Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

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 Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. (non-admin closure) jps (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Joe Biden[edit]

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

There is no presidency yet and for all we know it might never transpire. What does exist is the presidential transition of Joe Biden. Everything that is in this article now and everything that could possibly be in it before the inauguration belongs in the article Presidential transition of Joe Biden. The article is therefore both premature and redundant. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this was speedy kept six days ago. I don't believe it should have been speedy kept because the article is entirely redundant. A discussion is warranted. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The nominator should withdrawn their nomination and close this discussion. KidAd talk 00:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd & Jéské Couriano - nominator has also been disruptive in regards to Jill Biden and Dough Emhoff. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's disruptive is closing a discussion only two hours after nomination. Roughly 30% comments here are in favour of not having this article, which surely suggests that there is something worth discussing. But you may take me anywhere you wish. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think the original discussion qualified for Wikipedia:Speedy keep under the criteria on that page though --DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DRAFTIFY The nominator is correct in stating that this is, at present, redundant to Presidential transition of Joe Biden. The nominator is also correct in stating that the previous discussion should not have been closed as WP:SPEEDYKEEP (especially not as a WP:NAC). I will note that the proper course of action for that would have been to take it to WP:DELREV, however. At any rate, WP:DELREASON#5 (Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) – this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK), WP:DELREASON#6 (Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) – it is impossible to attribute something that has not yet happened to WP:Reliable sources), and WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia – specifically WP:NOTFUTURE) all apply. On the other hand, barring unforeseen events, we'll want to have an article with this title in the future, hence WP:DRAFTIFYing is a perfectly cromulent WP:Alternative to deletion. I suppose it would be possible to have a procedural close for this discussion and take the previous one to WP:DELREV, but that seems overly bureaucratic to me. TompaDompa (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was nominated for deletion and speedy kept last week.   // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both the articles on the previous two presidencies were created moths before the start of those respective presidencies, without being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.94.161 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or draft until inauguration. Ҥ (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until inauguration. WP:TOOSOON (Alternatively, redirect to presidential transition of Joe Biden until inauguration — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Redirect to the target already suggested until he's actually the president. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON and it wasn't really addressed in the other nomination to a meaningful degree. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — procedural. Firstly, a nom not even a week after the first nom is disruptive. Secondly, reliable sources discuss a Biden presidency, and those reliable sources do not entertain the nominator's opinion that "for all we know it [a Biden presidency] might never transpire" (instead, they argue opposite and paint Trump's challenges to the election as inconsequential to the election result). Thirdly, as a point of interest (preempting WP:OTHER comments) a few days after Trump was elected we had the same article for Trump — Presidency of Donald Trump — despite the results not having been certified; as such, this article seems pretty consistent. —MelbourneStar☆talk 15:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing a discussion within two hours and with only two comments is disruptive. This is not about endorsing Trump's delusions. This is about there being no need for the article Presidency of Joe Biden when there is an article called Presidential transition of Joe Biden. It is redundant at best and WP:CRYSTAL at worst. It is also not an opinion that a 77-year-old in the midst of a global pandemic might not live another couple of months. Yes, we have had silly and unnecessary articles before, but it is never too late to change bad practices. For example, we are now much less keen on having articles about royal foetuses than we were in 2012. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a bizarre nomination that wastes editors' time. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Joe Biden is not the president of the USA. This is so blatently obvious that I am voting to speedily delete. USA government website: "The 20th amendment to the Constitution specifies that the term of each elected President of the United States begins at noon on January 20 of the year following the election. Each president must take the oath of office before assuming the duties of the position."[1] It's November 15, 2020 in the USA today. If Joe Biden were to die today (Joe Biden is 77 years old), historians would not consider him to have been a U.S. President. And there are no third party reliable sources indicating that Joe Biden is the president of the USA. So the article not only defies reality, it violates the Wikipedia rule relating to reliable sources being used too. And because this article denies reality and engages in fortune telling, it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) rule also. There have been academic studies indicating that Wikipedia articles are politically biased (see: Ideological bias on Wikipedia) and this article gives more ammunition to Wikipedia's critics.Knox490 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that as if Wikipedia's critics in this case cared about Wikipedia's ideological slant. They only care here because it threatens the narrative they desperately want to believe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to believe that the point of this nomination is to endorse Donald Trump's delusions. It is not. The point is that we have an article that is entirely redundant to another. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care about your intentions as far as your nomination. There is no Biden presidency and that is an objective reality. There may be no Biden presidency. I personally know of American man in the 30s who had a heart attack and he was in good shape. Biden is 77. The article engages in fortune telling.Knox490 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: It's too early, but we should still be able to edit it in the meantime. Nojus R (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't understand the need as the page literally states, that it has not begun yet and he has been projected to win by over 300 electoral college votes as of November 15, by multiple news sources. Further, I created the page for the Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro in November 2018 for a Presidency that started in January 2019, as media has already begun documenting the process. If needed maybe a link to Trumps contesting the election should be made or a section, but not the deletion of the whole page. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – he will be the 46th president in two months. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same rationale given in User:Reywas92's closure a week ago should apply here. riffic (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. we are addressing a valid topic by providing this entry. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep What Toughpigs said. This is a disruptive nomination on an article that is obviously a major developing topic, and there's no need to wait in this case. This is not the same topic as the transition and should not be redirected there. Reywas92Talk 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your closure of a discussion after only two hours and two comments was disruptive. You should not have closed it at all since you are obviously not impartial, per WP:BADNAC. But do tell us, what can an encyclopedia say about this topic that does not apply to the transition? Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Nomination comes less than one week after the last deletion nomination, with nothing much to add to the last one. Pahunkat (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not take part in the first discussion (unsurprisingly, since it lasted only two hours), therefore you have presented no argument of your own. The argument presented here is that the article is redundant to Presidential transition of Joe Biden. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could argue that at a current state Presidential transition of Joe Biden is important, however this article satisfies WP:EVENTCRITERIA and thus should not be deleted Pahunkat (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per WP:FUTURE, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Conspiratorial what-ifs are nothing but supposition. KidAd talk 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - until Biden takes office, on January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Biden is president-elect and is very much set to take office in January. There are no reliable secondary sources to suggest otherwise. I'd suggest maybe at the very most to use tentative terminology in the article itself before the official electoral college meeting in December. - Bettydaisies
  • The transition simply details the point of time from now until January. Information about his actual presidency, such as his recently-appointed Chief of Staff, should be included on its proper page. There are multiple precedents for the creation of this page regarding prior president-elects, both inside and outside of the United States. There is no legitimate indication that Biden will not become president, and his presidency is a significant of enough event to warrant its own page. It's as good as definitive and a bit of a waste to delete it. I agree with the above reasoning regard ing WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:FUTURE. - Bettydaisies
  • Redirect Biden IS the President-Elect and a General Election result will not be overturned. But it does seem premature to have an article about a presidency that doesn't exist yet. So, my vote is to turn this page into a redirect until Jan. 20th. That way, none of the present content is lost and a valid redirect will not be lost in the backwaters of Draft World. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Topic of much discussion. There is ~0% chance the Electoral College overturns this outcome, meaning the only way this administration does not transpire is if Biden dies before the inauguration (which is not likely), and even then, the article could just be moved to Presidency of Kamala Harris with some modifications. Master of Time (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per reasons listed better than I could by others above, and per Pahunkat. Paintspot Infez (talk)
  • Draftify until January 20. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article's quality, contents, and references cited is irrelevant when it comes to AFD discussions. The fact of the matter is that the article will grow as time goes by, and sources will, without a doubt, become available as time moves on. This meets WP:N, WP:GNG, and any others by a long shot. There's no recourse for argument than what is expected in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and this page vaults over it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is perhaps the most remarkable example I have ever seen of the Wpedian refusal to admit the the real world exists, and will go on existing, and that some things are predictable beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not supposed to be here playing a game with how absurd a conclusion we can draw from our own invented arbitrary distinctions. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Presidency of Donald Trump was created almost immediately after the 2016 election. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL, and if it turns out it is, which is exceptionally unlikely, we can review it then. SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 16 November 2020 (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. Disregarding the walls of text. Sandstein 12:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't meet WP:RS standards. Every source makes only trivial/passing mention, and all of them cite or otherwise quote/point back to Kanan Makiya's 1989 book "Republic of Fear" which itself only has a couple trivial alleged details in a bibliographical note for a citation concerning something else entirely, oddly. Having looked for other sources not on the article already, they have the same issue too. This is Circular reporting and it would appear that deliberately or not, the sources were placed on the article in a manner to make it seem like there was independent sources and analysis and good coverage when this was not the case which doesn't help with reliability. In effect, there's only one original source that itself is trivial in detail on the Wiki article subject and questionable at best in reliability. Further, in his book's introduction Makiya admits to use rumors and stories without "firmer basis in fact". In reality, there isn't analysis in any of the sources. This leads to WP:NBOOK, which it fails to meet the book notability criteria as well. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:REDFLAG violations may have relevance here.

As a note on Wikipedia policy and something important to keep in mind, a book passingly or trivially mentioning something is not coverage, nevermind significant coverage. For example, one source only states the title and author name as a chapter subtitle, which provides no value. Furthermore, a source simply repeating a detail that an original source it cites mentioned, as is the case here with the sources pointing to Makiya's book on this Wikipedia article, adds no additional value.

While the above policy failures are evident this article shouldn't have been made in the first place (my guess is 2006 English Wikipedia was more of a Wild West), there's also the quandary that it has been a futile effort to prove this pamphlet ever existed in the first place. Even book sellers and universities in Iraq turned up empty on ever having heard of such a work despite the alleged claim of it having been "widely circulated" and part of the country's education system.

For a detailed analysis, please see the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Three_Whom_God_Should_Not_Have_Created:_Persians,_Jews,_and_Flies#Unreliable_sourcing,_circular_reporting,_and_a_wiki_article_that_should_not_have_been_created It's a lot of text but the research and work that preceded this AfD were substantial per WP:BEFORE.

I'd also vouch for the Arabic Wikipedia article of this to be deleted too since it's essentially a direct translation of an older revision of this English Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure if that requires a separate AfD or not. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Somewhere between no sources and bad sources, as explained above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom on all counts.— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is laughable that these circlejerk citations have been going on for 12 years now. DesertPanther (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is quite notable. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is covered in numerous books. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you bother to read the detailed analysis in the talk page at all? These "numerious books" all got their stuff from one source, sometimes they copied the text verbatim. DesertPanther (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, it is not "covered" in numerous sources. Rather, it is barely mentioned. Naming a title and author and maybe one or two other minuscule details is not "coverage". Furthermore, all sources derive from one original source as explained in the opening post and in detail in the Talk page, and even that original source, which originated this whole thing in the first place, barely mentions anything but a few details in a bibliographical note regarding a completely separate topic, oddly. The article fails to meet reliable source criteria, fails to meet book notability criteria, and as concerningly likely never even existed in the first place. How does a thing we can't even confirm ever existed in the first place deserve a Wikipedia article, nevermind failing to meet various policies? My first suggestion would be to read the opening post and the Talk page sections, as it is evident you had not. Secondly, I'd suggest to brush up on how to source on Wikipedia. A casual and trivial mention of something is not reliable nor adds any value. Something like, "Sir Elton John, a singer and serial killer, had a concert..." is not a reliable source that Elton John is a serial killer. On top of that, it's nonexistent that he is one, too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTINHERITED, and nom by Saucysalsa30. This is a classic synthesis: sources talk about apple and pie, but not apple pie. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Synth is not a terribly convincing argument. This is not a case of apple and pie. Also no indication of hoax or unreliable circular sourcing. High quality scholar reliable sources, experts in the field, talk about Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet. For instance scholars from Newcastle University and Kuwait University:

To legitimize the war, the Iraqi Ba’athist regime drew on anti-Semitic arguments to represent “the Persians” in collusion with “Zionists and imperialist” forces—Persians as people who gave refuge to the Jews when they were prosecuted in Babylon. For example, in an important military manifesto called “Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet,” the Persians, Jews, and the flies are mentioned as the three whom God should not have created. Terms such as Zionist Persians and Majus (fire-worshippers; derogatory for Zoroastrians) were also used in official and intelligence documents of the Iraqis (Adib-Moghaddam, 2007). In addition to the support of major Western powers and Russia (Hooglund, 1991, p. 39), Saddam was endorsed by most Arab states of the Gulf (Marshall, 1988).

MAJID KHOSRAVINIK, Newcastle University, UK; NADIA SARKHOH, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Arabism and Anti-Persian Sentiments on Participatory Web Platforms: A Social Media Critical Discourse Study

Cheers, Infinity Knight (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW this is Adib-Moghaddam, 2007, scholar in Oxford University, the primary scholar source MAJID KHOSRAVINIK & NADIA SARKHOH had quoted. I see no indication of Republic of Fear. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kanan Makiya, Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq is mentioned in that article twice. It is listed as a reference as well, and indeed the article contains many things mentioned in that book. Nice try though! — DesertPanther (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are incorrect. The 2017 article only mentions the title and author as you quoted, which is useless and fails any criteria as described in the nomination and the linked Talk section, and cites Adib-Moghaddam. To make things worse, I looked at the Adib-Moghaddam article does the exact same thing by just mentioning the title and author: "pamphlets such as Khairallah Talfah’s, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews and Flies" and nothing more. Also, Kanan Makiya's book "Republic of Fear" is in the references at the end, so there is absolutely an indication of it. It is evident you are having trouble understanding how sourcing works on Wikipedia, or correctly reading and searching sources. A passing mention of nothing more than a title and author, and worse on something that cannot even be proven to have existed in the first place, is a bad source. A title/author tells us nothing. Also there is notability criteria for books on Wikipedia, and if millions of real and actual books aren't suitable for Wikipedia, then a few page pamphlet that fails all policy criteria certainly won't be. At this point it appears to be grasping at straws to make a point that isn't there. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Saucysalsa30. Wikipedia content should be based on verifiable reliable secondary sources and not on editors original research. We have an abundance of scholar sources from great universities around the world, which talk about the Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet. You speculate the pamphlet might never existed, also marked the page as a hoax. Can you quote a reliable source, rather than your personal research, that casts a doubt on the existence of this pamphlet? Infinity Knight (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern, but to reiterate, it would be helpful to review Wikipedia policy. The article already fails to meet book notability criteria WP:NBOOK. Full stop. Further, it fails to meet WP:RS since every source makes trivial mention with no coverage of any meaningful value, and even worse all sources point back to a single original source "Republic of Fear" that itself admits includes "rumours and stories" with "no firmer basis in fact". Meaningful coverage of the subject of an article is important, of which there is no such thing. The inherent issue is it doesn't matter if some journals or books made an off-hand mention to a title/author, and maybe one of the couple other miniscule details claimed in "Republic of Fear". The fact of the matter is they all do nothing more than trivial mention, or at most add in one to two other details from the few claimed in "Republic of Fear". That's called innocuous filler taken at face value and thrown in. It happens to some degree in every book and paper every written. None of them cover the subject in any way that adds any meaning or value. They all hardly make any mention and provide nothing more than "Republic of Fear" does, while simultaneously citing "Republic of Fear", expectedly.
The WP:RS and WP:NBOOK failures alone nullify any reason for this article to still be up. There has been absolutely no other original claim in over 30 years. All we have is a book that itself admits to being one of "rumours and stories" making an off-hand claim in a bibliographical note regarding something entirely different.
Can you explain why every single source finds its way back to "Republic of Fear"? Why hasn't there been anything new added on the Flies pamphlet in the 31 years since "Republic of Fear" was published?
I already disproved your claim about the Adib-Moghaddam article. You said there was no indication of "Republic of Fear", and yet there were multiple. It also added no value at all. It simply stated the title and author of the manuscript. Can you explain how just mentioning a title and author is reason for a Wikipedia article to exist? You do understand that's not how Wikipedia works, right?
Furthermore, can you find a source that discusses the manuscript in any meaningful way? No, because that doesn't exist. The only thing you've displayed for example off-hand mention the alleged title and author, and like all other sources, points back to "Republic of Fear" as well.
____
As for the question shifting the goalposts to existence or not (it should be reiterated this is beyond the scope of clear reasons why the article should be deleted and is an aside), I've seen far more "proof" for the existence of Bigfoot and leprechauns or the Hindu god Shiva (or any religious deity) than I have for this, and no proof to disprove it, because simply put, you can't disprove something that wasn't proven to exist in the first place. Once you understand that, you'll see the point made in your last comment is futile. What you're asking is to prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, essentially. However, the responsibility falls on you to prove it does exist. To counter your point, there has been zero research to prove it does exist in the first place. There is not a single reliable or any source that does that. Just makes a trivial mention citing "Republic of Fear" and nothing else. So can you show me the evidence, proof, and research, maybe even link me a PDF or seller's link of this alleged manuscript? I can very easily prove to you that The Chronicles of Narnia books exist as I currently have it in front of me, so why do you struggle to find me anything more than a mention of the title and author in a worthless passing mention in a paper?
For something claimed to be so "widely circulated" in Iraq and by extension presumably the broader Arab world, it's awfully difficult to prove any existence of such a thing. :) By the extremity of the claim made regarding its proliferation, you'd expect US soldiers to have found boxes filled with the manuscript and available in every Iraqi school following the 2003 invasion. Instead, it seems to have completely vanished from all historical record and originates with a book that admits itself to be of "rumours and stories". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so why is it so difficult to produce any evidence to prove the existence of this manuscript but an article stating a title/author and referencing the origination of what appears to be as much a fairy tale as the widely-covered and "supported" claim that Iraq was behind 9/11?
At this point, the one contribution you have made to the AfD discussion is an either disingenuous or mistaken claim about the Adib-Moghaddam article that was handily proven false, and only proving the point I made in my omination further and which other commenters have noted. Thank you, and take care. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saucysalsa30:, I have not looked into Republic of Fear previously, and I am not familiar with the author. However, looking now at this source: Kanan Makiya; Samīr al- Halīl (15 June 1998). Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-21439-2. the book appears to be secondary, heavily referenced scholar text published by an excellent university publishing house. According to google scholar this book is cited by 406 scholar sources. So far all those are indications of a high quality WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:RS trusted by the scientific community. Why should Wikipedia distrust this source? Can you quote reliable sources which disagree with this book? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book cannot be used as a reliable source, because it admitted by itself that it is unreliable. Here is what the author wrote in the preface of the book on page 25:
″Every writer on post-1968 Iraq has to work with severely inadequate information originating in an obsessive official attitude towards “national security.” In choosing to focus on institutions like the secret police and the politics of fear, this book inevitably suffers from this liability more than others. My way around the problem has been to make explicit every source, and not to discard a story or a circulating rumour merely because it has no firmer basis in fact. A feature of Ba‘thist Iraq is that sometimes the truth content of a particular story is less important than the fact that people have come to believe that it is true.″
How can any reputable *academic* or *scholar*, in the last 3 decades or so, quote or cite this book and pretend that it is reliable is beyond me. What is also beyond me is your desperate defense against removing this article. I can only assume that you have an agenda that you are trying to push here.
Not only your side discussion is irrelevant to this AfD, but also every point you mentioned has already been covered. You also lied about the 2007 article you mentioned not citing Republic of Fear, while in fact it mentioned it twice. Also, you did not answer why there is no other details brought up about these supposed pamphlets (such as photographs or copies) in the past few decades? All we have about it are the parroted words of K. Makiya regurgitated countless times by other cheap authors. — DesertPanther (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, whether or not this pamphlet exists is not the point of the nomination, and you're not making a point for why it does anyways. It's just the frosting on the cake that there's literally no evidence for its existence. To make it clear, you're basically discussing a tangent that is not pertinent to the AfD. Secondly, your own admission you don't know about this subject is evidence you did not read the nomination nor the linked Talk page section because I explain this in detail and already looked into "Republic of Fear" and everything else for you. If you had read the nomination and Talk page section, you would not be stating any of this. Also, the fact you were already proven wrong about your claim regarding the 2007 article you posted yet continue to try to argue in favor of that is confusing. Thirdly, your comments are going around in circles now. All of this has already been explained multiple times. As already stated several times, "Republic of Fear" itself admits it is not reliable, as has already been quoted to you from the book itself. It was written as a political propaganda piece and Kanan Makiya is proud of that fact himself, so it should come as no surprise why it's a poor source (among other unquestionable reasons why the article has no belonging on Wikipedia). Again, as stated multiple times already, that book which is the only actual source for the AfD subject, has only a few details mentioned in a note for a completely different thing and as such not a topic of focus or anything else in the book. Just a random aside not even in the book's main text. What is clear is you need to brush up on how sourcing and notability on Wikipedia works, you don't understand the clear Wikipedia policy on Book notability, and believe that being proven wrong on your only claim (the 2007 article), going in circles, and admitting to not understanding the subject you're speaking on is making a point.
As one example straight from Wikipedia policy, " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". There is no significant coverage here. Why is it so difficult to understand that a small note at the end of abook, and the only original source (because every other source that mentions the pamphlet does nothing more than quote and cite Makiya with trivial mention, adding no new content at all), is not "significant coverage" and worse derives from one source, which even worse admits itself to be filled with "rumours and stories"? And yet again, your argument falls apart.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but again, a trivial passing mention of something is not meaningful coverage. "Republic of Fear" has no focus or detail on this pamphlet. For example, Makiya several pages discussing another book (and a real one at that), but this pamphlet is only mentioned in a note on a reference at the end of the book, and the citation is for something completely different. The fact the ONLY proof for something is an off-hand mention with a couple valueless details is an obvious red flag. The only point you've made is some article listed a title and author. How does that in any way warrant a Wikipedia article or even other content? And again, it very clearly fails WP:NBOOK. There's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia content about this should exist.
And, you ignored my questions in my last comment, which makes it further evident they cannot be answered. If you could answer them, you'd actually have an argument for keeping this article, but considering that is not the case, it is further proof why the case you're making holds no water. Can you answer them? I understand you only made real point which had the consequence of proving me right, and it was in making a false and disproven claim. So I will ask you them again. Can you explain how just mentioning a title and author as in the 2007 article you linked earlier is reason for a Wikipedia article to exist? You understand that's not how Wikipedia works, right? Can you explain why every single source finds its way back to "Republic of Fear"? Why hasn't there been anything new discussion or coverage the Flies pamphlet in the 31 years since "Republic of Fear" was published? Can you find a source that discusses the pamphlet in any meaningful way, and why does every source do nothing but add a passing mention of zero value? By meaningful, like actually focuses on and provides meaningful detail beyond the small remark put in an out-of-context note at the end of the book?
If you cannot answer these questions, then there's no use for you to respond with more circular arguments and tangents. For at least fourth time time, I advise taking some time to review how sourcing and notability works on Wikipedia. A trivial coverage of something and singular source of information at that is essentially worthless, among other things. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DesertPanther:, looks like you agree that academics and scholars treat the book as reliable. And so should Wikipedia, per WP:RS. There were also several editions of this book, and University of California Press continue publishing about Khairallah Talfah’s pamphlet after about a decade of review. Personal opinions of editors about the sources are really irrelevant. While like Saucysalsa30 you believe the existence of this pamphlet is doubtful or hoax, we still need reliable sources to agree with you. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay boomer. — DesertPanther (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Saucysalsa30: Shall we salt this page after deletion? The page may be recreated due to the amount of sources citing this pamphlet as existing. Techie3 (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Techie3: I agree with you. I think salting is a good course of action to take. How do we go about doing it?
    • Two clarifications: 1) the issue with regards to this AfD isn't primarily that the pamphlet exists or not, but rather that it simply fails to meet book notability criteria, reliable/question source, NPOV/WP:UNDUE, verifiability, and other guidelines+policies. That there's no evidence or confirmation it exists is just yet another reason why it should not have a Wikipedia article, nor mentioned on other Wikipedia articles (as it still currently is) 2) The sources don't cite the pamphlet as existing, but simply point to Makiya's Republic of Fear with a passing mention of the title/author and maybe one of the other 2 minuscule details from that end-of-book note in Republic of Fear. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud R. Toledano[edit]

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

He does not meet notability criteria and this article is mostly self-written. User Ottemp who created this article is Ehud R. Toledano, see here for the proof. --Visnelma (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I assume that being "University Chair for Ottoman & Turkish Studies would pass WP:NACADEMIC point number 5 "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education." Personally, I'm not a super big fan of the rule, but it is what it is. In this case, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the article, have him blocked for COI editing, and delete all the self-written badly referenced stuff. It won't be deleted based on notability grounds due to him passing WP:NACADEMIC though. Nor do I think it necessary should be. Even if I mostly disagree WP:NACADEMIC myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Adamant1. COI is a strike against the author, not a strike against the subject/article. The article should be edited to remove promotional languages and unsupported assertions. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is not notable. Subject is just a professor at Tel Aviv Unversity who has written about seven books. That is not notable. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to a credible WP:NPROF case, the subject has written several books, with plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. A cursory and not-necessarily complete JSTOR search yielded [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. (Q: Is there a tool to automate building citations from JSTOR?) As it's now been stubified, the WP:PROMO issues now seem to be dealt with. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Russ Woodroofe: I have a Python command-line script I use to turn text copied from the jstor metadata page into citation templates, but it's not exactly production code. It generally needs additional effort both after and sometimes before to make it work well enough. It doesn't separate out author names into their components. It falls down for journals that number things in different ways than Vol. and No. It doesn't convert dates to standard formats. And it doesn't handle titles, because reviews don't usually have titles. But if you think it might be useful for you, I've put it online at User:David Eppstein/jstor.py. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Eppstein: Thank you! It definitely beat doing everything by hand. I'm surprised that citer doesn't handle JSTOR; maybe there are terms of service issues. Anyway, 18 reviews now in article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Russ Woodroofe: Nice! I changed the citations to say title=none, since they were all boilerplate titles like "Review: X". Academic bios can accumulate long lists of book reviews, and the titles of those reviews seldom impart new information, so in cases like these I think it's best to omit them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Re citer: in developing my script I found that it is not possible to use software to retrieve even metadata content from jstor (if you're not connecting to jstor with a browser you will get sent to the "I'm not a robot" page, and even manual browsing of jstor with too-rapid page clicks will likely get you to that page) and that they're not interested in changing to accomodate automatic metadata retrieval. On the other hand a reasonable fraction of their pages have dois and you should be able to get to the metadata from the doi database instead of from jstor. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no third party sources which is what is absolutely needed to justify an article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of receiving multiple reviews for each of multiple books. Visnelma's stubbifying the page removes concerns about promotionalism, and it can be expanded back a bit again based on the book reviews found by Russ Woodroofe, which are third-party sources about his work (the work being almost always the most important aspect of an academic's life to explain). XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had major notable works done. Mr-5 / M ✉ / C🖋 16:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stubbification takes care of the promotionalism and reviews now in the article demonstrate a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tzahy (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (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. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 FK Sukthi season[edit]

2014–15 FK Sukthi season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not fall within the scope of WP:NSEASONS and so it needs to pass WP:GNG; I am not seeing any evidence that the third tier of Albanian football gets enough non-routine coverage for this. Spiderone 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:18, 14 November 2020 (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.  JGHowes  talk 17:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Australian Business Council[edit]

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

I can't see how this thing meets WP:NCORP. No verifiable hits on Gbooks, two hits on Gnews, three mentions on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable business organisation. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is lack of sources covering the subject, besides a couple back when the oganisation was founded. Their website is down, and judging from their facebook page [20] I get the impression that HABC must have been actually inactive for years, and that in the end this effort didn't go far beyond its initial phase. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. In Greek there are only a few listings in the press between 2012-2014. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2020 (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 consensus that the subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER. There is no consensus on the issue of significant coverage or if any weight should be given to the fact that he was the first black South African to be awarded the Military Medal. Noone seems to be questioning the verifiability of the contents of the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Gazi[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER as a recipient of the Military Medal. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This person and associated award of the Military Medal is notable, because of South Africa's apartheid past. Barry Gazi was one of five or six black South Africans decorated for bravery during WWII. 500 Military Medals were awarded to South Africans, but of those- only a very small number were awarded to African/Black members of South African forces - who were compelled to serve un-armed as drivers, cooks and stretcher-bearers. The South African government also distinctly neglected retaining adequate records regarding these acts of bravery by native South Africans - so any furthering of that record is essential. Also note that Gazi was the first black South African to have been awarded the MM. Person considered notable under this clause of MilHist Notability:

It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example, Teddy Sheean, despite having only received a relatively low-level military decoration, is notable per the guidance set out in the WP:GNGdue to the level of coverage he has received in reliable sources. Farawayman (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My sentiments are the same as Farawayman's position to retain this article. The contributions of African's during World War 2 has been deliberately neglected for white political gain. Their contributions need to be remembered. Conlinp (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just doesn't demonstrate notability. Notability in this context is, as Farawayman correctly states, significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Regrettably this subject fails that test. Humansdorpie (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Umteteli Wa Bantu newspaper and National Archives are very reliable sources. There wasn't more coverage on his act because the government deliberated suppressed records on acts of bravery by native South Africans. He should not be punished for this. Watsonc779 (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment User:Watsonc779 has made a total of 2 edits, this being one of them which I regard as suspicious.Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to get started somewhere. What would you suggest? Watsonc779 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting on AfDs until you have some experience of deletion policies and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion but I understand WP:GNG just fine so I'll continue. Watsonc779 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and find it suspicious firstly that you even found AFD and that you would choose here to start or did you previously edit WP under another name? Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are reliable sources covering him. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because some editors seem to be misunderstanding what I'm doing by nominating this for deletion, I will clarify; I am not nominating this for any racial agenda. I'm nominating this because the article's subject seems to have a lack of WP:RS to be considered notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Watsonc779. BlueD954 (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the lucid arguments made by Farawayman and Watsonc779. There appears to be good arguments for the lack of more secondary sources, but what we have seems to make this notable enough - first black South African certainly seems to be notable.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. I don't really understand the issue. There are quite a few published sources (including this book and this academic study) which appear to discuss him in some detail. As such, it seems clear that WP:GNG is met and WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant. Humansdorpie and Mztourist might like to reassess their votes on this basis. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't regard that as SIGCOV and as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Makgotlo was a delete, so should this. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: John Makgotlo was not covered in reliable sources, so deletion was appropriate. There is no comparison to Gazi who has been discussed in some detail in (by my count) at least three official histories, two academic monographs, an unpublished thesis, and three periodicals. Rather more than many of our other military biographies! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2020 (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. I see a consensus here to delete, given the lack of in-depth sources about the subject. I am willing to undelete on request if any sources are located post-closure, so please drop a line on my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Makgotlo[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER as a recipient of the Military Medal. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: This person and associated award of the Military Medal is notable, because of South Africa's apartheid past. John Makgotlo was one of five or six black South Africans decorated for bravery during WWII. 500 Military Medals were awarded to South Africans, but of those- only three were awarded to African members of South African forces - who were compelled to serve un-armed as drivers, cooks and stretcher-bearers. The South African government also distinctly neglected retaining adequate records regarding these acts of bravery by native South Africans - so any furthering of that record is essential. Farawayman (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER. Farawayman, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. Maybe some academics decide to write a military history book including a chapter on him, and then he will become notable...— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the medal is not so prestigious as to create automatic notability per WP:MIL. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BlueD954 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am with Farawayman here. It's not the medal itself that appears to make this notable, but the dearth of medals of any kind awarded to black South Africans. The NOTTRUTH argument also doesn't work for me, as this info is not made up, based on the source we do have - and Farawayman reasonably explains why there aren't further sources to be had.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I added a source showing the award, but there's no indication that this was anything but a fairly common award. Shouldn't there be reporting otherwise? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger By the Tail[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as mentioned already, I agree that if fails WP:NBOOK. Additionally, the article is unsourced and the article is lacking in information Eyebeller (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to James Hadley Chase. I couldn't find any reviews for this or anything. It's possible that there are some out there "offline" though due to when the book was originally printed. Given that, I think it's at least a redirect to the authors article if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I reworked the article a bit, adding the information about The Man in the Raincoat (1957) film based on this book as well as references to some linguistic studies where this book is mentioned.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Undoubtedly a low-quality article. But that should be addressed through editing, not deletion. "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts." - WP:IMPERFECT. "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." - WP:ATD. Regarding notability, please see: 1 2 3 4 — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while understanding the nomination, this is a good example of WP:HEYMAN. Clearly meets notability criteria after recent additions by Bbarmadillo.Onel5969 TT me 17:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs exansion.122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has multiple independent reviews, article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Investment Diamond Exchange[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Website no longer active, sources are all PR releases Rogermx (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article lacks enough proper sourcing to establish why this company was notable.TH1980 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable pawn shop. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are [21] [22] [23] and are not enough for notability. Mathias (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP. No pretensions to be encyclopedic. Entirely advertising like with no quality content. Essentially a brochure. scope_creepTalk 19:22, 20 November 2020 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mike-Bamiloye[edit]

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

Son of a very prominent film maker but per WP:NOTINHERITED, we know notability isn’t inherited. Subject of article is also a filmmaker and singer but doesn’t satisfy either WP:FILMMAKER or any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Generally, a before search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG nor does he satisfy WP:BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All I could find that seemed possibly reliable was this article from the BBC: [24], however I cannot read it, so I'm not sure if it's an article, a blog, user-generated content, etc. After a quick search everything else seemed like social media, iTunes, and the like. I am leaning towards delete, but will hold off on !voting at the moment to see if anything else turns up. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone, hello, coincidentally it’s one of the Nigerian languages I paid good money to learn & speak fluently. The source is basically reporting what subject of our discussion tweeted on social media which was he(Joshua Mike Bamiloye) condemning individuals who watch & enjoy the Lucifer (TV series) show because it is titled Lucifer and people still watch it regardless of the title. The source in no way has any value to WP:GNG as it does not discuss him with in-depth significant coverage. You could optimize the google translate to confirm this for yourself. Celestina007 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
@Celestina007: thank you for this information, it is very helpful. I was hoping that you were fluent in this language and could provide insight. It seems that he lacks the notability required to meet criteria. Netherzone (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject of the article does not pass WP:GNG, nor WP:CREATIVE. Maybe in a few years, but it is now WP:TOOSOON for this individual. Netherzone (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person does not pass the notability guidelines for people in the film industry due to there not being multiple in-depth reliable sources about them that would be needed for either WP:GNG or WP:TAKEYOURPICK. Likely the article was created because he is related to Mike Bamiloye, who is notable. Notability is not inherited though. That said, perhaps this article could be redirected to Mike Bamiloye. Since they are related. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherited-notable actor and director. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2020 (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 Move to draft. There is consensus that while this may be a notable topic, the current content has substantial WP:COI and promotionalism problems that make notability difficult to assess. Before any recreation, the content should be reviewed and improved by independent knowledgeable editors. Sandstein 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass dimension one fermions[edit]

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

I became aware of this article when the page's author, User:Dharam Vir Ahluwalia linked to it from Dark Matter in what appears to be an ongoing WP:COI with regards to their research. A bit of searching did not turn up any secondary sources that discuss this theory, and the only major contributor to the page is the theory's author who has recently published a book on it. Without any reliable secondary sources, it is impossible to establish notability, and the page reads like a cross between a press release and a dump of a literature search. Parejkoj (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came up against this and was debating nominating this myself, but didn't quite pull the trigger because I wasn't quite sure why the article was bothering me, but I agree with the nomination in broad terms. The crux of the issue is that this does not seem to have significant coverage/citations outside of Ahluwalia's own research. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the pet model of a few physicists without wider attention. --mfb (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I counted well over thirty distinct authors before I lost track if I was double-counting or not. I think thirty people is more than "a few", and 15 years of ongoing publications by this many people should constitute "significant coverage". (There are zillions of WP articles that appear to have less coverage and less attention). It seems to have legs. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculation and COI editing: non mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- One simply needs to go to Google Scholar citations to realize that there are numerous publications by respected authors in highest impact factor journals that are entirely devoted to Elko and Mass dimension one fermions. A large fraction of these examine the new fermions as viable dark matter and dark energy candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) 00:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Please give link. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Google scholar is located at [25] Using it, I find "About 196,000 results (0.08 sec)" and a giant treasure trove of "Related searches" which tells me that lots and lots of people are crawling not only over it, but lots of things related to it. Try it out Google scholar mass dimension one ferrmion. As to ELKO, I've heard of ELKO long ago; it shows up in CERN dark matter searches, and in other collider physics reports. Not sure but I think ELKO appears in several other WP articles, I'll search for that next. ... OK, Looked .. not too hard, didn't find any. Hmmm. Whatever. Then there is the googele scholar ELKO dark matter which gives more hits. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These 196,000 results have more false positives than actual hits by orders of magnitude, just go to page 5+ to check. A large range of papers use all four words somewhere but not in the context of the article discussed. With quotation marks the results reduce to ... 32. Add 85 hits for "fermions with Mass dimension one" and we have an obscure niche topic. And who publishes about it? Ahluwalia et al, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia, de Brito et al, Lee, da Silva, Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia - notice a pattern? --mfb (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And not to be annoying about it, but clicking through randomly, I find "R. da Rocha from Dirac to ELKO" cited by 87. The article is classified as "riemannnian geometry" and "clifford algebra" as topics 1&2. Dark matter in 9th place. So I'm reminded that Weyl spinors appear in intro-to-riemannian geometry textbooks, as well some of the others you can build from them, e.g. the spin manifolds. I don't know what "flagpole" is, I assume it refers to what used to be called "penrose twistors" (the spinors on flag manifolds) (yes, that penrose, the roger guy). Classifying things is a favorite pass-time of mathematicians, so I'm actually planning on skimming this article. Could be neat. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there may be enough on "ELKO spinors" for an article to be written. I can't find any sources written for non-experts in the field, so am unable to do so myself. The article as-is seems too promotional for Ahluwalia's research; even the name (article was moved from ELKO field at request of Ahluwalia). The reference-bombing really doesn't support the useful parts of the article at all (or is Ahluwalia adding references to his own papers), so this is also largely original research. With the COI, extremely high technical barrier, and lack of non-technical references, a WP:TNT deletion would be called for even if the journal references are considered sufficient for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been confused about wikipedia culture since about forever. If you are not sufficiently expert to be able to re-write this article yourself, then why are you voting? This threatens to become a snowball delete by people who don't seem to know what "mass dimension" is, which is kind of weird. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't keep an article by making it too obscure for anyone to edit. If "mass dimension" is such a well-known concept, why isn't there an article at mass dimension? Or is there some other name it is at? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After about 30 minutes, I've tracked down Scalar field theory#Dimensional analysis and scaling, but that still doesn't make sense; a particle's energy or momentum would have a mass dimension, but the particle itself couldn't. If you can't provide any sources which define this term, I strongly suggest this isn't a reasonable topic for Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the mass dimension of a particle is just the dimension of the field in the Lagrangian. Famously, Lagrangians are only renormalizable for n=4 or less, and dirac spinors show up as m psi-bar-psi and since m=1 that means psi=3/2. The usual mass-dimension one would the the klien-gordon fields which are m^2 phi^2 so m=phi=1. These are spinless. This is something you learn in first year or two of school, and there must be 100 books on intro-to-qft that would explain this in chapter one. They invariably conclude with hand-wringing and a lament that there are so few danged choices, wishing that there were more, and then concluding that supersymmetry is the only way out from that renormalization trap. So having a mass-dimension-one fermions is ... bizarre, and seems to be an alternate route of escape from the trap. If you don't like string theory and you don't like supersymmetry, then you need to find something else, and this beast seems to be a plausible "something else". Can't be worse than some E8-something-or-other. If your criteria is "too obscure for anyone to edit", you'd have to delete 99% of physics and math articles, starting with Serre duality and finishing with infinity groupoid and Postnikov tower. What is obscure to some is clear as the light of day to others, and the goal of WP should be to provide those gateways to clearer understanding. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May I ask how you can use personal experiences of Ahluwalia as reference without being Ahluwalia yourself? --mfb (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One learns of such teachers by oral tradition in the community, haven't you had any that you are making a comment out of the topic of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physics96 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, OK, I'm now going to stop defending this article. I think the article is OK-ish, I've seen much much worse on WP, but I'm sorry, this last smells like a sock puppet to me. Which is not appropriate conduct. Oh well. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass dimension one theory bring a huge comprehension about dark matter. I guess we must Focus on such fermions to deep understand the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:18:811:2032:14be:c650:3900:70a0 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete This is a bit of a WP:TNT situation with notability concerns. There might be just enough documentation to indicate that a community has taken an interest in this topic, but that's iffy; the high density of self-citations makes that hard to evaluate. But the intensity of the COI editing makes it impossible to trust the fairness of the text we currently have. At best, we're in a "burn it down and start over" situation, and it's not entirely clear that we would have grounds to start over. XOR'easter (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above has noted that there are well over thirty independent authors who are working in this field. Beyond citations, most of these publications are entirely devoted to the subject. I, as the founder of the subject (with Daniel Grumiller), have an invitation from Physics Reports to write a review article and Cambridge University Press has published a monograph on the subject under the title of this page. That publication was by invitation, and was published in their most prestigious series Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-monographs-on-mathematical-physics/B5B9D3A75391E59CF00429DF1A92AF65). That I am a contributor to this page should be seen as a community service. I am a scholar, not a promoter or a salesman. On the other hand the nominator of this deletion campaign is an astronomer from dark matter observatory with clear conflict of interest. It is WP's decision to keep or delete this page with consequences as I and others view Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk • contribs)

Of course experts are encouraged to contribute in their areas where they have knowledge; however, when their contributions are simply adding the titles of their latest research papers with no context or explanation, there are issues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy passages of bold text are difficult to read and generally seen as impolite. In the future, I would advise omitting the extraneous formatting. It is also against Talk-page etiquette to remove other editors' comments, as you did here. If you wish to withdraw a statement, you can strike it out with <del>...</del> tags. This is less disruptive to the flow of the conversation. As to the substance of your comment: publications that have not yet been published are not sources for Wikipedia's purposes, and both the forthcoming review article and the monograph are primary sources, which are not what we turn to when we build our articles. Many of us are scientists ourselves, and we do contribute as a community service. But because of the Conflict of Interest policy, we don't write about our own work. There's plenty else to do, like writing about the background knowledge that has already been well-established and that our research builds upon. Wikipedia does not try to push the scientific frontier forwards; it only follows behind as the frontier expands. XOR'easter (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some explanations are in order. There are vast amounts of effort expended in keeping nonsense out of wikipedia articles. It is not uncommon for undergraduates cramming for a mid-term exam to come in and edit some article filling it with nonsense. Another very common situation is with cranks pushing some insane theory, or autodidacts re-discovering the wheel, and attempting to create articles on the topic. It takes real work and effort to keep this under control, and so there is a bit of an immune system at work. You've triggered the immune system several ways: (1) excessive self-citations (very common with cranks, since no one else cites them) (2) use of sockpuppets during arguments (very bad no-no) (3) single-topic, single-interest editing, with little or no effort expended to improve related articles. You would have been much luckier if instead you just added some long subsection to some article about fermions, or some article on dark energy.
Immune systems being what they are, they sometimes malfunction and suffer from autoimmune disorders. There are elements of what could be called a "toxic workplace", where more energy is expended on fighting than in producing. Wikipedia culture has driven out every academic and professor that I personally know of; you'd merely be the latest in a long string. As a result, activity in the math and physics forums has hit rock-bottom. Nothing is going on, its stagnant. How to "fix that", I don't know. I have some ideas, but meh .. maybe more like mathoverflow, which is, BTW, fantastic!.. there could be better onboarding of new academic contributors such as yourself. There could be, I dunno, maybe reputational systems or maybe a peer-review system for something like this article. The problem is, for this article .. there are no peers, because the academics have all been driven out. So there. It's still a bit wild-west, here. It has not yet matured enough to address certain basic problems.
p.s. since I like to talk a lot, I would like to point out that the University system was invented by the Scholastics in the 13th century. They built something that has lasted 800 years, outlasting city, state and national governments, transitioning from agrarian society through industrialization to our post-modern world. The Scholastics achieved this by developing a system to keep out cranks and nuts, keeping out the mediocre, as well as providing an income (living wages) for professors. Tenure and all that. Wikipedia does not have such a system. It's volunteers. Unpaid, untenured. Shaky mechanisms for keeping out the unworthy. Attractive to the vainglorius. This breeds problems. Will a better, self-correcting system be found? I dunno. Welcome to wikipedia, as it exists today. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate Send it back to draft space. There are good arguments on both sides here, as they say. But, the page does not currently belong in the mainspace. User Dharam Vir Ahluwalia has a self-admitted conflict of interest (in bold above) which is not disclosed on the page and they have over 20% of the page's authorship according to xTools. I think it needs to go back to draft and run through articles for creation before coming back to the main space. Taking care to avoid original research, synthesis, conflicts of interest, advertising, poor sourcing, and (maybe most importantly) avoid WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE violations. If incubation is not an option, then my vote may be interpreted as a comment. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI and Sock puppets. Knowledge bases pride themselves when founders of a subject contribute. In the context of this thread I am one such individual -- known to many, and documented in an invited Book Review for American Mathematical Society (written by: Julio Marny Hoff da Silva) and those who are engaged in research in the field. It is my humble opinion that it is not I but the initiator of this thread who has a serious COI, and if I may add a lack of understanding of the subject. If pursuer of this field comment and they are being called sock puppet then it crosses my sense of dignity and decency, and I shall be hard pressed to contribute to Wikipedia if an appropriate apology is not extended to them. I am happy to work on this Wikipedia page under discussion but only in the spirit of a scholar and a founder of a field. I have nothing to sell or promote but only contribute as an expert in the field. If Einstein contributed and created a page on Theory of Relativity, he would have faced no less COI accusations -- or, so I think. Wikipedia needs to seriously reflect on how it treats founders and scholars, and not be self destroyed by the sort of questions and trolls it allows to enter its working space.
Please read WP:COI and WP:SOCK to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. I want to emphasize that a COI is not a judgement about your state of mind, that we cannot assess, but about the objective fact that you are writing an article about your own research. If Einstein were to write about relativity on Wikipedia he would also have a COI, and he would also be discouraged from doing it himself. Tercer (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Dharam Vir Ahluwalia: While your contributions anywhere else are very much appreciated, we have a process for dealing with edits to pages for when you have a COI. I encourage you to contribute to articles in which you are an expert, but you should not directly edit articles in which you are the expert or which you played an integral role in developing. You should never ever use Wikipedia to make a reference to one of your own papers. It has nothing to do with you and you should not take it as insulting: In general, founders of fields and inventors of objects are not distanced enough from a topic to write about it encyclopedically. Maybe you can, but there are still policies we need to adhere to. Also, I am fine with deletion. As I said above, the article does not belong in the main space. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think this is the first time in my life that I have seen an article with deep WP:COI and WP:SOCK problems that is nevertheless about a legitimate topic, and would probably pass the WP:GNG on a closer inspection. The problem, however, is that as it stands the article is little more than a list of papers by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia, with terrible formatting and unencyclopedic tone. It is a clear case of WP:TNT. Tercer (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tercer, Reality Check You wish to recommend deletion of what in your own admission is a "legitimate topic" and "probably pass the WP:GNG" test "on a closer inspection". Furthermore, a little more than a list of papers by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia in your remark = Out of 57 references 10 are by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia. Yes, since I am the founder pf the subject that is to be expected. For your knowledge: Go and look at our JCAP2005 and PRD2005 papers. You will find that both announce the result as "unexpected theoretical discovery"-- spin 1/2 spinors not satisfying Dirac equation, and yet provide local and Lorentz covariant quantum field (in CUP2019 version). Decency, I thought, would have recommended stylistic improvements and given some respect to my COI and Sock puppets remark above. There is nothing that is overstated in my contribution (20%) -- yes, it is possible to be objective and still be Dharam Vir Ahluwalia. There is a limit to the COI and Sock accusations, and it has not been hidden from the moment the article came to exist. Mass dimension one fermions work is not your every day bread and butter work. It is revolutionary in nature as has been called by a reviewer for American Mathematical Society. I have done a community service and I do not deserve what is being thrown at me, and at those accused to be sock puppets. In fact this thread seems to be infected with trolls -- I say this because of the tone and accusations in this thread.
And yet, almost all of these references are simply cited in a massive list, without any context. Most of the papers that are referred to in the text are by Dharam Vir Ahluwalia. Also, I insist that you read WP:COI. That you have a COI is not an accusation, it is a fact. While you're at it, please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF as well. Calling other editor trolls and baselessly claiming that they have a COI is not in order, and only damages your case. Tercer (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"And yet, almost all of these references are simply cited in a massive list, without any context" Context is provided by the embedding text, and this style is common in High Energy Physics literature. Perhaps we have a clash of cultures. However, this is no big deal and WP and HEP cultures can be reconciled. Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
By the same token calling certain individuals sock puppets is uncalled for. I have made the page as a service to the community. At this stage I have no case to make. All I can do is to make specific changes that are implementable without suffering a COI clause. Having created a context I have provided several references, their titles then are sufficiently informative to be useful to the reader. As I said when I made this page that mine is a service and if Wikipedia thinks it is a conflict of interest it has to get another expert, but all experts shall have the same problem. They have published in the field, and by default WP declares them to have a COI as is the case with me. WP certainly can delete this page if it thinks it best serves the community.Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
Finally, how does WP ascertain that the initiator of this deletion request does not have a COI with me. Why the individuals who support his/her view are not labeled as sock puppets, while those who support me are called sock puppets -- my phrase possible troll refers to the former. These questions are natural and should be addressed here in this thread. Elsewhere in this thread someone has written "Wikipedia culture has driven out every academic and professor that I personally know of; you'd merely be the latest in a long string. As a result, activity in the math and physics forums has hit rock-bottom. Nothing is going on, its stagnant." Does Wikipedia aspire for me to be latest academic to exit, and not re-examine its policies to welcome scholars like me.Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
Please do not edit the comments of other contributors, as you did here. That is considered impolite, as it makes the discussion much more difficult to read and can corrupt what other contributors have to say. In response to your comment Forthcoming articles are not intended as a primary source, but only to emphasize the growing interest in the subject, I refer you again to WP:PRIMARY for what we here mean by "primary source". The mere existence of an article, invited or not, does not necessarily indicate a "growing interest" in a topic; the judgment of one editor at one journal is not the judgment of a community. Likewise, it is not sufficient that a book be published — it must be demonstrably influential. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned edit was an inadvertent act (cut a bit too much), I have already apologized once for that in this thread. Here, I do it again: sorry, apologies. The influence of my works -- on mass dimension one fermions and ELKO -- is easily read off from Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DlMc5CYAAAAJ&hl=en). As to Cambridge University Press monograph Mass Dimension One Fermions it has been cited 23 times since its appearance in mid 2019 and there are hundreds of paper entirely devoted to the subject of mass dimension one fermions, spread over roughly forty authors (from Europe, to Latin America, to Korea, to Canada, to India and China, and to Iran). Many of the papers are cited more than a 100 times, and some more than 50. The citing works have a combined citations that run to a very large number that I have not calculated. Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
  • Comment: As far as I am aware, I do not have any COI with this author or subject: I am an observational astronomer, not theoretical physicist. As well described by 67.198.37.16 above, this tripped several of my "Wikipedia immune system" sensors. If it is as important as the author says, then there should be some secondary sources (e.g. Physics Today or Scientific American articles) that cover the topic. I didn't find any on a short search, but I may not be searching with the right terms. Even some secondary sources that talk about ELKO would be useful here: I wasn't able to find those, either. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be more to ELKO than meets the eye. I'm currently reading Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:228 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7801-5 On the generalized spinor classification: beyond the Lounesto’s classification C. H. Coronado Villalobos1,a, R. J. Bueno Rogerio2,b, A. R. Aguirre2,c, D. Beghetto3, which, to quote the first paragraphs:
"The well known Lounesto’s spinor classification is a comprehensive and exhaustive categorization based on the bilinear covariants that discloses the possibility of a large variety of spinors, comprising regular and singular spinors which includes the cases of Dirac, Weyl, and Majorana as very particular spinors. Hundreds of textbooks usually show the dual structure for the fermionic spin one-half Dirac field ... without mentioning the fact that it may not be unique ...Both questions are rarely asked in the physics literature ... The algebraic theory of spinor duals makes use of the rich and well known structure of Clifford algebras to specify all possible duals for arbitrary algebras of any dimension and space(time) signature [2]. However, when the theory of the mass-dimension-one (Elko) spinors was proposed, it was necessary to revisit some fundamental aspects of the Quantum Field Theory, such as spinorial dual theory and (a slightly modification on) the Clifford algebra basis, always aiming to retrieve physical information."
... and so I spent the last 24 hours reviewing wikipedia spinor stuff. (See my edit history; everything I've edited yesterday/today was somehow "spinor related") We've got excellent articles for spinor and Clifford algebra, mediocre ones for Dirac spinor and bispinor, appalling ones for Rarita–Schwinger equation, and, err ... jumbles like Clifford analysis which bites off more than it can chew. Dirac operators are a "big thing" in mathematics; it appears that pretty much every/anything in geometry (and I'm not kidding about "any/every") has a Dirac operator or spin connection or pin group in it, on it or under it. For example, Chapter one, titled "Foundational material" of Jurgen Jost (2002) "Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis (3rd edition)" Springer -- a popular and authoritative textbook in the "universitext" series, has 20 pages on Clifford algebras, Weyl spinors and the Dirac equation. Chapter one - 75 pages long, so that's more than a fourth of it on spinors. So I contrast that background with the extended quote above, implying that maybe we haven't even fully classified all the spinors yet, and ELKO is one of those coming out of the woodwork. ... So, what to do? I had this vague idea to figure out Elko enough to just mention it in suitable places in WP, but the current articles are jumbles or are sufficiently patchy and incomplete that this isn't possible or natural at this time. The "obvious" places to induce Elko would be in Fierz identity and C-symmetry. Note that spinors, as defined by mathematicians, have C, P-symmetry and T-symmetry quite independent of space-time; that is C, P and T have a mathematical meaning for spinors that is entirely dettached from their meaning in physics. This, too, lies in disarray in the current articles. (For these reasons, I'm still going for keep, as I said way above.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment. Your request to delete this page comes across as aggressive simply because you are unable to realize what we have at hand. Since 1928 it has been assumed that spin half fields and spinors satisfy Dirac equation, here the new field is a four-component spinorial field. It is fermionic and local -- just as the Dirac field. The Dirac field has its luminosity, and at the simplest level it comes from local U(1) covariance. The mass dimension one fermions provide for dark matter what the Dirac field provides for the Standard Model of High Energy Physics. The mass dimension one fermions do not satisfy Dirac equation but spinorial Klein Gordon equation, and they do not allow covariance under SM local phase transformations. So it becomes naturally a dark matter candidate. Quartic self interaction for a Dirac field are suppressed by two powers of unification scale. For the mass dimenion one field its quartic self interaction is a dimension 4 operator. So it is not suppressed. Thus these new fields provide a very natural dark matter candidate with quartic self interaction. A quick search on the usual search engines shows numerous publications in high impact journals that provide cosmology associated with Elko and Mass Dimension One Fermions. But I won't repeat that notability argument here as it has already been covered in this thread. Cambridge University Press does not publish a monograph in its most prestigious series unless it exceeds in significance popular writeups of Physics Today, etc. It is this lack of appreciation and the aggressive nature of your action that triggered my conjecture on a COI on your behalf. I, therefore suggest, that you withdraw your request to delete this page but instead work with me to improve it. You can write to me at my private e-mail to prevent further escalation at your observatory level. Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
  • Draftify, or cut down substantially. I think notability is fine here; one can't argue that a field with this many practitioners has no presence in scientific discourse, even if the bunch looks somewhat incestuous. But the current state of the article is quite unsuitable for mainspace. Material like the following has no place in an encyclopedia article:
In the decade that followed a significant number of groups explored intriguing mathematical and physical properties of the new construct while Ahluwalia and his students developed the formalism further.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. ... Elko localization on the branes has been investigated in,[26][27] and.[28] The following references serve as a guide to the lively activity on Elko, and mass dimension one fermions:[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Earlier history of Elko is summarized in references:[45][46] and.[47] How Weinberg no go theorem is evaded is explained by Ahluwalia in 2017.[48]
That's refspam at carpet-bombing levels, not encyclopedic writing. Either summarize then reference these sources, or leave them out. It seems that the main contributor is unwilling to do so, or doesn't even understand the necessity. In that case this and similar stuff should be removed, or the article should be moved out of mainspace until someone else actually does something with this material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can do the requested but to do a decent job I'll need bit of time, say a week or two. However, it may lead into another COI issue. Please advise.Dharam Vir Ahluwalia (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)DharamVirAhluwalia[reply]
  • Draftify for now, since this is clearly a refspamed massively COI edited article that can't be salvaged to any degree in it's current state. Also, after it's worked on it should go through review before being allowed back in mainspace. Since, otherwise I think we will just be back here with it again in a few weeks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2020 (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sylwester Zawadzki[edit]

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

Disambiguation page that does not disambiguate The Banner talk 21:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep, It was kept per arguments in discussion listed on Talk:Sylwester_Zawadzki. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2020 (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 Vukovar massacre. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kačić[edit]

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

A clear violation of WP:1E. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's sources all date from its creation shortly after a monument to Kačić was unveiled, but Kačić continues to be discussed in Croatian press through to the present day. I'm not sure this is a "clear" violation. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the policy does say we should generally cover the event and not the person, so given an apparent plethora of reliable sources covering it, let's move it to either Murder of Igor Kačić or indeed the more generic Vukovar massacre. The latter had actually been proposed way back in [26] by User:GregorB, but the merge proposal was removed in [27] by User:Klbrain on procedural grounds. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vukovar massacre. While I'd agree the violation of WP:1E is perhaps less than fully clear, there is little of substance to say about the person independent from the event, so the biography is therefore reduced to partial retelling of the circumstances around the Vukovar massacre. There is this fact(oid) of being the youngest victim, which caused human interest as reported by the media, but no real claim of notability. GregorB (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vukovar massacre or Keep. My close of the 2017 proposal was primarily because no case was made, and there were references on the page which related specifically to Igor Kačić many years after the massacre. Having said that, a merge would also be reasonable. I don't, though, think that WP:1E is ever a justification for a delete if the event is notable, which doesn't seem to be in dispute. Klbrain (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the reasons discussed by Klbrian. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vukovar massacre.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (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 fix Lembit Staan's cut-n-paste moves and contested changes to the primary topic of "Sikorsky" and contested split of the disambiguation page, with no prejudice against an new WP:RM discussion to move the disambiguation page to a "(disambiguation)" title so that the base name might become a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, nor against a new WP:SPLIT proposal for the disambiguation page to reflect the different spellings, but neither of those discussions are AfDs, and they shouldn't be combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski[edit]

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

This is basically a fork of Sikorsky, which was then redirected to Igor Sikorsky, with new DAB pages created at Sikorsky (disambiguation) and Sikorski (disambiguation), all without discussion or consensus. Attempts to restore the status quo ante were reverted. All of this can and should be covered at Sikorsky, as it has been for over 15 years. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The nomination is without merit. Sikorsky was an unreferenced non-article with facrtually wrong information. HOw a correct referenced artcile Sikorski can be a fork of a false text beats me. The fact that it sat there for 15 yeqrs speaks something of thje expertise of wikipedians, not of the quality of the article, Lembit Staan (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to what editor2 seems to think, there is a clear primary topic. So the exercise to change the redirect to a thingy is not a good idea. The Banner talk 21:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the heck are you talkin about? This article is abouth the Polsih surname. Guess what is a possible primary topic for Sikorski? - Władysław Sikorski. I am pretty sure you do not even know who he waas. Sikorsky is not Sikorski. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them back We should not demand that our users magically know which Polish or other Slavic names transliterate to Sikorski and which to Sikorsky in English, that's a lot to ask for. (Are there any Sikorskiys? Sikorksijs? I wouldn't be surprised.) This is a disambiguation page, it's much more valuable if it covers all Sikorskis and Sikorskys in one place. --GRuban (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument does make sense. However The article title should be Sikorski - this is the surmame, even judging from the list of persons: 1 Sikorsky vs 20 Sikorski. And the article about Polish surname to start with "Sikorsky is a Russian version of a Polish surname"? Ridiculous. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you have a preference for a Polish name over a Russian name? The Banner talk 09:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not a Russian name. It is an English transliteration of the Russified form of a Polish name. Polish name twice removed, so to say. (And not the ignorant nonsense which was written in the article when I first saw it : "Sikorsky an English-language respelling of the Slavic surname Sikorski" - Why on Earth someone would need to respel a Polish name written in purely English letters? For comparison, how would you imagine AfD for Smith to make it a redirect to Smyth? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does look like there are a lot more Sikorskis in our encyclopedia (17) than Sikorskys (one), so I can support Sikorski being the main page and Sikorsky either being a redirect here or to Igor Sikorsky with a hatnote at the top of Igor Sikorsky "for other people named Sikorski or Sikorsky, see Sikorski (disambiguation)".--GRuban (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Bratrud[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this guy is a designer and manufacturer. Sports notability guidelines do not apply. 174.254.192.175 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 14 November 2020 (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.  JGHowes  talk 17:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Oreo Vault[edit]

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

Promo gimmick / borderline hoax. Don't let the "references" fool you. Fails notability on account of no WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not to mention that some of the article makes no sense at all (a random vault which for some reason has an Oreo branding, which was deemed by some to be a publicity stunt, what?). Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't appear to be a hoax - at least not on Wikipedia's part. The project is covered in reliable sources, including CNET, Food and Wine Magazine, Business Insider (yellow on RSP), Fox (not a politics so reliable per RSP), Deseret (green on RSP for "local" news), and probably more. That being said, I don't know if this is notable enough for its own article - thus at this time merge to Oreo until more sustained coverage (if any) happens. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oreo. Not notable enough for its own article.--Darwinek (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Oreo. No evidence that this is a hoax, and even if it is, it's well known enough to be notable. If it turns out to be a hoax, it must be marked as such. JIP | Talk 01:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Oreo. Per the news coverage, this qualifies for an article relative to GNG, but this can also be easily merged to the main Oreo article. North America1000 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax article. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The notability bar for a publicity stunt has to be pretty high, especially considering all the other marketing angles people have tried over the years. The fact that people are having some difficulty determining that the article is not a hoax gives a measure of how little impact the stunt has had so far. That could of course change, but right now I feel a certain straining for sources. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm retracting the 'hoax' part of my nom; this does seem to be a real thing. A real, 100% pure publicity stunt, that is. (And a pretty slick one, too, so kudos to whoever came up with it!) I still think this should be nixed, but I could also live with merging to Oreo, as suggested already. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note that being a hoax is not by itself a criterion for deletion. A hoax can be notable if it's covered well enough in reliable sources. Of course this requires that it is admitted as a hoax in the sources and in Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 00:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is an obvious hoax made up by some vandal, then it can be deleted, but a well-known hoax is allowed, right? Foxnpichu (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • For example Polybius (urban legend) was well known. The article has 23 references. It is notable even though Polybius did not really exist. But if I were to make up something fictional one day and post it to Wikipedia, it would be speedy deleted as a non-notable hoax. JIP | Talk 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course. That’s what Wikipedia is all about. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a marketing gimmick and does not have the sort of sustained critical coverage that would even make it worth mentioning in the Oreo article. A few articles breathlessly repeating a company's marketing material does not an encyclopedic topic make. Spicy (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: GNG has a presumption of notability but not an absolute guarantee. WP:EVENTCRIT says, "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).." and "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." The emphasis is on lasting effects, which this subject does not have.   // Timothy :: talk  21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an obvious hoax—Spitzbergen is an extremely sensitive habitat in which the environment is legally protected by international treaty, and if a global multinational were really to start excavation and construction in the wilderness without going through formal channels with the Governor of Svalbard it would cause a major international incident. (This whole thing reminds me of the Cooper Brown fiasco from a decade ago, in which an editor insisted we treat a piece of fiction published in a newspaper as fact because "it must be true, it appeared in the newspaper and it doesn't explicitly say that it's fiction".) A marketing campaign can theoretically be notable in Wikipedia terms if the campaign receives significant coverage in its own right, but there's nothing to indicate that here; the "sources" are just a handful of breathlessly reprinted press releases, we're not talking Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch! or Whassup? here. If they stick with the concept and it becomes an actual part of popular culture, rather than a one-off minor advertising campaign with minimal impact, I'd reconsider, but we're certainly not there yet. I explicitly don't support merging to Oreo; a minor one-off stunt isn't nearly important enough to justify inclusion in the parent article, unless we're going to cover every other marketing campaign they've ever run. ‑ Iridescent 09:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the number of editors which view this as a possible hoax demonstrates that if it isn't deleted for notability, it should be deleted as part of WP:TNT; if an article leaves readers questioning whether the subject exists or is fiction, its a complete fail and time to start over.   // Timothy :: talk  10:03, 18 November 2020 (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 around a 60/40 numerical majority in favour of deleting this article, but there are clearly issues as to the rationales for doing so. The most common rationale appears to be WP:POVFORK, but as pointed out in numerous places, there appears to be no agreement about which article it is actually a POVFORK of - indeed, I see at least six separate articles mentioned in Delete rationales. The large number of articles proposed suggest that this is actually an article that covers information from all of those articles, rather than forking material from just one. Furthermore, numerous Delete comments make no mention of which article it is a POVFORK of, which makes them less useful, and others appear to be invoking NPOV as a delete rationale, which it is not. On the canvassing allegations I would point out that it would normally be logical only to post a note on the talk pages of the articles which were claimed to have been forked from (although I appreciate that in this case that would have been a significant number of articles), rather than a talk page that posting on which could be perceived as alerting editors with a certain viewpoint. I will also note that the comments about the possible POV nature of the article's title may have merit, and it may be worth considering an RfC as to whether the current title should remain. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank bantustans[edit]

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

A POVFORK of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation, the subject is a narrative already covered by, and part of, Israel and the apartheid analogy. Any unique information not already included in 'Israel and the apartheid analogy' can be merged into that article or Oslo Accords#Criticism. An editor tagged it under CSD A10, but this was declined for having a different focus to West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is backwards. It is clear that you have no problem with the content of the article, you just don't like the title. I have yet to see a single source supporting the claim of POV here. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that all those alleging "fork" are quite unable to show from where it is supposedly forked, the nearest thing is that which I mentioned in my comment, a single sentence in the Bantustan article.Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a problem its written in not neutral manner , critical sources are removed and so on also like other noted this topic is already covered in other articles in more neutral manner Shrike (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, you keep repeating this but continue to avoid the question of do you have any sources to support your claim? For the avoidance of doubt, I mean sources that are specifically focused on the topic of this article - i.e. the land area of the West Bank allotted by Israel for its Palestinian population. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Palestine Archipelago" in a United States Department of State presentation on Israel and Palestine, prepared in 2015 and updated in 2016
  • Keep As helpfully illustrated by the above confusion as to which other article this topic could best fit into, this important topic at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict touches on a number sub-sections of existing articles but cannot be appropriately covered in any one. As illustrated by the United States Department of State memo on the right (page entitled "Palestine Archipelago"), this concept is of great notability. It is the fundamental reason that the Two-state solution has been impossible to agree. The sources in the article are of the highest quality, with numerous academic articles focused exclusively on this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sadly: Keep, as the people voting to delete this article cannot even agree which article this is a POVFORK of (!): that illustrate the fact that this is a new subject, one that has been coming gradually, since 1967. (Btw, googleing "West Bank" Bantustan gives 47,700 hits, Palestine bantustan gives 71,600 results) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in the nomination, the subject is the Israeli occupation of the West Bank from the critical perspective of the Israel—apartheid analogy. So to some extent it is a POVFORK of both. Neutrally worded, the subject would most accurately be called 'fragmentation of Palestinian land in the West Bank' or similar, and phrased this way it is more clearly a fork of our occupation article, which already has a dedicated section on fragmentation. Bantustans being an element of South African apartheid, this comparison is part of the widely discussed analogy (hence the number of sources, most of which have apartheid in their titles) and doesn't belong in a separate article. It overlaps several articles because it is a single interpretation/POV/analysis of Israeli actions and various peace plans (a viewpoint which, I'd like to add, I personally have sympathy for – my concern about its suitability as an article doesn't stem from narrowly pro-Israel views). Jr8825 • Talk 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs per policy to satisfy notability, verifiability and NPOV which the DYK process does anyway so I don't see the rush to delete here. As to the fork, bantustans are mentioned only in passing in Israel and the apartheid analogy since Apartheid necessarily involves rather more than the mere creation of bantustans. Oslo Accords#Criticism, Trump peace plan and State of Palestine do not even mention the word bantustan so I don't really know why they have been alluded to. The naysayers appear to be casting around for any article they can claim as forked for this one, interestingly not mentioned is the obvious article Bantustan#Usage in non-South African contexts which does in fact deal with some aspects covered in this article by way of a single sentence:-

In the Middle East, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are sometimes described as Israeli bantustans.[1][2][3][4] Jeff Halper in Haaretz wrote in 2018, "The 'Two-state Solution' only ever meant a big Israel ruling over a Palestinian bantustan."[5]

If anything, the appearance of the subject matter in two different articles but in no great detail, as well as past and current sourcing strongly suggests the opposite of deletion, that is creation, of a stand alone article covering the material. Subject always of course, to verifiability for which we have more than adequate sourcing and NPOV, where until now no actual evidence has been offered that the material is not NPOV. Note that the term "POV fork" is not a part of WP policy, it is merely a reflection of the subjective opinion of those who use it. Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "One Democratic State: What's Happening?". 5 April 2018.
  2. ^ "One Democratic State: What's Happening? – OpEd". 8 April 2018.
  3. ^ Eid, Haidar. "Declaration of a Bantustan in Palestine". www.aljazeera.com.
  4. ^ "The Zionist Union's plan for a Palestinian Bantustan". 10 March 2015.
  5. ^ Halper, Jeff (21 September 2018). "Opinion The 'Two-state Solution' Only Ever Meant a Big Israel Ruling Over a Palestinian Bantustan. Let It Go". Archived from the original on 21 September 2018 – via Haaretz.
Comment: These quotations are hardly an indication of notability of the use of the term justifying the existence of a separate article - especially coming as they do from one-sided and unabashedly anti-Israel sources, i.e., palestinechronicle, eurasiareview, aljazeera, even haaretz; they represent examples of the attempt to associate Israel with apartheid as part of the political effort to undermine it, and would be best noted of examples of such in the already existing article on this topic. Chefallen (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those were the references given, they only made it here because I copied what was there. That's actually another reason for creating this article, it uses far better sourcing. Having said that, I always find it remarkable that all sources not in conformity with the Israeli narrative are described as partisan and anti-Israel. What existing article? People have alleged a fork of at least half a dozen, none of which it is a fork of.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not a "POV Fork" of Israeli occupation of the West Bank. That article is gigantic so it is reasonable to create a new one with more detail on one aspect. An article about all the plans to create a Swiss cheese Palestinian state is sorely needed. I agree that the title "West Bank bantustans" isn't great, but that is no reason to delete the article. The topic is clearly encyclopedic.ImTheIP (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward to the WP:RM discussion that those wishing to bury this topic will undoubtedly open once this discussion comes to an end. I thought a lot about the name when starting the article, but was unable to find any name more frequently used than the current title. Part of the problem is that there is no official name, ironically because Israeli politicians try to avoid talking about this unattractive aspect of their proposed and existing arrangements. Ariel Sharon is confirmed to have called them bantustans in multiple sources, and the US State Department has called them islands and an archipelago. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per rationale presented above - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POVFORK of existing articles, notably 'Israel and the apartheid analogy' where the use of this term should be covered in a NPOV manner; an article on this topic including "bantustans" in the title completely fails WP:NPOV by using an intrinsically one-sided and highly dubious and contentious term, used to promote an accusation by one side in this conflict to slander the other by association.
Furthermore, it can convincingly be argued the the term is quite false, since South Africa excised pieces of its own territory that were part of South Africa since its formation as a Union in 1910 to create the bantustans in order to deprive black South Africans of rights and citizenship within South Africa, whereas the Palestinian territories were not part of the State of Israel at its formation in 1948, are not internationally recognized parts of Israel, and the Palestinians living there are not, nor have ever been Israeli citizens, quite the opposite of the status of South African blacks and the bantustans.
Therefore, it is best to cover both sides of the use of this argumentative term in an NPOV manner in existing articles on this topic rather than this intrinsically POV-ish POVFORK whose very title already predetermines and skews it to a one-sided position.--Chefallen (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, your assessment of the appropriateness of the terminology is both WP:OR, and incorrect. Israel excised pieces of the territory that it has controlled since its expansion in 1967 to create the bantustans in order to deprive Palestinians of rights and citizenship within Israel. Israelis in the West Bank are treated as Israelis, bringing the West Bank into an expanded Israel; as Eyal Benvenisti wrote in 1989, the border between Israel and the West Bank is not relevant for "almost all legal purposes that reflect Israeli interests".[1][2] The setup for the last 50 years is nothing more than a complex legal arrangement to achieve exactly what South Africa did with the TBVC States. Your explanation is splitting hairs with legal technicalities, whereas the practical reality is an exact replica of the TBVC States. But as we all know, it is not for us to carry out our own research here. The fact is that a large number of neutral sources use this terminology for the Palestinian areas of the West Bank, both current and proposed, because there is no better word in the English language. This is only the second time that such a setup has been implemented in all of world history. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ACRI 2014, p. 6: footnote to "enclave-based justice."
  2. ^ Benveniśtî, Eyāl (1990). Legal dualism: the absorption of the occupied territories into Israel. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-7983-8. As this paper will show, the pre-June 1967 borders have faded for almost all legal purposes that reflect Israeli interests. However, with regard to the interests of the local population, especially those concerning civil rights, those borders still exist.
  • Delete. The article contains no novel information that couldn’t be covered in the West Bank article. It purely seeks to express an anti-Israel bias. It’s completely non-NPOV and should be deleted. Île flottante (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the damage is done. The one-sided canvassing ought to imply that any "consensus" reached on this page can't be trusted. ImTheIP (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ImTheIP, There is nothing one sided here Please stop with baseless accusations as also Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Discussion_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/West_Bank_bantustans was notified
I missed that one, that is yet further evidence of inappropriate canvassing.Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way evidence of canvassing. Very clearly neutrally worded. We should be informing editors of ongoing AfDs within their remit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that increased participation is a good idea. That's what Article Alerts are for. One can as well post in neutral locations, NPOV noticeboard, the IsPal collaboration site I mentioned (Audience). We should not be directing our requests for participation to editors with a predisposition to one side (editors at the Israel article for example). Using your argument I can now post the same neutrally worded invitation to pages where the editors are likely to be of a different predisposition.Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would invite you to do so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in no way canvassing, and the suggestion that talk page watchers of the article Israel have "a predisposition to one side" is ridiculous and almost offensive. For pete's sake, yes, use {{please see}} template and post on Talk:Israel, Talk:Palestine, other articles, the WikiProjects, and so forth. That's normal, expected, encouraged, good, and Selfstudier, you should thank other editors for taking the time to bring more participants into this discussion, rather than making inappropriate accusations of canvassing. Lev¡vich 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no canvassing here per the definition of WP:Canvassing. Rather, the notifications were in compliance with WP:Appropriate notification, which includes placing "a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" and "The talk page of one or more directly related articles", among others, which is what was done, and where a range of interested editors would likely see it; furthermore the notification was neutrally worded as "You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans" so as to comply wit the notification policy's directive to "avoid any hint of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way." It seems this canvassing contention is a Red herring to distract from the substantive policy arguments in favor of deleting this article and possibly redirecting its title. Chefallen (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added ECP to this article as new editors are not allowed to contribute to AfDs, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc in the area covered by ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy or delete - the title is a POVFORK of multiple articles as noted in the nom and other comments above. If there is any policy-compliant content in this article that isn't in other articles (I'm not sure about that after reading it), it should be merged to those articles. I don't see a problem with keeping the title as a redirect. Lev¡vich 17:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a POVFORK. Perhaps redirect, but I do not believe apartheid is the correct target. I agree with the nom that Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation is likely the most suitable target presented here. A neutral split of Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation may be appropriate, and can be discussed elsewhere, but this isn't it, and I see no clear remedy as it partains to this discussion other than deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like this article is taking POV arguments better kept in Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank#Fragmentation to make a case for Israel and the apartheid analogy. Its less an article than an argument. It looks like even the creator realized they had gone too far in the article and didn't use the "bantustans" wording in their DYK attempt.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are so many articles regarding different aspects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank with a clear critical tone (citing critical sources of course). The information in this article can easily be written in the articles mentioned by Jr8825.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re unsubstantiated POV claims not a single editor claiming POV has bothered to bring a source which contradicts anything written in the article. Not one. I get that a group of canvassed editors do not like the title, but AFD is not about titles – that is for WP:RM. Surely if these "votes" are to hold water someone can bring a source to support the claims? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re WP:ARTICLESIZE for those editors suggesting this topic should be covered within Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank, I suggest you read WP:TOOBIG. That article is already 109,936 of readable prose. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article alternates between the topic of a propagandistic term for promoting the Apartheid analogy, and the topic of the areas and current and proposed political divisions (while uncritically using the term to describe these areas). Most of the article is on the latter, presenting both the existing Oslo Accords divisions and certain proposed resolutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as equivalent to the Bantustans of Apartheid-era South Africa in Wikipedia's voice. This is a clear violation of NPOV. One could theoretically have an article about the term if it were notable on its own, or articles about the existing divisions or proposals (under neutral titles) if they were not already covered in their own articles, but splitting off an amalgamation of a propagandistic term and its referents is not something that can be done. Delete. (I was not canvassed to this discussion, incidentally.) --Yair rand (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe there are enough sources for this to pass GNG and there is enough content to justify a separate article from related pages.★Trekker (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with liberal doses of TNT. The article is a train wreck, presenting hard-line pro-Palestinian positions (which casts compromise on territory in a negative light) as fact. The article is a POVFORK, showcasing one-sided criticism to peach plans. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced and covers the subject in detail. It passes WP:GNG. There seems no valid reason to delete.  MehrajMir (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of this material is covered in a more neutral manner in other articles. The title itself is also non-neutral, as it is pushing only a narrow point of view rather than representing a full perspective on the occupation proposals. I see no reason why this specific title should be a redirect either. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious fork. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the very name of this article is an extreme example of POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, it's a povfork, and there are already other (better written) articles about Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that a merge or neutral split may be a way of salvaging any neutral reliable information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sufficiently sourced article about a significant concept which underpins several other topics. From what I see above, the delete !votes fail to point out what exactly is non-neutral in the text; I suspect these comments are about the title of the article only. The suggestion that the article is redundant with Israel and the apartheid analogy does not withstand scrutiny, because that article discusses a variety of matters largely orthogonal to this. Most of the alleged issues may be solved by a move to Palestine Archipelago, if it's confirmed to be the most sourced/common term (as it appears to be in the current state of the article). Nemo 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemo bis, The problem its not just about title but about partisan anti-Israeli sources, other articles that discuss this matter give more nuanced approach in NPOV manner. Shrike (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrike, which sources exactly? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nemo: I'm pretty sure it's not, but in any case, moving wouldn't work if the topic was the term itself. If the topic is the (pejorative) term itself, it's redundant with Israel and the apartheid analogy. If it's about the existing divisions (as indicated by the additions of certain "main article" links), it's redundant with West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord and also non-neutral for using a biased term promoting the analogy. If it's about both the current divisions and certain proposals as a category and trying to equate them all with each other and with bantustans... Well that's certainly heavily overlapping with existing articles, and I'm not even sure it's notable, but more importantly... I'm not quite sure how to explain this, but it's like having an article on "Stupid politicians" that goes into their places of birth and life stories. It's polemics badly disguised as encyclopedic content. People arguing about politics may promote the idea that certain proposals are equivalent to bantustans or archipelagos, and we can document them making the argument in articles like Israel and the apartheid analogy, but mixing up coverage of the argument with coverage of the referents is just POV. --Yair rand (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yair rand, it is about the part of the West Bank allotted by Israel for its Palestinian population, both currently and the proposed permanent status. It is not (and should not be) focused on the term bantustan, nor any particular analogy. That is why the article gives four different names, and tries to use them throughout: bantustans, cantons, islands/archipelago and Areas A+B. Unfortunately there isn't an official name, and bantustan seems to be the more common one used (I am open to being proven wrong on this). If you deleted the word "bantustan" from the article, there is nothing in there which would bother anyone. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the term pejorative, exactly? There is an article, Bantustan. Your issue is not the term itself it is the usage of it in relation to Israeli proposals for resolution of the Israel Palestine conflict, particularly the most recent evolution of the idea, the Trump peace plan, which invariably involve some form of "bantustanization" a term used by Meron Benvenisti in 2004 to describe the territorial, political and economic fragmentation of the territories by Israel. In truth, I would rather have "territorial, political and economic fragmentation" as part of a more descriptive title except that it is a bit of a mouthful and bantustan does the job in short form. Anyway, that is for a rename discussion not this one.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you mean the peer-reviewed and widely cited PhD thesis of an Associate Professor of Sociology at UIC (who, according to google, participated in an ISM demonstration 20 years ago), and the also widely-cited Critical Inquiry (“one of the best known and most influential journals in the world”) article by Professor Saree Makdisi of UCLA. If community consensus is that participating in demonstrations 20 years ago, and/or being the nephew of Palestinian philosophers, should disqualify a source from WP:RS status, then I have no problem removing these sources, which are not central to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to your point on Camp David, we can solve it by adding words to the effect of "...amongst other reasons". And with respect to your sentiment that this article captures only one side of the story on the West Bank areas allotted to Palestinian, I continue to await someone to provide a source which provides this other side. Personally I don't believe there is one - most pro-Israeli sources try not to talk about it. Does that mean we shouldn't? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "amongst other reasons" would nearly solve the issue. Of course pro-isreali and neutral sources talk about the areas in question, they just do not use the framing this article is trying to force. That is exactly what I meant when I said this article only contains one sides arguments.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article should show both sides of the arguments relating to the area allocated by Israel to Palestinians in the West Bank. I think it does that, and no-one has been able to bring sources suggesting otherwise. Your point relates to other article topics; e.g. this article should only cover the parts of e.g. the Camp David Summit as they relate to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources, I already put three more at the talk page. Non-NPOV, where present, can be rectified, the article creator submitted it for DYK, which includes NPOV review among other things, it is not as if issues were being avoided. By itself, it isn't a sufficient reason to delete. Nor is this article about Oslo or any other proposal in particular, it is trying to describe a process over many peace proposals and planned proposals over many years that led to where it is now. One could just as well start with the 47 partition plan or even the Peel version before it but 1967 is probably as good as anywhen.Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, especially as a POV fork, and as WP:SYNTH. This is one of those topics I've seen a lot of lately: technically well sourced, but not about the topic really. A source might refer to apple, and another pie, but neither is about apple pie. Or, another example: a essay about Granny Smith apple pie. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apple pie and cream:
Steal of the Century, Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture, volume=25, issue= 1&2, 2020, https://www.pij.org/journal/99, Alon Liel (2000 to 2001 as director general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and from 1992 to 1994 as the Israeli ambassador to South Africa) p 73 "Trump's "Deal of the Century" is a new Bantustan plan modeled after the plan advanced by South Africa's apartheid regime 40 years ago"
The FT article I put on the talk page is about the whole shebang, Jordan, Oslo, Trump plan, settlers, Israeli map makers, the works, so no synth, sorry.(Its the Big Read so its a bit long, if you can't read it, I will provide you with more quotes to go with the bantustan quote I already put on talk).
Which article are you nominating for the fork? There are at least 6 so far.Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Palestine Archipelago. Other than the name itself, I can't see any severe NPOV issues in the article itself. The subject is notable in its own right going by the sourcing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything is already said above.Tritomex (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but consider renaming. Most of the fork claims appearing to be objecting to the name, not the content. If the name is a problem, start a move discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as pointed out above this is a POVFORK of Palestinian National Authority which is the Palestinian government controlling the Palestinian portion (A & B zones) of the territory of the West Bank. 16:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free1Soul (talk • contribs)
It is also pointed out above that PNA is a political unit and this article is about Israeli plans and proposals since 1967 up to and including the Trump plan so where is the fork?Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment removed per WP:A/I/PIA. This editor had 501 edits at the time of this comment, the vast majority of those were semi-automated. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If user had 500+ edits then he can edit here. If you think he gamed the system then you should go to AE to clarify. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the strike as it was against the policy if you think that user did something wrong you know where is WP:AE -- Shrike (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Doug Weller: sorry to bother you with this, but since you kindly added the ECP to this page, would you mind arbitrating this mini-dispute over whether this vote should be allowed? After all, disputes over the integrity of voting systems seem to be fashionable nowadays... Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it was 501, then it must have been less than that for the Temple Mount riots RM, a couple interesting choices for an editor just hitting 500.Selfstudier (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatives @Jr8825, Shrike, Chefallen, Île flottante, ProcrastinatingReader, AlmostFrancis, Bolter21, Yair rand, Vici Vidi, Challenger.rebecca, Sir Joseph, Johnpacklambert, Stefka Bulgaria, Hippeus, Bearian, and Tritomex: (delete voters) Not wanting to tempt fate, but there is a chance that consensus will be reached to delete the article, in line with your votes. The only thing that you all seemed to agree on is that you consider the descriptor "bantustan" to be POV. Obviously you are ignoring the fact that the sources in the article that use the term bantustan are of the highest quality, and amazingly no-one has been able to provide an WP:RS which states that there is another point of view or that the term is inappropriate, but I am content to agree to disagree. I am pinging you precisely because we disagree. Please could you clarify your thoughts on alternatives to this article that would be acceptable to you, specifically whether you object to the creation of these two articles:
  1. Areas A and B (West Bank) as the sister article to Area C (West Bank)
  2. Israeli and American proposals for independent noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank (or some better title), based on the WP:RS which describe the evolution of these proposals over time
Your input would be appreciated. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: No (POV/POVFORK-related) objections from me about the creation of either of those two articles. (For the title of the latter, I would recommend dropping the "Israeli and American" part unless there have been such proposals from any other source to distinguish from. Also "independent" in that positioning may be slightly confusing, as some might understand it to refer to the enclaves being politically independent from each other. Complicated titling issue, something could probably be figured out. In any case, no conceptual problems with articles on those topics.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to get back to your message on my talk page Onceinawhile, but wanted to give it a proper response. This comment also addresses the point some have raised about whether the objections are to the title or the content – it's the content that's problematic. I think there's scope for an article called Areas A and B (West Bank) or Fragmentation of the West Bank, but it would need a complete rewrite from the current article, which is why, right now, I firmly support deletion (as nom). The problem is that the article focuses solely on criticisms of the Israeli policy to chop up these areas (past, present and CRYSTAL), not the areas themselves. A neutral treatment of the subject would look very much like the current Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation section, moderately expanded so as to add commentary on the historical development of the enclaves and how their 'bantustanisation' undermines the peace process and prospects for an independent Palestine. Note that the fragmentation section of Israeli occupation of the West Bank has subsections on Legal system, Freedom of movement, Village closures, Marriage difficulties, Targeted assassinations, Surveillance, Censorship, Coercive collaboration, Taxation... this is the broad level of coverage that such an article would need, splitting off the existing information from the occupation article. Right now it definitely isn't the major expansion that Nishidani describes, it's a moderate expansion of only one element (criticism) of the topic, with the rest of the topic completely absent. At best, it should draftified and broadened into a article with a clearer, neutral subject. This isn't about whitewashing Israel's behaviour, in a full treatment of Areas A & B the facts will speak for themselves. A negative attack piece against Israeli policy with selective damning quotes is just not encyclopedic. Jr8825 • Talk 23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, I agree with much of what you wrote, except for two things: the last sentence, and your understanding of our deletion policy. On your last sentence, your characterization of the article is incorrect - there is nothing there which is in any way disputed or controversial. If you disagree, please be specific with an example. On your understanding of deletion policy, see WP:ATD. Content is not difficult to fix - you just have to ask. Obviously I intend to build this article out much further, it was just 48 hours old when it was brought here... Onceinawhile (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This all ignores the fact that this article was created less than a week ago, and, before editors can bring it up to snuff, you proposed its erasure. Secondly, the article so far deals with the geophysical and geostratic fracturing of the West Bank as a formerly coherent geographic entity, and the political history behind it, - not the infinitely 'intricate machinery' of social pulverization which the main article I wrote covered. Any google scholar search should have told you this is a topic with a massive and as yet un exploited resource base, that warrants, indeeds, demands coverage. Its proper place would have been in the Israeli Occupation article, but numerous editors got hysterical about that article's length, and now that we expand the coverage separately, they cry 'delete'. Nishidani (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my problem is not only with POV (which can be fixed) but with SYNTH (which cannot). I have a long record with respect to editing neutral-POV articles about the area (e.g., Palestinian law). Bearian (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afd discussions like this one can throw up points that merit revisiting the article in question to improve it. So, just set down precisely what parts are WP:SYNTH violations in your view. The main editor is a very experienced wikipedian, with innumerable DYKS to his credit for careful policy-observant articles, and invariably fixes (the Balfour Declaration article's history) any outside objections. Bullet those parts you find objectionable on the talk page, and I'm sure the problems, if they do exist, will be fixed rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposer of this deletion grounds his argument on the idea that this is a 'POVFORK of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation. That is wholly absurd in getting things arse-about. When I wrote the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article, it covered most bases. Hectic attempts emerged to get the article deleted, or carved up, broken down, whatever was needed to sweep the massive scholarship on this reality out of view, a great fuss was made of its length. Always ready to compromise, I set to, and reduced it by a third. This was achieved by creating main articles for most subsections, and shifting a large amount of the matter documented to those sister articles. The section on fragmentation was one that lacked a main article expounding the history of bantustanization. This article duly serves that purpose for the IOWB. It has nothing to do absolutely with creating a fork. It is a major expansion (though it could easily be doubled given the large number of sources not yet included) of the section of Israeli policies, since 1967 to destroy the viability of a contiguous Palestinian state. This is the old story: the less wiki coverage of things scholarship in Israel and abroad documents, the more comfortable we shall all be. Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find the objections utterly confusing, as might other readers. So this is a summary of deletion ist positions so far.
  • The nominator, followed by User:AlmostFrancis, User:ProcrastinatingReader and User:Bolter21, thinks this a fork of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation, which as I show above betrays ignorance of what happened in that particular article: it was drastically thinned down to accommodate objections over length (by a permabanned editor et al), and this was done, precisely, by forking out much material into sister main articles, which is what Onceinawhile has effectively achieved here.
  • User:Shrike thinks it’s a WP:POVFORK of Israel and the apartheid analogy. Then he tells us that the flaw lies in the article’s uyse of ‘anti-Israeli sources’. That gives the game away. Sources, in this premise, however high their quality, are acceptable only if they make the case for Israel’s occupation, or are neutral with regard to it. This is jejune.
  • User:11Fox11, and User:Levivich think it is a remarkable multiple articles, with the former citing three (a) West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, (b) Trump peace plan and (c) State of Palestine. No one has explained to me how you can have a WP:POVFORK of numerous articles.
  • User:Chefallen says also that it is a POV fork of of existing articles, again, raising the question. Do editors commenting here understand the distinction between a POV fork and a main article expansion of a section in an article (which is normative)?
  • User:Île flottante states it contains ‘no novel information that couldn’t be covered in the West Bank article’, ignoring the historical fact that several deletionists here argued fervently for excising large parts of that article on the grounds it was too long. Thus this is a Catch-22 argument. Wipe it out as a separate article here, and put it into a bulky article which a majority don't want exspanded, a recipe for strife.
  • User:Yair rand just argues the term itself, referred to in 47,000 sources, is propagandistic, which is odd, since the word was specifically used by Ariel Sharon (M. Feld, Nations Divided: American Jews and the Struggle over Apartheid Springer 2014 9781137029720 pp.99,138:’In 2003, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon revealed that he relied on South Africa's Bantustan model in constructing a possible “map of a Palestinian state.”
  • User:Bearian says it is a fork (of what?) and guilty of WP:SYNTH, but has not answered inquiries about where synthesis has occurred (combining two separate sources to arrive at a textual formulation not in either). Synthesis is not a legitimate objection unless it is documented, and, if ùdocumented, can be fixed by amenable editors who would prefer to conserve the material.
  • User:Tritomex counsels deleting everything on the grounds of ‘everything said above’, ignoring that much that was said was for retention. What was ‘said’ in his view, applies only to the jumble of confused policy-violation claims made by deletionists. Not a focused delete vote
  • User:Free1Soul would delete it as a POV fork, this time of Palestinian National Authority.
The POV fork arguments fail because no one can agree what it is fork of:(a)Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation; Israel and the apartheid analogy; (c) West Bank Areas in the Oslo II Accord, (d) Trump peace plan and (e) State of Palestine; (f) or even Palestinian National Authority.
The other arguments fail to ground objections in any identifiable (so far) policy violation of the kind that would commend deletion. The article documents that the Bantustan model informed the thinking of the one Prime Minister who is regarded as the prime engineer and architect of the model that has been in place and has undergone consolidation for almost two decades. The term itself is entrenched in high quality sources, far more so than 'canton' (with its idyllic Swiss flavor) or archipelago, a term far less attested than the one which Israeli official figures have endorsed. So far we have evidence of irritation, but no arguments that stand up to scrutiny. Provide them. It may help improve the article, which is still embryonic, and will double, foreseeably in length, over the next week, preferably by adopting any suggestions for improvement emerging in this discussion.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this helpful summary. What puzzles me the most about the delete votes is that between them they have not provided a single source substantiating their claims. I have spent time looking across dozens of sources to find the "other POV" which has been alluded to (both for the name and for the underlying subject of the fragmented islands), but I can't find a single source which opposes the contents of the article. I can only assume that these editors' silence when challenged to provide a single source is because they have also been unable to find any. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The above are your characterisations of why editors have !voted for deletion. Fair enough, we simply disagree here. I'm not going to respond to each of the individual points because I think my views (and the views other others in favour of deletion) have already been expressed above, and I'd just be restating what's already been said. Regarding how you can have a WP:POVFORK of numerous articles? I'd point to a comment I made earlier, which is that it overlaps several articles because it is a single interpretation/POV/analysis of Israeli actions and various peace plans. Jr8825 • Talk 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jr8825 you have repeated your suggestion of "single interpretation" multiple times, but have been silent when asked for an example of an alternative interpretation. It would really help if you could bring an example. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to avoid restating my argument to allow other voices, but I think I can spell out this point more clearly. Firstly, I should clarify that I strongly suspect you would not be able to find a reliable source narrative in which Israel's behaviour in the West Bank is painted as entirely justified (and I doubt the other delete !voters are motivated by a desire to whitewash Israel, as has been implied). You said above that there is nothing there which is in any way disputed or controversial, but I think the end result is that it presents a fixed narrative of Israeli policy being calculated from the get-go with the primary aim of cannibalising the West Bank and purposely segregating/dehumanising Palestinians, this implied in the language of the apartheid analogy and in the article's quotes describing how Palestinians were entrapped by the peace deal proposals – this is not an illegitimate narrative, but certainly a highly disputed and controversial one, which I feel that the article uncritically infers to be fact. It's a complex conflict. I'm sure the reason why the West Bank has ended up in this situation is more mutltifaceted and nuanced than currently portrayed and I doubt the breadth of academic literature on this topic is decently represented. I don't think this article can exist without a more sophisticated picture of the piecemeal way in which the current situation has developed. It can include the current narratives, certainly, but, for example, we need coverage of what the proponents of the 1995 Oslo Accords and 2000 Camp David Summit said and why they failed (one journalist's interpretation is valid but not full, fair coverage) and of disagreements and compromises within Israeli politics over West Bank policy, as well as a description of how fragmentation has impacted on the West Bank itself. Right now it's just one narrative on its own: a critical reader may well end up treating the narrative with greater suspicion than if it was presented alongside the facts of fragmentation's development and other critical examinations of this development, while an uniformed reader may take from it that Israel is universally seen as an apartheid state by scholars (again, you have to recognise that this is a disputed and controversial assertion, even if you agree with the analogy yourself). Jr8825 • Talk 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the end result is that it presents a fixed narrative of Israeli policy being calculated from the get-go with the primary aim of cannibalising the West Bank and purposely segregating/dehumanising Palestinians, this implied in the language of the apartheid analogy

User:Jr8825. You appear not to have read the article since you nominated it. Try and focus on the extensive evidence since added, that many policy makers in Israel since the 1960s are documented as having explicitly the apartheid model in mind. If you don't address that factual issue, your complaint boils down to a kind of distaste that these facts in the historical record are covered by Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... which I feel that the article uncritically infers to be fact. It used to state it outright in Wikivoice, contradicting the cited source, until I fixed it. I agree with Jr's analysis, and regarding POVFORK of numerous articles, my view is this: an NPOV article about West Bank bantustans – the actual places themselves – would be titled "Israeli occupation of the West Bank". An NPOV article about the term "West Bank bantustan" would be titled "Israel and the apartheid analogy". An NPOV WP:SPINOFF of Israeli occupation of the West Bank#Fragmentation would be called "Fragmentation of the West Bank". Hence my !vote that the entry, "West Bank bantustans" should be a redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Lev¡vich 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, the West Bank has two parts to it: (1) Area C including the Israeli settlements and (2) the Palestinian islands/enclaves/bantustans. IOWB covers both these topics, so does FOWB. If we have two articles about the Israeli controlled parts of the West Bank, we should have one about the Palestinian controlled parts. Otherwise that is pure anti-Palestinian double standards. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing whether to have a stand-alone page as a pro- or anti-Palestinian thing based on how many stand-alone pages we have about Israeli-controlled areas and how many we have about Palestinian-controlled areas strikes me as viewing the encyclopedia through the lens of the conflict rather than viewing the conflict through the lens of an encyclopedia. Lev¡vich 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, interesting. Would you mind addressing the underlying question as to whether you are applying consistent standards? Do I correctly presume from your comments that you wish to also delete the Area C and Israeli settlements articles? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in my comments makes you think I wish to delete anything? I evaluate whether we should have a stand-alone page based on sourcing. I couldn't care less if the page is about an "Israeli" place or a "Palestinian" place or a "Roman" place or a "Martian" place. What's relevant is the sourcing, etc., not which group of people controls what piece of land. Lev¡vich 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, so far you have neither commented on the sources in the article, nor provided any of your own. Please could you share your analysis of the sourcing? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My analysis of the sourcing is that this topic should be covered on other pages as explained in several comments I and others have made here. Lev¡vich 22:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, that is your conclusion, not your analysis. Please explain how you reach this conclusion, with reference to specific sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, no. I don't think it will change the outcome of this AFD. Lev¡vich 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible. You base a judgment on an allusion to an analysis of sources. You are asked to let the rest of us in on what that analysis is, and twice you have refused to answer. One is entitled to infer that you did no such analysis. A bluff, in short. But this illustrates once more (speaking of 14 years watching how it works in the I/P area) the differences here. A few editors read widely, master a topic, write in depth articles according to the best quality RS, as opposed to far too many editors who jump in to 'opine' on the basis of reading the page. It took me +13 hours of reading the sources to form my judgment. It takes most commentators a few minutes of glancing over a page to offer theirs. Very democratic.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I just don't want to feed into the sea lioning. Lev¡vich 23:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to create "Area A (West Bank)" go ahead. This article is not that, neither in name nor substance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jr8825, nothing in the article talks about things being justified or unjustified. Nothing says it was calculated. The motives are not discussed or speculated on, just the end results. For the avoidance of doubt, it was NOT calculated. It ended up this was through consensus and intransigence, much like Wikipedia. Regarding "coverage of what the proponents of the 1995 Oslo Accords and 2000 Camp David Summit said and why they failed", I am fine to add more but only the pieces that relate to the fragmented nature of the proposals. The only "alternative viewpoint" I could find anywhere, which I added in to the first draft of the article, is "debate has continued as to whether the existing or proposed arrangements are contiguous or noncontiguous". This is a bit of a technical point (it comes down to the roads/tunnels/bridges connecting the Palestinian islands), but it is the only one I have found so far. You write that "I'm sure the reason why the West Bank has ended up in this situation is more mutlifacted and nuanced than currently portrayed" and I agree - this article topic is so central to the conflict and we need to build out this nuance. You end your post with "Right now it's just one narrative on its own" - I don't agree with you, and you keep avoiding my pleas to bring an alternative source to support your assertion. Please please please could you try to find one? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: I haven't extensively studied the Israel-Palestine conflict, but found this with a JSTOR search: there is now broad public support for a policy of Israeli withdrawal from the territories, and the domestic debate is mostly about the extent, manner, and timing of this withdrawal. An overwhelming majority of Israelis support a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, and accept that a Palestinian state covering the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank is inevitable. A solid majority wants Israel to annex certain areas in the West Bank (the large blocs of Jewish settlements) and give the rest to the Palestinians. In line with these attitudes, Israeli public opinion has also become significantly more supportive of the evacuation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Waxman, D. (2008). From Controversy to Consensus: Cultural Conflict and the Israeli Debate over Territorial Withdrawal. Israel Studies, 13(2), 73-96. Jr8825 • Talk 19:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that does know about all this would also know that this is in stark contradiction to the facts. The number of settlements, outposts, settlers, state land and miltary sequestrations plus demolitions has done nothing other than go up every year since that was written and those are facts not opinions. Then at the very least the Israeli government is ignoring their own voters which doesn't seem very likely, does it? A 2020 opinion survey rather than your dated material is Half of Israelis support West Bank annexation, poll finds or this if you want something more detailed.Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then at the very least the Israeli government is ignoring their own voters which doesn't seem very likely, does it? I don't know about your government, but as an American, yes, that does seem quite likely. In fact, the idea that a government would do something that half its citizens oppose seems extremely likely to me. My government does it all the time. Some examples of things that most Americans hate that the American government does: taxes, war, regulation, domestic policies of various sorts, foreign policies of various sorts, did I mention taxes? Israel is no different. That the Israeli public, and various Israeli governments, are divided, and have always been divided to varying degrees, and have tried a variety of different approaches to resolving the conflict, some successful, others unsuccessful, some humane, others not, some fair, others unfair, is the nuance that Jr refers to up above. Part of the NPOV problem is the presentation of "Israel" as a single-minded monolithic entity with a specific agenda that it's been trying to carry out for a century, and in the case of this topic, that "bantustanization" is part of that agenda; the notion that "Israel" looked over at South African apartheid and thought, "Hey! Great idea!" Some in Israel accuse others in Israel of that, but it can't be imputed to Israel as a whole, nor said in wikivoice. Lev¡vich 19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the state of Israel. It is about what Israel does militarily in violation of its obligations as a belligerent occupant, the technical term. Most Israelis don't go to the West Bank, and know next to nothing about it. Israel's foreign policy agenda on the West bank (and Gaza) has been consistent since 1967, on that all sources agree. The text never demonizes Israel, nor do the sources. They do not, as you imply, talk about Israelis or Israel, but about the decisions over decades of its policy makers and politicians. I've seen this defensive insinuation for several decades, that to criticize a nation's foreign behavior is to be taken as a personal insult to that nation's people. It's rhetorical and illogical.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both – there is certainly a large group of Israelis who strongly disapprove of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians in all its forms. It's like the opposite of being a "shy" Trump supporter in a big coastal city in the US – Israeli liberals have been so marginalized that they often stay silent when push comes to shove. Sadly this has been the story for most of the last 100 years in the region. The settlers went there, the liberals said they disapproved but did nothing. I have no problem adding Jr8825's source to the article; but it is important to note that nowhere does the article currently state or suggest that the situation is or has ever been supported by a majority. So we are still missing a single source, just one, which provides an alternative point of view on the contents of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Israel/Jewish liberal opinion constitutes almost half of our sourcing. One of the running problems with deleters or reverters in the I/P area is that they are either wholly unfamiliar with Israeli/Jewish liberal opinion or (b) are shocked to see liberal scholarship from that background provides the world with its best analyses of the I/P world. What you get is hysteria that such articles and books are 'pro-Palestinian'. No. They represent what the unblinkered communities in Israel know, but which is rarely reported in mainstream newspapers, which, it seems too many editors get their impressions from, when they are not studiously confusing Israel with its transient government policies.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are proving my point for me, this discussion (and the article) is not about what the Israeli population thinks on this or that day, it is what successive governments have actually done that is relevant, no opinion survey required because the facts are well known and readily available.Selfstudier (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably needless to say but I disagree with this summary of my arguments. My input is three sentences long so I am sure the closer can form their own opinion. I also want to note that per WP:DEL-REASON number 5, deleting a content fork is perfectly within policy.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on nomination It has been suggested that the nomminator rushed to nominate this article in ignorance. This is an unfair charge in light of the article creator immedietly trying to get this article on the front page and spreading it far and wide. The nominator added it as target of an existing redirect twice, diff1 and diff2, added it as a main topic in an article section twice, diff3 and diff4, and added a link to the bantatustan article. In light of its POV nature and the owerneship issues of the article creator, AFD was not only acceptable but inevitable.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. This is exactly how things are supposed to work. DYK has a time limit so quick nomination is required; it was contested so we agreed to pause, as is right. Adding links to the article is required so that the article is not an orphan. The two reverts came after waiting a number of days for appropriate sources to be provided; the other editors sadly did not engage further on the talk page.
    There was certainly no suggestion of ignorance. The suggestion is that starting this discussion within 48 hours of creation is inconsistent with WP:ATD. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ATD, Redirection was tried and you objected. Also in light of this quote for WP:ATD "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD.", I believe that this AFD is perfectlly cromulent.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC
    +10 pts awarded to AlmostFrancis for the excellent Simpson's reference. Lev¡vich 17:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that it hasn't failed verifiabilty or npov policies. Y'all just don't like the implications, these are exactly the same sort of semi-hysterical objections raised at the Israeli occupation of the West bank afd last year (the article supposedly being forked). In fact I think one editor's objections are identical.Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I !voted keep in that AFD and redirect in this one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "Semi-hysterical" is a stone you don't want to be throwing. Lev¡vich 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposer set off by stating that it was a fork of 10 (!) articles "and others". That's the sort of thing I mean.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote, see below Draftify or delete: The article needs serious work. It is currently written as POV fork. It needs trimming, more focus, pov editing, and imo renaming to something those unfamiliar with the subject can find (eg from above "Fragmentation of Palestinian land in the West Bank").   // Timothy :: talk  21:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Specify what serious work it needs. So far, all we have is what serious scholarship states regarding the record of bantustanization intentions among very prominent policy makers and politicians. No one here has questioned the quality of the sourcing, nor its accuracy. So what's the problem?Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is not the only core content policy we have. There is also WP:NPOV. And WP:NPOV is not a corollary of WP:V. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said it was? WP:NPOV nowhere implies that articles documenting a five decades long administrative and military practice by a state must not read in such a way that the international image of that state might suffer 'damage'. This is a confusion of Wikipedia practice, which is extremely attentive to articles on living persons, but does not extend that to institutional bodies like states or companies (of course in the US, uniquely, corporations are persons, but their malpractices are not hidden here to avoid anything negative) I'm doing the Hamas article rewrite - it is about a government of sorts - and NPOV there doesn't translate out as ignoring what the scholarship states about its recourse to suicide bombs, terrorism, anti-Semitic rhetoric,etc. There is a neat historical divide between contributors to the I/P area. Those who cull data from newspapers and highlight its spectacular aspect - the tabloid version of history we are all familiar with; and those who prefer books and articles written analytically, after the events, for an encyclopedic overview. The 'image' you get of an institution (PLO/Hamas/IDF/Israel etc) will differ radically according to which of these two options one uses as a work practice. My bias is for scholarship, which the mainstream press rarely mentions in this regard, except in Israel, thank goodness.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Israel and the apartheid analogy or Delete. I earlier voted for a draft or delete, but after looking at this for a while, Israel and the apartheid analogy is the main article for the subject and there is no need for a fork, POV or otherwise. The current artilce is written as a POV fork and I don't see any content to salvage, if it was drafted it would just return again as a reworded POV fork.  // Timothy :: talk  05:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article expands on the parent article Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and follows WP:DETAIL, being the main expansion of the fragmentation section. The content merely details the history of a concept behind a larger picture of fragmentation that is covered in both that article and Israel and the apartheid analogy. In asserting you see there is no content to salvage, you are saying 'delete', since your position now implies that a redirect will replace this article, and the article(s) to which readers are directed should not include the matter here. So your proposal is delete, i.e. there is no room in the encyclopedia for including 24 scholarly notices on an Israeli political idea. Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TimothyBlue: thanks for all your comments here. Regarding the above, consider the word pogrom. It is a Russian word coined to described what became known as the Pogroms in the Russian Empire. Although every modern pogrom makes in its name an indirect analogy to those events in 19th century Russia, they are very different subjects. The same is true here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per extensive arguments by Nishidani and others. No need to repeat them here! --NSH001 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename a much-needed article and can be expanded further. I don't think all of this information can be merged into other articles. It explains how Palestinian land in the West Bank has been eroding on a large scale since the Oslo Accords.--Sakiv (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect somewhere. The article tells the story of Areas A + B from the apartheid perspective, which is only one POV. It is therefore an obvious case of POVFORK. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eureka: the answer to why none of those claiming POV have been able to bring a source to support their claims All those editors above who have claimed that there is something POV about this well-sourced article have been unable to provide a source, despite multiple requests. An excellent New Yorker piece explains why: The Maps of Israeli Settlements That Shocked Barack Obama, New Yorker Magazine, July 9, 2018, Adam Entous: "Kerry met regularly with Obama in the Oval Office. During one of those meetings, Kerry placed the maps on a large coffee table, one after another, so Obama and his advisers could study them. Ben Rhodes, one of Obama’s longest-serving advisers, said the President was shocked to see how “systematic” the Israelis had been at cutting off Palestinian population centers from one another. Lowenstein didn’t show the maps to the Israelis, but he did walk them through the key findings, which were incorporated into Kerry speeches and other documents. Lowenstein said the Israelis never challenged those findings."
The last sentence is the key: "the Israelis never challenged those findings". There are no alternative viewpoints to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess Lowenstein doesn't read the BBC. To be clear though, Lowenstein saying than Rhodes said that Obama was shocked doesn't surprise me or seem to have much to say about the POV of the article. The fact that Obamas envoy to the negotiation needed a breifing map to properly understand the occupation does sadden me, however.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the full transcript of the Netanyahu statement referred to in your BBC piece. It says nothing about the topic of this article. Thank you for proving, again, that there are no alternative viewpoints to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually such sources do exist, and because so much time is being wasted dealing with the confusions here (every time a hare is started one has to scour RS, download and read the available pertinent material chasing it up), I for one haven't had time to add them yet but while try, barbeque and afternoon drinking allowing, to see to that today. The argument is directly addressed by Robbie Sabel, for one, in his https://www.jstor.org/stable/41575857 'The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid,' Jewish Political Studies Review, Fall 2011, Vol. 23, No. 3/4, pp.18-31 pp.25ff.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I just read it, but I don’t see anywhere it addressing the question of the cantonization / bantustanization of the area? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to refute Chomnsky's views in the section THE PEACE PROCESS AS A FORM OF APARTHEID? :

Another track to try and associate Israel with the South African Apartheid gime is to claim that the Middle East Peace Process is somehow a manifestation Apartheid.48 Chomsky writes of the "administration put into the hands of a rupt and brutal Palestinian authority, playing the role of indigenous collaborators under imperial rule such as the Black leadership of South Africas Bantustans." Professor Francis Boyle described the Oslo process as "akin to the Bantustans the Apartheid Afrikaner regime had established for the Black People in the public of South Africa.50 One writer states that "in the name of security: Israel up Apartheid zones."51 Learned NGOs have held workshops on.' p.25.

Sorry, must rush or the grog in my bag will defrost.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, yes but look at how he responds to those suggestions. By saying Oslo was consensual (without mentioning that Oslo stated that the rest of the West Bank "will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement") and by saying that the State of Palestine has wide recognition (without mentioning that the State of Palestine’s declared borders are the whole West Bank). So he fails to address the subject of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That chap was a legal adviser with MFA for 8 years so you need to keep that in mind when reading him. Anyway, the apologists often try to turn the discussion into a SA comparison and that is not what the whole thing is about, nor is it about Apartheid specifically, it is as I said above, the territorial, political and economic fragmentation of the territory over time. (or bantustanization (not the version in SA) for short).Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What counts is (a)Sabel is RS (b) he mentions the Bantustan model (c) as rebuffs it. Therefore it is meat for the page. The fact that his arguments don't hold up to much informed scrutiny, and that he omits what the historical record notes, i.e. that major policy makers in Israel drew inspiration from that model, is irrelevant. A large part of the POV literature of RS quality fails normal standards of informed analysis, but that in no way affects the editorial obligation to take note of the position. Of course he is a spokesman for a POV, but most reputable I/P sources by Wikipedia's criteria, represent either US or Israeli state policy, and one has to live with that.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishidani, I am fine to add in Sabel as the closest thing we can find. But it does not actually address what the article is about. You wrote below that "the theme of this article is the history of the concept of the Bantustan in Israeli discourse and planning for the West Bank". I don't agree with that; in my mind I think this article has as much to do with the "concept of the Bantustan" as the Baku pogrom has to do with the archetypal pogroms in the Russian Empire (i.e. not much connection at all). I think it is simply about the West Bank's noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves, both existing and proposed. In describing them, we rightly cover the history of how we got here, which includes the theme you raised. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article sourced with trashy books like "Apartheid Israel by Sean Jacobs, Jon Soske that demonize and delegitimize Israel and whose Nazi Israel and Apartheid Israel analogies are seen by IHRA definition as antisemitic. The same goes for books denying Israels right to exist like "Empires and Walls: Globalization, Migration, and Colonial Domination" By Mohammed Chaichian or Harris, Brice, Jr (from 1984) or "The South Africanization of Israel". Than comes "Hunter, Jane (Spring 1986). "Israel and the Bantustans". Journal of Palestine Studies. 15 " All sources are unbalanced one sided anti-Israeli propaganda. All this books promotes the assumption that Israels existence is illegal and colonial and this assumption, which goes against international law and general worldview disqualifies them as WP:NPOV sources for any article, except as sources for the views of their authors. This article is a multiplication of already existing article abo ut Israel/Apartheid analogy with poorest and most unbalanced sources and an an obvious case that fits the defintion of POVFORK (as it was correctly seen by majority of people commenting here. Also I observed cases of new editors that created their accounts this month and already voiced their support for keeping this article. I think someone should explain them rules regarding editing process in Arab/Israeli conflict subjects. ) .Tritomex (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know whether sources are trashy or not and I haven't seen your book. If as you say, they are one sided, we are still waiting with baited breath for the other side to make it's appearance. Otherwise it's assertion, more assertions and yet more assertions all minus any evidence to go with them.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Than read the books I have mentioned... Take The "aparthied Israel". You dont need too much on page 2, you can already read that Israeli apartheid is far worse than South African one was. This is not a neutral, objective reference that can be used as source for this issue. Beside that, the POVFORK case is the most obvious reason why this article should be delated. Tritomex (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tritomex, the four sources you have commented on are all academic works published by respectable publishers. This article currently used 25 sources, all respectable, but from a range of perspectives. The more perspectives the better. But bear in mind, per the above discussion re the Netanyahu and Sabel sources, it seems that pro-Israeli propaganda does not appear to address the topic of this article at all. We can speculate why in our own time. As to the "new" editors voting here (whose edit counts have passed the 500 ECP mark with automated edits), my assessment is that at least four of these accounts have voted delete and none have voted keep - please could you clarify who you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can of course read them, what I really want to read is the sources supporting your claims, I haven't seen any of those. The "POVFORK case" seems not to exist either since no-one can agree what is being forked, mainly because it hasn't been forked from anywhere.Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. The suggestion of POV remains unsubstantiated without a single example of an alternative viewpoint on the topic of this article. The Netanyahu statement above is a great example - people who find this topic inconvenient don't address it directly, but resort to whataboutism: "See, this conflict is not about houses, or communities in the West Bank, Judea and Samaria, the Gaza district or anywhere else... Palestinian rejection of Israel and support for terror are what the nations of the world should focus on".
Perhaps we should add that perspective into the article: "Right-wing Israeli politicians, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu, consider that the fragmentation or cantonization of Palestinian communities in the West Bank is not relevant and should not be focused on." Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tritomex. In all major I/P articles a large part of the documentation comes from perfectly acceptable RS that describe Palestinians, the PLO, Hamas, etc., as tainted by terrorism, by hostility to the occupying power Israel, as anti-Semitic. Wikipedia is full of that material, and I don't think any serious editors here try to erase those sources. It would violate policy: they are not neutral but pass the criteria for citability. Most of them have positions deeply offensive to Palestinians, but you won't see that here since we have no active Palestinian editors in the I/P area. By the same token, the theme of this article is the history of the concept of the Bantustan in Israeli discourse and planning for the West Bank. This may engender outrage by editors that it is demeaning to Israel, but since it is an idea clearly and explicitly on Israel's agenda, a concept its own leaders avowed as a possible model, that outrage, however endearingly patriotic, cannot be allowed to interfere with neutral reportage of how the idea developed. And please note that it is readily admitted and documented by many sources written by Israelis or diasporic scholars. The gravamen of the objections here boils down to a vague feeling that the first rate sources mention something better ignored, if not indeed, censored, by Wikipedia, because it conflicts with a national image which should not be tarnished. Nursing patriotic sensitivities is not what Wikipedia is about. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is also the case that right-wing academics rarely write about slums, Azeri academics rarely write about the history of Armenian literature, and Palestinian academics rarely write about the growth of the Kibbutz movement. That doesn't mean any of those topics are inherently POV. Our policy requires us simply to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". And that is exactly what we are doing here.
Nishidani, did you manage to find any sources with an alternative point of view on the topic of the past, present and future of the West Bank's noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hejar abdi[edit]

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

non notable entrepreneur/author, sourced entirely to black hat SEO and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem to be proper in respect of WP:RS. Multiple reliable sources make the subject notable enough - Wikipedia:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksnsakib (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except none of the sources are actually reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources got Wiki articles about them. If the sources are reliable and notable enough to get own Wiki articles, they should be reliable enough to believe in. --Ksnsakib (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how WP:RS works. We have articles about Daily Mail and Breitbart, neither of which are reliable. is a press release, this is paid for black hat seo, this is ugen promotional cruft from a PR agency and is an interview Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of largest Internet companies this article is very much sourced from Yahoo! Finance. If this has been a proven credible source for other major articles, how can it be a press release? this is definitely NOT paid for black hat seo, and Interview's fall under the criterea for WP:RS --Ksnsakib (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disrupt is not a reliable source - period. It is a pay-for-publication that masquerades as legitimate journalism and the Yahoo piece literally says it's a press release. But thanks for playing. Praxidicae (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ksnsakib, interviews aren’t bad but they are of no real value to WP:GNG because they aren’t independent of the subject. @Praxidicae, I honestly wish this collaborative project made it mandatory for all articles on businesspeople/entrepreneurs & internet celebrities to pass through the afc process. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae, Look at this article Nick Stracener. I see a Disrupt article as reference.--Ksnsakib (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — insufficient coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient ly reliable sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These sources have been proven credible in other articles earlier.--Ksnsakib (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on current sources. The text Based in the city of Amersfoort, Netherlands, Hejar studied physical therapy and graduated in 2015 at the Amsterdam School of Health Professions. Although he loved his work, Hejar always knew he appears word-for-word on both Yahoo! Finance and Disrupt magazine. That's not right. The daily herald article is actually by Get News. Here's another "article" from Get News: Payless 4 Plumbing Inc. Offers Drain Cleaning Services in Bell Gardens. The Algemeen Dagblad article is an interview, not strictly independent from the subject, but as that's the only source we have that isn't paid for it couldn't establish notability anyway. A single source is never enough. It is very much an article about two people that Algemeen Dagblad knows aren't notable, but they found they had an interesting story to tell so they interview them. There is no reason to ever expect a follow-up or any other news agency to do the same. Also, that article doesn't even mention TikTok. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another run-of-the-mill non-notable "social media influencer" promotional piece with COI issues. The title is not even capitalized correctly. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third party (Canada)[edit]

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

Messy and poorly sourced essay that misdefines its topic. "Third party", in Canadian politics, is not used in the American sense of "all parties below the dominant duopoly" -- rather, it is used in a strictly ordinal sense to denote the party that currently has the third largest caucus in the relevant legislature. For instance, the current standings in the Canadian House of Commons are Liberal government, Conservative official opposition, Bloc Québécois third, NDP fourth, Green fifth -- and in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, it's currently Conservative government, NDP official opposition, Liberals third, Green fourth; and in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, it's currently Saskatchewan Party government, NDP official opposition, and no third party at all since none of the other parties that ran candidates in the election last month won any seats.
In other words, it is not a sweeping umbrella term for "every party but the Liberals and the Conservatives", but a context-dependent procedural term for whatever party happens to currently hold the third largest number of seats in the legislature (which can sometimes be the Liberals or the Conservatives too!), and by trying to define the term in a more American sense this article misfires. And for added bonus, its sole source is a ten-year-old piece of election coverage, which is not being used to support the actual definition of the term but merely the results of one specific election. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outright bizarre original research that appears to try to shoehorn Canadian politics into American concepts really poorly. blindlynx (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to be WP:OR and a particularly awkward case. As said, the page is applying an American term to Canadian politics, and it simply doesn't make sense here: not only are there typically more than three parties that vie for attention (in recent years there have been as many as six), making "third parties" a misnomer, but they each have differing levels of support, success and relevance— so they would almost never be lumped together and talked about collectively (on the rare occasion they are discussed collectively, "smaller parties" seems to be the term used). — Kawnhr (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is no single third party; instead, we have a passel of smaller parties who get significant numbers of candidates elected. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lead of article, which conveniently explains that the term doesn't really work in a straight forward way, as it does in the US. --Rob (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Renamed/Reworked as the page's most then-recent contributor, that focuses on the recent history on Canadian politics, for now I want to see it as an weak keep; until it could renamed something like between Political Party evolution of Canadian politics or Minor Party (Canada) as an possible examples, as well needed more sources to keep it from prevent this, again if this page survived or not. Plus, I think as long Canada (along its provinces and territories) has continue to using the First-Past-The-Post for all their elections. Is likely the reason why the page existed here, until this point. Chad The Goatman (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just start a brand new article, written around a clear topic (instead of fitting a topic to rambling content), with the content based on sources (instead of fitting sources to content), citing as you go from the beginning? --Rob (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I just contribute the page only from 2018 up until this year, but I'm not definitely the page's creator, if you look at the history of this page was created around 2004, not 2017, when I officially joined Wikipedia as a full-on contributor. Chad The Goatman (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you made the article, or to blame you for problems of the article. But, you suggested that it might be good to keep the article in some form, maybe with a different name, and scope. I was replying to that idea, and saying it's better (for anyone wanting to do the reworking) to instead just have a fresh start. --Rob (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a clear cut case for WP:TNT to me. blindlynx (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriately applies an American concept to Canada: while third parties in the US have been basically the same everywhere for decades, in Canada it is different provincially and federally and in different regions with many changes over time. The lack of sources shows this is entirely OR as a single idea. Reywas92Talk 04:41, 16 November 2020 (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. Fenix down (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alisher Azizov[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Never played in fully-pro leagues. BlameRuiner (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:07, 14 November 2020 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Collison[edit]

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

WP:BLP, referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources with not a shred of real reliable source coverage in real media shown at all, of a person notable only as chair of a minor political party. As usual, this is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage about him and his work: people are not "inherently" notable just because content self-published by their own employer technically verifies that they exist, but rather notability requires media to independently pay attention to his work. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2020 (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 2006 South Dakota gubernatorial election#Constitution Party. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven J. Willis[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a person notable only as state-level chair of a fringe political party and unsuccessful election candidate. As always, this is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL -- to earn an article on this basis, a person has to clearly pass WP:GNG on the quality and depth and volume and range of their sources, not just be technically verifiable as existing. But the only source present here is a raw table of election results, which is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2020 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Kammerman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businesswoman and political candidate, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for either endeavour. As always, owning a business is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of a demonstrable pass of WP:GNG on the sourcing, and being a non-winning candidate for city council does not pass WP:NPOL -- but the seven footnotes here are split between primary sources that are not support for notability and purely local media coverage in her own hometown market, which is not enough to get a person over GNG in and of itself: to be notable for either of these things, she would have to show evidence of much wider, nationalizing coverage going well beyond just Atlantic City alone. The article has also been flagged for potential conflict of interest editing -- and while that isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does demonstrate that this was likely an attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a self-promotional public relations platform. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional and non-notable. I'm rather inclusive for political candidates, but thiso ne is too minor. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional article about someone running for a non-notable position, who isn't otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 13:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Even if she wins, Atlantic City is not a city of global influence, so city council members would not inherently be notable. Bkissin (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. There is a clear consensus that the subject fails wikipedia's notability standards (WP:GNG) and currently should not have a stand-alone article. WP:SINGLESOURCE is an essay, but articles with only one source almost universally do not survive an AfD discussion, which shows that the vast majority of editors support the basic principle. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madmen (DC Comics)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. I'm not seeing sources that would pass GNG. Redirection is a better alternative to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The PROD was disruptive because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". But the nominator's attempt to give instructions to opposers indicates that they expect them. And I naturally oppose such cases because the nomination's assertions lack evidence and are false. In this case, we just get a cut/paste nomination which fails to address the topic or the fact that it already cites The Encyclopedia of Super Villains. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Leaning on a source that provides no significant coverage and not providing any rational so as to justify the existence of the article shows that the dePROD was done combatively. Rather than an actual good faith attempt at salvaging the article, the usage of Andrew's own expected opposition to justify that it's a controversial proposal is silly circular logic. I cannot speak to his accuracy in non-fiction spaces, but his work in the space of fiction is an absolute farce. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faustus (cat) shows that he gives absolutely no thought into his dePRODs in this space aside from the identity of the PRODder. Silly wikilaywering from a POINTed user aside, the article has nothing to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This topic has no evidence of notability, and the article is almost completely unsourced. There's nothing to merge. As a redirect, the title with the (DC comics) qualifier is an unlikely search term, and without the qualifier it is too vague to be useful. Reyk YO! 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Supervillain team in a classic comic created by one of the most notable figures in Comic Book history. If you aren't happy with the sources then do the work and source it. Someone, somewhere will look up Madmen and this article should be here waiting for them. Deleting is against the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.53.147 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable fictional group with very little coverage in reliable sources. Two of the current sources are primary, and the third, which is the same as the one mentioned by Andrew above, is comprised only of brief plot summary. Searching for additional coverage in reliable, secondary sources turns up nothing. The fact that it was "created by one of the most notable figures in Comic Book history" is irrelevant, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree with Reyk that it also does not serve as a useful search term for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD).

    Although wanting an explanation isn't unreasonable, it seems by Andrew's vote that asking for one had the opposite effect. People can oppose a prod for any reason, so this isn't the best thing to bring up.

But the nominator's attempt to give instructions to opposers indicates that they expect them. And I naturally oppose such cases because the nomination's assertions lack evidence and are false. In this case, we just get a cut/paste nomination which fails to address the topic or the fact that it already cites The Encyclopedia of Super Villains.

@Andrew Davidson: You need more than just a single source to prove notability per WP:SINGLESOURCE. Darkknight2149 22:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SINGLESOURCE is an essay: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community...". That source is an encyclopedia and so is quite adequate to demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single source might be an essay, but it's nearly universally agreed that any article that is only backed by one reliable secondary source is highly unlikely to meet the threshold for verifiability/notability. Template:single source exists for this purpose. Darkknight2149 01:49, 15 November 2020 (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 The War that Time Forgot. Consensus finds that the sources on this topic are not sufficient to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Island[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The PROD was disruptive because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". But the nominator's attempt to give instructions to opposers indicates that they expect them. And I naturally oppose such cases because the nomination's assertions lack evidence and are false. The topic is covered in detail in works such as Prehistoric Monsters: The Real and Imagined Creatures of the Past That We Love to Fear and The Horror Comics – Fiends, Freaks and Fantastic Creatures, 1940s-1980s. Applicable policies and guidelines include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:BITE; WP:NEXIST; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The War that Time Forgot, the comic series in which this fictional location first appeared and was heavily featured in. Pretty much all of the sources that discuss the DC-specific location of the name, including those mentioned by Andrew above, talk very little of the actual fictional location in any depth, and are more on the comic in which it was featured. Some light Merging may be possible, though very little of the information here is actually sourced. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Selective merge - Per Rorshacma. Darkknight2149 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The War that Time Forgot per User:Rorshacma. I checked Andrew D's supposed sources and the location is only mentioned in passing in both of them.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources cited discuss the subject in-depth. They seem to be rehashes of a plot, with no indication of significance instead of the fictional universe in question. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay per the post of @Andrew Davidson:. If this gets deleted, then the other Dinosaur Island articles will have to be placed in a disambiguation page. If this page is saved, I suggest it be named Dinosaur Island (comics) and have it's link included in the disambiguation page as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reviewing the coverage in reliable sources, it is only mentioned in passing, and not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Redirects are acceptable and cheap. Jontesta (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete - Topic lacks real world coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The War that Time Forgot, no sources (including above) have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   // Timothy :: talk  20:56, 21 November 2020 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasey Wells[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a fringe write-in candidate for president. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win -- to qualify for an article on this basis, he would need to either (a) show that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that his candidacy would somehow pass the ten year test as a topic of enduring significance. But this is referenced literally 15/22 to raw primary source tables of election results from state and county election offices, which are not support for notability -- and while the remaining seven sources are real media, the mere existence of a small handful of campaign coverage still isn't an automatic notability freebie for a candidate in the absence of a reason why he would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm just not seeing enough coverage of this person to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Of the current 22 sources in the article 15 are primary listings that confirm he stood as a write in candidate, 2 are state/citywide news coverage of a 'elephant as a running mate' publicity stunt and 5 are super local newspapers (consisting of 2 more mentions of the publicity stunt and 3 pieces on how a local is running for president). The article appears to have been written as a promotional biography to support his run for president, one of the two major contributors is a single purpose account that has written about nothing else and claims the selfie used in the article as 'own work'. The current article consists almost entirely of quotes from the subject. Searching online turned up social media, user generated content and primary sources, but nothing that would demonstrate notability. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Easy call. Not WP:NOTEWORTHY. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an extremely minor candidate with no significant coverage or impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. In a Presidential election, or for that matter, any election, there will be write-ins. For example, there were 711 write-ins for over 500 candidates in the 2019 New York City Public Advocate special election. Short of a winning write-in candidacy, I don't recall ever having an article on any such candidate. Ping me if I'm wrong. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL and article reads like campaign literature. Bkissin (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails NPOL and looks like a weird manifesto. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2020 (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 delete as G5 WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Arshifakhan61. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AppMakr[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - sources don't denote notability. This page has recently been deleted. Faizal batliwala (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with the nominator. ~Cupper (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I-broker[edit]

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

Dubious notability. This appears to be an idea/proposal which failed to take off, and is now dead. There are no references, and my own searches suggest this isn't notable. Mr248 (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Kalra[edit]

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

A due WP:BEFORE doesn't come up with anything that would add to GNG. The subjects also fails WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Castle, Castle Academy[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable and now defunct kindergarten/school; only claim to fame seems to be the manner of its closure. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Coverage is all local. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this story of the school's closure is genuinely sad, but the article lacks the reliable and verifiable in-depth sources that would satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete"' - seems to only be notable for its closure
@Eyebeller:, just a heads up, but you should probably sign your comment. It likely doesn't all need to be in bolded text either. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, no idea what happened there. Eyebeller (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Going off the sources, both in the article and that I found from a search, this was a pretty WP:MILL school that only received news coverage for it's closing. Which means the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Plus, as a topic it fails the whole "must be notable for more then a single event" thing also. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete daycare centers are almost never notable, and nothing here suggest this in an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Businesses routinely fail for financial reasons and in so doing leave behind unhappy customers. Nothing notable here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 20 November 2020 (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 Delta Air Lines. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Elite Airline Services[edit]

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

There was a PROD on this that was removed because it's "likely" notable. Going by the sources in the article though, all of which are primary or dead links, and the fact that I was unable to find multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE it's notability is extremely unlikely. Maybe it could at least be redirected to Delta Air Lines. Although, it's not a likely search term. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Delta Air Lines, possibly merging a small bit into that article mentioning the subsidiary. Redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Delta Air Lines, as a wotldwide operation sources would be likely offline if not online, deadlinks are not a reason for deletion as they can be fixed in most cases, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links are only important in relation to saying if the article or subject of the article has in-depth reliable sources about it or not. Which can't be determined if the links are dead. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic isn’t notable and most of the sources are from the company’s defunct website or airport maps. The edit history has largely been promotional content and gripes about management. Delta is a large corporation of many former subsidiaries. The Delta article isn’t improved by jamming this content in there. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surinder Mahey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He contested the 2017 election on an independent ticket but lost. Google search of him brings up sources that mention him in passing. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL, both for the failed candidacy in Punjab, but also because Jalandhar is not a city of global influence, so municipal politician notability would not apply. Bkissin (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above; fails NPOL Spiderone 20:10, 20 November 2020 (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 Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Move to draft to see if additional sources bubble up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Aeolus[edit]

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

Poorly sourced promo piece about a non-notable company; cannot find any proper RS references, fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the coverage in Flight Global alone establishes notability, plus the other refs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for the record, the "other refs" consist of the company's own LinkedIn article, something that looks like an academic paper (Aeronautics and Astronautics) but has been written "in collaboration with" the company, a promo piece (Leonardo Times) written by the company's marketing department, and one short paragraph (BNR.nl) that just about mentions the company. The Flight Global article is the best of the lot, and even that is an interview with the company's founder. Hardly WP:INDY WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, IMHO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure - there is something to say for both sides. Flight Global is a well-respected authority, meseemeth, they will not offer free publicity to a soap bubble startup. Still there are precious few other references, and none really impressive. I must also say that, as a former regular visitor and follower of Antwerp Airport - witness my nickname! :) - I cannot remember hearing or seeing this operator ever mentioned. I think I would grant them the advantage of doubt, and let the article remain for now. But it does leave a lot of room for improvement. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft namespace. I disagree with Ahunt that the reference in Flight alone makes this topic notable; WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia does not have articles on every business that somebody reliable once came across. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. It is also very new. So my suggestion would be to follow the toosoon advice and move it to Draft:Fly Aeolus, where it can be given a decent chance to accumulate sufficient references. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your feedback! I have added some sources that should be more credible. Please let me know how I can improve the article even more. Best regards (Talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lea Struck (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Move to Draft - Concur with Steelpillow. If this was a scheduled airline then it'd be notable, but it doesn't appear to be, so draft it until we can ~~construct additional pylons~~acquire additional refs to confirm notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft - I also concur with Steelpillow. In draft the other issues can also be addressed, before release to mainspace.--Petebutt (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the author has added 4 additional secondary sources. Those appear to take care of RS concerns. This appears to be a perfectly legitimate going concern that is notable in its particular space of providing air taxi services.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Road Medical Centre[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate importance as per WP:Notability, and I couldn't find any notable results on Google for this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Media searches show various in-role quotes from an associated person, but these fall under the "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" at WP:CORPDEPTH, and my searches are not finding better. Happy to revise my opinion if better sources can be found, but as it stands this is fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, exists but fails NCORP. I did find some mentions in news articles ([29], [30], [31], [32]) but these appear to be quoting psychiatrists who work at the centre, which doesn't constitute significant coverage. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simple brochure listing no pretensions to be encyclopedic. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 18:39, 20 November 2020 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Tower[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.   // Timothy :: talk  14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2020 (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. No coverage except simple mentions in Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema has been found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolti Bulbul[edit]

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

I tried to remove the notability tag, which has been attached to the article since September 2018, but another editor restored it saying that the film isn't notable and needs to be left until it is proven to that editor.

There seems to be coverage, but I need a consensus that this film is notable so that, if kept, the tag can be removed without argument. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A notability tag indicates the subject may not be notable and is there to encourage editors to locate additional coverage. It does not assert that the subject is not notable.

This film article currently has two sources cited. The Gomolo.com source does not mention this film, thus of no help to notability. Possibly there was coverage in Gomolo.com but the archive cited does not contain it. The other source, Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema, is a comprehensive film guide which, per the film notability guidelines, is not sufficient coverage. The coverage it contains is very minor. It is listed in the filmography of Desai Dhirubhai (page 83 ) consisting of "1942: Bolti Bulbul" and again mentioned in the section on Rathod Kanjibhai (page 197) saying he worked as production manager on this 1942 remake of his 1927 silent film of the same name.

The notability of a film is not based on the existing article sources. However, given the trivial coverage in the existing sources and the lack of any new sources identified in the before process it appears to fail WP:NFILM. I'm willing to go along with delete for now. Happy to reconsider if significant coverage in additional sources is discovered. Gab4gab (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom doesn't seem to be !voting delete here, would benefit from additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gomolo.com appears to be a user-generated database site, which cannot be establish notability. Without any additional sources, I'm inclined to delete. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2020 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination by another (not blocked) user, per no input regarding the topic's notability from other users herein. North America1000 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poru Telangana[edit]

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

Completely unsourced film. No notability established. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall talk 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Naylor[edit]

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

Borderline A7 eligible article for a subject that blatantly falls short of WP:BIO as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, is this where I defend my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biff_Naylor Please forgive my poor coding skills, I'm sorta new at this. I made some changes and additions that I hope will address the concerns. @Celestina007
  • For a biographical article, the subject of the article must satisfy WP:BIO that is they must have been discussed with in-depth in reliable sources independent of them & the subject of your article doesn’t satisfy that. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear @Celestina007 Did you see the additions I made to the story - and additional sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixols (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, content looks somewhat viable. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. content is significant to California lifestyle and Googie architecture, as well as Restaurant industry importance. Accurately sourced.Intenseca (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Intenseca[reply]
  • This is the user's second ever edit after a 15-year hiatus. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does your comment add to a thoughtful discussion? For a notable and honored figure in the hospitality industry, and for a major contributor to the unique and fascinating Southern California lifestyle, the article adds historical significance and well-sourced information to the Wikipedia service. The well composed article meets the standards and exacting, non-compromising values that are detailed on this site. Please re-read the first paragraph regarding commenting on other users. Thank you. Intenseca Intenseca (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It simply makes people wonder why a user made his/her second edit in a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2020 (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 California State University, San Bernardino#Student life. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote Chronicle[edit]

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

Non-notable student newspaper. Google pulls up almost nothing that isn't tied to the paper itself (string: coyote chronicle csusb). While an old edit claims that it had won an award from the California College Media Ass'n, I have no way of verifying whether this is true because the year they got the award in (2007) isn't on the CCMA's website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 02:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Relevant college and community paper. Please see other articles about college papers. House1090 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP When I did a search of Newspapers.com I was able to find four references to the Coyote Chronicle. At least two of the articles have relevant information to add to the Wikipedia article. If the decision is to keep the article, I will look into adding some information. I won't have a lot to add, but I'm not interested in adding anything, if the article is just going to be deleted. Since the article is part of a series of articles pertaining to CSUSB, I think it should be kept. It does seem though that the article should be labeled a stub article. If it is merged with California State University, San Bernardino#Student organizations, and activities, probably not much information would be lost, but I'm not sure how you would handle the infobox. I agree with House1090 that this article is in line with other college newspaper articles.OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the thing: Without those sources you've found, it's more likely the article will be deleted. The best way to derail an AfD, I've found, is adding sources to an article and rewriting it to address the nominator's concerns. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets NPROF and potentially also GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Vicenzino[edit]

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

This BLP has done some interesting research (e.g., tennis elbow is best treated with physical therapy exercises, not cortisone shots) but none of the sources I could find do more than quote him. It's not possible to write an article about him that is WP:Based upon the WP:Independent sources, when the independent sources don't talk about him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar citation counts [33] show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 and "Chair in Sports Physiotherapy" [34] probably also passes #C5. There is no shortage of primary-sourced but adequate material for factual claims about him; secondary and independent sources are not needed here (they are part of the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, not part of WP:PROF). But even if it were needed, his research also has plenty of mainstream media coverage [35] [36] [37]. That coverage is of what he is notable for having done, not the sort of coverage of his romantic history or taste in restaurants as we might expect for celebrities not notable for having done anything, so the nomination statement looking for celebrity-like coverage is so far off-base that this could be a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't thinking of the GNG. I was thinking about how to make the article comply with Wikipedia:No original research, specifically "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". Secondary sources are needed to comply with that policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WhatamIdoing: If the University of Queensland, in their official profile page for him, calls him "Chair in Sports Physiotherapy", then there can be no reasonable doubt that he is Chair in Sports Physiotherapy at the University of Queensland. Bureaucratic requirements for independence are both unnecessary for verifiability and are counter to the explicit wording of WP:PROF, which states "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." Or to put it another way: you are making up requirements that do not exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      NOR does not require Wikipedia:Independent sources. NOR requires WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.
      I'm not asking whether the individual facts are verifiable. I'm asking how you can write a bona fide encyclopedia article without secondary sources. Secondary sources analyze the subject, evaluates his work, or places him in the larger context, and that's what an encyclopedia article should do. If you give an editor exclusively primary sources, and you prohibit editors from doing their own original research to evaluate the subject, then you can't really write more than a Who's Who-type listing, which is IMO not an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fine speech, but the article already has five in-depth secondary sources that analyze the subject's work and put it into context (two book reviews and three mainstream media articles). Probably you can find more among the 20,000 sources citing his work counted here that are sufficiently analytic to meet your requirements. There do exist very rare articles whose subjects pass WP:PROF#C1 but where we don't have enough sources to say anything more than "their work has been heavily cited"; this is not one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many papers with 100s of citations, including several as first/last author (in a field where that matters) gives WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic has sufficient sources to meet notability guidelines. Article cleanup and improvement is the next step. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scranton Fire Department[edit]

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

Extremely long article about a single fire department, with no indication of importance, and exclusively first party sources. If proper WP:GNG passing sources for it can be found at all, this article needs major cleanup. Full of fluff, to say the least. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article doesn't look that bad to me, though it could use more secondary sources. That being said, there are secondary sources available: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. Not a small-time fire department, but the fire department for one of the biggest cities in Pennsylvania. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on Scranton. There is no justification for a free standing article on the fire department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (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) FOARP (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoops (1986 video game)[edit]

Hoops (1986 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to lack significant coverage to be notable enough to have an article, as per WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. The creator of this article made the couple of sentences and moved on. Le Panini Talk 00:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was trivially easy to find additional sources for - just look at the source provided in the article and find other reliable sources that also reviewed the game using the details it provides. Please do WP:BEFORE properly in future. Especially, nearly every game released before the shareware era began (i.e., early 1990's) was likely reviewed by multiple magazines so there are nearly always sources for them. EDIT: and once a bit of research had been done on this game it turned out to be pretty notable given the people involved in making it. FOARP (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to sources found by FOARP. BOZ (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good work FOARP — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sports Illustrated and Computer Gaming World sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently. Nice job Foarp! Le Panini Talk 17:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this appears that this article will remain can someone move Hoops (video game) to Hoops (1988 video game)?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Le Panini, sorry if I was a bit harsh above. I'll close this one as withdrawn if that's OK. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2020 (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. No-one has been able to show how the subject satisfies WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source UK Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Spam target. Native advertising. scope_creepTalk 19:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what do you mean by "spam target"? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable company, has several third-party sources, and satisfies WP:NCORP. Bretalins (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi Bretalins, I'm interested that you say that several third-party sources satisfy NCORP. I'm unable to locate even a single reference that meets NCORP criteria - can you please provide a link or two here to the articles you've found? Thank you. HighKing++ 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m also going to say Keep, as the article appears to meet GNG in my eyes. Plus, the nom’s comments are too vague. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to go through the first block of references. The references are shockingly bad. The reason I said it was a spam target, was even thought it is a small private company, it is written like that like a large public company, and reams of folk have WP:PUFFed it right up. scope_creepTalk 00:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I suppose you have given better reasons now, so I'm going to move to a Weak Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Small private company of 34 employees. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creepTalk 08:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be redirected to Invesco, the company that bought it. scope_creepTalk 08:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaving aside the fact that this article reads like a promotional brochure, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I've asked one Keep !voter above who says that there are sources to provide a link, I'm happy to change my !vote if references can be found and links provided. HighKing++ 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I dislike the fact that it appears that the author of the AfD deleted a large chunk of the article right after moving to delete. I would have much preferred to have the community pass judgement on the article as it was earlier this month.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Concertmusic: The company no longer exists. It was bought. Those product entries, which are strictly against WP:NOTADVERTISING and bolded, shouldn't be in the article, in the first place. scope_creepTalk 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of Pomona College[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes GNG. Was deprodded, citing the sources from LAist, as well as the Sumner and Lyon books, but both of those authors are associated with the university, and therefore are not independent. Onel5969 TT me 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (albeit a little borderline).See sources update. The LAist article clearly qualifies as the first source for notability. The Story of Pomona College and The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 are both historical scholarly accounts of the college that discuss ASPC at length. While the authors were both associated with Pomona, both books were published through independent trade publishers (Pilgrim Press and the Castle Press, respectively) who had final say over the content and held the works to objective scholarly standards. Lyon's account in particular was praised for its scholarly detachment: The American Historical Review called it a "clear and objective account", and Pacific Historical Review notes Lyon's "established reputation as a professional historian" and says that "his even-handed devotion to [the college's] history is apparent on every page". Therefore, my view is that while the authors were not independent, the sources after review were. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I almost agree with Sdkb's analysis of the sources. Except I'm leaning toward weak delete because of the whole "even-handed devotion to [the college's] history is apparent on every page" thing. It's hard to call someone detached from the subject they are writing about while also saying they are devoted to it. So, I don't know. Would Lyon be writing about the school if he was not associated with it? Probably not. Is there something wrong with writing about a school your associated with? Not really, but I'm still borderline on saying the person is truly independent of the topic in that case. Especially considering his "devotion" to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that line as more referring to a scholarly devotion to the history than a personal devotion to the college. The reviewer reiterated the point pretty directly later in the review: "Lyon's detachment in writing this history has been exemplary." {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources update: Okay, so I did the Newspapers.com search, which turned up quite a lot: "Associated Students of Pomona College" in quotes gave more than 500 results, despite the database not containing any publications based at the college. Some are of course trivial mentions (e.g. events with one line noting ASPC sponsorship), but others are clearly not. For instance, the April 1970 headline "Two Students Sharing Top Position" in the Los Angeles Times is about two students who ran jointly for ASPC president. That's a pretty clear GNG qualifier. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, you have to be careful about using local newspaper coverage to show notability. If it was regional, or better national, coverage I'd go for that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, the L.A. Times definitely isn't local in my book—it's the largest newspaper in the U.S. not based on the East Coast, and pretty indisputably the newspaper of record for the greater Los Angeles region if not the entire West Coast. Sources like the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin are more local but still cover multiple cities across the Inland Empire region. However, even if we were to decide the Daily Bulletin and LAist don't count, the WP:AUD section of WP:NORG only asks for one non-local source. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is if it's local "coverage", not what news outlet it's being printed in. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd talk 20:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pomona College#Student life: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TimothyBlue, the article's sourcing has been significantly improved since the nomination. If you've not had a chance to do so, could you please review them? If you have, could you speak to why full articles in the Los Angeles Times and LAist and clearly non-trivial coverage in multiple scholarly histories do not count in your view? I'm concerned that there may be some follow the leader dynamics here, and since this isn't a vote, simple assertions of "does not meet GNG" are not going to count for much unless they're justified. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The IS RS sourcing is about Pomona College (or the Claremont Colleges), not about Associated Students of Pomona College. There are no sources that provide SIGCOV directly and indepth for the subject. When the subject is mentioned in sources, it is in connection to the general student life at the college and that is where the article should redirect. There is routine, normal, run of the mill coverage, but nothing that shows the subject is notable.   // Timothy :: talk  16:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TimothyBlue, when the Los Angeles Times (which, as a national newspaper, is plainly not writing for a readership only of Pomona students) publishes the article I referenced above about the ASPC presidency, the main subject is clearly ASPC, not Pomona College. Similarly, LAist's article about ASPC withdrawing funding for a party is clearly mainly about ASPC, not Pomona. The two historical books are mostly about Pomona, of course, but they each have direct, in-depth coverage of ASPC over multiple pages, which qualifies by our normal definition of significant. Pomona College covers ASPC very briefly in summary style, as it should, but it would be undue for it to discuss ASPC at the level of detail justified at ASPC's page by the reliable sourcing available, so a redirect/merge would be ill-advised. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article's creator might be well suited to read WP:BLUDGEON.Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Onel5969, well, it's hard for me to defend myself against that accusation without reinforcing it, but note that that essay applies to reiterating points that you've already made, not responding to arguments reasonably concisely. I try to trust that people will WP:READ the sources presented before !voting, making reiteration unnecessary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pomona College#Student life. I don't think this LA Times article can be construed to represent significant coverage in any way. Mentions in this add up to about a page, suprisingly little in a book that's supposed to be all about the college- if it really had independent notability, I'd honestly expect more. I can't read [43], but I'd imagine that it's similar. LAist isn't anything substantive, not really. It's a pretty minor story in a pretty minor paper. Particularly given that this must meet NORG's pretty high guideline, what I see is that Pomona College is clearly notable, but this org doesn't really stand on it's own. Can be merged to it's own nice sub-section in the main article. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related discussion: Given Adamant1's question above about whether the college historical accounts qualify, I brought them to the Reliable Souces Noticeboard. Of the two editors who have weighed in so far, one considered both reliable and the other considered Lyon 1977 reliable but was unsure about Sumner 1914 without knowing more about how it was received. Lyon has the more substantial coverage of ASPC (page numbers are included in the citations). I note that NORG lists a book passage...focusing on a product or organization as an example of significant coverage. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a big fan of the attempt to delete the article by the author of the AfD, prior to listing for deletion. I subsequently also see good faith efforts by the author of the article to improve the piece.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CyberSEO (plugin)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. One of very many plug-ins that are available. Only a single mention in the refs and searches reveal plenty of mentions from selling and software sites, but nothing that I could see that conveyed notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable wordpress plugin.--KartikeyaS (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excuse me. Not notable where and for whom? It's a very old project and I'm using it since 2010 or something like that. I can assure you it's a very popular plugin among the IM people (those that do Internet Marketing). You should understand that the content curation/syndication niche is not a mainstream one. It's a very narrow thing for a small % of WordPress users. However it's really popular in specific IM niches. Not even mention its popularity in the online adult industry. Why there? The answer is very simple - most of the existing content delivery solutions (e.g. usual blog feeds, news feeds, youtube video feeds, online shop product feeds etc) have were firstly adopted by the adult industry and after that they became usual for all of us. So if you don't work in the IM niche, it's really a non-notable thing for you, but not for me. For example, I heard about Tiktok, FaceBook, Tinder and VK, but they are absolutely non-notable for me. I have never had an account there and have no idea on how to use them. Should they be deleted only because I'm not familiar with them personally? By the way, this is my first and I hope last post at wikipedia... Nobody knows why Wikipedia is full of disinformation subjective opinions. I think that's because of all these "moderators" that think they know it all... VladZornin (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — VladZornin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Totally not a notable piece of software. Which isn't suppressing. Since the article seems to have been created and mainly edited by a SPA/COI editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It's mentioned in the book which is written by an absolutely independent journalist and course it's mentioned on many WordPress-related sites in the Net. Now why it's not one of many. The developers suggest a good money reward to anyone who will show a better alternative. If you believe it's just "one of many", why don't you send them a link to any other but better universal content syndicator for WordPress and just take your money? --Salvadorlee (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — Salvadorlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. comment struck - user blocked as a sock.[reply]

Comment - Being a better alternative than something else is a very, very long way from establishing notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let me disagree with you. When we say "an ultimate assault riffle", we think about AK47. When we say "a modern handgun", we think about "Glock". When we say "image manipulation and compute graphics", we think about "Photoshop". When we say "an operating system for personal computers", we think about "Windows" etc. The same applies to CyberSEO. It's definitely not just a one of many. It's the one and only content syndication plugin for WordPress which supports all existing sources, such as RSS, Atom, XML of any structure, JSON of any structure, CSV and raw text dump of any structure and even HTML pages. If you know any other plugin with the same features, please tell us about it and please make a special article for it in Wikipedia. Andrewsix (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, I never think of guns and know nothing about them - we don't have them in Britain. Claiming notability because something does a thing that no others do, still needs reliable and independent sources. I can drink a cup of tea using my toes. I know of nobody else that can do that, but it still isn't notable, thankfully.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll give you a hint which works for everything: for cars, for toasters, for chocolate and for software. If you want to compare something with something, just read the documentation. Please believe me, that works IRL. There are not many professional multi-functional content syndication plugins for WordPress. You will barely need fingers of your second hand to number them all. So it's not a big deal to compare the specs, described on their official sites. If you, like me, were using them for years, you may consider yourself an expert. Personally I've started using RSS and CSV content fetching solutions in early 2000's, because almost all serious affiliate programs provide these tools to the partners. Andrewsix (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG to understand why that isn't relevant.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you to read WP:OZD? Andrewsix (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm simply not seeing any sign of notability for this WordPress plugin. The 'Book Source' in the article is a how to use wordpress tutorial book, in which the plugin is mentioned alongside 3 other similar plugins and given some trivial coverage that essentially amounts to installation and setup instructions. Google turns up primary sources, social media and mentions in lists and the like. No news or newspaper hits. I was unable to find any significant coverage in google books. I've also not been able to find any sources under the plugin's previous name, CyberSyn. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that material about the franchise currently in Alpha and Omega be moved into this article. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha and Omega (film series)[edit]

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

Unnecessary page as the "sequels" section at Alpha and Omega (film) contains the same or even more information about the series than here. The tables in this article might be merged into that article and maybe rename that page to Alpha and Omega (film series). ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Weak Keep as the others have provided good points. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's seems better to move the excessive content on the first films articles page to the film series article instead.★Trekker (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a point, but do we really need two separate pages for this franchise? ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 19:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer to keep film pages to being just film pages, adding on a list of sequels and a table feels like its a bit too close to Chimera/Wikipedia:FRANKENSTEIN for my taste.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 00:06, 14 November 2020 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_14&oldid=990381319"