Even if the historians just used the proverb in passing, one would like to be able to find out more about it by looking in WIkipedia. However the analysis of the historians' references given above is not correct:
  • One of the references in the article (ref4 above), A History of East European Jews by the German historian de:Heiko Haumann, goes into the economic role of the Polish Jews in detail on pages 4-18 and 27-29, including their relationships with the nobles, peasants, and Christian merchants and craftsmen before citing the proverb. And he cites the proverb as an introduction to explaining exactly what happened as feudal control was extended: Jews were caught between the lords of the manor and the peasants. [1]
  • Another (ref25 above), by the Canadian Jewish historian Gershon David Hundert also uses the proverb as a introduction to a detailed discussion of the economic role of the Jews as intermediaries between the landowners and the peasants. [2]
In neither case is the proverb just a "mention in passing". These references are readable online and worth looking at.
The proverb at the time was a satirical but largely true statement, and this has been supported by historians. The proverb has been used both in praise of Jews and by those who are anti-Semitic. I am sorry that Icewhiz is uspset by the phrase, but normally we don't censor Wikipedia in this way. In some circles there is a feeling that anything about the Jews coming out of Poland must be anti-Semitic. However Hundert, in his article Paradisus Judaeorum says:
The third problem or obstacle is what might be termed the conventional wisdom of contemporary Jews, which has it that the terms Pole and anti-Semite are synonymous; indeed, as a former Prime Minister of the State of Israel so memorably phrased it, that Poles receive anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. It is this conception that I wish now to contest. Whatever its accuracy in the context of twentieth-century Poland, it is a fundamental distortion of Jewish experience in the Polish Commonwealth of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. [2]

References

  1. ^ Heiko Haumann (2002). A History of East European Jews. Central European University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN  978-963-9241-26-8.
  2. ^ a b Hundert, Gershon David (1997). "Poland: Paradisus Judaeorum". Journal of Jewish Studies. 48 (2): 335–348. doi: 10.18647/2003/JJS-1997. ISSN  0022-2097.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
StarryGrandma, I don't believe that the references you mention give in-depth coverage to this phrase, only passing mentions. I'd be very happy if you proved me wrong and told me that there were several that offer in-depth coverage. I'd soon switch to keep, and so would others, I'm sure. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 23:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply
Yet sources about "Jewish Paradise" provide at most as much or less coverage. I can't understand why you can criticize the sourcing for the longer proverb, without criticizing the even less in-depth discussion of the two-word phrase. As I noted, the proverb at least seems to have in-depth coverage in the 1937 monograph and the 1960 (reprinted in 1994) book (both cited by modern scholars). The two-word phrase has not been subject to any in-depth treatment. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Dweller, in-depth varies with the topic. The proverb part of this article, which is under consideration here, consists of just a few words. Looking at Category:Proverbs, most of the articles there have two or more of the following types of references:
  1. listing in a dictionary or collection of proverbs
  2. history of the proverb
  3. brief explanation of the proverb
  4. various versions of the proverb
  5. famous peoples' use of the proverb
  6. use of the proverb as the theme in subsequent writing
The article has one or more references of each of these types. The two historians I cite above use the proverb as the theme of their article or chapter section. Rather than use the proverb to take off into a related area, they go on to explain in depth exactly what was going on at the time that led to the proverb. Please give me an example of the type of reference in use in proverb articles that you feel we are missing here. StarryGrandma ( talk) 03:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I'll just note that being included in a dictionary of proverb, with several paragraph of discussion of the proverb (and as I said, probably 2 if not 3 pages based on snippet view of ToC) seems like more than most proverb articles can expect. Then there's the usual 'rule of thumb' - if something is good enough for a specialized encyclopedia or similar work, it is probably good enough for us. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • François Robere, I think you may be confused. The two sources that I listed are not the only sources for the proverb. If you look at the article and at my list of the types of references for proverbs, you will see that the article contains one or more separate sources for the proverb of each of those types. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • François Robere, editors contributing to an AfD discussion are expected to have read and analyzed the article themselves rather than just relying on the nominator's and other editor's assessments. Many of the sources are linked online and you can check this for yourself. StarryGrandma ( talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Doesn't really matter. If an article is completely on-point, well sourced and well written and still offensive, then there's no grounds for deletion. But if an article is biased in such a way as to be offensive, then there is. In either case the emotional response of the reader is secondary to the informative value of the content. That being said, there could be multiple ways to present the same content, and we should tend towards those that keep the reader engaged. François Robere ( talk) 18:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Promotion of antisemitic hate speech should not be tolerated - such topics should be covered in a neutral and balanced manner that clearly states that the topic is hate speech. In this particular case this particular phrase does not have INDEPTH secondary coverage. Suggestions to use the writings of an antisemitic Polish politician who advocated the mass expulsion of Jews, written in 1937, as a secondary source is a travesty. The article is full of OR, quoting hate speech at length, and lacks proper balance due to the lack of reliable secondary sources that actually treat the chosen topic in a secondary manner.-- יניב הורון (Yaniv) ( talk) 19:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Is this an authentic, documented text? Yes. Does it exist in variant versions? Yes, as do many texts. Is it of notability in the country to which it refers? Yes. Is it a commentary, a satire, a proverb, a poem, a saying? It may be one or all of these, depending on how one is inclined to view it. Some here have called it a poem. Are poems not, by their very nature, often ambiguous in their interpretation? Leave the text under its most complete title, and add any worthwhile interpretations to the body of the article. Transfer the massive POLIN discussion to the POLIN Museum article. Write, if you wish to, a separate article on "Paradise for the Jews", an expression which may or may not have been cognate with the principal saying under discussion here. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move after reading this wall of text I am concluding that many of the keep votes didn't actually read the sources closely. Many of these sources are being used for original research and synthesis to support the idea that this title is the correct title. Yes, this is a notable subject, but the sources don't talk about this title. They talk about Paradesus Judaeorum so that is where the article should be. That is the most important point, and I feel like people are taking a quick look, seeing there are multiple long scholarly sources, a wall of text at the talk page, and assuming those sources are being used according to wikipedia policy. I feel the article's primary editor is operating in good faith but has an unconscious conflict of interest that is causing him, in all good faith, to push an agenda. Check the talk page; it's a war of attrition. valereee ( talk) 12:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum and then merge usable content to History of the Jews in Poland. Neither the full saying nor the shorter phrase appear to be independently notable. On the 1960s source, it's unclear what's in it and whether it's "academic"; it cannot be used to establish notability. On Stanisław Kot, in addition to being a scholar, he was also a politician, who "joined the right wing of the People's Party". Related to the age of the source, if other sources are discussing Kot's approach to the topic, I would consider these sources to be secondary, while the source they are analysing (Kot) is primary. Resulting in much of the content about the entire saying being OR, in addition to what's cited to 19th-century sources. Lastly, the 1930s source would obviously not be authoritative on whether the saying is antisemitic or not, resulting in WP:NOPAGE situation; there's insufficient sourcing to develop an NPOV article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. In full disclosure, I know the author, and he's anything but anti-Semitic. I agree with him that the article is notable, and scholarly discussion of this unpleasant historical work is not an endorsement of its meanings. I concede that it might be better labeled as satire (perhaps in the title?) or even categorized explicitly as anti-Semitic literature. Ken Eckert ( talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move what is valuable content to Paradise for the Jews or Paradisus Judaeorum. The rest should be deleted. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 16:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Move to Paradisus Judaeorum and then merge usable content to History of the Jews in Poland. Precisely as User:K.e.coffman suggests, and for very much his reasons. The sourcing alleged to support notability for this phrase is highly problematic, not least because of the extremely politically inflected nature of Stanisław Kot's writing, and, as Coffman wrote above, unreliable nature of Polish sources about Jews from the anti-Semitic 1930s. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation; not to mention the demonstrated impossibility of developing a NPOV article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Prithviraj Gulabrao Patil

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

His father ( Gulabrao Patil) seems to be a notable politician, and all sources for this article are also about his father's notability, not him. At the best this person is the party president for his town, not notable and has no proper references. I suspect COI as the grandson of Gulabrao Patil is named Ruturaj patil, who also seems to be the uploader of photos in a picasa page, linked as source, and the username who created this page is also named rutubaba. Daiyusha ( talk) 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

On further research, I suspect that the creator of the page Gulabrao Patil, is likely the actual Ruturaj patil, as his userpage pretty much matches the profile of Ruturaj: User:Patil.ruturaj, seems to be using multiple accounts similary named to edit the Gulabrao Patil page. There are edits by him trying to create(and as per policy rejected) the articles of "his" family members since the last 10 years ago. Daiyusha ( talk) 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jane Horn

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

Other than sites selling her books I can’t find any sources so I don’t think she’s notable. Mccapra ( talk) 05:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete Can't find anything that would indicate that she's notable as a golfer, unless under a maiden name I haven't found. The question then is whether writing books and running a teaching establishment makes you notable. Personally I would say definitely no. Nigej ( talk) 07:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
One of her books get into this list of "The 8 Best Instructional Books for Women Golfers to Buy in 2018". https://www.tripsavvy.com/best-instructional-books-for-women-golfers-1566574 Nigej ( talk) 07:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Marlabs

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

Recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. From the prior AfD: Fails to meet notability requirements. Most third-party online coverage consists of paid articles, press releases, etc. UnstableAngina ( talk) 04:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. It's hard to even find a source that objectively describes what the company does e.g. The Deccan Herald article describes the company's activites thus: "Marlabs enables digital innovation for enterprises and technology providers by delivering seamless customer experience and business efficiency." Meanwhile The New Indian Express article says they offer "360-degree digital transformation frameworks". Fails WP:ORGCRIT.-- Pontificalibus 07:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - still fails GNG as it did before Spiderone 08:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stub - While the company itself doesn't have a lot of coverage around what it is or what it does, the two articles as referenced by Pontificalibus are consistent with what they do. I cross-referenced the article with their technology related offerings. Digital360 is apparently a four-pronged offering, which includes - Digital Infrastructure, Digital Security, Digital Experience, and Digital Operations. The article by The Deccan Herald that describes it as a company which delivers seamless customer experience and business efficiency fall under their Digital360 premise of Digital Experience and Digital Operations, as referenced once more by The New Indian Express. Other classifications for notability can be met with recent accomplishments as well, I believe. For example, The AI Authority covered NASSCOM awarding the company with the AI Game Changers award in 2018 - 50 Best AI Related Innovations of 2018. It's also on the NASCOMM website. [1] You can use the cited reference to access the report, which is free and easily accessible as well. Another example of notability might be recorded in Forrester identifying Marlabs among a handful of companies as a pioneer in Natural Language Generation for Analytics. [2] The CIO Review identified them in 2014 among the twenty best companies providing cloud solutions. This should provide a strong enough reason for this article to at least qualify as a stub article, which can be improved upon through the months. I seem to have missed adding the Forrester reference, which I will now. Might help clear out some confusion, I guess. I was warned about the article being one that had faced deletion, I think twice, before I started work on it, but this seems to be decently referenced and clean. I don't think it fails WP:ORGCRIT. Thanks. MakersBreath ( talk) 06:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.nasscom.in/knowledge-center/publications/top-50-ai-game-changers-compendium-best-ai-solutions-use-cases
  2. ^ https://www.forrester.com/report/The+Forrester+New+Wave+Natural+Language+Generation+For+Analytics+Q4+2018/-/E-RES142736#
  • Delete - A search found references that were brief mentions, press releases, unreliable, or general announcements. Nothing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. A stub article has nothing to do with notability. The company is either notable or it is not. In this case, I believe it is not based on not receiving the type of in-depth coverage required. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Stub - Alright. I'm currently working on the article as well. Based on everything you've said, and with a ton of help from Wiki Chat, I've stripped the article of anything that might even remotely be sourced from Marlabs itself. Press Releases, own company citations, all of that. Still a little new at this, so I'm sorry for not being more thorough. Anyway, please take a look and let me know how it looks now. There are still a couple of links that allude to Marlabs in a list as a "name drop", but I've kept those considering they are announcements on the native website. If "Best Places to Work - NJ" releases a list citing that a company won their own award, I'd call that a valid reference. Same with the others, I've only cited lists that are more an announcement than anything else. This adds to the credibility of the source as well; from the horse's mouth, right? I still think it's notable enough to be included into Wikipedia, it's an encyclopedia, yes, and it should give information about breakthroughs as well. As an engineer with a minor in artificial intelligence, I do think that winning the NASSCOM award puts them in that stratosphere. The link to NASSCOM's report is on it as well, and it's a free report in which they've identified the 50 best companies in the AI sphere. The controversy is also supported by court documents, which I believe is important. It's the truth, again from the horse's mouth. I know I'm new and I may not understand a lot of the finer details around Wikipedia, but wouldn't it be better for all of us to actually work to improve the article than rush it into deletion? There is a decent amount of third-party coverage, still. Isn't that why there are tags that read, "Article requires improvement" or "Article requires valid references". Why the need to rush it into deletion after its barely gasped for its first breath? Thanks. MakersBreath ( talk) 05:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I don't consider that any of the awards listed can establish notability.
- www.bestplacestoworknj.com requires companies to apply, pay a fee and submit a survey. Maybe even all companies paying recieved this award. Certainly only a small fraction of comapnies in NJ applied, so the award is meaningless.
- Ranking 266 of 500 "solution providers" in North America by revenue does not establish notability either
- CIO review - This is a PR publication where companies pay to be featured in lists. See: here for example.
- NASSCOM is an Indian trade association, the AI Game Changer awards involved tech companies submitting case studies for consideration. There is no indication that being among the 50 companies selected confers any degree of notability.
These all fall under "examples of trivial coverage" listed under WP:ORGDEPTH, and we have nothing that would comapre with the "examples of substantial coverage" listed thereafter.- Pontificalibus 09:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Infostretch

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

WP:NCORP - Non-notable company – Broccoli & Coffee ( Oh hai) 04:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Curt Weiss

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

Potentially not notable, failing WP:BIO. No single secondary source established bona fides. Seems to be a mix of name drops, Non RS and sources from own book. scope_creep ( talk) 22:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete this is one of those tricky bios where the subject almost meets multiple different subject-specific guidelines but ultimately don't actually satisfy any of them. Ultimately the lack of coverage in secondary sources seals the deal here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 12:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Subject received over 30 independent book reviews and has a long history of reviews as a musician throughout the 1980s. TV appearances for both book and music. Also, independent articles for TV work and 8 awards for company he helps manage. That all sounds pretty notable to me, especially when I look at some of the other articles on Wikipedia of musicians with much sparser background)(Smutty Smiff, Tessa Pollitt, Shirley O'Loughlin.) Signed Barkmingo 08:50 November 28, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkmingo ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Edith Corse Evans

AfDs for this article:
Edith Corse Evans (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG; no significant coverage beyond being a Titanic passenger. – dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Marjorie Newell Robb

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

Non-notable Titanic passenger, insufficient RS coverage. – dlthewave ☎ 19:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Half Alive (band)

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Weak keep. I think these sources qualify this artist for WP:NMUSIC. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (plus the AP) Awsomaw ( talk) 17:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Awsomaw, these are blogs (1, 2, 3) and primary sources (4, 5). Flooded with them hundreds 17:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    @ Flooded with them hundreds: I know blogs usually aren't accepted because they're non-reliable, but onestowatch is owned by Livenation and frtyfve is owned by Instrumental. I read through rules about blogs, and in both of these blogs, the writers are professionals and there is editorial control, so they are reliable, no? Also, can you explain how #4 is primary? Thanks. Awsomaw ( talk) 18:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    FranceRocks is an artist management company and is likely associated with the band. I don't know if these blogs are reliable or not but they look like fan blogs according to their descriptions - Onestowatch (collective of bloggers, music geeks, & concert fanatics based in sunny L.A.), Spinorbinmusic ("As a music junkie, I decided to change that. And to create a blog so that people can find a site..."), Frtyfve ("an independent music blog and your destination for new music"). As publications are not inherently reliable, their parent companies have little relevance to their essence in establishing notability for a topic on Wikipedia. Flooded with them hundreds 19:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Fair. The NPR article (although not a full article) and the AP article makes up 2 sources. Here's another source that passes this band for WP:MUSIC #4. This is not a lot, but this band really does deserve a wiki article (personal opinion). Awsomaw ( talk) 22:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Doesn't appear to meet the basic level of notability for a band yet. Has not been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Has not charted, must less had a certified gold record; has not released "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels"; has not won a music award, or placed in a music competition. The band only performed their first live show in October 2018. In short, too soon. -- Leflyman Talk 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. - per Awsomaw's reasoning. Aleccat 02:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Still Delete (or, alternatively, Draftify)- This band may have received some online coverage, but all the sources listed above by the article's creator are actually actually promotional blog entries, contrary to the Notability guidelines for Bands ("[E]xcept...Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings.") The two "Rock Sounds" entries even start exactly the same way, "Have you heard of half•alive yet? Well allow us to introduce you." The band's sole album, a debut "EP" came out last year with 3 songs, of under ten minutes. That's not an EP; that's a demo. EPs are a minimum of four tracks, up to 25 minutes. They are a new band; and haven't even released a proper album, on any indie label, much less a major record company. The individual members aren't notable in and of themselves. There are countless indie bands with similar credentials who haven't met the requirements to be covered on WP yet. Until "half•alive" meets that threshold, this article is promotional, not descriptive.-- Leflyman Talk 23:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Still Keep, but I really get the reasons to delete, so alternatively I would be fine with Draftify, so I could improve the article if necessary and if they receive further coverage (or chart), see if it then merits and article. MikeOwen discuss 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Comparison of Cantonese and Standard Chinese

Comparison of Cantonese and Standard Chinese (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have an article called Varieties of Chinese. I see more hope for expansion on that one than creating a useless one, focusing specifically on "Cantonese" (pretty sure it's referring to HK Cantonese) and Standard Vernacular Chinese. SSS ( talk) 01:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

However, I think some links on that page should be saved and transferred onto the Varieties of Chinese page. SSS ( talk) 02:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 07:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are no plausible counterarguments that this passes MUSICBIO #5. As there is enough verifiable material to create a sufficiently contextual article, it is not shown how deleting this article about a likely notable subject would improve the encyclopedia. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Noah K

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly does not meet any of items 2-12. I examined all the references in the article, and did my own searching, to see if he meets item 1 (subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works...).

What I found was short reviews of album releases, routine biographical blurbs from places selling his recordings, and self-published or self-authored material. Many of these are in WP:RS, but do not meet the non-trivial and/or independent requirements.

My searching included, in addition to Google, New York City newspapers which might cover local talent. I searched NY Times, Daily News, NY Post, Village Voice, and DNA Info. All I could find is another Noah Kaplan who is a real estate agent.

The primary author of this article is a WP:SPA with a clear WP:COI, and possibly WP:UPE. Article was originally in draft space, then moved to mainspace by the author, bypassing the review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Roy Smith:. First of all, he passes WP:MUSICBIO #10 since he composed and performed music in Once and Again. That line was recently removed from the article because it cited IMDb, but should be returned with the episode of the show itself ("Chance of a Lifetime") as the source, since K appeared as himself in the show performing his music on saxophone. In addition, K passes WP:MUSICBIO #5. The Noah Kaplan Quartet has two albums on HatHut Records, one of the most important jazz labels in the history of jazz and classical music (take a look at its roster). It is distributed in the US by Naxos of America, which is major distribution. Further, WP:MUSICBIO #1 is met through reviews in Downbeat, the preeminent magazine in Jazz. Multiple in depth reviews of K's work in All About Jazz (another major Jazz outlet) are full of biographical details. Not to mention the WNYC feature on Soundcheck, his music on NPR's All Things Considered, interviews with major music promoters (Annie O) and articles in New Music Box. The book he edited (Manual of Quarter-Tone Harmony- WorldCat source is cited) is in many leading university libraries across the country and in Europe and New Zealand. AllMusic is another source used in almost all music biographical articles to substantiate album info etc. Please stop accusing me of WP:UPE I've told you multiple times that I was not paid in any way to write this article. The article is neutral, non-promotional and well sourced by independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. Please remove the deletion tag. Artaria195 ( talk) 15:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO, this is non-notable Skirts89 ( talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Skirts89: Aren’t you supposed to provide support and evidence for your assertion in this forum? How exactly does he not meet WP: MUSICBIO #5, #1 and #10? Artaria195 ( talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. I was asked to wade in by the article's creator. My main area of editing is jazz. Noah K has had two albums released by Hathut Records. As the Hathut article states, that label has existed for decades and has released albums by lots of well-known jazz musicians. Noah K therefore meets criterion 5 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." This is sufficient in itself for the article to be kept. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Update: I've added some more sourced material. He's not exactly a major figure, but there's plenty of material about him out there. EddieHugh ( talk) 19:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. I don't know anything about Noah K. But I looked at the article and I asked the question we are all supposed to ask about articles proposed for deletion. Not: Do I like him, is he any good, is he important, or will his name go down in history. But: Are there enough sources to support an article of substance? The answer is yes. Not potential sources in the future, mind you, not something buried that someone someday might find, but sources that exist in the article here and now. The answer is yes. If you want examples of jazz articles that have much less content and few or no sources, see the Jazz Cleanup Listing here. Over five thousand articles need work and some of them aren't even jazz. The backlog goes back eleven years.
Vmavanti ( talk) 19:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. I've gone through the same review of the sources and he does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I considered rejecting the article in draftspace but considering I was a participant in a related AfD I sent it through to the 'keeper, only for the article creator to bypass AfC completely. There's also clearly canvassing happening here. SportingFlyer talk 23:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
What? He has 2 albums released by an important independent label, thereby meeting #5. Do you dispute this? If so, please explain in what way(s). If not, then please change your "delete". EddieHugh ( talk) 23:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Can you explain why that label meets #5? I did some research and they appear to be a very niche label, without much discussion in independent secondary sources, in spite of what looks like a long list of releases. SportingFlyer talk 00:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Sure. #5 requires a label to have "a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This one was formed in 1974 and its roster can be seen at Hathut Records. Its roster includes many of the key people of free jazz, such as Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang and Anthony Braxton. I appreciate that this is not exactly mainstream, chart-topping stuff, but these musicians are pivotal in this particular field. Anyway, don't just take my word about the label being important, you can read the Grove entry here (or at least, if a non-subscriber, enough to get the point, given that this is a key reference work for music). EddieHugh ( talk) 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Looking through its discography, it still doesn't appear to me to be a label which would automatically grant someone notability, especially in their more recent releases. SportingFlyer talk 02:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
"a label which would automatically grant someone notability" is not a criterion, either for a musician's notability or a record label's. In fact, it's directly contradicted by the actual criterion (#5), which requires at lease 2 releases, making 'automatic notability' impossible. I've quoted the actual criterion (#5, the one that we are obliged to follow) above twice; Hathut meets it, so Noah K does too. (As an aside, go to the list of recent releases... the 4 most recent are all by people/ensembles that have Wikipedia articles.) EddieHugh ( talk) 14:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Going back to the actual criterion: "many of whom are independently notable". How many is "many"? Here's a list from the first four tables at Wikipedia's Hathut page (covering a lot less than half of their listed discography): Joe McPhee, Steve Lacy, Baikida Carroll, Phillip Wilson, David Murray, David S. Ware, Irène Schweizer, Jimmy Lyons, Cecil Taylor, Billy Bang, Dave Burrell, Max Roach, Anthony Braxton, Jerome Cooper, Léon Francioli, Radu Malfatti, Archie Shepp, Burton Greene, Alan Silva, Sun Ra, Irene Aebi, Steve Potts, Sunny Murray, Pierre Favre, Michel Portal, Mal Waldron, Karen Borca, Brion Gysin, Lauren Newton, Denis Charles, Donald Knaack, Vienna Art Orchestra, Tony Coe, Tony Oxley, Mike Westbrook, Rova Saxophone Quartet, Werner Lüdi, Pauline Oliveros, Fritz Hauser, Vyacheslav Ganelin, Marianne Schroeder, John Zorn, Franz Koglmann. Is that enough for "many"? If anyone would like a complete list from the same page, please let me know, but 43 is enough for me. EddieHugh ( talk) 15:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: As the article's original creator I've been staying out of the conversation for a while to see what the consensus is. But, since it has been relisted, I'm curious if you are willing to change your delete vote given that K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5. If not, can you and other editors who've voted delete please explain your reasoning in light of the thorough explanation provided for how HatHut and K meet #5 as well as the updated sources in the article including the Irish Times? I appreciate your thoughtful and good faith consideration, Artaria195 ( talk) 14:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 14:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I say this respectfully and in good faith, but having watched this process play out through your constant canvassing/trying to draw users back into discussion on the two articles you actually care about/refusal to accept other users disagree with you on the notability of your WP:SPA topics, I'm convinced you're WP:NOTHERE, and I don't care to comment on the articles you're pushing any further. Please leave me alone going forward, and good luck. SportingFlyer talk 22:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
I waited until after the article was relisted, and when no one posted any further opinions, I asked the nominator and editors who had simply voted "delete per nom" to reconsider in light of the thorough discussion of WP:MUSICBIO #5, the revisions and the source additions. According to WP:PERNOM, "delete per nom" is an "argument to avoid in deletion discussion" as " AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes." More generally, this discussion should be about the article, not an attack on me personally. I find it frustrating that there has been a serious and good faith effort to address RoySmith's initial objections through a discussion of how K meets WP:MUSICBIO #5, the addition of sources to the article and substantial revisions. I'm a little confused as to why amongst the deletion votes there is a refusal to reconsider or explain the objections when I and others have acted in good faith to address them. The notability of K is no longer an issue here. Artaria195 ( talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician may be notable if at least one of the criteria are met. Put another way: even assuming that one of the criteria on the list is met, notability is not automatically granted to the subject. Wikipedia's general notability guideline provides that a topic is presumed notable if the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I agree with the nominator that the sources in the article do not meet this threshold. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 02:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Aoi: according to general notability guideline "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Are you saying that the sources don't contain this? If so, please read the DownBeat articles, NYC Jazz Record articles and All About Jazz articles as a starting place. None of these are "trivial mentions" and these are three of the most influential jazz publications, with DownBeat being the most influential in the field (akin to Rolling Stone for rock, you can read about that here). Further, K had a cover story length feature article in a Greek Jazz Magazine that is cited. There are plenty more sources still. Is that not enough to meet guideline #1? In addition, he clearly meets #5 beyond any further discussion and meets #10. The fact that he clearly meets #5 puts the onus on those voting to "delete" to really prove how he can meet the guideline, yet still not be notable. That means doing the research necessary to evaluate the quality of the sources if jazz and other niche music isn't an area of expertise. Two expert editors from WikiProject Jazz, who have edited many articles on jazz musicians and deleted many too, have both voted to keep the article based on their evaluations. Artaria195 ( talk) 03:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: I've done some more research and found articles in All About Jazz Italy, Italy's main jazz magazine, about K as well. I've added a citation for the most recent one to the article. The multiple articles in All About Jazz Italy plus the Jazz and Tzaz article show significant coverage in reliable international publications. Earlier this year he was also featured in All About Jazz Italy's column "What I'm listening to Now" here which though not a fully independent source itself, is further proof that he is considered notable by All About Jazz Italy. Additionally, according to K's website, he has been written about in The Wire, Dusted Magazine and a several online blogs and magazines. These are more independent reliable sources that can be included if one is inclined. All this to say that there are more than enough sources available that easily meet the general notability guideline to prevent this article from being deleted. Artaria195 ( talk) 20:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_29&oldid=1142615347"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE