Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

Purge server cache

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

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

Khalid El Bargoni

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

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

  • Delete. As the nom says: the sources say it all. The same press release is referenced three times in three different publications, other "sources" don't even mention this person. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:46, 20 February 2022 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Denny Blood

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Should be a redirect, but an editor keeps insisting on re-creating it without any sources which show real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 23:40, 13 February 2022 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ahmet Uyar

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

Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, and doesn't meet NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 23:07, 13 February 2022 (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. No prejudice against possibly re-focusing the article on the more notable 2015 stabbing, if any editor wants to take that on. Mojo Hand ( talk) 23:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yishai Schlissel

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

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

I'm relying on automatic translation here but the Hebrew version of this article has quite extensive coverage of the 2005 attack and it seems to have references to support that coverage. It just doesn't seem to have got much coverage in English language sources. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Ample could still be an understatement. These two attacks on LGBTQ and the one in Tel Aviv (that one was by a gay person in denial of his orientation) shocked Israel and filled its newspapers. All three are notable. gidonb ( talk) 14:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are two separate notable events here. There is also coverage of his actions between the attacks and of his behaviour in prison. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:CRIMINAL #2 and the WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E does not apply to people with such a central role in multiple notable events. It is possible to rework this to the fatal 2015 attack putting the 2005 one in the background, as nominator hints. It would take a lot of work, especially in necessary expanding, well beyond what is reasonably covered by rename. Still a worthy effort and recommendation at closure. gidonb ( talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Natural history in the Spanish New World

Natural history in the Spanish New World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an essay, not an encyclopedia article PepperBeast (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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 Zastava Arms. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Zastava M12 Black Spear

Zastava M12 Black Spear (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Searching the name online only brings up the manufacturer and Wikipedia mirrors. Loafiewa ( talk) 18:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. There is a fundamental disagreement here on whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability that I don't think will be resolved with a third relisting so I'm coming down on "no consensus". Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Bill Workman

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Mayor of Greenville, South Carolina from 1983-1995. The current sourcing does not appear to meet our expectations for a mayor, but with Greenville's prominence in Upstate South Carolina, there is a likelihood that there are off-line sources available that expand on the policies that the subject accomplished while serving as mayor. -- Enos733 ( talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was readily able to add three more paragraphs, with three additional online sources, since this proposal for deletion. Based on revision history, the article was previously more than twice its current size, though much of that former content was deleted in May 2020 among copyright concerns. — ADavidB 23:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The amount of new work that's been done since this nomination was initiated is a start, but it isn't a finish. Greenville isn't large enough that its mayors would be deemed inherently notable just for being mayor per se — and while it might certainly be possible to write an article long and substantial and well-sourced enough to get him over the bar, that still takes a lot more than just three new sentences about his mayoral career sourced to just two new pieces of local media coverage. As written, this is still a depth of substance and sourcing that every mayor on earth can always match — but the inclusion bar for mayors requires evidence that he's a special case of significantly greater notability than most mayors, which is not what's been shown here. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Such a negative spin. I didn't say it was a finish, just that I readily found more information online, and that there used to be much more in the article. I added three paragraphs, including nine sentences from three new sources. I've read WP:POLITICIAN and get that there's no guaranteed notability, but much of what you write as necessary seems to go beyond what's written in that guideline. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are presumed to be notable. The associated note includes that such a person, "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." As the previous commenter noted, Greenville is significant within its region and Workman was its mayor for 12 years. No, the article as currently written doesn't confirm notability, though I'm not convinced the required journalistic coverage is non-existent. — ADavidB 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Sure, you added three paragraphs, but only one of those paragraphs, consisting of three sentences, addresses anything potentially notability-building about his mayoralty, while the other two paragraphs address personal life trivia that does not speak to notability. So your statement about three paragraphs and my statement about three sentences can both be correct at the same time, because only three sentences within your three paragraphs actually speak toward whether he's notable or not. And as for whether you are or aren't convinced that the required journalistic coverage is non-existent, that's immaterial — we don't keep inadequate articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist than anybody has actually shown, we keep inadequate articles only when somebody proves that better sourcing absolutely does exist to salvage it with. Bearcat ( talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article has grown significantly with additional sources. — ADavidB 08:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although not super strong as a notable person/politician, he does meet the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The articles in the Spartan-Herald and the obits confer notability, albeit not beyond that locality. Lamona ( talk) 03:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article, also article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG. Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion, I think the nominator's rationale of "Not notable" has been successfully refuted. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    They also appear to pass the criteria of WP:NPOL, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." NemesisAT ( talk) 10:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep per WP:HEY. Sources have been added to prove he meets GNG. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 02:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 21:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. although he is dead, enough citations exist to keep the page alive. Caphadouk ( talk) 08:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Your argument appears to be for "keep". Did you write delete by mistake? NemesisAT ( talk) 09:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes meant to post Keep, I fixed it. thanks. Caphadouk ( talk) 07:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mainly because the sources don't seem to be that usable for notability. For instance three of them are obituaries from local news outlets. Which don't work for notability. A couple more are announcements in local news papers about his run for office. Which literally anyone running for local office gets. What else is there besides that? Something about a local police officer settling a law suite. "Glimpses of Greenville: 1980 to 1990", "Mayor Knox White runs for seventh term — decades after he promised term limits", and "Lost Restaurants of Greenville" all literally have nothing to do with him. So it's laughable to say he's received significant press coverage. The only thing that might work is one of the obituaries, but that's about it and I'm pretty sure there needs to be more then that. So there's zero basis for this guy to be notable. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Please re-read WP:NPOL regarding local politicians, and its note as to what significant press coverage means. Many of the sources were in fact prompted by Workman's death, but are by journalists, not paid obituaries. White ran against Workman and succeeded him as mayor, as that source includes. The "Lost Restaurants" book notes Workman's city redevelopment, and the "Glimpses" article notes his bringing international cultural ties to the city. There are three Spartanburg Herald-Journal source articles that focus on Workman's run for a U.S. House seat. — ADavidB 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
As far as I'm aware the reason obituaries are bad indicators of notability has nothing to do with them being paid for or not, and journalists can write them as much as anyone else. Or I'd like to see a guideline that says otherwise. Unless I'm wrong like Pilaz says they are silent on obituaries. As far as your other points, none of them are indicators of notability. Literally all mayors are involved in city redevelopment and bring 'international cultural ties", whatever that means, to the city that they are mayors of. In the meantime, NPOL is pretty clear that runs for office aren't notable on their own. Which I assume would include someone running for the House. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 10:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
My understanding is that paid (funeral home-generated or classified ad-style) obituaries would not be independant, thus negating their proper use. Journalists can potentially skew most all of their writing, but we use what they write that is published in reliable sources. Most mayors do attempt to lead their cities well; not all of them are successful at it. — ADavidB 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it. So we will have to agree to disagree. Although I am interested to know where the sources said his good leadership as mayor or whatever had anything to do with the buildings being built. The blog says he and the city council "took a risk," but it's a blog and that doesn't really have anything to do with his leadership. All city councils/mayors take risks when they approve projects. Outside of that I think another reference said he was mayor at the time, but nothing else. So where exactly does it say his "successful leadership" resulted in anything, let alone beyond what most mayors are usually involved in? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I've added more content and sources, which may provide more support considered necessary. Many (not all) leaders take risks, yes, though those who are repeatedly or greatly successful in doing so are generally given credit for it. Which source is a blog? — ADavidB 01:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Local press coverage only, fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO (and possibly WP:BIO1E - his death). He is not, unlike claimed above, a major local political figure who have received significant press coverage. The only seemingly-reliable sources that cover him with some depth are the Greenville Journal, The Greenville News, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat, and maybe WHNS. The first two are from the city where he served as mayor, and Spartanburg is 35 minutes away. WHNS is also based in Greenville, and the (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat appears to be only the 13th largest South Carolina newspaper (and that's excluding free circulation). All of this coverage is local and not outside the specific region as demanded by WP:NPOL. Pilaz ( talk) 09:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • To elaborate on the failure of WP:NBIO, I've always found obits to be a poor indicator of notability. Not only are many of them paid for (hence not independent), but they always happen in the context of the death of the subject ( WP:BIO1E) and usually do not fall under the editorial policy of the newspaper in question (there's often just an obit department doing its own thing). This is a personal preference and Wikipedia guidelines are silent on obituaries, but it is the reason why I don't usually count them towards the WP:GNG, especially if they are local. 3 million people die in the United States every year, and hundreds of thousands of obits are published every year in the US alone. Imagine if we had to determine the notability of every dead person in the world through the lens of obituaries. Pilaz ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Where, specifically, is 'outside their area' stated as required of sources for major local politicians? Areas where WP guidelines are silent don't seem a proper area in which to make assumptions against notability. Relatively few dead people receive full coverage by journalists, so the referrals to "3 million" and "every dead person in the world" are non-applicable exaggerations. — ADavidB 10:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually, my mistake: I incorrectly thought that Wikipedia:Notability (politics) had already been adopted, due to the fact that we continuously refer to WP:POLOUTCOMES when looking for precedent. I've consequently corrected my original comment. Under that proposal, #9 has "outside their specific region" added to "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", but it's clearly not in NPOL. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, we usually tend to only retain mayors who belong to cities of regional prominence; and Greenville isn't even in the top 300 largest US cities nor in the top 5 of largest SC cities. Being a mayor of such a small city hardly qualifies for a "major local political figure", and the fact that coverage is almost exclusively hyperlocal confirms that. The failure to meet WP:NBIO due to quasi-total reliance on obituaries from local media (with its WP:BIO1E concerns) remains valid in my eyes. Pilaz ( talk) 11:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, I am free to determine whether sources are reliable on a case-by-case basis, especially when the guidelines are silent on said sources, since sources need to be reliable to count towards the GNG. Obits are notoriously paid-for, edulcorated biographies not subject to the same editorial guidelines as other journalistic pieces. This is something that has come up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard several times. As an example, throughout her carreer, obit writer Kay Powell of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has written about notorious people such as "The church choir singer who had a frontal lobotomy and donated his brain to science, the girl who sang at Martin Luther King Jr’s funeral, the woman who was Flannery O’Connor’s secret pen pal for 30 years". Of course local newspapers are going to be writing about every dead mayor when the bar is so low. Pilaz ( talk) 12:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
We differ on whether Greenville is regionally prominent (not nationally or necessarily state-wide). It is the seat of Greenville County, the most populous county of the Upstate region and the state, with the largest school district in the state. The Greenville News circulation is at or near fifth in the state. If the writers or publishers of Workman's source articles are known to be unreliable in their journalistic standards, you may have a point. Otherwise, referring to other newspapers and writers is tangential. — ADavidB 18:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The way I usually side with the whole "regional coverage" thing is that I determine if what the paper is covering is a local story or not. Obviously regional news outlets have a vested interest in covering topics that are local to them. So they will, even if it's something that's not otherwise notable. But if it's a news story about something in the "Greenville region" then I'd say it's fine as a regional source. Really though, if it's a topic relating to Greenville then it isn't regional coverage. Outside of that the Whole discussion about what is or isn't a regional news outlet is a little pedantic. Especially these days with the internet and most local outlets being connected to the Associated Press or bought out by bigger news companies. Like most local newspapers in my region now are owned by the same company, which also owns USA Today. So there's an extreme amount of overlap in what they cover. Plus a lot of news stories from USA Today. So the whole "regional/local" thing is really a moot point. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article appears to have sources outside of obits, so WP:BIO1E is not a problem. Passes WP:NPOL as this person has "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". It doesn't matter if this coverage is local either, as it is here. Swordman97 talk to me 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Sources now include The State from state capital Columbia. Additional sourcing is on the way via NewsBank. — ADavidB 04:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article has significant coverage demonstrating notability. WP:NPOL is not meant to exclude politicians who do not meet the criteria set out there if they meet WP:GNG; this article should be kept not as an NPOL pass but as a GNG pass. Elli ( talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Delete- US local mayor with local news titles mentions only. The better RS here is'nt specifically about him, they discuss other topics and he gets a mention. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Deathlibrarian ( talk) 00:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Workman is more than trivially mentioned in many of the sources, and he does not need to be the main topic of such source material, per WP:GNG (read it). Also, "There is no fixed number of sources required ... but multiple sources are generally expected." In WP:NPOL, the requirement for 'major local political figures' is multiple sources of significant coverage. The article has grown greatly since nominated for deletion, and the content is fully sourced. — ADavidB 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are numerous sources here that are specifically about him. I don't understand the objection to obituaries - presuming that they are not of the paid notice variety (and these seem not to be) they are a testament to the perceived importance of the person. I also think that local newspapers that are actual newspapers, not freebie coupon papers, are good sources. In fact, the local newspapers here have WP articles, which says something about their stability and perhaps reliability. Lamona ( talk) 15:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 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. There's a rather broad community consensus that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and the "keep" opinions must accordingly be given less weight. Sandstein 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse

Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • For more background, note this discussion: "Proofs_involving..." articles.-- RainerBlome ( talk) 01:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • As the material has already been transwikied to a more appropriate place, all that's left is the tidying-up. Delete unless a redirect needs to be kept around to preserve the page history for attribution purposes. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    As I used official import procedures, the page history has been transferred too. Conserving attribution here is therefore not necessary for attribution purposes. Felix QW ( talk) 08:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for clarifying. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    As far as I understand, the idea of the proposal is not to nuke content, but to move it. Cool URIs don't change, so iff the decision should be to move, I'd suggest a Soft redirect instead of a delete, to keep incoming links working. It would look like this:
.-- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, because it would make the world worse.
Even if the proof page can be seen to violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it should stay. I invoke the Wikipedia principle WP:Common sense.
Following the "common sense" flow chart:
-> Does the proof page improve the encyclopedia? Yes. I think the proof page fits well in Wikipedia, because it complements the article page. This is no surprise, because the proof page's purpose is to support the article (and not to serve as a textbook). I think it is a good idea to keep wiki proofs close to the material that they support. In particular, this keeps the interested editorship close to the proof page.[1]
-> Does it break the rules? Yes.[2]
-> Is that because the rules are wrong? No, the rules are fine.
-> Ignore the rules and DO IT
In this case, "DO IT" means to do nothing, leave the page in place. Sometimes, it is better to do nothing. But let's discuss, discussing this is good.
[1] When I look at the other pages in the wikibook "Topics in Linear Algebra", I see far less edits. I fear the content would wither and die on wikibooks. On Wikipedia, 72 editors have contributed 341 edits. ( https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Proofs_involving_the_Moore%E2%80%93Penrose_inverse) Even though the topic of the proof page is very narrow (compared to, for example "Field theory" ( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Topics_in_Abstract_Algebra/Field_theory), the proof page is currently the longest page in that book. Had the page been created at wikibooks in the first place, it would not be at the current level of quality.
[2] The proof page has many proofs, develops them from each other. It shares this property with a textbook. But it is not a textbook, it is not intended to be a textbook. The "Proofs involving" discussion linked to above mentions that the proof page was originally a subpage, and was promoted to "article" only because subpages are no longer allowed in article namespace. As such, the proof page is conceptually still a sub-page, a supplement to the article, intended to make the article more easily verifiable. One of the reasons for the page's existence is that for these proofs, literature is somewhat hard to get a hand on in practice, simply because it is a bit of a niche topic. The page indeed provides an alternative to such other literature. As does all of Wikipedia, in a sense.
It has been claimed that the wikibook would be a more appropriate place. For what reason? The other topics are more "abstract algebra", while the proof page is intended to support an article mostly about concrete algebra (matrix algebra).
-- RainerBlome ( talk) 01:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I agree that the current location in Wikibooks is not ideal. The plan is to move the material into the into the far more active wikibooks:Linear algebra Wikibook, which is a featured book and actively used in university courses. However, because the linear algebra book is featured and quite visible, I am still waiting for some criticism/opposition on the Wikibooks:Linear algebra talk page before doing so.
I think the Moore-Penrose inverse would be a great addition to the linear algebra wikibook, since even though it is not usually covered in undergraduate linear algebra courses, it is useful, accessible and very pretty. Felix QW ( talk) 08:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: @ Felix QW I agree that wikibooks:Linear algebra looks like a better place than Wikibooks:Topics in Abstract Algebra. I also agree that everything else being equal, Wikibooks would be a more appropriate place in general. But in practice, not everything else is equal. Looking at the page history of https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linear_Algebra/Inverses, which would be a suitable sibling, there is significantly less editor activity there than on Wikipedia.
Thanks for your effort in rendering the content in textbook form. I like what you did there. Of course, those changes are appropriate only on Wikibooks, on Wikipedia the new phrasing would not be appropriate. It looks like you dewikified some or all wikilinks in the article. I do not see why. Was this necessary for some reason, could you please explain why you did not covert to Wikipedia links? One of the points of a wiki (even hypertext in general) is the use of links. -- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: The Removal of the links is explicit Wikibooks policy (I was also surprised) – in fact, when transwikiing a page from Wikipedia, it gets an explicit "dewikify" tag
wikibooks:template:dewikify! Felix QW ( talk) 07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Rolling my eyes at that policy. Then the "Wiki" in "Wikibooks" does not fulfill expectations, for me. At least it doesn't say "no links", it just says "use sparingly". One more reason to keep the proof page at Wikipedia. :-)-- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, in support of the sensible plan to transwiki this to a better home. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

We want to compare alternatives

[A] Keep in Wikipedia

[B] Move to Wikibooks

[C] Maintain a copy at both Wikibooks and Wikipedia

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

The point in removing something should be something like this:

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - the question discussed above is whether this is a wikibook article or a Wikipedia page. It clearly has the attributes of a wikibook rather than an article, as its approach is textbook-like, not encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Making the world worse" has nothing to do with Wikipedia notability guidelines, and this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PianoDan ( talk) 03:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - leaning here on a personal bias lol, but I just wanted to look something up related to this topic and found the answer reasonably quickly on this specific page, which if nothing else meets the basic use case of an encyclopaedia. And another anecdote: I have never once stumbled across Wikibooks in the search for something. More importantly, there's nothing in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK specifically against proofs being in Wikipedia. Perhaps it could be argued that there are too many proofs, or they're too detailed, but that's an argument for trimming the page, not deletion altogether. At least some of this seems notable enough. 86.130.93.159 ( talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, there are too many of them, and yes, they are too detailed. I'd go further and say that none of them prove anything surprising; they mostly demonstrate that, yes, the operator works like a derivative should. Trim away all that ought to be trimmed, and there would be nothing left. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Thriller Records

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

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

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

  • Weak keep. Music magazines would not be described as trade press - that refers to publications intended for people who work in the industry. There is https://loudwire.com/avoid-thriller-records-hostage-beach-house-party-video/ from Loudwire and coverage from Substream Magazine [1] [2] that could be used in expanding the article (also https://ocmusicnews.com/thriller-records/, but that's probably less significant and based on an interview). I don't think these are user generated or vendor sources either. Editors watching the Music deletion list are more likely to know whether these are sufficient coverage, and may find additional sources. A865 ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Changed to keep or redirect (to Fearless Records#History). A865 ( talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. A865 ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fearless Records. It seems like a new company that could have more content written about them in the future but they still might be too new to have any significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't object to redirecting, but content would have to be merged and added to describe how the labels are related, as it is not currently mentioned. A865 ( talk) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment — An organization passes the relevant criteria when both NORG & ORGDEPTH are satisfied & when WP:SIRS is applicable, in the absence of this, we are dealing with a WP:NCORP fail. “It seems like a new company that could have more content written about them in the future” following WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cant predict, I don’t think redirecting would be a good fit either. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources I mentioned seem to be reliable, not "user generated sources, and Vendor sources" (one publication is the subject of an article, the other is cited in several articles), I'm just not sure if they are significant enough for WP:NCORP - in a way it is routine coverage, and the reason it's being written about is because of the association with Fearless Records and its founder. There is no notability requirement for redirects, the company would be worth mentioning in that article and the sources are enough for that, and it would be incorrect to replace the links from other articles with direct links to Fearless Records. A865 ( talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Your response to my rationale above doesn’t appear to be In accordance with my comment, I didn’t say anything about vendor sources or user generated sources in my comment above, I mentioned WP:NORG not being met and WP:SIRS not being applicable, there simply is no WP:SIGCOV as required by NCORP, so I’m not entirely sure why your reply isn’t in synergy with my comment directly above. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Delete Agree with nom, there isn't enough written about the company to satisfy WP:NCORP, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 18:36, 13 February 2022 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay

List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable list Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't so much have an opinion about this, as I'd like to know why I've been getting multiple prod and AFD notifications on an article I have virtually no history with. I've edited the page exactly once in its entire history, ten years ago, and even then only to add a maintenance tag because it was created by somebody else (spoiler alert: that somebody else was the nominator!) as an uncategorized page. What about that implies any need to notify me about anything, especially since one would have to choose to notify me manually? Bearcat ( talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only a few of the items in the list are blue linked, the rest are unreferenced except for a couple have links to primary websites, and there's zero evidence that they discussed as a group or set anywhere. Plus, there's prior consensus from other AfDs relating to articles for lists of high schools in Paraguay that all resulted in delete. So not only does this clearly fail WP:NLIST, but there is also a consensus that such lists should be deleted. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete LoL. This is funny. A G6 could have done this since the nominator is still the author. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans 11:22, 15 February 2022 (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. Withdrawn by nominator dud hhr Contribs 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) dud hhr Contribs 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Paul Courant

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. WP:BEFORE search found no RS pertaining to him. The entirety of the Career section is unsourced. dud hhr Contribs 17:14, 13 February 2022 (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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Roman Rumbesht

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

Non-notable living individual. WP:BEFORE revealed no in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Paid editing appears to be involved. twsabin 16:25, 13 February 2022 (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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yosef Zvi Rimon

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

not enough significant and in-depth independent coverage, npov not maintained, possible original research. although 1 or 2 good sources, I suspect not adequate. Tame ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pradeep Rajput

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

Possible COI promotional article on a non notable actor who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search turns up nothing of substance. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Satyajit Deshmukh

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL. Celestina007 ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. North America 1000 01:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yomi Denzel

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep, with the caveat that interviews are primary sources, and therefore cannot contribute to notability. The combination of the Huffington Post source and the article in Le Temps seem to be just barely enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 09:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, for the precise reasons mentioned above by Celestina007. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 09:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable sources CassiJevenn ( talk) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 13 February 2022 (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. Following edits, the deletion rationale no longer applies. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

LMBO

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a search on-wiki reveals several other meanings of the term "LMBO", which I just added. Duckmather ( talk) 05:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question "Unnecessary" in what way? That's a surprisingly vague deletion rationale which doesn't give much context for discussion. I don't see why it's any less "necessary" than any other disambiguation page with five alternatives on it. Granted, none of them have their subjects linked, but all of them reference something that's mentioned at the destination pages, and in most cases to which they specifically pertain. Largoplazo ( talk) 04:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Unnecessary in that none of the articles linked are closely associated with "LMBO". (See WP:DABACRONYM.) Who is going to search for this initialism trying to get to one of these articles? ... discospinster talk 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: multiple entries pass WP:DABMENTION, the only questionable line being the buy-out initialism which appears in several sources but not on-wiki. There seems to be no primary topic. Certes ( talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I see the buy-out initialism as the most solid entry: that's the only one where the topic is clearly not obscure, the term widely used (could easily be the primary topic, already is on frwiki), and the linked article/s highly relevant to the topic (rather that simply the location for a passing mention). – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a very different page than the one that was speedy deleted before this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep per additions made during this discussion. Is now a functional DAB page. Star Mississippi 15:44, 21 February 2022 (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 Camila (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 15:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

In the Dark (Camila Cabello song)

In the Dark (Camila Cabello song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS - all the sources are from it's parent album and therefore should be redirected there. LOVI 33 15:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Low charting on small, national charts and sales figures not unexpected in Brazil based on the sales of the album it was pulled from. None of this notability has led to any content that could be written about the song itself. The details that are present could be easily addressed in a discography, album or bio article without causing any bloat to those articles. if that is the case, redirect to the article that makes sense. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I have updated with some additional sources. Most of what I found are mentions or review of the track within an album review, but there is lot's of that, which I haven't added. Chelokabob ( talk) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Chelokabob I encourage you to read over WP:NSONGS which mentions that song articles should have reliable sources that don't come from album reviews or album interviews in order to be considered notable. Right now there is only one source that satisfies that, the Tigerbeat one. But that is not exactly the most reliable source. To me, Tigerbeat seems like a gossip rather than a news site. LOVI 33 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Camila (album). There does not appear to be evidence of significant coverage of this song in third-party, reliable sources (i.e. outside of primary sources and album reviews). However, there appears to be limited coverage and this is a viable search term so rather than delete this article, I think it would be more beneficial to redirect to the album article. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Camila (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Armando Giglia

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

We don't normally have Wikipedia articles about Run-of-the-mill people like government school principals, and I can't find any reason why this one should be an exception. Graham 87 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable, mostly primary sources with only press mentions in Education awards. Hughesdarren ( talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per above. Steelkamp ( talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator - no evident reason why should be an exception JarrahTree 02:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lack of indepth coverage. Just a run of the mill school principal. LibStar ( talk) 02:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Could only find one more IRS, which I've added to the page, but nonetheless don't think the page passes GNG. Giglia has received some awards, and held high position in a school principals association, but don't see how that would pass GNG. If this very recently made page were to go through AfC I don't think it would be accepted. Cabrils ( talk) 21:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is routine sourcing of the subject's career. There is a state level cohort award, and a senior industry cohort appointment but that is it. Not enough for GNG think. There is no independent reasonably in-depth bio that I can find. There is a lot of press on what the subject says in their industry appointment, but this is not about them. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not agree with the "run-of-the-mill" assessment of the subject, and I am a bit disappointed with the apparent pile-on. The subject, I think is clearly not run-of-the-mill, ie, a state level award of which there is only one per year, and an appointment of which there is only one every four years or more, and a distinct press profile across mainstream media nationally. If we are to delete (or not) then I think it is best based on the correct evidence. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

LifeLine srl

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Action of 12 October 1950

Action of 12 October 1950 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

An AfD was created, to delete several of these fantasy articles. It got a bit messy, and this Korean War article did not get clearly addressed. Here is the link to the first nomination.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_of_16_January_1916
Thanks. Keith H99 ( talk) 10:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
AfD for this article Action of 12 October 1950 Keith H99 ( talk) 10:33, 13 February 2022 (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. Discounting the apparent confusion with the baker, there's still a number of valid arguments for and against notability here. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Briony Williams

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

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

  • ENT states, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Exactly, Check her other credits. She had two other shows and 52 episodes is a significant amount. Chelokabob ( talk) 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
One-off characters generally do not count as significant roles, and she doesn't seem to be a Renée Jeanne Falconetti/ The Passion of Joan of Arc-like exception. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Her role is Struck by Lightning is decent. A secondary character behind the three leads. See Cinema Papers, May 1991. duffbeerforme ( talk) 00:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Those aren't "reviews"; those are all just cast listings in something called the "Australian Live Performance Database". Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh. Clarityfiend, look down to the “Resources” section. There you will see a list of resources about the plays. Eg for ‘’Spring Awakening’’ you will see
Performance Recording: Spring Awakening, State Theatre Company of South Australia, 10 May 1991
Review: Christabel Hirst, Sunday Mail, 21 April 1991
Review: Diane Beer, The News, 17 April 1991
Review: Michael Morley, Financial Review, 26 April 1991
Review: Murray Bramwell, Rites and Wrongs, The Adelaide Review, May 1991, 28-29
Review: Peter Ward, The Australian, 18 April 1991
Review: Tim Lloyd, The Advertiser, 17 April 1991
There you can see six reviews, including from The Australian, a national newspaper. So no, not “just cast listings” as you falsely claim. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Reviews of what, the plays? Not the actress? Next to useless in establishing notability. Also, where is this Resources section? Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Reviews of the play establishment the notability of the play. Since that demonstrates a notable production and she has a significant role that is one more role for NACTOR. So very useful in establishing notability. And where is the resources section? Down near the bottom, right below Contributors. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
You can WP:NOTINHERIT notability from a play. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Let me try to break it down for you. There is a SNG for actors at WP:NACTOR. The first criteria on that list is Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The simplified version,
Say an actress has a significant role in a TV series. If that TV series has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a television show. Thats would be one for the above criteria. You acknowledge that above.
Say an actor has a significant role in a film. If that film has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable notable film. Thats would be one for the above criteria.
Say an actress has a significant role in a production of a play. If that production has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable stage performance. Thats would be one for the above criteria.
Say an actress has a significant role in a television show and has four significant roles in a notable stage performances that would count as five for the above criteria. Last I checked five was multiple. It's not about inheriting notability from a play, It's about verifiably satisfying a Subject-specific notability guidelines. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we need souring to the level of GNG to justify keeping an article, which we clearly do not have here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That's simply not true. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was initially going to weak delete based on the television work but there is other material available, in both main stream media and industry media, if you want to find it, which clearly enables a more in-depth article to be written. For example:
    • .. the brilliantly screwball Briony Williams .. in Four Places
    • .. Briony Williams .. a little self-conscious at times, but overall was gutsy, forceful, and seductive .. in Macbeth
    • .. the adaptable Briony Williams .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
    • .. depth of acting talent in the cast .. Briony Williams .. in The Graduate
    • .. Briony Williams proves surprisingly dexterous in an amusing cameo as a stripper .. in The Graduate
    • Briony Williams .. shines in her rather thankless roles .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
    • Briony Williams is pitch-perfect as the solicitous and protective Barb. in Four Places
Combining the subject's television work and stage work I think they get over the GNG line. So there is definitely NEXIST but it really needs to be added to the article. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The problem is that these are all (with the possible exception of the paywalled newspaper article) just passing mentions. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
They are not passing mentions. They are specific purposeful points about the subject, and are directly relevant to the context they are in. I agree that each by itself is not significant and I am not claiming that any one of them establishes notability. They do, however, demonstrate sustained coverage and in aggregation do contribute to both notability and depth. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Client's day

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

An unofficial holiday, does not appear to be notable. Homo ergaster ( talk) 09:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Input from a native speaker for the provided sources would be helpful, but from what I can discern, GNG is not met. Contrary to the nominaton, the unofficial part of this holiday does not seem to be a problem (e.g. List of minor secular observances contains many notable unofficial holidays). After a quick Google search, there are a few results, but fewer than a comparable "National Customer Appreciation Day". Article appears to fall under WP:MILL. While the number of sources is decent, there are some concerns with the reliability of some based on the translations I could find. Not to mention a fair deal of CE/MOS cleanup is needed to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards, however, draftifying would not be completely off the table if RS can be provided for notability. Bgv. ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC) 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 withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Public School English Medium Bijbehara

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

Unsourced article. Was PRODDED, deprodded by creator. Was draftified: original editor has re-created in mainspace. AfD seems only way forward - no obvious CSD Category, Prod would presumably be removed again. Pam D 09:19, 13 February 2022 (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 and I don't think one is forthcoming out of another week of discussion. Star Mississippi 15:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

WhatsApp snooping scandal

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

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

Thank you, I hadnt noticed that. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I would have supported merge as well, but this article really has nothing that the original article does not cover already. It seems the author created it without realising the existence of the other articles. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ CapnJackSp how are you so sure? have you checked every line and reference? I randomly looked and found that the Pegasus article does not have mention of Priyanka Gandhi, while this article has it along with reference. I still stand by my decision. Venkat TL ( talk) 14:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I did go through the reference, it seems quite confusing and Im honestly confused as to how we would include it into the pegasus article. The source states that "WhatsApp did not say that the phone was hacked in this fashion by an illegal Pegasus software" in the message sent to State secretary Priyanka Gandhi, but also says that the Congress alleged the phone had been sent a message related to the app? If you can provide a concise summation of the news article, I would be more than happy to add to the existing article on Pegasus. To me, the news article seems to imply that the message sent to Mrs. Priyanka's phone had nothing to do with pegasus in particular, but was some sort of message from Whatsapp. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep on second thoughts, I see that both article have different scope. WhatsApp snooping scandal covers the revalation in 2019, while the article Pegasus Project revelations in India, as the name suggests, discussed the investigative report by Group of journalist on Pegasus project published in 2021. Venkat TL ( talk) 15:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ LearnIndology: Dear friend, the issue got enough coverage. If added all, then there would be citation bombing. :) -- NeverTry4Me - TT page 00:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have removed the CSD tag as other editors have contributed to this article. The ban-evading editor has to be the sole contributor or there have to be no substantial contributions from other editors. Please decided whether to keep or delete the page in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, since Pegasus Project revelations in India is about a journalist investigation, and is not a suitable merge target. Eventually, all these pages can be merged into a more comprehensive page on Pegasus spyware in India. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, pursuant to Kautilya3's reasoning. Let us revisit in a couple of years. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and I agree with Kautilya3. Such a subject shouldn't be deleted. It should be KEEP and expanded with more resources. -- NeverTry4Me - TT page 23:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep agree with Kautilya3. - SUN EYE 1 16:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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 (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 06:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kotobank

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

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Sorry for my misunderstanding. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:35, 13 February 2022 (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 deleted. Already speedy deleted the day before. Too much WP:PROMO. Will WP:SALT at WP:ECP level. El_C 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Anudip Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Arcadia Watches

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

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

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

  • Comment The historic company seems notable, the relaunched one isn't very much. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. and improve per DGG. Chelokabob ( talk) 23:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If we consider that the relaunched brand and the historic one should have the same article, then I think it only needs some improvements.-- Art&football ( talk) 23:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Team Bodyshop MMA

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. The sources are about fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. Sources also lack depth on the gym inself. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Imcdc ( talk) 04:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. This AfD has been bludgeoned to death by walls of text by the nominator, who has since been blocked for this kind of conduct. A renomination without their participation might help result in a clearer consensus. Sandstein 21:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pepe Escobar

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

Hi,

From WP:JOURNALIST:

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

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

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

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

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

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

HouseOfChange argues that:

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

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

  • 2012 The Atlantic [1] [2]
  • 2013 Mercury News [3]
  • 2015 The Week [4]
  • 2016 Oliver Stone in Interview magazine [5]
  • 2019 Jacobin and Secret Notes from Iran [6] [7]
  • 2021 Times of Malta [8]

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

References

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You couldn't have illustrated my point more perfectly. I immediately clicked on the University of Leicester source, on account of the fact that once upon a time I nearly did an MA there. But, you linked me to 'a student's thesis'..... you seem to not yet quite understand what a reliable source is, but, in case you didn't realize, a student's thesis, is not. Anyway, more importantly, in that thesis, the student cites an article Escobar wrote for Russia Insider. The fact that he's happy to write for an outlet that constantly promotes Holocaust Denial should immediately disqualify him from any possibility that he be considered a serious journalist (if you don't believe me, have a quick read of their website, where you'll see among of their seven sub-sections you can visit are "revisionist history", "WWII revisionism" and "the Jewish Question"... click on the latter [10] and prepare yourself).

Now, your second source is - aside from being written in atrocious English - is again from an unknown author publishing in a journal that is put out by an unknown Pakistani think-tank in Islamabad (the journal didn't even appear in most websites that are dedicated to collecting ranking data from academic publications). If you click on the link to the think-tank itself [11], it's dead. The page for the journal seems to be up at least, [12] nevermind it having the appearance of something was was coded in the mid-90s. If you go to Google Scholar and search for it's articles, none of them have even a single citation. [13] I was finally able to find it recognized somewhere, hoping to see a hilariously low Impact factor, but, of course, it's not even significant enough to warrant some poor employee being told to calculate it's insignificance. [14] If you type the name of the Journal into Google News [15] it gets 0 results. But on top of all this, the article of Escobar's that the author cites, was published in Consortium News. You can go to WP:RSP where it's coded red and says: " There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories." Or visit Ad Fontes Media's entry on it, which ranks it as extremely unreliable. [16]

And, then you put forward an article from, of all places.... The American Journal of Public Health? When we say peers, we mean, fellow professionals, other journalists, you get that right? And that, Medical Doctors, even ones that write in academic journals, aren't journalists? Did you check the citation? He isn't quoted from, or even named. So aside from being another great example of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, the author is disagreeing him, in a rather cheekily mocking tone I might add. She writes: "Nevertheless, one point is clear: those seeking an understanding of China’s current response to COVID-19 need not turn to ancient Confucian culture to explain everything from universal mask wearing to compliance with draconian restrictions on personal freedoms." And his article in the Asia Times is listed in the footnotes. Why is she mocking him, what did he write? "Confucius is winning the Covid-19 war" [17] He presents us with this gem: (beware folks, bit of a rant ahead...)

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

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

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

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

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

3. And yet another trivial mention, in a student's thesis, which, and I feel sorry for this student, cites an article Escobar published in a far-right Kremlin-funded anti-semitic Holocaust denying website very popular with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. [18]

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


  • Delete. Confusingly for an AfD, the nominator does not actually put forward a deletion rationale; the person who created the AfD is not suggesting that this be deleted nor be turned into a redirect but instead that the article be kept. Such an nomination should ordinarily be speedily kept, but somebody responded with a deletion rationale before anybody got around to making this a speedy keep, so I might as well make an argument since we're past the point of a procedural keep.
    The nominator puts forward an argument about being cited by peers. I personally don't buy arguments that, for purposes of notability, widely cited by peers means that eight sources report that you reported on something and trivially mention your name. The provided references additionally don't actually cite him for facts in any meaningful way. Rather, they trivially mention that he was among a group of people or they mention a very short blurb of his—that simply isn't the threshold of widely cited; being widely cited means being cited in a wide range of sources, not being infrequently cited in newsletters or only very occasionally being referenced in academic literature. (Academics aren't peers of journalists either, for that matter).
    EnlightenmentNow1792 argued above that the individual doesn't pass WP:NJOURNALIST (a particular SNG), but this isn't a valid deletion rationale on its own. The subject of the article would also need to fail WP:NBASIC for the article to fail WP:N. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV of this individual, so I think that the article fails WP:BASIC as well. For the reasons I state below, I believe that the coverage coverage in each of the eight sources that mentions him by name fails to contribute towards passing WP:NBASIC:
    1. The first source mentions his name as a part of a list and provides no coverage of him whatsoever besides that his name doesn't sound like that of a Muslim extremist.
    2. The second source briefly quotes his reaction to a particular foreign policy decision by Barrack Obama. The coverage is not in-depth, nor is it actually from The Atlantic (it's content from The Wire).
    3. The third source quotes a sentence of his but doesn't actually provide any significant coverage of Escobar as a person. The source also refers to him as a Brazilian analyst, which isn't the same thing as a journalist that some of the people supporting the article being kept are saying.
    4. The fourth source says that Escobar wrote something about Medvedev, but the coverage of Escobar as a person is not significant there.
    5. I have no clue if the fifth source is even reliable for the words of who it interviewed, but a random shoutout that consists solely of Escobar's name isn't WP:SIGCOV regardless.
    6. The sixth source coverage of Escobar consists of a two sentence quote of Escobar's with extremely limited commentary. It's also very clearly an opinion piece, which isn't necessarily a reliable source.
    7. The seventh source does very little except mention Escobar's name. It doesn't even really cite him for anything; he's just put on a list along with TeleSur and "Global Research Foundation" among others.
    8. The eighth source is an opinion piece whose only reference to Escobar is that he once appeared as a guest of a Michael Brooks production.
Simply being name-checked by a bunch of sources doesn't make a person notable under WP:NBASIC. The specific references above also don't show that Escobar is widely cited as a journalist, which is what WP:NJOURNALIST would require. Getting one's opinion pieces quoted is few publications is simply not evidence of widespread citation, nor is being cited in three academic journals. If there are multiple in-depth articles about Escobar he'd pass WP:BASIC. If his work were widely cited, it would be easy to show. Unfortunately for those who want to keep the article, it doesn't appear that anybody can actually show that this individual meets any relevant notability guideline. As a result, his article seems fit for deletion. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah sorry, I messed up the AfD process, my first one, I had to get someone us to fix it for me. [19] - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
(Also replying to Mhawk10) Thanks for the effort you put into your collegial reply. I agree that PE fails to meet NBASIC. I thought that being multiply "name-checked" and occasionally quoted added up to being "widely cited." Just to clarify, I do not like Escobar's politics, but feel that should have no bearing on if he is notable or not. I suppose I was being stubborn about this because I did the work to see if he was Notable or not and thought I had discovered that he was--also probably also because EnlightenmentNow1792 seemed to me to be motivated by his own political POV. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ HouseOfChange: Did you really just say that? What has anything I've written implied that I was coming at this from a political angle? Seriously, please, I'd love to know. What do you think my "political POV" is? I'm genuinely curious, I won't be upset I promise. I just can't see you being able to deduce that from what I've written here. I'll give you massive props if you do get it, honestly. My own siblings don't even know that, and we talk about political issues often. It's just that they never ask too many probing questions like that, because they know I'll have them bored to tears and still be trying to explain myself 20mins later EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is the messiest AFD I've ever seen. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Liz: You are! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Liz: It is a strange discussion. The article has been around since 2008 and articles about PE are in several other wikis. The mentions, cites, and name-checks I uncovered may or may not add up to bare NJOURNALIST. PE's pro-Russia, anti-US POV isn't relevant to AfD. Nor is the guilt-by-association argument that neo-Nazis and anti-Semites hang out in his fringe spaces. Nor is the STRAWMAN argument that cites and quotes I offered to support NJOURNALIST would not suffice if I had instead been trying to show NBASIC. I will be glad when this closes, one way or the other. HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Extended content
He's published for an explicitly far right, antisemitic, holocaust-denying website ("Russia Insider"). That's not "guilt-by-association". I can see why you'll be glad this closes, indeed. Maybe next time you'll think twice before you double-down on a "keep" for a BLP fringe personality. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 02:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ EnlightenmentNow1792: On the contrary, citing a connection to Russia Insider to criticize PE is a classic " guilt by association" argument, as is the red herring following from it, that Pepe Escobar is a bad person and therefore I should not express my opinion that he is Wikipedia-notable. Wikipedia is not censored, and especially it is not censored by deleting information about notable topics. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ HouseOfChange: - Why have you still not learned that you must read the sources you bring forward? The only reliable sources you've brought forward so far, that specifically discuss him as a peer, just as WP:JOURNALIST demands, have done so in a disparaging manner. And the only one that does so at any length at all, you've not just ignored and not bothered to even read it, but you actually doubted that it at face value, it, and not the sundry White Supremacist ones Pepe usually writes for. The RS reads in part:
"In the Grayzone-affiliated podcast and video series designed to discredit secular opposition to Assad sarcastically called “Moderate Rebels”, they invited Pepe Escobar to discuss his theories about how the US is using the coronavirus as a weapon against China. Pepe Escobar has over 300 articles as a contributor to the fascist website Russia Insider. He writes about hanging out with Aleksandr Dugin... as well as writing for the Russian state affiliated Duginist outlet Katehon. On another podcast, Pepe spoke with the Veterans Today–affiliated Holocaust denialist Kevin Barrett and Anthony Hall stating Pepe was one of their main reasons for going to the New Horizon conference. When Gareth Porter of Grayzone later stated regret about having attended the New Horizon conference, he insisted Pepe... [was] also surprised and dismayed by the antisemitism and other conspiracy theories. Yet, his defense of Pepe and his regret comes off as disingenuous because Pepe is, as we’ve seen, something of a pillar in these networks. He must not have regretted it much though, because he went back again in 2019.
That's not guilt by association, that's association, pure and simple. How many fascist, holocaust-denying individuals (three mentioned there, I know of many more), outlets (two mentioned there, I know at least two more he still writes for) and conferences must someone posing as a serious "journalist" and "analyst" attend before the "they're just all a series of coincidences" no longer seems credible to you? Does not the fact that he echoes pretty much 90% of their talking-points give you a slight hint? Evidently not. - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 15:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I did read their piece, I also read US State Department document it's based on, which may be excluded by WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need extra-good RS to put "contentious material about living persons" into Wikipedia. PE's alleged bad character is, however, irrelevant to the question of whether or not his pre-Trump journalism career was "notable." HouseOfChange ( talk) 15:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
HouseOfChange, if I may be so bold, can I ask you a couple of questions? You said on my Talk page (your titled your entry "Caution regarding your edits" or something) that I am "not improving Wikipedia", and that you on the other hand, are a harmless "boring wikignome with a boring interest in biographies and NPOV". I don't consider either of those two things boring, for what it's worth. Then you again posted a big scary sticker on my Talk page, saying my edit summaries weren't civil and I was not AGF. I totally disagree with the civility, but yes I do admit I was wrong to not AGF. However, I must say, you started that message on my Talk Page with the words: "You seem to be a new editor, at least with this account..." Should I take that as a accusation or just a suspicion of sockpuppetry? Do you still think I am or might be a sockpuppet? And, finally, considering all the time and energy you put into trying to keep this article (that I don't understand at all - why? I love interesting people with interesting lives and interesting things to say? Why would you spent so much time on this? That's why I initially didn't AGF) and considering the fact that you repeatedly kept coming back with the same low-quality, sources, from the strangest of places... do you think someone should maybe go through some of your edits to check just in chase you've made similar mistakes elsewhere? I mean, if I had just added a source that revealed that someone wrote for a website crawling with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and either (a) didn't bother to read the read it; or (b) didn't notice by looking at the site? I'd wanna take a good hard look at myself, and my whole process. Anyways, no hard feelings, - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 19:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I explained my reasoning above. I have no desire to chat, justify myself to you, etc. HouseOfChange ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Then perhaps you'll be so kind as to stop bombing my Talk page with warnings/threats/accusations. Thanks. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 02:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It’s not a great article, he’s not a great writer and this is not a great discussion; but fifteen seconds on Google is enough to demonstrate to any fair-minded observer that he is significant enough to warrant a (better) article. Nwhyte ( talk) 00:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Nwhyte Fortunately, "fifteen seconds on Google" is not how Wikipedia determines notability. Read: WP:JOURNALIST. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Weak delete: I do weight the mentions in academic journals strongly in determining whether Pepe meets WP:NJOURNALIST#1, but three mentions are not quite sufficient. There seems to be one independent review of his book "Empire of Chaos", not in a great source. The couldn't find independent reviews for his other books, so he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR#3. I think it's a shame there isn't more coverage of journalists in general.. Femke ( talk) 14:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Femkemilene: (1) There actually aren't three mentions of his journalism in "academic journals", there are precisely zero. Unless you count a student thesis, a footnote in a medical journal, or a citation in an unrated, unrecognized, self-published "think-tank"; (2) Again "Foreign Policy Journal" might sound rather grand and be possessed of a fortuitous domain name, but it's just a website, essentially a blog, full of fringe conspiracy theories [20] [21] and theorists [22]. It is not an academic journal, it is not a reliable source of any kind (crackpots galore), and, moreover, it ceased to exist in 2020. Needless to say, the author of that "independent review", one "Jim Miles", is not an author/journalist/academic of any repute, but is instead a Canadian school teacher who has an unhealthy hobby of writing on "alternative" websites about the usual "Alex Jones-esque" conspiracy theories. (3) "I think it's a shame there isn't more coverage of journalists in general" - that's where you're mistaken, in this case. Escobar isn't a "journalist" anymore than Vanessa Beeley or Eva Bartlett are. The only reason why the latter two bloggers are explicitly defined in Wikipedia's editorial voice as "activists" and "conspiracy theorists" is because they became notable enough to reach a broad online audience in light of their activism and conspiracy theory propagation in favor of Assad in those few years when the US public still cared about the Syrian Civil War. Escobar espouses an essentially identical worldview, and would be commensurably pilloried if only he managed to make himself as "notable" - i.e. notorious - as they did. My point being, merely calling yourself an "independent journalist" does not mean that you are, in fact, a journalist. Let alone one deserving of an entry in an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately Wikipedia is rife with such vanity BLPs because if you "spend 15 seconds on Google" their name pops up everywhere - and they exist and grow simply because there is no one around to enforce policy. Meanwhile, serious, respected, award-winning journalists with decades-long careers filled with thousands of bylines in the most prestigious of publications, don't even feature at all on Wikipedia. Whereas the likes of Jon Gaunt, who, if we're being honest, doesn't actually qualify as a journalist himself, has a lengthy semi-protected article. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying. I'd like to echo the advice of fellow editors: you're more likely to convince people when you use fewer words. You're using a lot of words for something that could be said in few words. Femke ( talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems non-notable, but the explanations above just seem too long to bother with. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Oaktree b: I would've thought that being an editor of an encyclopedia would more or less necessitate occasionally spending 10 mins or so actually, ye know, reading.. kind of an occupational hazard I would of thought? Yet I'm repeatedly dumbstruck at just how averse so many editors - especially the most bullish ones - are to reading any more than a few sentences at at time, or engaging in any more "research" than 10-60secs of Googling. Doesn't seem to stop them from reverting or commenting though of course. So, thanks for your comment. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It's almost 12 pages of text above. Post the TL:DR version then. Still not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
TLDR summary @ Oaktree b:@ Femkemilene:@ Mhawk10: Does Pepe Escobar meet the very low bar of NCREATIVE #1 "widely cited by peers"? (Not one person asserts that he meets GNG, and most of the text above denounces various bits of evidence for NCREATIVE #1 as insufficient to show GNG.) Here are a few examples of people well-qualified to judge who "cite" Escobar as a journalist/writer:

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

Just to reiterate—being cited in <10 pieces is not being widely cited for a journalist. The bar for being widely cited is high, not absurdly low. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I mean, I can't believe he's had another go, and make exactly the same mistakes again. I'll be as brief as possible:
(1) Jesse Zwick (yes, that Jesse Zwick, I believe) isn't "citing" Escobar in his 2020 piece for TNR as a "peer", he's lumping him in with all the other crackpot conspiracy peddling LaRouche movement far-right and antisemitic "journalists" for RT, Sputnik, and the like. Zwick mentions Lawrence Freeman, a self-described "Political-Economic Analyst" whose "stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton." That alone makes his moral character lightyears ahead of the warmongering, hate-filled Escobar. Zwick quotes Escobar because presumably he gave him the best one, he, again, unconsciously, makes himself look a fool for saying he was worried about moving to RT but the money's great and their videos get so many hits on YouTube!
(2) You second source is F. William Engdahl. You didn't bother to read his Wiki? He's even less of a journalist that Escobar. Again, doesn't have a single byline to a reputable publication to his name. His a life-long member of the far-right LaRouche movement, writes for self-consciously bogus websites (beforeitsnews), is openly antisemitic and espouses his Holocaust Denial and Jewish/Rothschild New World Order crankery on Russia Insider (just like our Pepe), the openly antisemitic and Iran-run Veterans Today (which also publishes Fake News constantly) conspiracy outlets like GlobalResearch.ca, InfoWars, all Rockefellers and Soros anti-vaxx, and 9/11 was an inside job, 5G, I need not go on. Oh, except he's also a fan of Dugin's neo-Fascist " Eurasianism" too, which nicely rounds out the picture.
(3) Your third source is a self-published website (not RS) of a lecturer in International Relations at a 3rd-rate provincial British university, who actually is interviewing someone who is notable enough (or at least notorious/criticized enough) to warrant a BLP himself. He is a philosopher, who, well, writes a lot and seems to have made quite a good career for himself (despite never having expressed a single original thought in his life, and is possessed of such intellectually juvenism that he can write things like this, a direct quote, a closing sentence, and think they're profound (nevermind utterly nonsensical): "But we believe philosophy may provide us with an escape-hatch from the gulag of neoliberalism and other totalitarian regimes, leading us into a future committed to freedom, democracy, and the celebration of differences." Anyway, Zabala is not a journalist or "political analyst", as Escobar claims to be, and the philosopher merely makes a trivial mention of Escobar, as one of his sources for political insight. Which explains why he thinks his ideology of "Hermeneutic Communism" could work in the real world. Oh, and he's a self-described Catholic religious atheist too.
(4) Ironically, quite sadly really, your fourth source that you dismissed out of hand, is the only one that would qualify as an RS. It is staffed by legitimate experts, university professors, with decades worth of published research in peer-reviewed academic journals, and is partnered with genuine NGOs, with Nobel Laureates, de-radicalization charities, and like-minded non-profits like the German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies. But what's more, that very article you post but didn't bother to read, was spot on. Perfect. You really, really need to read it. It mentions both Escobar and F. William Engdahl among many others who have unwittingly - through either ego or simple naivete - become willing and enthusiastic (and well paid, I might add) disseminators of far right extremist tropes and anti-scientific, anti-democratic disinfo, all through a well-supported network of Puninist and Khomeinist outlets. The article lists literally all the ones I mentioned here and more. Even LaRouche and Russia Insider.
I am genuinely worried about your competence now. You little just wrote "Journalist F. William Engdahl wrote in Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia(2012): "Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality..." followed by your glib dismissal of the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right as though I doubt this is a reliable source...
Maybe it's just the topic area, I don't know, but you still seem utterly incapable of distinguishing not just reliable sources from unreliable ones, but even from really, really bad ones. Like, literally, actual Nazi bad... repeatedly... - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment article should be updated/corrected to reflect the new information, may support keeping it, seems notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I hope you're kidding. In which case, nice one. If you being serious? Why even bother to come on comment on such things you have no interest in learning about and can't be bothered spending 15mins reading to get a basic understanding of? We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, right? EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I give up, I think it's worth keeping and OP still refuses. Can we close this out as a matter of procedure at this point? Oaktree b ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep It's very clear to me that a notable journalist who does not toe the Western narrative and does not belong to what is considered mainstream media is trying to be removed/silenced or deleted from Wikipedia. I have to note, this is really appalling, the pro-delete camp ignores the significant google search results that do indeed show notability, but the fact that a non-Western-narrative journalist is not warning us or screaming about an "imminent" Russian invasion of Ukraine, is too inconvenient for them. George Al-Shami ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ George Al-Shami: - How can you be a "notable journalist" if you've never written for a notable publication, or been cited by one? Google results do not determine notability. Notability ≠ Notoriety. Serial killers get more google hits than academics. Read WP:JOURNALIST, the person has to be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or be known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." If still to see a single "peer" cite him in a RS. Because "peers" in this case would be journalists. And he's never done any, ye know, journalism to speak of (breaking stories, insightful commentary, etc). That's why no serious outlet has ever published his work.
If only you could appreciate the irony of your personal attack on me. Would you be surprised to learn that I am not, in fact, Western, and that I am, as we speak, a legal resident of one of the two countries who pay their inflated salaries of the likes of Escobar, Bartlett, Blumenthal, Engdahl, Beeley and all the rest? I wonder if that's your real name - impossible, you've made a crucial mistake - but if it's indicative of where you're from, we might be a lot closer to each other than you would've thought! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ EnlightenmentNow1792: your repeated claim that Escobar has never written for a notable publication, or been cited by one is mistaken. Notable publications that publish an Escobar page listing his articles there include Common Dreams [23], Mother Jones [24], and The Nation [25]. Aggregator RealClearPolitics also has many search results in its international section linking to articles by Escobar. [26] Surely the choice by all these outlets to publish multiple articles by Escobar should count as peer recognition suited to NJOURNALIST1. HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow. You've confused things a little, but you're right, I didn't go beyond the thousands of articles that are still live, online, accessible that he's published 10 or 15 years ago to see his writing didn't used to be so outrageous. Nothing original or newsworthy, certainly never gonna win any awards (I never heard of him back them, and I'm pretty sure I've been at the same functions as him - in the same countries even - during the late 20 EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)00s and early teens) - but he can sure keep those old dozen or so articles right at the back of this Portfolio of tens of thousands of unhinged rants on extremist websites. They're not quite "notable" or "prestigious" in my opinion (hell, I was published in both MJ and the Nation in my early 20s, I'm embarrassed about it now, but do you think I deserve an article?), so I'd still say the same thing, use the same words, but I wasn't aware of it, good researching. (rearclearworld just re-prints his Asia Times articles by the way, as it does for all sorts of wing-nuts). Still no peer recognition though is there? Have you noticed MJ have actually taken down his text? Think you can guess why that might be? Any thoughts on the why the Arnaud de Borchgrave blog might be one of your worst efforts yet? reply

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

  • Draftify - Whilst there does not seem to be a consensus forming around keeping or deleting this article (the issue appears to be notability) I think that there is at least some consensus that the page could be improved and a move to draft space would offer a compromise that would allow for the page to be improved without the time pressure of an active AfD. Those who argue for the page to be kept would then have the opportunity to work on and develop the page before it is approved to be moved to main space. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Gusfriend: I'd be more than happy to write a neutral, objective BLP of Escobar in the manner of his fringe colleagues such as Vanessa Beeley and Co. It would of course have to be briefer because he hasn't quite attracted the level of notoriety they have, despite being around for a lot longer. Probably because he started out reasonably sane and never appeared on cable TV wild-eyed and frothing at the mouth. He actually comes across as quite likeable - if you don't listen to the substance of what he's actually alleging. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 15:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per HouseOfChange. Seems to meet GNG, even if WP:JOURNALIST might not be met. The arguments by the nominator are unfortunately long-winded, confusing and include personal opinions about the article subject. However, as HouseOfChange said "PE's pro-Russia, anti-US POV isn't relevant to AfD." RoseCherry64 ( talk) 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ RoseCherry64: There's plenty of notable "pro-Russia, anti-US journalists". It's a good thing I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that Wikipedia policy be applied. Making hundreds of appearances in fringe, non-notable self-published websites/blogs - many of which are explicitly Far Right, White Nationalist, outright fascist, and some deny the Holocaust as an editorial policy, and he's written hundreds of articles for them! - is does not meet the requirements for notability as per WP:JOURNALIST, which require that he be "regarded as an important figure" or be "widely cited by peers". He ain't. The only time's he's ever mentioned is trivially, in passing, usually amongst a list of other crackpots, or as a figure of mockery. I can provide you with the sources if you want, but you seem to have made it clear that you are one of the many denizens of Wikipedia had has an aversion to reading. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 15:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
You don't understand my point. I don't think any opinions the subject holds or have expressed publicly has anything to do with arguments made on AfD, and bringing those up will turn people off immediately. There's over a hundred Holocaust deniers who have articles here. Fringe political ideas are widely covered on Wikipedia.
For the record, I looked up mentions of the author on JSTOR and Google Scholar, not fascist blogs. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Passing mentions don't count towards notability, neither do articles written by the subject, even if a lot of them can be found. It doesn't seem like he easily meets any of the journalist specific criteria either. Deleting the page isn't like "silencing" him, it just makes sense. BuySomeApples ( talk) 06:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Move that we make a decision, one way or another, this has gotten silly. I voted to keep with new sources found and OP is still refusing to accept it. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Request to closer Could the article be draftified as suggested by Gusfriend, so its history is not deleted? I don't think I've done a good job supporting my spidey-sense that Escobar was a notable journalist when he was running around Eurasia doing research on what he called "Pipelineistan" (his theory that the US-Russia-China struggle for control of oil/gas pipelines is the modern Great Game in Eurasia.) [27] [28] [29] But those references are hard to Google and I am still finding them. I don't want to create a sanitized biography, and I will also look for RS to describe his recent espousal of several conspiracy theories. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ✗ plicit 03:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Bret Kugelmass

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

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

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

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

  • Delete seems like a long, drawn-out linked in career history. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not appear to pass GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Yarmouth-Barnstable Regional Transfer Station

Yarmouth-Barnstable Regional Transfer Station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

  • Delete per GNG. The first nomination did make me laugh. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 12:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. If it were a populated place, it might live on, but I don't think there's any population there other than the usual rats.—  rsjaffe  🗣️ 21:09, 16 February 2022 (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. Charles Stewart, while in the minority, has made substantial arguments for their view that the term is relatively widely used, and the other opinions don't really address these arguments. Sandstein 21:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Impalefection

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Looking over the Google Scholar results I see that several different groups of researcher seem to be using the technique and many more research authors have cited the technique when they list mechanisms for getting complex molecules into cells: it's in our list at transfection. The last fact doesn't help build the article, but it does mean the term has seen uptake. From the point of view of notability the article seems on the edge, but if the nom is suggesting this is a neologism, I think that's not consistent with the >70 research works by many authors using the term. It also looks like the same technique is also referred to by the term "nanowire arrays", meaning the search results I gave might somewhat understate the impact of the described technique. I'm leaning against deletion, towards either keep or merge with transfection. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just a note that the same editor who created the article Impalefection added all mentions of it to the Transfection article ( 1, 2). There's nothing at all wrong with that, but I wouldn't read too much into the fact that it's listed at Transfection. Also I'd oppose merging to transfection, as the other modalities listed there are FAR more commonly used, and sources that discuss physical transfection methods generally (e.g. 1, 2) don't mention it. So I think discussing it in the Transfection article is WP:UNDUE unless I've just missed that it's more widely used under an alternative name. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've mentioned this AfD at Talk:Transfection, requesting more expert attention. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

  • Comment - To recap the discussion and provide a little more detail, in the hope that this might help the next would-be closer, there are five key substantial references that document the development and application of the technique: the original paper on carbon nanofibre arrays (McKnight, T. E., Melechko, A. V., Hensley, D. K., Mann, D. G., Griffin, G. D., & Simpson, M. L., 2004. Tracking gene expression after DNA delivery using spatially indexed nanofiber arrays. Nano Letters, 4(7), 1213-1219), which seems to predate the coining of the term impalefection, and the four articles using the term indexed on Semantic Scholar. All of these five papers have many coauthors, but one, T.E. McKnight, occurs in all of them. These citations would reach the SIGCOV criterion by themselves except for the worry about independence. I'm inclined to give these papers a pass from the point of verifiability, since McKnight is only the principal author on one of these five papers, but I can absolutely sympathise with Ajpolino's delete rationale in the part that raises GNG: it seems this may be a place where we simply differ in how we apply the criterion in this grey area. The part of the nom that mentions the broader literature of slight mentions of the topic I don't agree with: the occurrences in the literature seem to be generally lists of techniques for insertion of cell material and while some might come from Wikipedia, I'd really want more evidence that all of these articles are so lazy before accepting this case. I'm generally pretty prone to use our policy against neologisms to reach 'delete' opinions, but this just does not cut it for me. Generally speaking, this material seems well-written and verifiable enough that I want an ATD outcome to this debate, so in the absence of a decent merge target, my !vote is keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looks like a basic WP:NEOLOGISM deletion. I don't really see justification in the above mostly monologue to satisfy notability requirements like WP:SIGCOV. KoA ( talk) 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism only used by members of the original team.—  rsjaffe  🗣️ 03:07, 18 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 03:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Golden State School of Theology

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

I found no significant coverage for this unaccredited college. SL93 ( talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ✗ plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

WAAR TV

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 13 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Telangana-related articles

Index of Telangana-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. - Imcdc ( talk) 02:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Delete to appropriate pages. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, huge block of text not of use to an human reader. Geschichte ( talk) 10:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this isn't at all useful and there's clearly a consensus to delete lists of this type. So I can't think of a reason to keep it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No use. AnM2002 ( talk) 04:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 ( talk) 16:19, 19 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles

Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. - Imcdc ( talk) 02:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Andhra Pradesh to appropriate pages. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, huge block of text not of use to an human reader. Geschichte ( talk) 10:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this isn't at all useful and there's clearly a consensus to delete lists of this type. So I can't think of a good reason to keep it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 ( talk) 16:18, 19 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 01:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Korea-related articles

Index of Korea-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Index of Korea-related articles (0–9) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (A) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (B) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (C) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (D) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (E) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (F) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (G) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (H) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (I) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (J) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (K) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (L) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (M) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (N) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (O) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (P) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Q) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (R) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (S) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (T) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (U) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (V) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (W) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (X) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Y) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Z) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of North Korea–related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of South Korea–related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

Cruelty-free

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

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

The following passages illustrate my concerns with objectivity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • I was correct in stating that this article in its current form is largely the product of a school assignment and that it has had glaring issues with POV and editorializing for the last 10 years. Both of which you initially disputed. Caecilia24 ( talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Good grief! You don't even get your own nomination right. "This article started out as a school project ten years ago" is what you actually said, visible right there above, and you clearly were not correct. You cannot even get what I said correct, which didn't say anything about editorialization, the only person having mentioned that is you. Uncle G ( talk) 14:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep - if an article needs improvement, you don’t delete it, you improve it. If an article has NPOV concerns, there’s a separate template for that. However, I don’t understand why any of those examples are not considered objective if they are supported by citations. Just because a fact is grisly doesn’t make it subjective. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 15:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I definitely notice some WP:POV issues within the article and a need for more independent non-advocacy sources, but the term itself is notable. KoA ( talk) 19:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ✗ plicit 01:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Thailand-related articles

Index of Thailand-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Index of Thailand-related articles 0 to J (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles K to N (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles O to S (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles T to Z (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't understand what benefit Wikipedia users get out of these lists. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Thailand. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. - Imcdc ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Imcdc. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 05:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Thailand to appropriate pages. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment was using the page's Related changes to monitor vandalism for quite some time. It was very handy. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 08:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There’s a list article for every US state too, for anyone looking for similar lists to put up for deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 08:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all of the above. Severe storm 28 20:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It's a bit concerning that except for the Brazil one, none of the recent AfDs has seen mention of the previous AfD from 2007, and the fact that they were used for monitoring recent changes doesn't seem to be acknowledged by most participants. The nominated page was projectified (by me) following the AfD in 2007, but this was reverted by User:The Transhumanist in 2008, who at the time was building both structured and alphabetical lists across a broad range of topics. It was later split into alphabetical sub-lists, making it unsuitable for monitoring changes. A newer project page used for changes-monitoring has since been created (by me) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand/List of articles, so for Thailand, deleting these article-space lists would not lead to a loss of that functionality. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: which human user has the ability to monitor all 55,000 articles in the Category:Thailand tree and assess recent changes? Geschichte ( talk) 08:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There are actually 14,601 15,291 items on the WikiProject page, which had its most recent major update in July 2021 just now. (Going through the Category:Thailand recursively will inevitably lead to a huge amount of false positives such as History of Thailand → History of Thailand by topic → Military history of Thailand → Wars involving Thailand → Vietnam War → North Vietnam.) In any case, anyone who's interested can click the link to the Related changes special page and peruse the updates as they would their watchlist. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 ( talk) 16:16, 19 February 2022 (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 procedural close. This is a redirect, and redirects belong at WP:RFD. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#IPhone 14 -- Tavix ( talk) 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

IPhone 14

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

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

See User talk:Hajoon0102#Speedy deletion nomination of IPhone 14. The deletion request log was deleted because the article was deleted earlier. -- Hajoon0102 💬 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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/2022_February_13&oldid=1073271859"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

Purge server cache

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

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

Khalid El Bargoni

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

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

  • Delete. As the nom says: the sources say it all. The same press release is referenced three times in three different publications, other "sources" don't even mention this person. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:46, 20 February 2022 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Denny Blood

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

Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Should be a redirect, but an editor keeps insisting on re-creating it without any sources which show real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 23:40, 13 February 2022 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ahmet Uyar

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

Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, and doesn't meet NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 23:07, 13 February 2022 (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. No prejudice against possibly re-focusing the article on the more notable 2015 stabbing, if any editor wants to take that on. Mojo Hand ( talk) 23:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yishai Schlissel

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

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

I'm relying on automatic translation here but the Hebrew version of this article has quite extensive coverage of the 2005 attack and it seems to have references to support that coverage. It just doesn't seem to have got much coverage in English language sources. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Ample could still be an understatement. These two attacks on LGBTQ and the one in Tel Aviv (that one was by a gay person in denial of his orientation) shocked Israel and filled its newspapers. All three are notable. gidonb ( talk) 14:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are two separate notable events here. There is also coverage of his actions between the attacks and of his behaviour in prison. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:CRIMINAL #2 and the WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E does not apply to people with such a central role in multiple notable events. It is possible to rework this to the fatal 2015 attack putting the 2005 one in the background, as nominator hints. It would take a lot of work, especially in necessary expanding, well beyond what is reasonably covered by rename. Still a worthy effort and recommendation at closure. gidonb ( talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Natural history in the Spanish New World

Natural history in the Spanish New World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an essay, not an encyclopedia article PepperBeast (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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 Zastava Arms. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Zastava M12 Black Spear

Zastava M12 Black Spear (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Searching the name online only brings up the manufacturer and Wikipedia mirrors. Loafiewa ( talk) 18:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. There is a fundamental disagreement here on whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability that I don't think will be resolved with a third relisting so I'm coming down on "no consensus". Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Bill Workman

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Mayor of Greenville, South Carolina from 1983-1995. The current sourcing does not appear to meet our expectations for a mayor, but with Greenville's prominence in Upstate South Carolina, there is a likelihood that there are off-line sources available that expand on the policies that the subject accomplished while serving as mayor. -- Enos733 ( talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was readily able to add three more paragraphs, with three additional online sources, since this proposal for deletion. Based on revision history, the article was previously more than twice its current size, though much of that former content was deleted in May 2020 among copyright concerns. — ADavidB 23:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The amount of new work that's been done since this nomination was initiated is a start, but it isn't a finish. Greenville isn't large enough that its mayors would be deemed inherently notable just for being mayor per se — and while it might certainly be possible to write an article long and substantial and well-sourced enough to get him over the bar, that still takes a lot more than just three new sentences about his mayoral career sourced to just two new pieces of local media coverage. As written, this is still a depth of substance and sourcing that every mayor on earth can always match — but the inclusion bar for mayors requires evidence that he's a special case of significantly greater notability than most mayors, which is not what's been shown here. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Such a negative spin. I didn't say it was a finish, just that I readily found more information online, and that there used to be much more in the article. I added three paragraphs, including nine sentences from three new sources. I've read WP:POLITICIAN and get that there's no guaranteed notability, but much of what you write as necessary seems to go beyond what's written in that guideline. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are presumed to be notable. The associated note includes that such a person, "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." As the previous commenter noted, Greenville is significant within its region and Workman was its mayor for 12 years. No, the article as currently written doesn't confirm notability, though I'm not convinced the required journalistic coverage is non-existent. — ADavidB 22:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Sure, you added three paragraphs, but only one of those paragraphs, consisting of three sentences, addresses anything potentially notability-building about his mayoralty, while the other two paragraphs address personal life trivia that does not speak to notability. So your statement about three paragraphs and my statement about three sentences can both be correct at the same time, because only three sentences within your three paragraphs actually speak toward whether he's notable or not. And as for whether you are or aren't convinced that the required journalistic coverage is non-existent, that's immaterial — we don't keep inadequate articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist than anybody has actually shown, we keep inadequate articles only when somebody proves that better sourcing absolutely does exist to salvage it with. Bearcat ( talk) 15:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article has grown significantly with additional sources. — ADavidB 08:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although not super strong as a notable person/politician, he does meet the criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The articles in the Spartan-Herald and the obits confer notability, albeit not beyond that locality. Lamona ( talk) 03:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article, also article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG. Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion, I think the nominator's rationale of "Not notable" has been successfully refuted. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    They also appear to pass the criteria of WP:NPOL, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." NemesisAT ( talk) 10:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep per WP:HEY. Sources have been added to prove he meets GNG. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 02:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Municipal politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 21:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. although he is dead, enough citations exist to keep the page alive. Caphadouk ( talk) 08:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Your argument appears to be for "keep". Did you write delete by mistake? NemesisAT ( talk) 09:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes meant to post Keep, I fixed it. thanks. Caphadouk ( talk) 07:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mainly because the sources don't seem to be that usable for notability. For instance three of them are obituaries from local news outlets. Which don't work for notability. A couple more are announcements in local news papers about his run for office. Which literally anyone running for local office gets. What else is there besides that? Something about a local police officer settling a law suite. "Glimpses of Greenville: 1980 to 1990", "Mayor Knox White runs for seventh term — decades after he promised term limits", and "Lost Restaurants of Greenville" all literally have nothing to do with him. So it's laughable to say he's received significant press coverage. The only thing that might work is one of the obituaries, but that's about it and I'm pretty sure there needs to be more then that. So there's zero basis for this guy to be notable. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Please re-read WP:NPOL regarding local politicians, and its note as to what significant press coverage means. Many of the sources were in fact prompted by Workman's death, but are by journalists, not paid obituaries. White ran against Workman and succeeded him as mayor, as that source includes. The "Lost Restaurants" book notes Workman's city redevelopment, and the "Glimpses" article notes his bringing international cultural ties to the city. There are three Spartanburg Herald-Journal source articles that focus on Workman's run for a U.S. House seat. — ADavidB 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
As far as I'm aware the reason obituaries are bad indicators of notability has nothing to do with them being paid for or not, and journalists can write them as much as anyone else. Or I'd like to see a guideline that says otherwise. Unless I'm wrong like Pilaz says they are silent on obituaries. As far as your other points, none of them are indicators of notability. Literally all mayors are involved in city redevelopment and bring 'international cultural ties", whatever that means, to the city that they are mayors of. In the meantime, NPOL is pretty clear that runs for office aren't notable on their own. Which I assume would include someone running for the House. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 10:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
My understanding is that paid (funeral home-generated or classified ad-style) obituaries would not be independant, thus negating their proper use. Journalists can potentially skew most all of their writing, but we use what they write that is published in reliable sources. Most mayors do attempt to lead their cities well; not all of them are successful at it. — ADavidB 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it. So we will have to agree to disagree. Although I am interested to know where the sources said his good leadership as mayor or whatever had anything to do with the buildings being built. The blog says he and the city council "took a risk," but it's a blog and that doesn't really have anything to do with his leadership. All city councils/mayors take risks when they approve projects. Outside of that I think another reference said he was mayor at the time, but nothing else. So where exactly does it say his "successful leadership" resulted in anything, let alone beyond what most mayors are usually involved in? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I've added more content and sources, which may provide more support considered necessary. Many (not all) leaders take risks, yes, though those who are repeatedly or greatly successful in doing so are generally given credit for it. Which source is a blog? — ADavidB 01:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Local press coverage only, fails WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO (and possibly WP:BIO1E - his death). He is not, unlike claimed above, a major local political figure who have received significant press coverage. The only seemingly-reliable sources that cover him with some depth are the Greenville Journal, The Greenville News, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat, and maybe WHNS. The first two are from the city where he served as mayor, and Spartanburg is 35 minutes away. WHNS is also based in Greenville, and the (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat appears to be only the 13th largest South Carolina newspaper (and that's excluding free circulation). All of this coverage is local and not outside the specific region as demanded by WP:NPOL. Pilaz ( talk) 09:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • To elaborate on the failure of WP:NBIO, I've always found obits to be a poor indicator of notability. Not only are many of them paid for (hence not independent), but they always happen in the context of the death of the subject ( WP:BIO1E) and usually do not fall under the editorial policy of the newspaper in question (there's often just an obit department doing its own thing). This is a personal preference and Wikipedia guidelines are silent on obituaries, but it is the reason why I don't usually count them towards the WP:GNG, especially if they are local. 3 million people die in the United States every year, and hundreds of thousands of obits are published every year in the US alone. Imagine if we had to determine the notability of every dead person in the world through the lens of obituaries. Pilaz ( talk) 09:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Where, specifically, is 'outside their area' stated as required of sources for major local politicians? Areas where WP guidelines are silent don't seem a proper area in which to make assumptions against notability. Relatively few dead people receive full coverage by journalists, so the referrals to "3 million" and "every dead person in the world" are non-applicable exaggerations. — ADavidB 10:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually, my mistake: I incorrectly thought that Wikipedia:Notability (politics) had already been adopted, due to the fact that we continuously refer to WP:POLOUTCOMES when looking for precedent. I've consequently corrected my original comment. Under that proposal, #9 has "outside their specific region" added to "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", but it's clearly not in NPOL. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, we usually tend to only retain mayors who belong to cities of regional prominence; and Greenville isn't even in the top 300 largest US cities nor in the top 5 of largest SC cities. Being a mayor of such a small city hardly qualifies for a "major local political figure", and the fact that coverage is almost exclusively hyperlocal confirms that. The failure to meet WP:NBIO due to quasi-total reliance on obituaries from local media (with its WP:BIO1E concerns) remains valid in my eyes. Pilaz ( talk) 11:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, I am free to determine whether sources are reliable on a case-by-case basis, especially when the guidelines are silent on said sources, since sources need to be reliable to count towards the GNG. Obits are notoriously paid-for, edulcorated biographies not subject to the same editorial guidelines as other journalistic pieces. This is something that has come up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard several times. As an example, throughout her carreer, obit writer Kay Powell of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has written about notorious people such as "The church choir singer who had a frontal lobotomy and donated his brain to science, the girl who sang at Martin Luther King Jr’s funeral, the woman who was Flannery O’Connor’s secret pen pal for 30 years". Of course local newspapers are going to be writing about every dead mayor when the bar is so low. Pilaz ( talk) 12:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
We differ on whether Greenville is regionally prominent (not nationally or necessarily state-wide). It is the seat of Greenville County, the most populous county of the Upstate region and the state, with the largest school district in the state. The Greenville News circulation is at or near fifth in the state. If the writers or publishers of Workman's source articles are known to be unreliable in their journalistic standards, you may have a point. Otherwise, referring to other newspapers and writers is tangential. — ADavidB 18:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The way I usually side with the whole "regional coverage" thing is that I determine if what the paper is covering is a local story or not. Obviously regional news outlets have a vested interest in covering topics that are local to them. So they will, even if it's something that's not otherwise notable. But if it's a news story about something in the "Greenville region" then I'd say it's fine as a regional source. Really though, if it's a topic relating to Greenville then it isn't regional coverage. Outside of that the Whole discussion about what is or isn't a regional news outlet is a little pedantic. Especially these days with the internet and most local outlets being connected to the Associated Press or bought out by bigger news companies. Like most local newspapers in my region now are owned by the same company, which also owns USA Today. So there's an extreme amount of overlap in what they cover. Plus a lot of news stories from USA Today. So the whole "regional/local" thing is really a moot point. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article appears to have sources outside of obits, so WP:BIO1E is not a problem. Passes WP:NPOL as this person has "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". It doesn't matter if this coverage is local either, as it is here. Swordman97 talk to me 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Sources now include The State from state capital Columbia. Additional sourcing is on the way via NewsBank. — ADavidB 04:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article has significant coverage demonstrating notability. WP:NPOL is not meant to exclude politicians who do not meet the criteria set out there if they meet WP:GNG; this article should be kept not as an NPOL pass but as a GNG pass. Elli ( talk | contribs) 01:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Delete- US local mayor with local news titles mentions only. The better RS here is'nt specifically about him, they discuss other topics and he gets a mention. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Deathlibrarian ( talk) 00:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Workman is more than trivially mentioned in many of the sources, and he does not need to be the main topic of such source material, per WP:GNG (read it). Also, "There is no fixed number of sources required ... but multiple sources are generally expected." In WP:NPOL, the requirement for 'major local political figures' is multiple sources of significant coverage. The article has grown greatly since nominated for deletion, and the content is fully sourced. — ADavidB 09:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are numerous sources here that are specifically about him. I don't understand the objection to obituaries - presuming that they are not of the paid notice variety (and these seem not to be) they are a testament to the perceived importance of the person. I also think that local newspapers that are actual newspapers, not freebie coupon papers, are good sources. In fact, the local newspapers here have WP articles, which says something about their stability and perhaps reliability. Lamona ( talk) 15:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 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. There's a rather broad community consensus that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and the "keep" opinions must accordingly be given less weight. Sandstein 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse

Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • For more background, note this discussion: "Proofs_involving..." articles.-- RainerBlome ( talk) 01:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • As the material has already been transwikied to a more appropriate place, all that's left is the tidying-up. Delete unless a redirect needs to be kept around to preserve the page history for attribution purposes. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    As I used official import procedures, the page history has been transferred too. Conserving attribution here is therefore not necessary for attribution purposes. Felix QW ( talk) 08:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for clarifying. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    As far as I understand, the idea of the proposal is not to nuke content, but to move it. Cool URIs don't change, so iff the decision should be to move, I'd suggest a Soft redirect instead of a delete, to keep incoming links working. It would look like this:
.-- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, because it would make the world worse.
Even if the proof page can be seen to violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it should stay. I invoke the Wikipedia principle WP:Common sense.
Following the "common sense" flow chart:
-> Does the proof page improve the encyclopedia? Yes. I think the proof page fits well in Wikipedia, because it complements the article page. This is no surprise, because the proof page's purpose is to support the article (and not to serve as a textbook). I think it is a good idea to keep wiki proofs close to the material that they support. In particular, this keeps the interested editorship close to the proof page.[1]
-> Does it break the rules? Yes.[2]
-> Is that because the rules are wrong? No, the rules are fine.
-> Ignore the rules and DO IT
In this case, "DO IT" means to do nothing, leave the page in place. Sometimes, it is better to do nothing. But let's discuss, discussing this is good.
[1] When I look at the other pages in the wikibook "Topics in Linear Algebra", I see far less edits. I fear the content would wither and die on wikibooks. On Wikipedia, 72 editors have contributed 341 edits. ( https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Proofs_involving_the_Moore%E2%80%93Penrose_inverse) Even though the topic of the proof page is very narrow (compared to, for example "Field theory" ( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Topics_in_Abstract_Algebra/Field_theory), the proof page is currently the longest page in that book. Had the page been created at wikibooks in the first place, it would not be at the current level of quality.
[2] The proof page has many proofs, develops them from each other. It shares this property with a textbook. But it is not a textbook, it is not intended to be a textbook. The "Proofs involving" discussion linked to above mentions that the proof page was originally a subpage, and was promoted to "article" only because subpages are no longer allowed in article namespace. As such, the proof page is conceptually still a sub-page, a supplement to the article, intended to make the article more easily verifiable. One of the reasons for the page's existence is that for these proofs, literature is somewhat hard to get a hand on in practice, simply because it is a bit of a niche topic. The page indeed provides an alternative to such other literature. As does all of Wikipedia, in a sense.
It has been claimed that the wikibook would be a more appropriate place. For what reason? The other topics are more "abstract algebra", while the proof page is intended to support an article mostly about concrete algebra (matrix algebra).
-- RainerBlome ( talk) 01:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I agree that the current location in Wikibooks is not ideal. The plan is to move the material into the into the far more active wikibooks:Linear algebra Wikibook, which is a featured book and actively used in university courses. However, because the linear algebra book is featured and quite visible, I am still waiting for some criticism/opposition on the Wikibooks:Linear algebra talk page before doing so.
I think the Moore-Penrose inverse would be a great addition to the linear algebra wikibook, since even though it is not usually covered in undergraduate linear algebra courses, it is useful, accessible and very pretty. Felix QW ( talk) 08:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: @ Felix QW I agree that wikibooks:Linear algebra looks like a better place than Wikibooks:Topics in Abstract Algebra. I also agree that everything else being equal, Wikibooks would be a more appropriate place in general. But in practice, not everything else is equal. Looking at the page history of https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Linear_Algebra/Inverses, which would be a suitable sibling, there is significantly less editor activity there than on Wikipedia.
Thanks for your effort in rendering the content in textbook form. I like what you did there. Of course, those changes are appropriate only on Wikibooks, on Wikipedia the new phrasing would not be appropriate. It looks like you dewikified some or all wikilinks in the article. I do not see why. Was this necessary for some reason, could you please explain why you did not covert to Wikipedia links? One of the points of a wiki (even hypertext in general) is the use of links. -- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: The Removal of the links is explicit Wikibooks policy (I was also surprised) – in fact, when transwikiing a page from Wikipedia, it gets an explicit "dewikify" tag
wikibooks:template:dewikify! Felix QW ( talk) 07:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Rolling my eyes at that policy. Then the "Wiki" in "Wikibooks" does not fulfill expectations, for me. At least it doesn't say "no links", it just says "use sparingly". One more reason to keep the proof page at Wikipedia. :-)-- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, in support of the sensible plan to transwiki this to a better home. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

We want to compare alternatives

[A] Keep in Wikipedia

[B] Move to Wikibooks

[C] Maintain a copy at both Wikibooks and Wikipedia

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

The point in removing something should be something like this:

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

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

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

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

  • Delete - the question discussed above is whether this is a wikibook article or a Wikipedia page. It clearly has the attributes of a wikibook rather than an article, as its approach is textbook-like, not encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Making the world worse" has nothing to do with Wikipedia notability guidelines, and this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. PianoDan ( talk) 03:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - leaning here on a personal bias lol, but I just wanted to look something up related to this topic and found the answer reasonably quickly on this specific page, which if nothing else meets the basic use case of an encyclopaedia. And another anecdote: I have never once stumbled across Wikibooks in the search for something. More importantly, there's nothing in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK specifically against proofs being in Wikipedia. Perhaps it could be argued that there are too many proofs, or they're too detailed, but that's an argument for trimming the page, not deletion altogether. At least some of this seems notable enough. 86.130.93.159 ( talk) 04:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, there are too many of them, and yes, they are too detailed. I'd go further and say that none of them prove anything surprising; they mostly demonstrate that, yes, the operator works like a derivative should. Trim away all that ought to be trimmed, and there would be nothing left. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Thriller Records

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

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

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

  • Weak keep. Music magazines would not be described as trade press - that refers to publications intended for people who work in the industry. There is https://loudwire.com/avoid-thriller-records-hostage-beach-house-party-video/ from Loudwire and coverage from Substream Magazine [1] [2] that could be used in expanding the article (also https://ocmusicnews.com/thriller-records/, but that's probably less significant and based on an interview). I don't think these are user generated or vendor sources either. Editors watching the Music deletion list are more likely to know whether these are sufficient coverage, and may find additional sources. A865 ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Changed to keep or redirect (to Fearless Records#History). A865 ( talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. A865 ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fearless Records. It seems like a new company that could have more content written about them in the future but they still might be too new to have any significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't object to redirecting, but content would have to be merged and added to describe how the labels are related, as it is not currently mentioned. A865 ( talk) 22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment — An organization passes the relevant criteria when both NORG & ORGDEPTH are satisfied & when WP:SIRS is applicable, in the absence of this, we are dealing with a WP:NCORP fail. “It seems like a new company that could have more content written about them in the future” following WP:CRYSTALBALL, we cant predict, I don’t think redirecting would be a good fit either. Celestina007 ( talk) 23:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources I mentioned seem to be reliable, not "user generated sources, and Vendor sources" (one publication is the subject of an article, the other is cited in several articles), I'm just not sure if they are significant enough for WP:NCORP - in a way it is routine coverage, and the reason it's being written about is because of the association with Fearless Records and its founder. There is no notability requirement for redirects, the company would be worth mentioning in that article and the sources are enough for that, and it would be incorrect to replace the links from other articles with direct links to Fearless Records. A865 ( talk) 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Your response to my rationale above doesn’t appear to be In accordance with my comment, I didn’t say anything about vendor sources or user generated sources in my comment above, I mentioned WP:NORG not being met and WP:SIRS not being applicable, there simply is no WP:SIGCOV as required by NCORP, so I’m not entirely sure why your reply isn’t in synergy with my comment directly above. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Delete Agree with nom, there isn't enough written about the company to satisfy WP:NCORP, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 18:36, 13 February 2022 (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay

List of high schools in Asunción, Paraguay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable list Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't so much have an opinion about this, as I'd like to know why I've been getting multiple prod and AFD notifications on an article I have virtually no history with. I've edited the page exactly once in its entire history, ten years ago, and even then only to add a maintenance tag because it was created by somebody else (spoiler alert: that somebody else was the nominator!) as an uncategorized page. What about that implies any need to notify me about anything, especially since one would have to choose to notify me manually? Bearcat ( talk) 17:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only a few of the items in the list are blue linked, the rest are unreferenced except for a couple have links to primary websites, and there's zero evidence that they discussed as a group or set anywhere. Plus, there's prior consensus from other AfDs relating to articles for lists of high schools in Paraguay that all resulted in delete. So not only does this clearly fail WP:NLIST, but there is also a consensus that such lists should be deleted. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 03:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete LoL. This is funny. A G6 could have done this since the nominator is still the author. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans 11:22, 15 February 2022 (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. Withdrawn by nominator dud hhr Contribs 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) dud hhr Contribs 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Paul Courant

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. WP:BEFORE search found no RS pertaining to him. The entirety of the Career section is unsourced. dud hhr Contribs 17:14, 13 February 2022 (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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Roman Rumbesht

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

Non-notable living individual. WP:BEFORE revealed no in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Paid editing appears to be involved. twsabin 16:25, 13 February 2022 (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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yosef Zvi Rimon

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

not enough significant and in-depth independent coverage, npov not maintained, possible original research. although 1 or 2 good sources, I suspect not adequate. Tame ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. RL0919 ( talk) 17:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pradeep Rajput

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

Possible COI promotional article on a non notable actor who fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search turns up nothing of substance. Celestina007 ( talk) 16:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 17:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Satyajit Deshmukh

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL. Celestina007 ( talk) 15:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. North America 1000 01:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yomi Denzel

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep, with the caveat that interviews are primary sources, and therefore cannot contribute to notability. The combination of the Huffington Post source and the article in Le Temps seem to be just barely enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 09:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, for the precise reasons mentioned above by Celestina007. George Custer's Sabre ( talk) 09:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable sources CassiJevenn ( talk) 16:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:21, 13 February 2022 (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. Following edits, the deletion rationale no longer applies. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

LMBO

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a search on-wiki reveals several other meanings of the term "LMBO", which I just added. Duckmather ( talk) 05:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question "Unnecessary" in what way? That's a surprisingly vague deletion rationale which doesn't give much context for discussion. I don't see why it's any less "necessary" than any other disambiguation page with five alternatives on it. Granted, none of them have their subjects linked, but all of them reference something that's mentioned at the destination pages, and in most cases to which they specifically pertain. Largoplazo ( talk) 04:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Unnecessary in that none of the articles linked are closely associated with "LMBO". (See WP:DABACRONYM.) Who is going to search for this initialism trying to get to one of these articles? ... discospinster talk 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: multiple entries pass WP:DABMENTION, the only questionable line being the buy-out initialism which appears in several sources but not on-wiki. There seems to be no primary topic. Certes ( talk) 12:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I see the buy-out initialism as the most solid entry: that's the only one where the topic is clearly not obscure, the term widely used (could easily be the primary topic, already is on frwiki), and the linked article/s highly relevant to the topic (rather that simply the location for a passing mention). – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is a very different page than the one that was speedy deleted before this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep per additions made during this discussion. Is now a functional DAB page. Star Mississippi 15:44, 21 February 2022 (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 Camila (album). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 15:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

In the Dark (Camila Cabello song)

In the Dark (Camila Cabello song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS - all the sources are from it's parent album and therefore should be redirected there. LOVI 33 15:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Low charting on small, national charts and sales figures not unexpected in Brazil based on the sales of the album it was pulled from. None of this notability has led to any content that could be written about the song itself. The details that are present could be easily addressed in a discography, album or bio article without causing any bloat to those articles. if that is the case, redirect to the article that makes sense. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I have updated with some additional sources. Most of what I found are mentions or review of the track within an album review, but there is lot's of that, which I haven't added. Chelokabob ( talk) 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Chelokabob I encourage you to read over WP:NSONGS which mentions that song articles should have reliable sources that don't come from album reviews or album interviews in order to be considered notable. Right now there is only one source that satisfies that, the Tigerbeat one. But that is not exactly the most reliable source. To me, Tigerbeat seems like a gossip rather than a news site. LOVI 33 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Camila (album). There does not appear to be evidence of significant coverage of this song in third-party, reliable sources (i.e. outside of primary sources and album reviews). However, there appears to be limited coverage and this is a viable search term so rather than delete this article, I think it would be more beneficial to redirect to the album article. Aoba47 ( talk) 03:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Camila (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Armando Giglia

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

We don't normally have Wikipedia articles about Run-of-the-mill people like government school principals, and I can't find any reason why this one should be an exception. Graham 87 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable, mostly primary sources with only press mentions in Education awards. Hughesdarren ( talk) 12:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per above. Steelkamp ( talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator - no evident reason why should be an exception JarrahTree 02:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lack of indepth coverage. Just a run of the mill school principal. LibStar ( talk) 02:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Could only find one more IRS, which I've added to the page, but nonetheless don't think the page passes GNG. Giglia has received some awards, and held high position in a school principals association, but don't see how that would pass GNG. If this very recently made page were to go through AfC I don't think it would be accepted. Cabrils ( talk) 21:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is routine sourcing of the subject's career. There is a state level cohort award, and a senior industry cohort appointment but that is it. Not enough for GNG think. There is no independent reasonably in-depth bio that I can find. There is a lot of press on what the subject says in their industry appointment, but this is not about them. TOOSOON I think. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I do not agree with the "run-of-the-mill" assessment of the subject, and I am a bit disappointed with the apparent pile-on. The subject, I think is clearly not run-of-the-mill, ie, a state level award of which there is only one per year, and an appointment of which there is only one every four years or more, and a distinct press profile across mainstream media nationally. If we are to delete (or not) then I think it is best based on the correct evidence. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

LifeLine srl

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Action of 12 October 1950

Action of 12 October 1950 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

An AfD was created, to delete several of these fantasy articles. It got a bit messy, and this Korean War article did not get clearly addressed. Here is the link to the first nomination.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Action_of_16_January_1916
Thanks. Keith H99 ( talk) 10:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
AfD for this article Action of 12 October 1950 Keith H99 ( talk) 10:33, 13 February 2022 (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. Discounting the apparent confusion with the baker, there's still a number of valid arguments for and against notability here. Sandstein 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Briony Williams

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

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

  • ENT states, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Exactly, Check her other credits. She had two other shows and 52 episodes is a significant amount. Chelokabob ( talk) 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
One-off characters generally do not count as significant roles, and she doesn't seem to be a Renée Jeanne Falconetti/ The Passion of Joan of Arc-like exception. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Her role is Struck by Lightning is decent. A secondary character behind the three leads. See Cinema Papers, May 1991. duffbeerforme ( talk) 00:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Those aren't "reviews"; those are all just cast listings in something called the "Australian Live Performance Database". Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh. Clarityfiend, look down to the “Resources” section. There you will see a list of resources about the plays. Eg for ‘’Spring Awakening’’ you will see
Performance Recording: Spring Awakening, State Theatre Company of South Australia, 10 May 1991
Review: Christabel Hirst, Sunday Mail, 21 April 1991
Review: Diane Beer, The News, 17 April 1991
Review: Michael Morley, Financial Review, 26 April 1991
Review: Murray Bramwell, Rites and Wrongs, The Adelaide Review, May 1991, 28-29
Review: Peter Ward, The Australian, 18 April 1991
Review: Tim Lloyd, The Advertiser, 17 April 1991
There you can see six reviews, including from The Australian, a national newspaper. So no, not “just cast listings” as you falsely claim. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Reviews of what, the plays? Not the actress? Next to useless in establishing notability. Also, where is this Resources section? Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Reviews of the play establishment the notability of the play. Since that demonstrates a notable production and she has a significant role that is one more role for NACTOR. So very useful in establishing notability. And where is the resources section? Down near the bottom, right below Contributors. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
You can WP:NOTINHERIT notability from a play. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Let me try to break it down for you. There is a SNG for actors at WP:NACTOR. The first criteria on that list is Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The simplified version,
Say an actress has a significant role in a TV series. If that TV series has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a television show. Thats would be one for the above criteria. You acknowledge that above.
Say an actor has a significant role in a film. If that film has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable notable film. Thats would be one for the above criteria.
Say an actress has a significant role in a production of a play. If that production has a lot of reviews it is notable. That would count as a significant role in a notable stage performance. Thats would be one for the above criteria.
Say an actress has a significant role in a television show and has four significant roles in a notable stage performances that would count as five for the above criteria. Last I checked five was multiple. It's not about inheriting notability from a play, It's about verifiably satisfying a Subject-specific notability guidelines. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we need souring to the level of GNG to justify keeping an article, which we clearly do not have here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That's simply not true. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was initially going to weak delete based on the television work but there is other material available, in both main stream media and industry media, if you want to find it, which clearly enables a more in-depth article to be written. For example:
    • .. the brilliantly screwball Briony Williams .. in Four Places
    • .. Briony Williams .. a little self-conscious at times, but overall was gutsy, forceful, and seductive .. in Macbeth
    • .. the adaptable Briony Williams .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
    • .. depth of acting talent in the cast .. Briony Williams .. in The Graduate
    • .. Briony Williams proves surprisingly dexterous in an amusing cameo as a stripper .. in The Graduate
    • Briony Williams .. shines in her rather thankless roles .. in Five Properties of Chainmale
    • Briony Williams is pitch-perfect as the solicitous and protective Barb. in Four Places
Combining the subject's television work and stage work I think they get over the GNG line. So there is definitely NEXIST but it really needs to be added to the article. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The problem is that these are all (with the possible exception of the paywalled newspaper article) just passing mentions. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
They are not passing mentions. They are specific purposeful points about the subject, and are directly relevant to the context they are in. I agree that each by itself is not significant and I am not claiming that any one of them establishes notability. They do, however, demonstrate sustained coverage and in aggregation do contribute to both notability and depth. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Client's day

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

An unofficial holiday, does not appear to be notable. Homo ergaster ( talk) 09:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Input from a native speaker for the provided sources would be helpful, but from what I can discern, GNG is not met. Contrary to the nominaton, the unofficial part of this holiday does not seem to be a problem (e.g. List of minor secular observances contains many notable unofficial holidays). After a quick Google search, there are a few results, but fewer than a comparable "National Customer Appreciation Day". Article appears to fall under WP:MILL. While the number of sources is decent, there are some concerns with the reliability of some based on the translations I could find. Not to mention a fair deal of CE/MOS cleanup is needed to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards, however, draftifying would not be completely off the table if RS can be provided for notability. Bgv. ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC) 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 withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 11:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Public School English Medium Bijbehara

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

Unsourced article. Was PRODDED, deprodded by creator. Was draftified: original editor has re-created in mainspace. AfD seems only way forward - no obvious CSD Category, Prod would presumably be removed again. Pam D 09:19, 13 February 2022 (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 and I don't think one is forthcoming out of another week of discussion. Star Mississippi 15:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

WhatsApp snooping scandal

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

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

Thank you, I hadnt noticed that. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I would have supported merge as well, but this article really has nothing that the original article does not cover already. It seems the author created it without realising the existence of the other articles. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ CapnJackSp how are you so sure? have you checked every line and reference? I randomly looked and found that the Pegasus article does not have mention of Priyanka Gandhi, while this article has it along with reference. I still stand by my decision. Venkat TL ( talk) 14:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I did go through the reference, it seems quite confusing and Im honestly confused as to how we would include it into the pegasus article. The source states that "WhatsApp did not say that the phone was hacked in this fashion by an illegal Pegasus software" in the message sent to State secretary Priyanka Gandhi, but also says that the Congress alleged the phone had been sent a message related to the app? If you can provide a concise summation of the news article, I would be more than happy to add to the existing article on Pegasus. To me, the news article seems to imply that the message sent to Mrs. Priyanka's phone had nothing to do with pegasus in particular, but was some sort of message from Whatsapp. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep on second thoughts, I see that both article have different scope. WhatsApp snooping scandal covers the revalation in 2019, while the article Pegasus Project revelations in India, as the name suggests, discussed the investigative report by Group of journalist on Pegasus project published in 2021. Venkat TL ( talk) 15:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ LearnIndology: Dear friend, the issue got enough coverage. If added all, then there would be citation bombing. :) -- NeverTry4Me - TT page 00:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have removed the CSD tag as other editors have contributed to this article. The ban-evading editor has to be the sole contributor or there have to be no substantial contributions from other editors. Please decided whether to keep or delete the page in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, since Pegasus Project revelations in India is about a journalist investigation, and is not a suitable merge target. Eventually, all these pages can be merged into a more comprehensive page on Pegasus spyware in India. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, pursuant to Kautilya3's reasoning. Let us revisit in a couple of years. TrangaBellam ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and I agree with Kautilya3. Such a subject shouldn't be deleted. It should be KEEP and expanded with more resources. -- NeverTry4Me - TT page 23:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Keep agree with Kautilya3. - SUN EYE 1 16:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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 (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 06:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kotobank

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

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Sorry for my misunderstanding. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:35, 13 February 2022 (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 deleted. Already speedy deleted the day before. Too much WP:PROMO. Will WP:SALT at WP:ECP level. El_C 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Anudip Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Arcadia Watches

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

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

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

  • Comment The historic company seems notable, the relaunched one isn't very much. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. and improve per DGG. Chelokabob ( talk) 23:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If we consider that the relaunched brand and the historic one should have the same article, then I think it only needs some improvements.-- Art&football ( talk) 23:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Team Bodyshop MMA

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts gym. The sources are about fighters, the owner and interview pieces instead of the gym/company which either make the source not independent or relevant. Sources also lack depth on the gym inself. The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Imcdc ( talk) 04:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. This AfD has been bludgeoned to death by walls of text by the nominator, who has since been blocked for this kind of conduct. A renomination without their participation might help result in a clearer consensus. Sandstein 21:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pepe Escobar

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

Hi,

From WP:JOURNALIST:

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

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

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

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

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

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

HouseOfChange argues that:

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

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

  • 2012 The Atlantic [1] [2]
  • 2013 Mercury News [3]
  • 2015 The Week [4]
  • 2016 Oliver Stone in Interview magazine [5]
  • 2019 Jacobin and Secret Notes from Iran [6] [7]
  • 2021 Times of Malta [8]

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

References

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You couldn't have illustrated my point more perfectly. I immediately clicked on the University of Leicester source, on account of the fact that once upon a time I nearly did an MA there. But, you linked me to 'a student's thesis'..... you seem to not yet quite understand what a reliable source is, but, in case you didn't realize, a student's thesis, is not. Anyway, more importantly, in that thesis, the student cites an article Escobar wrote for Russia Insider. The fact that he's happy to write for an outlet that constantly promotes Holocaust Denial should immediately disqualify him from any possibility that he be considered a serious journalist (if you don't believe me, have a quick read of their website, where you'll see among of their seven sub-sections you can visit are "revisionist history", "WWII revisionism" and "the Jewish Question"... click on the latter [10] and prepare yourself).

Now, your second source is - aside from being written in atrocious English - is again from an unknown author publishing in a journal that is put out by an unknown Pakistani think-tank in Islamabad (the journal didn't even appear in most websites that are dedicated to collecting ranking data from academic publications). If you click on the link to the think-tank itself [11], it's dead. The page for the journal seems to be up at least, [12] nevermind it having the appearance of something was was coded in the mid-90s. If you go to Google Scholar and search for it's articles, none of them have even a single citation. [13] I was finally able to find it recognized somewhere, hoping to see a hilariously low Impact factor, but, of course, it's not even significant enough to warrant some poor employee being told to calculate it's insignificance. [14] If you type the name of the Journal into Google News [15] it gets 0 results. But on top of all this, the article of Escobar's that the author cites, was published in Consortium News. You can go to WP:RSP where it's coded red and says: " There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories." Or visit Ad Fontes Media's entry on it, which ranks it as extremely unreliable. [16]

And, then you put forward an article from, of all places.... The American Journal of Public Health? When we say peers, we mean, fellow professionals, other journalists, you get that right? And that, Medical Doctors, even ones that write in academic journals, aren't journalists? Did you check the citation? He isn't quoted from, or even named. So aside from being another great example of WP:TRIVIALMENTION, the author is disagreeing him, in a rather cheekily mocking tone I might add. She writes: "Nevertheless, one point is clear: those seeking an understanding of China’s current response to COVID-19 need not turn to ancient Confucian culture to explain everything from universal mask wearing to compliance with draconian restrictions on personal freedoms." And his article in the Asia Times is listed in the footnotes. Why is she mocking him, what did he write? "Confucius is winning the Covid-19 war" [17] He presents us with this gem: (beware folks, bit of a rant ahead...)

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

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

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

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

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

3. And yet another trivial mention, in a student's thesis, which, and I feel sorry for this student, cites an article Escobar published in a far-right Kremlin-funded anti-semitic Holocaust denying website very popular with white supremacists and neo-Nazis. [18]

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


  • Delete. Confusingly for an AfD, the nominator does not actually put forward a deletion rationale; the person who created the AfD is not suggesting that this be deleted nor be turned into a redirect but instead that the article be kept. Such an nomination should ordinarily be speedily kept, but somebody responded with a deletion rationale before anybody got around to making this a speedy keep, so I might as well make an argument since we're past the point of a procedural keep.
    The nominator puts forward an argument about being cited by peers. I personally don't buy arguments that, for purposes of notability, widely cited by peers means that eight sources report that you reported on something and trivially mention your name. The provided references additionally don't actually cite him for facts in any meaningful way. Rather, they trivially mention that he was among a group of people or they mention a very short blurb of his—that simply isn't the threshold of widely cited; being widely cited means being cited in a wide range of sources, not being infrequently cited in newsletters or only very occasionally being referenced in academic literature. (Academics aren't peers of journalists either, for that matter).
    EnlightenmentNow1792 argued above that the individual doesn't pass WP:NJOURNALIST (a particular SNG), but this isn't a valid deletion rationale on its own. The subject of the article would also need to fail WP:NBASIC for the article to fail WP:N. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV of this individual, so I think that the article fails WP:BASIC as well. For the reasons I state below, I believe that the coverage coverage in each of the eight sources that mentions him by name fails to contribute towards passing WP:NBASIC:
    1. The first source mentions his name as a part of a list and provides no coverage of him whatsoever besides that his name doesn't sound like that of a Muslim extremist.
    2. The second source briefly quotes his reaction to a particular foreign policy decision by Barrack Obama. The coverage is not in-depth, nor is it actually from The Atlantic (it's content from The Wire).
    3. The third source quotes a sentence of his but doesn't actually provide any significant coverage of Escobar as a person. The source also refers to him as a Brazilian analyst, which isn't the same thing as a journalist that some of the people supporting the article being kept are saying.
    4. The fourth source says that Escobar wrote something about Medvedev, but the coverage of Escobar as a person is not significant there.
    5. I have no clue if the fifth source is even reliable for the words of who it interviewed, but a random shoutout that consists solely of Escobar's name isn't WP:SIGCOV regardless.
    6. The sixth source coverage of Escobar consists of a two sentence quote of Escobar's with extremely limited commentary. It's also very clearly an opinion piece, which isn't necessarily a reliable source.
    7. The seventh source does very little except mention Escobar's name. It doesn't even really cite him for anything; he's just put on a list along with TeleSur and "Global Research Foundation" among others.
    8. The eighth source is an opinion piece whose only reference to Escobar is that he once appeared as a guest of a Michael Brooks production.
Simply being name-checked by a bunch of sources doesn't make a person notable under WP:NBASIC. The specific references above also don't show that Escobar is widely cited as a journalist, which is what WP:NJOURNALIST would require. Getting one's opinion pieces quoted is few publications is simply not evidence of widespread citation, nor is being cited in three academic journals. If there are multiple in-depth articles about Escobar he'd pass WP:BASIC. If his work were widely cited, it would be easy to show. Unfortunately for those who want to keep the article, it doesn't appear that anybody can actually show that this individual meets any relevant notability guideline. As a result, his article seems fit for deletion. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 06:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah sorry, I messed up the AfD process, my first one, I had to get someone us to fix it for me. [19] - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
(Also replying to Mhawk10) Thanks for the effort you put into your collegial reply. I agree that PE fails to meet NBASIC. I thought that being multiply "name-checked" and occasionally quoted added up to being "widely cited." Just to clarify, I do not like Escobar's politics, but feel that should have no bearing on if he is notable or not. I suppose I was being stubborn about this because I did the work to see if he was Notable or not and thought I had discovered that he was--also probably also because EnlightenmentNow1792 seemed to me to be motivated by his own political POV. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ HouseOfChange: Did you really just say that? What has anything I've written implied that I was coming at this from a political angle? Seriously, please, I'd love to know. What do you think my "political POV" is? I'm genuinely curious, I won't be upset I promise. I just can't see you being able to deduce that from what I've written here. I'll give you massive props if you do get it, honestly. My own siblings don't even know that, and we talk about political issues often. It's just that they never ask too many probing questions like that, because they know I'll have them bored to tears and still be trying to explain myself 20mins later EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is the messiest AFD I've ever seen. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Liz: You are! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Liz: It is a strange discussion. The article has been around since 2008 and articles about PE are in several other wikis. The mentions, cites, and name-checks I uncovered may or may not add up to bare NJOURNALIST. PE's pro-Russia, anti-US POV isn't relevant to AfD. Nor is the guilt-by-association argument that neo-Nazis and anti-Semites hang out in his fringe spaces. Nor is the STRAWMAN argument that cites and quotes I offered to support NJOURNALIST would not suffice if I had instead been trying to show NBASIC. I will be glad when this closes, one way or the other. HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Extended content
He's published for an explicitly far right, antisemitic, holocaust-denying website ("Russia Insider"). That's not "guilt-by-association". I can see why you'll be glad this closes, indeed. Maybe next time you'll think twice before you double-down on a "keep" for a BLP fringe personality. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 02:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ EnlightenmentNow1792: On the contrary, citing a connection to Russia Insider to criticize PE is a classic " guilt by association" argument, as is the red herring following from it, that Pepe Escobar is a bad person and therefore I should not express my opinion that he is Wikipedia-notable. Wikipedia is not censored, and especially it is not censored by deleting information about notable topics. HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ HouseOfChange: - Why have you still not learned that you must read the sources you bring forward? The only reliable sources you've brought forward so far, that specifically discuss him as a peer, just as WP:JOURNALIST demands, have done so in a disparaging manner. And the only one that does so at any length at all, you've not just ignored and not bothered to even read it, but you actually doubted that it at face value, it, and not the sundry White Supremacist ones Pepe usually writes for. The RS reads in part:
"In the Grayzone-affiliated podcast and video series designed to discredit secular opposition to Assad sarcastically called “Moderate Rebels”, they invited Pepe Escobar to discuss his theories about how the US is using the coronavirus as a weapon against China. Pepe Escobar has over 300 articles as a contributor to the fascist website Russia Insider. He writes about hanging out with Aleksandr Dugin... as well as writing for the Russian state affiliated Duginist outlet Katehon. On another podcast, Pepe spoke with the Veterans Today–affiliated Holocaust denialist Kevin Barrett and Anthony Hall stating Pepe was one of their main reasons for going to the New Horizon conference. When Gareth Porter of Grayzone later stated regret about having attended the New Horizon conference, he insisted Pepe... [was] also surprised and dismayed by the antisemitism and other conspiracy theories. Yet, his defense of Pepe and his regret comes off as disingenuous because Pepe is, as we’ve seen, something of a pillar in these networks. He must not have regretted it much though, because he went back again in 2019.
That's not guilt by association, that's association, pure and simple. How many fascist, holocaust-denying individuals (three mentioned there, I know of many more), outlets (two mentioned there, I know at least two more he still writes for) and conferences must someone posing as a serious "journalist" and "analyst" attend before the "they're just all a series of coincidences" no longer seems credible to you? Does not the fact that he echoes pretty much 90% of their talking-points give you a slight hint? Evidently not. - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 15:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I did read their piece, I also read US State Department document it's based on, which may be excluded by WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need extra-good RS to put "contentious material about living persons" into Wikipedia. PE's alleged bad character is, however, irrelevant to the question of whether or not his pre-Trump journalism career was "notable." HouseOfChange ( talk) 15:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
HouseOfChange, if I may be so bold, can I ask you a couple of questions? You said on my Talk page (your titled your entry "Caution regarding your edits" or something) that I am "not improving Wikipedia", and that you on the other hand, are a harmless "boring wikignome with a boring interest in biographies and NPOV". I don't consider either of those two things boring, for what it's worth. Then you again posted a big scary sticker on my Talk page, saying my edit summaries weren't civil and I was not AGF. I totally disagree with the civility, but yes I do admit I was wrong to not AGF. However, I must say, you started that message on my Talk Page with the words: "You seem to be a new editor, at least with this account..." Should I take that as a accusation or just a suspicion of sockpuppetry? Do you still think I am or might be a sockpuppet? And, finally, considering all the time and energy you put into trying to keep this article (that I don't understand at all - why? I love interesting people with interesting lives and interesting things to say? Why would you spent so much time on this? That's why I initially didn't AGF) and considering the fact that you repeatedly kept coming back with the same low-quality, sources, from the strangest of places... do you think someone should maybe go through some of your edits to check just in chase you've made similar mistakes elsewhere? I mean, if I had just added a source that revealed that someone wrote for a website crawling with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and either (a) didn't bother to read the read it; or (b) didn't notice by looking at the site? I'd wanna take a good hard look at myself, and my whole process. Anyways, no hard feelings, - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 19:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I explained my reasoning above. I have no desire to chat, justify myself to you, etc. HouseOfChange ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Then perhaps you'll be so kind as to stop bombing my Talk page with warnings/threats/accusations. Thanks. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 02:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It’s not a great article, he’s not a great writer and this is not a great discussion; but fifteen seconds on Google is enough to demonstrate to any fair-minded observer that he is significant enough to warrant a (better) article. Nwhyte ( talk) 00:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Nwhyte Fortunately, "fifteen seconds on Google" is not how Wikipedia determines notability. Read: WP:JOURNALIST. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 02:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

  • Weak delete: I do weight the mentions in academic journals strongly in determining whether Pepe meets WP:NJOURNALIST#1, but three mentions are not quite sufficient. There seems to be one independent review of his book "Empire of Chaos", not in a great source. The couldn't find independent reviews for his other books, so he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR#3. I think it's a shame there isn't more coverage of journalists in general.. Femke ( talk) 14:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Femkemilene: (1) There actually aren't three mentions of his journalism in "academic journals", there are precisely zero. Unless you count a student thesis, a footnote in a medical journal, or a citation in an unrated, unrecognized, self-published "think-tank"; (2) Again "Foreign Policy Journal" might sound rather grand and be possessed of a fortuitous domain name, but it's just a website, essentially a blog, full of fringe conspiracy theories [20] [21] and theorists [22]. It is not an academic journal, it is not a reliable source of any kind (crackpots galore), and, moreover, it ceased to exist in 2020. Needless to say, the author of that "independent review", one "Jim Miles", is not an author/journalist/academic of any repute, but is instead a Canadian school teacher who has an unhealthy hobby of writing on "alternative" websites about the usual "Alex Jones-esque" conspiracy theories. (3) "I think it's a shame there isn't more coverage of journalists in general" - that's where you're mistaken, in this case. Escobar isn't a "journalist" anymore than Vanessa Beeley or Eva Bartlett are. The only reason why the latter two bloggers are explicitly defined in Wikipedia's editorial voice as "activists" and "conspiracy theorists" is because they became notable enough to reach a broad online audience in light of their activism and conspiracy theory propagation in favor of Assad in those few years when the US public still cared about the Syrian Civil War. Escobar espouses an essentially identical worldview, and would be commensurably pilloried if only he managed to make himself as "notable" - i.e. notorious - as they did. My point being, merely calling yourself an "independent journalist" does not mean that you are, in fact, a journalist. Let alone one deserving of an entry in an encyclopedia article. Unfortunately Wikipedia is rife with such vanity BLPs because if you "spend 15 seconds on Google" their name pops up everywhere - and they exist and grow simply because there is no one around to enforce policy. Meanwhile, serious, respected, award-winning journalists with decades-long careers filled with thousands of bylines in the most prestigious of publications, don't even feature at all on Wikipedia. Whereas the likes of Jon Gaunt, who, if we're being honest, doesn't actually qualify as a journalist himself, has a lengthy semi-protected article. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying. I'd like to echo the advice of fellow editors: you're more likely to convince people when you use fewer words. You're using a lot of words for something that could be said in few words. Femke ( talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems non-notable, but the explanations above just seem too long to bother with. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Oaktree b: I would've thought that being an editor of an encyclopedia would more or less necessitate occasionally spending 10 mins or so actually, ye know, reading.. kind of an occupational hazard I would of thought? Yet I'm repeatedly dumbstruck at just how averse so many editors - especially the most bullish ones - are to reading any more than a few sentences at at time, or engaging in any more "research" than 10-60secs of Googling. Doesn't seem to stop them from reverting or commenting though of course. So, thanks for your comment. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It's almost 12 pages of text above. Post the TL:DR version then. Still not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
TLDR summary @ Oaktree b:@ Femkemilene:@ Mhawk10: Does Pepe Escobar meet the very low bar of NCREATIVE #1 "widely cited by peers"? (Not one person asserts that he meets GNG, and most of the text above denounces various bits of evidence for NCREATIVE #1 as insufficient to show GNG.) Here are a few examples of people well-qualified to judge who "cite" Escobar as a journalist/writer:

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

Just to reiterate—being cited in <10 pieces is not being widely cited for a journalist. The bar for being widely cited is high, not absurdly low. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 21:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I mean, I can't believe he's had another go, and make exactly the same mistakes again. I'll be as brief as possible:
(1) Jesse Zwick (yes, that Jesse Zwick, I believe) isn't "citing" Escobar in his 2020 piece for TNR as a "peer", he's lumping him in with all the other crackpot conspiracy peddling LaRouche movement far-right and antisemitic "journalists" for RT, Sputnik, and the like. Zwick mentions Lawrence Freeman, a self-described "Political-Economic Analyst" whose "stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton." That alone makes his moral character lightyears ahead of the warmongering, hate-filled Escobar. Zwick quotes Escobar because presumably he gave him the best one, he, again, unconsciously, makes himself look a fool for saying he was worried about moving to RT but the money's great and their videos get so many hits on YouTube!
(2) You second source is F. William Engdahl. You didn't bother to read his Wiki? He's even less of a journalist that Escobar. Again, doesn't have a single byline to a reputable publication to his name. His a life-long member of the far-right LaRouche movement, writes for self-consciously bogus websites (beforeitsnews), is openly antisemitic and espouses his Holocaust Denial and Jewish/Rothschild New World Order crankery on Russia Insider (just like our Pepe), the openly antisemitic and Iran-run Veterans Today (which also publishes Fake News constantly) conspiracy outlets like GlobalResearch.ca, InfoWars, all Rockefellers and Soros anti-vaxx, and 9/11 was an inside job, 5G, I need not go on. Oh, except he's also a fan of Dugin's neo-Fascist " Eurasianism" too, which nicely rounds out the picture.
(3) Your third source is a self-published website (not RS) of a lecturer in International Relations at a 3rd-rate provincial British university, who actually is interviewing someone who is notable enough (or at least notorious/criticized enough) to warrant a BLP himself. He is a philosopher, who, well, writes a lot and seems to have made quite a good career for himself (despite never having expressed a single original thought in his life, and is possessed of such intellectually juvenism that he can write things like this, a direct quote, a closing sentence, and think they're profound (nevermind utterly nonsensical): "But we believe philosophy may provide us with an escape-hatch from the gulag of neoliberalism and other totalitarian regimes, leading us into a future committed to freedom, democracy, and the celebration of differences." Anyway, Zabala is not a journalist or "political analyst", as Escobar claims to be, and the philosopher merely makes a trivial mention of Escobar, as one of his sources for political insight. Which explains why he thinks his ideology of "Hermeneutic Communism" could work in the real world. Oh, and he's a self-described Catholic religious atheist too.
(4) Ironically, quite sadly really, your fourth source that you dismissed out of hand, is the only one that would qualify as an RS. It is staffed by legitimate experts, university professors, with decades worth of published research in peer-reviewed academic journals, and is partnered with genuine NGOs, with Nobel Laureates, de-radicalization charities, and like-minded non-profits like the German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies. But what's more, that very article you post but didn't bother to read, was spot on. Perfect. You really, really need to read it. It mentions both Escobar and F. William Engdahl among many others who have unwittingly - through either ego or simple naivete - become willing and enthusiastic (and well paid, I might add) disseminators of far right extremist tropes and anti-scientific, anti-democratic disinfo, all through a well-supported network of Puninist and Khomeinist outlets. The article lists literally all the ones I mentioned here and more. Even LaRouche and Russia Insider.
I am genuinely worried about your competence now. You little just wrote "Journalist F. William Engdahl wrote in Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia(2012): "Veteran roving journalist Pepe Escobar recently summed up the situation in all its grim reality..." followed by your glib dismissal of the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right as though I doubt this is a reliable source...
Maybe it's just the topic area, I don't know, but you still seem utterly incapable of distinguishing not just reliable sources from unreliable ones, but even from really, really bad ones. Like, literally, actual Nazi bad... repeatedly... - EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment article should be updated/corrected to reflect the new information, may support keeping it, seems notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 17:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I hope you're kidding. In which case, nice one. If you being serious? Why even bother to come on comment on such things you have no interest in learning about and can't be bothered spending 15mins reading to get a basic understanding of? We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, right? EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I give up, I think it's worth keeping and OP still refuses. Can we close this out as a matter of procedure at this point? Oaktree b ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep It's very clear to me that a notable journalist who does not toe the Western narrative and does not belong to what is considered mainstream media is trying to be removed/silenced or deleted from Wikipedia. I have to note, this is really appalling, the pro-delete camp ignores the significant google search results that do indeed show notability, but the fact that a non-Western-narrative journalist is not warning us or screaming about an "imminent" Russian invasion of Ukraine, is too inconvenient for them. George Al-Shami ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ George Al-Shami: - How can you be a "notable journalist" if you've never written for a notable publication, or been cited by one? Google results do not determine notability. Notability ≠ Notoriety. Serial killers get more google hits than academics. Read WP:JOURNALIST, the person has to be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or be known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." If still to see a single "peer" cite him in a RS. Because "peers" in this case would be journalists. And he's never done any, ye know, journalism to speak of (breaking stories, insightful commentary, etc). That's why no serious outlet has ever published his work.
If only you could appreciate the irony of your personal attack on me. Would you be surprised to learn that I am not, in fact, Western, and that I am, as we speak, a legal resident of one of the two countries who pay their inflated salaries of the likes of Escobar, Bartlett, Blumenthal, Engdahl, Beeley and all the rest? I wonder if that's your real name - impossible, you've made a crucial mistake - but if it's indicative of where you're from, we might be a lot closer to each other than you would've thought! EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 08:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ EnlightenmentNow1792: your repeated claim that Escobar has never written for a notable publication, or been cited by one is mistaken. Notable publications that publish an Escobar page listing his articles there include Common Dreams [23], Mother Jones [24], and The Nation [25]. Aggregator RealClearPolitics also has many search results in its international section linking to articles by Escobar. [26] Surely the choice by all these outlets to publish multiple articles by Escobar should count as peer recognition suited to NJOURNALIST1. HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Wow. You've confused things a little, but you're right, I didn't go beyond the thousands of articles that are still live, online, accessible that he's published 10 or 15 years ago to see his writing didn't used to be so outrageous. Nothing original or newsworthy, certainly never gonna win any awards (I never heard of him back them, and I'm pretty sure I've been at the same functions as him - in the same countries even - during the late 20 EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)00s and early teens) - but he can sure keep those old dozen or so articles right at the back of this Portfolio of tens of thousands of unhinged rants on extremist websites. They're not quite "notable" or "prestigious" in my opinion (hell, I was published in both MJ and the Nation in my early 20s, I'm embarrassed about it now, but do you think I deserve an article?), so I'd still say the same thing, use the same words, but I wasn't aware of it, good researching. (rearclearworld just re-prints his Asia Times articles by the way, as it does for all sorts of wing-nuts). Still no peer recognition though is there? Have you noticed MJ have actually taken down his text? Think you can guess why that might be? Any thoughts on the why the Arnaud de Borchgrave blog might be one of your worst efforts yet? reply

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

  • Draftify - Whilst there does not seem to be a consensus forming around keeping or deleting this article (the issue appears to be notability) I think that there is at least some consensus that the page could be improved and a move to draft space would offer a compromise that would allow for the page to be improved without the time pressure of an active AfD. Those who argue for the page to be kept would then have the opportunity to work on and develop the page before it is approved to be moved to main space. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Gusfriend: I'd be more than happy to write a neutral, objective BLP of Escobar in the manner of his fringe colleagues such as Vanessa Beeley and Co. It would of course have to be briefer because he hasn't quite attracted the level of notoriety they have, despite being around for a lot longer. Probably because he started out reasonably sane and never appeared on cable TV wild-eyed and frothing at the mouth. He actually comes across as quite likeable - if you don't listen to the substance of what he's actually alleging. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 15:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per HouseOfChange. Seems to meet GNG, even if WP:JOURNALIST might not be met. The arguments by the nominator are unfortunately long-winded, confusing and include personal opinions about the article subject. However, as HouseOfChange said "PE's pro-Russia, anti-US POV isn't relevant to AfD." RoseCherry64 ( talk) 13:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ RoseCherry64: There's plenty of notable "pro-Russia, anti-US journalists". It's a good thing I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that Wikipedia policy be applied. Making hundreds of appearances in fringe, non-notable self-published websites/blogs - many of which are explicitly Far Right, White Nationalist, outright fascist, and some deny the Holocaust as an editorial policy, and he's written hundreds of articles for them! - is does not meet the requirements for notability as per WP:JOURNALIST, which require that he be "regarded as an important figure" or be "widely cited by peers". He ain't. The only time's he's ever mentioned is trivially, in passing, usually amongst a list of other crackpots, or as a figure of mockery. I can provide you with the sources if you want, but you seem to have made it clear that you are one of the many denizens of Wikipedia had has an aversion to reading. EnlightenmentNow1792 ( talk) 15:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
You don't understand my point. I don't think any opinions the subject holds or have expressed publicly has anything to do with arguments made on AfD, and bringing those up will turn people off immediately. There's over a hundred Holocaust deniers who have articles here. Fringe political ideas are widely covered on Wikipedia.
For the record, I looked up mentions of the author on JSTOR and Google Scholar, not fascist blogs. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 15:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Passing mentions don't count towards notability, neither do articles written by the subject, even if a lot of them can be found. It doesn't seem like he easily meets any of the journalist specific criteria either. Deleting the page isn't like "silencing" him, it just makes sense. BuySomeApples ( talk) 06:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Move that we make a decision, one way or another, this has gotten silly. I voted to keep with new sources found and OP is still refusing to accept it. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Request to closer Could the article be draftified as suggested by Gusfriend, so its history is not deleted? I don't think I've done a good job supporting my spidey-sense that Escobar was a notable journalist when he was running around Eurasia doing research on what he called "Pipelineistan" (his theory that the US-Russia-China struggle for control of oil/gas pipelines is the modern Great Game in Eurasia.) [27] [28] [29] But those references are hard to Google and I am still finding them. I don't want to create a sanitized biography, and I will also look for RS to describe his recent espousal of several conspiracy theories. HouseOfChange ( talk) 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ✗ plicit 03:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Bret Kugelmass

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

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

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

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

  • Delete seems like a long, drawn-out linked in career history. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not appear to pass GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Yarmouth-Barnstable Regional Transfer Station

Yarmouth-Barnstable Regional Transfer Station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

  • Delete per GNG. The first nomination did make me laugh. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 12:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. If it were a populated place, it might live on, but I don't think there's any population there other than the usual rats.—  rsjaffe  🗣️ 21:09, 16 February 2022 (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. Charles Stewart, while in the minority, has made substantial arguments for their view that the term is relatively widely used, and the other opinions don't really address these arguments. Sandstein 21:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Impalefection

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Looking over the Google Scholar results I see that several different groups of researcher seem to be using the technique and many more research authors have cited the technique when they list mechanisms for getting complex molecules into cells: it's in our list at transfection. The last fact doesn't help build the article, but it does mean the term has seen uptake. From the point of view of notability the article seems on the edge, but if the nom is suggesting this is a neologism, I think that's not consistent with the >70 research works by many authors using the term. It also looks like the same technique is also referred to by the term "nanowire arrays", meaning the search results I gave might somewhat understate the impact of the described technique. I'm leaning against deletion, towards either keep or merge with transfection. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Just a note that the same editor who created the article Impalefection added all mentions of it to the Transfection article ( 1, 2). There's nothing at all wrong with that, but I wouldn't read too much into the fact that it's listed at Transfection. Also I'd oppose merging to transfection, as the other modalities listed there are FAR more commonly used, and sources that discuss physical transfection methods generally (e.g. 1, 2) don't mention it. So I think discussing it in the Transfection article is WP:UNDUE unless I've just missed that it's more widely used under an alternative name. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I've mentioned this AfD at Talk:Transfection, requesting more expert attention. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

  • Comment - To recap the discussion and provide a little more detail, in the hope that this might help the next would-be closer, there are five key substantial references that document the development and application of the technique: the original paper on carbon nanofibre arrays (McKnight, T. E., Melechko, A. V., Hensley, D. K., Mann, D. G., Griffin, G. D., & Simpson, M. L., 2004. Tracking gene expression after DNA delivery using spatially indexed nanofiber arrays. Nano Letters, 4(7), 1213-1219), which seems to predate the coining of the term impalefection, and the four articles using the term indexed on Semantic Scholar. All of these five papers have many coauthors, but one, T.E. McKnight, occurs in all of them. These citations would reach the SIGCOV criterion by themselves except for the worry about independence. I'm inclined to give these papers a pass from the point of verifiability, since McKnight is only the principal author on one of these five papers, but I can absolutely sympathise with Ajpolino's delete rationale in the part that raises GNG: it seems this may be a place where we simply differ in how we apply the criterion in this grey area. The part of the nom that mentions the broader literature of slight mentions of the topic I don't agree with: the occurrences in the literature seem to be generally lists of techniques for insertion of cell material and while some might come from Wikipedia, I'd really want more evidence that all of these articles are so lazy before accepting this case. I'm generally pretty prone to use our policy against neologisms to reach 'delete' opinions, but this just does not cut it for me. Generally speaking, this material seems well-written and verifiable enough that I want an ATD outcome to this debate, so in the absence of a decent merge target, my !vote is keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Looks like a basic WP:NEOLOGISM deletion. I don't really see justification in the above mostly monologue to satisfy notability requirements like WP:SIGCOV. KoA ( talk) 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Neologism only used by members of the original team.—  rsjaffe  🗣️ 03:07, 18 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 03:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Golden State School of Theology

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

I found no significant coverage for this unaccredited college. SL93 ( talk) 01:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ✗ plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles

Index of Uzbekistan-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC) reply

WAAR TV

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 13 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Telangana-related articles

Index of Telangana-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. - Imcdc ( talk) 02:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Delete to appropriate pages. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, huge block of text not of use to an human reader. Geschichte ( talk) 10:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this isn't at all useful and there's clearly a consensus to delete lists of this type. So I can't think of a reason to keep it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No use. AnM2002 ( talk) 04:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 ( talk) 16:19, 19 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 01:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles

Index of Andhra Pradesh–related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. - Imcdc ( talk) 02:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Andhra Pradesh to appropriate pages. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, huge block of text not of use to an human reader. Geschichte ( talk) 10:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this isn't at all useful and there's clearly a consensus to delete lists of this type. So I can't think of a good reason to keep it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 ( talk) 16:18, 19 February 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 01:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Korea-related articles

Index of Korea-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Index of Korea-related articles (0–9) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (A) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (B) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (C) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (D) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (E) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (F) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (G) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (H) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (I) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (J) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (K) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (L) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (M) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (N) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (O) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (P) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Q) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (R) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (S) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (T) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (U) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (V) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (W) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (X) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Y) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Korea-related articles (Z) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of North Korea–related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of South Korea–related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

Cruelty-free

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

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

The following passages illustrate my concerns with objectivity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • I was correct in stating that this article in its current form is largely the product of a school assignment and that it has had glaring issues with POV and editorializing for the last 10 years. Both of which you initially disputed. Caecilia24 ( talk) 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Good grief! You don't even get your own nomination right. "This article started out as a school project ten years ago" is what you actually said, visible right there above, and you clearly were not correct. You cannot even get what I said correct, which didn't say anything about editorialization, the only person having mentioned that is you. Uncle G ( talk) 14:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • keep - if an article needs improvement, you don’t delete it, you improve it. If an article has NPOV concerns, there’s a separate template for that. However, I don’t understand why any of those examples are not considered objective if they are supported by citations. Just because a fact is grisly doesn’t make it subjective. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 15:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I definitely notice some WP:POV issues within the article and a need for more independent non-advocacy sources, but the term itself is notable. KoA ( talk) 19:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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. ✗ plicit 01:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Index of Thailand-related articles

Index of Thailand-related articles (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Index of Thailand-related articles 0 to J (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles K to N (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles O to S (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Thailand-related articles T to Z (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 00:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't understand what benefit Wikipedia users get out of these lists. We already have a much better organizational system consisting of the categories and subcategories within Category:Thailand. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Precedent is now set to remove all these Index lists as is being currently done with the others. - Imcdc ( talk) 02:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Imcdc. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 05:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The page should be deleted. The page might be a useful tool for someone with the mass category edit tool to add Category:Thailand to appropriate pages. Gusfriend ( talk) 07:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment was using the page's Related changes to monitor vandalism for quite some time. It was very handy. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 08:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There’s a list article for every US state too, for anyone looking for similar lists to put up for deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 08:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all... per everyone. Deprecated list and precedent has been set already to remove all others. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per all of the above. Severe storm 28 20:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It's a bit concerning that except for the Brazil one, none of the recent AfDs has seen mention of the previous AfD from 2007, and the fact that they were used for monitoring recent changes doesn't seem to be acknowledged by most participants. The nominated page was projectified (by me) following the AfD in 2007, but this was reverted by User:The Transhumanist in 2008, who at the time was building both structured and alphabetical lists across a broad range of topics. It was later split into alphabetical sub-lists, making it unsuitable for monitoring changes. A newer project page used for changes-monitoring has since been created (by me) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand/List of articles, so for Thailand, deleting these article-space lists would not lead to a loss of that functionality. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: which human user has the ability to monitor all 55,000 articles in the Category:Thailand tree and assess recent changes? Geschichte ( talk) 08:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There are actually 14,601 15,291 items on the WikiProject page, which had its most recent major update in July 2021 just now. (Going through the Category:Thailand recursively will inevitably lead to a huge amount of false positives such as History of Thailand → History of Thailand by topic → Military history of Thailand → Wars involving Thailand → Vietnam War → North Vietnam.) In any case, anyone who's interested can click the link to the Related changes special page and peruse the updates as they would their watchlist. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Would be useful if we didn't had the categories and wikiprojects. TolWol56 ( talk) 16:16, 19 February 2022 (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 procedural close. This is a redirect, and redirects belong at WP:RFD. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#IPhone 14 -- Tavix ( talk) 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

IPhone 14

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

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

See User talk:Hajoon0102#Speedy deletion nomination of IPhone 14. The deletion request log was deleted because the article was deleted earlier. -- Hajoon0102 💬 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC) 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/2022_February_13&oldid=1073271859"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE