 | Points of interest related to
Mexico on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mexico. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mexico|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mexico.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
- See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Community
Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid
- Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid ( | 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)
Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 ( talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. LouisOrr27 ( talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mexico, and United States of America. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid. Svartner ( talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Svartner ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge both
Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and
South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into
2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids —
ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "
very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say
", [1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article.
" [2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.
- AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.
- What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good.
ILoveSport2006 (
talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- "
There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia
" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts
" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.
- Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.
- You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.
- I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of
deleting history and facts
either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 ( talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a
WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down.
ILoveSport2006 (
talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 ( talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a
WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down.
ILoveSport2006 (
talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- "
- Move to
Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point.
Sounder
Bruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 ( talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. - 2pou ( talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above per Svartner. Giant Snowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico
- Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico ( | 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)
Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue 🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Mexico. Shellwood ( talk) 07:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Steven James Bartlett
- Steven James Bartlett ( | 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:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes ( talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes ( talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes
WP:Author.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).
- how so? Psychastes ( talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).
- Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [1] [2], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [3]. Shapeyness ( talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- slightly over the notability level for WP:AUTHOR and right at the edge for WP:PROF, based on citations, appointments, and reviews. I actually disagree with Xxanthippe though on the pruning part. If the subject is notable then the information there is the type of thing someone looking up information about the subject (biography, etc.) would like to know. But that's for post AfD discussion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:Author and passes WP:Prof, meets criteria 1,2. Like [4] respectfully disagree with Xxanthippe re the pruning part since biographers find this category of information important.
- Additional references that refer to Bartlett’s published work, accessed today:
- Martin, B. (2020). "Tactics against scheming diseases." Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, 1(1), 1–20. https://social-epistemology.com/2019/01/31/technology-and-evil-brian-martin/
- Martin, Brian. "Evil institutions: Steven Bartlett’s analysis of human evil and its relevance for anarchist alternatives," Anarchist Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 88-110. [5]
- Meissner, W. W. "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil. By Steven James Bartlett." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Summer 2007), 267-268. [6]. Review begins with "The subject matter of this treatise is far-reaching and profound" and ends with the conclusion: "Psychologists and psychotherapists will find this a challenging and thought provoking approach that makes a significant contribution."
- Suarez, Alejandra Review of two books by Bartlett: "The worst devils of our nature." PsychCritiques, June 13, 2012, Vol. 57, Release 23, Article 2. [7]. "Because the books present such an unusual stance that can provoke thoughtful consideration of the accepted truths in psychology, I highly recommend them."
- Martin, Brian. "Technology and Evil." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, no. 2 (2019): 1-14. [8]
- Martin, Brian. "What if most people love violence?" Waging Nonviolence, 3 May 2019. [9]
- Martin, Brian. "Whistleblowers versus evil." The Whistle, No. 96, October 2018, pp. 4-5. [10]
- West, Marcus. Book review: "Bartlett, Steven James, The Pathology of Man." The Journal of Analytical Psychology, Volume 51, No. 3, June, 2006, pp. 486-7. [11]. Review ends with the conclusion "This is certainly a classic work of reference in the field."
- Martin, Brian. "When to Read a Heavy Tome." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8), 2022: pp. 84-89. [12]
- Critique of Impure Reason by Steven James Bartlett cited in Ruffing, Margit. "Kant-Bibliographie 2020," Kant-Studien, vol. 113, no. 4, 2022, pp. 725-760. [13]
- García, Luis Felipe. "Introducción a Crítica De La Razón Impura: Horizontes De Posibilidad Y Sentido. Revista De Investigación Filosófica Y Teoría Social, Dialectika, 2021, 3 (7): pp. 63-70. Translation into Spanish of Bartlett’s book Critique of Impure Reason. [14].
- O’Kane, Aisling Ann; Park, Sun Young; Mentis, Helena; Blandford, Ann and Chen, Yunan. "Turning to Peers: Integrating Understanding of the Self, the Condition, and Others’ Experiences in Making Sense of Complex Chronic Conditions." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25, 2016, pp. 477–501. DOI 10.1007/s10606-016-9260-y. Discusses and cites Bartlett’s book, Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health. [15]
- Martin, Brian. "Research Grants and Agenda Shaping Research Grants and Agenda Shaping." In Allen, David M. and Howell, James W. (eds.), Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture (Springer, 2020), pp. 77-83. [16]
- Toh59 ( talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
| Points of interest related to
Mexico on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mexico. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mexico|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mexico.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
- See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Community
Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid
- Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid ( | 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)
Nominating based on User:AFC Vixen's edit summary. The bid has been withdrawn, thus failing WP:GNG any relevant information can be moved to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids LouisOrr27 ( talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. LouisOrr27 ( talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mexico, and United States of America. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. Redirect to 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids is also valid. Svartner ( talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – The same (withdrawn bid) appears to happen with South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Svartner ( talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge both
Mexico–United States 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid and
South Africa 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bid into
2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids —
ILoveSport2006 reverted my first attempt at merging these articles because they felt the Mexico–United States article was "
very good and adds a lot of info that the paragraph on the bid page doesn't say
", [1] and that "[the South Africa] bid could've won had they not withdrawn and deserves to stay as an article.
" [2] The first argument ignores how said info can fit comfortably in the bid article, and the second is an unsubstantiated claim. — AFC Vixen 🦊 19:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- Keep – There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia, even for previous Women's World Cups. To say this bid article isn't notable is ridiculous because it was an official bid, had its own bid book and gained a lot of media attention from many publications in and outside of the US and Mexico. The Mexico–United States section on the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page is bare and has a map that is terrible and lacks any detail, which makes it virtually useless since it doesn't even display what city and stadium it is talking about, it's just arrows. When you compare the map to the one on the Mexico–United States bid page, there's no comparison. Just type in Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid on Google and you will find a plethora of articles talking about it. It couldn't be more notable if you tried. That tiny paragraph and map does not give a bid that could have won justice.
- AFC Vixen you have just criticised my opinion with an opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, but the way you have written it is like you're saying my opinion isn't even valid.
- What I hate on Wikipedia is when people essentially delete history and interesting facts. This is deleting history and facts. Do not be trigger happy when deleting articles that people have put effort in. Some article can be terrible but this article is pretty good.
ILoveSport2006 (
talk) 20:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- "
There are many withdrawn bid articles on Wikipedia
" is a textbook WP:WHATABOUT argument, and there are indeed city and stadium names on the interactive map; perhaps we could add a "Click the square to enlarge" or similar phrasing to the caption to make that clearer to readers. Again, there just isn't enough content here to justify a WP:SPINOUT from 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids, and it can easily fit there instead. I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of "deleting history and facts
" either. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- While the map is slightly better than I thought, It's still way worst than the one on the Mexico–United States Women's World Cup bid page. Also you took one part of my detailed reply which makes many valid points and think you have proven a point by only talking about one tiny aspect of my long reply. You didn't talk about my Google argument, the bid book argument or even the media attention argument. You talked about the only thing that you thought you could make an argument on. You are trying to invalidate my opinion by saying buzz words like unsubstantiated and put me down which I don't respect. This is a common practice on Wikipedia. Make arguments with absolutely no facts and put up links and write it like you are better than the other person.
- Let's take the Budapest bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics for example, a withdrawn bid that is very notable.
- You didn't say: "The reason why the withdrawn Budapest bid is notable and deserves to be an article but the Mexico–United States bid doesn't is because..." You are just throwing a WP:WHATABOUT argument on me and calling it a day. But that's not an argument. In my opinion, it's really unhelpful.
- I don't appreciate these unsubstantiated accusations of
deleting history and facts
either Personally, I think they are substantiated to an extent because you did delete info from the 2027 FIFA Women's World Cup bids page under the guise of Cleaning the article up and massively cut down on fluff, but you can do both. You seemingly can't take my opinion without putting me down. I can take your opinion, but what I can't take is people fobbing me off with Wiki links with no proper facts or points behind their argument. You have no moral high ground if you put me down. ILoveSport2006 ( talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a
WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down.
ILoveSport2006 (
talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- But I did give you evidence. That's my point. My argument wasn't just "well other articles exist like it", I gave numerous points about how the article deserves to stay on its on own merit and all you did was throw a WP:WHATABOUT on me. ILoveSport2006 ( talk) 10:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not putting you down, I just genuinely think arguing this article should exist because others like it exist doesn't speak to what makes the page itself merit its existence in its own right, and you're probably better off just leaving those kinds of arguments out next time. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do appreciate that you realise that I'm very passionate about this, because it's 100% true, but I never said you made a personal attack, because you haven't. All I'm saying is that I hate when I make valid arguments and people throw a
WP:WHATABOUT on me because that isn't an argument and it's a cheap throwaway comment that is disguised as an argument. Also, I felt like you were putting me down.
ILoveSport2006 (
talk) 23:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you feel very passionately about this, but can you stop pretending like I made personal attacks on you? I merely refuted your arguments with my own, which yes, they are opinions. That is what a discussion is. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 22:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- "
- Move to
Mexico–United States 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup bid. Given that the same bid is just being moved to a later edition, it makes more sense to just keep the same article and modify it as needed. Note that the 2027 bid was withdrawn very very late in the process, so there would have been enough coverage for it to have a separate article at some point.
Sounder
Bruce 22:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- This idea is something that I have thought about as well. This could work too. ILoveSport2006 ( talk) 22:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move per SounderBruce. Everything still seems relevant and notable, just pushed back. - 2pou ( talk) 00:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above per Svartner. Giant Snowman 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico
- Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico ( | 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)
Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue 🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Mexico. Shellwood ( talk) 07:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Steven James Bartlett
- Steven James Bartlett ( | 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:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes ( talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes ( talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes
WP:Author.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).
- how so? Psychastes ( talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).
- Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [1] [2], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [3]. Shapeyness ( talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- slightly over the notability level for WP:AUTHOR and right at the edge for WP:PROF, based on citations, appointments, and reviews. I actually disagree with Xxanthippe though on the pruning part. If the subject is notable then the information there is the type of thing someone looking up information about the subject (biography, etc.) would like to know. But that's for post AfD discussion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:Author and passes WP:Prof, meets criteria 1,2. Like [4] respectfully disagree with Xxanthippe re the pruning part since biographers find this category of information important.
- Additional references that refer to Bartlett’s published work, accessed today:
- Martin, B. (2020). "Tactics against scheming diseases." Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, 1(1), 1–20. https://social-epistemology.com/2019/01/31/technology-and-evil-brian-martin/
- Martin, Brian. "Evil institutions: Steven Bartlett’s analysis of human evil and its relevance for anarchist alternatives," Anarchist Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2021, pp. 88-110. [5]
- Meissner, W. W. "The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil. By Steven James Bartlett." Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Summer 2007), 267-268. [6]. Review begins with "The subject matter of this treatise is far-reaching and profound" and ends with the conclusion: "Psychologists and psychotherapists will find this a challenging and thought provoking approach that makes a significant contribution."
- Suarez, Alejandra Review of two books by Bartlett: "The worst devils of our nature." PsychCritiques, June 13, 2012, Vol. 57, Release 23, Article 2. [7]. "Because the books present such an unusual stance that can provoke thoughtful consideration of the accepted truths in psychology, I highly recommend them."
- Martin, Brian. "Technology and Evil." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 8, no. 2 (2019): 1-14. [8]
- Martin, Brian. "What if most people love violence?" Waging Nonviolence, 3 May 2019. [9]
- Martin, Brian. "Whistleblowers versus evil." The Whistle, No. 96, October 2018, pp. 4-5. [10]
- West, Marcus. Book review: "Bartlett, Steven James, The Pathology of Man." The Journal of Analytical Psychology, Volume 51, No. 3, June, 2006, pp. 486-7. [11]. Review ends with the conclusion "This is certainly a classic work of reference in the field."
- Martin, Brian. "When to Read a Heavy Tome." Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11 (8), 2022: pp. 84-89. [12]
- Critique of Impure Reason by Steven James Bartlett cited in Ruffing, Margit. "Kant-Bibliographie 2020," Kant-Studien, vol. 113, no. 4, 2022, pp. 725-760. [13]
- García, Luis Felipe. "Introducción a Crítica De La Razón Impura: Horizontes De Posibilidad Y Sentido. Revista De Investigación Filosófica Y Teoría Social, Dialectika, 2021, 3 (7): pp. 63-70. Translation into Spanish of Bartlett’s book Critique of Impure Reason. [14].
- O’Kane, Aisling Ann; Park, Sun Young; Mentis, Helena; Blandford, Ann and Chen, Yunan. "Turning to Peers: Integrating Understanding of the Self, the Condition, and Others’ Experiences in Making Sense of Complex Chronic Conditions." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25, 2016, pp. 477–501. DOI 10.1007/s10606-016-9260-y. Discusses and cites Bartlett’s book, Normality Does Not Equal Mental Health. [15]
- Martin, Brian. "Research Grants and Agenda Shaping Research Grants and Agenda Shaping." In Allen, David M. and Howell, James W. (eds.), Groupthink in Science: Greed, Pathological Altruism, Ideology, Competition, and Culture (Springer, 2020), pp. 77-83. [16]
- Toh59 ( talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)