Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 February	4 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary-Paul Barbosa Prince[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, not reliably sourced as clearing our inclusion standards. Of the 13 footnotes here, seven are his own self-published website about himself, two more are the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, one is a blog and one is just a directory of podcasts that completely fails to actually mention his name at all in relation to any of their content -- which means 11 of the 13 footnotes are doing absolutely nothing to support his notability. And the just two footnotes that are actually real media are both to limited-circulation local media within the region where he lives, which means they're not enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if they're the only real media sources that can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I have found two more sources for the article including Oakland North and Oakland Magazine, which makes a total of four reliable, independent, and in-depth sources. WP:RS does not specify that sources must be national or international, so I believe it just barely passes the sources requirements for WP:GNG. Having said that, it may still fail WP:BIO since he does not appear to be exceptionally notable.IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all i can find in a search are the sources in the article. Not enough. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of the subject passing WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Article does not satisfy WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:SIGCOV. Sources are blogs, local periodicals, the late subject's website, or podcasts. Bearian (talk) 11:28, 7 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Singapore[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines. It isn't normal to have future "[year] in [country]" articles. We have a few events listed but the dates and years that these happen are not always set in stone. At best it is a list of future events that are likely, at worst its WP:CRYSTAL. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The events are predictable at it's best. The page can be restored when 2025 is nearer. I will feel that future years article can be created one to three years beforehand. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Articles for 2022 and 2023 are being deleted. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Crystal is policy and perfectly on point. Can be recreated once actually appropriate. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 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. Not merging as there is no sourced content to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Davis Cup team[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. An article for a very small country in a particular competition, where they have appeared to have little success should be deleted or merged, especially with no sources. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Totally not notable for the reasons given above. Although, maybe the could at least be mentioned on the Davis Cup page but that would be hard without any sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 9 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids Legislation (Canada)[edit]

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

Unwarranted content fork from National Security Act 2017. While Bill C-59 did include some updates to the process of accountability and redress for people who are prevented from travelling because of mistaken name matches to the No Fly List, those were neither exclusive to children nor the primary purpose of the legislation -- it was an omnibus update to many aspects of Canadian security and anti-terrorism legislation, not a law about kids on the no-fly list per se. Rather, this article is actually a semi-essay being written to subjectively and non-neutrally praise the efforts of an external group that lobbied on the issue of kids getting wrongly matched to the No Fly List as part of the C-59 process, not a neutral article about the actual overall legislation. The sourcing here is also not adequate to make this lobbying effort independently notable as a separate topic from the actual legislation -- two of the four footnotes are just the government's own primary source documentation of the legislation, not coverage of this, and a third is a news article about the best-known child-flagging incident, which doesn't speak to the notability of this lobbying effort as it predates this lobbying effort. Which means there's only one footnote that's actually about the topic, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National Security Act 2017. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article borders on WP:OR. I would support merging per Walter Görlitz, but I don't see much in the nominated article that would transfer well into National Security Act 2017. PK T(alk) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could support a merge if there were anything worth merging but there isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 8 February 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) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English Village, Erbil[edit]

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

Non-notable "housing compound"/office park in Kurdistan. No WP:NBUILD distinction. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meets the second bullet point of WP:NBUILD (in my opinion) due to economic, architectural and social importance, but I admit I failed to add the numerous mainstream media sources like Daily Mail, New York Times, Financial Times or books like I Have Iraq in My Shoe when I made it back in 2017. I can do so now. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed The Sun as a deprecated source; the Daily Mail wouldn't count either, as it too is deprecated. Not sure on notability of the topic, so I'll keep to just this comment - David Gerard (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replaced with a News.com.au and GQ Australia source. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 420 villas over 26 hectares, this is more like a substantial village than a office park. See WP:GEOLAND for why even relatively small settlements are notable. Greenshed (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But is it really a "legally recognized" place/"settlement", or just a housing/office development? Does that mean that every master-planned community is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, because it's geographically not minuscule and a lot of people live in it? There are at least dozens of much larger comparable residential/retail/office planned, named neighborhoods in my (U.S.) city; I guess they're "legally recognized" places in the sense that the county lets them have their preferred signage and street names, but they're not on any kind of independent map (i.e. a map published by a mapping agency or map publisher, versus a map published by the local association of real estate agents for the benefit of house-hunters).

As for English Village (which is indeed the name of a master-planned neighborhood [that doesn't have a Wikipedia article!] in my childhood hometown), I'm not readily finding any secondary sources that indicate that it's actually of Wikipedia-notable significance. Being mentioned in the NYT as a place where expatriates live, with no further discussion, seems no different than being mentioned in a wistful list of the names of exits off a local limited-access road ("We drove past Charleston, Sparkman, Hershberger, and Enfield, the thoroughfares of my youth..."). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from what I wrote above, this source says "English village was indeed a village." Greenshed (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's your view on the reliability of this source? I'm undecided. This seems to have been a self-/vanity-published memoir. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd use it in the article but I was using it here for the purposes of establishing notability (on the basis that it is village-esque). I certainly don't think that the quote is a falsehood. More generally, even if we accept that it is not legally recognized (not sure if legal recognition is the No. 1 priority for the Iraqi government right now) then we're into using judgement. I maintain that being like a village is relevant in the spirit of the rules. Additionally, quoting WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." Therefore, at worst, we are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The FT article A piece of England booms in Iraqi Kurdistan seems to do that. Greenshed (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article seems confusing as to if it is a housing place or business park. First, it says "English Village is a British-built luxury housing compound" and "English Village contains 420 villas." But then it also says "the vast majority of which are used as offices for companies." Villas are a specific thing for residential though. If its 420 houses I think that would be more notable then 420ish office buildings. As the place is in Iraq, it would be interesting to know what exactly constitutes an official subdivision there. This place was built by Britain in 2004 during the Iraq war. So, its probably not a government sanctioned, legally recognized, planned community. But then at the same time its likely more complicated then that, but who knows how you would even find out. So, I don't know. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what's confusing about it. It's a neighbourhood of 420 houses, the vast majority of which are used as offices for companies. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, this is how big it is within Erbil (Google Maps). You decide if that makes it notable enough. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per This Financial Times piece (syndicated there for free reading), this book and this book, where it is discussed in sufficient detail.----Pontificalibus 06:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where in your first source does it say its from the Financial Times? Your second reference is just a quick reference about how the author doesn't want to walk there. Which really isn't notable. Your third source appears to talk about the place English Village is located in, but it gets a paragraph mention and its hardly sufficient. Especially on its own. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six lines down in the first sources it says " Source : F.T " Greenshed (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading all this makes me wonder why Amerikamura ("American Village", Japan) hasn't yet been nominated for deletion. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 5 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saiah[edit]

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

It is too soon for an article on this singer. Most of the article's current sources are links to his Spotify entries and the like. A couple of the current sources go to brief media introductions: he has been noticed by Lyrical Lemonade a few times (e.g. [1], [2]), and he has a few other brief intros from the hip hop media (e.g. [3]), but I don't think these meet the significant and reliable coverage requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. Thus far he is mostly in self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spotify and soundcloud are not sources for establishing notability. The other sources are either of dubious reliability or insubstantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 8 February 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 King in Yellow. Consensus is to not keep this as a separate article. Editors can decide separately if they want to convert the redirect to a dab page, if there is enough content to be dabbed, or whether they want to merge some content from the history. Sandstein 17:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Sign[edit]

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

While there are multiple works that have "Yellow Sign" in their titles, the original sign is not independently notable. Honestly, this sign is far less notable than Lovecraft's Elder Sign. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like there should be a disambiguation page at this title, given the prevalence of yellow as a color for street signs containing warnings, and the existence of other possibly confusing things like the Yellow card and Yellow light. BD2412 T 02:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be reasonable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Much less famous than its elder counterpart and seems to fail GNG even more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Yellow Sign (fiction) per WP:NOTPAPER and change current title to dab page. Another item that might be listed on the disambiguation page is Traffic sign. StonyBrook (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for community feedback regarding deletion, keep/rename, etc. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Redirect to The King in Yellow - While the coverage on this fictional symbol is not enough to pass the WP:GNG as an independent article, it can serve as a redirect to the book that it originated from, which already has ample coverage of its role in fiction. Doing so would probably necessitate renaming it, as suggested by StonyBrook, if a disambiguation page is created. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify without page move. Just remove all the prose, and let each work of fiction explain this fictional element for itself. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename & Redirect R&R per Rorshacma. "Other media" subsection, esp. "Games", resembles an example farm. Of the entries under "Games", only Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game links back to The Yellow Sign, and it can be assumed that a work based on the Cthulhu Mythos is going to draw from minor elements of the Cthulhu Mythos. Not even True Detective links back, and none of the other non-literature examples have their own articles. Shmuser (talk) 01:20, 4 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delli Boe[edit]

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

yet another non-notable youtuber. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, agreed, maybe wait till he is popular, if he is ever popular and than decide if he deserves a wiki page or not --Toby Mitches (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's for the best. Toby Mitches (talk) 04:26, 11 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Hannon[edit]

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

i have no idea how this article has lasted so long. I can't find any coverage of Hannon or his self-published works. This looks more like long term vanity spam than anything encyclopedic. Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That photo and its caption made me chuckle! Clearly fails any and all notability guidelines. There is absolutely no coverage. This is just one of the original Wikipedia gems which would be impossible to create today. PK650 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I totally missed the caption and only glanced at the poorly photoshopped pic. Gem it is indeed. Praxidicae (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His website does offer some potential reliable sources. One of his books was reviewed on Kirkus and a local newspaper profiled him. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and at photoshop. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. I looked at the sources on his website. They're all PR. FWIW, I went to JHS 80 for 3 years in Norwood and later taught at MS 308 in the same neighborhood. Bearian (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:47, 9 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giora Ram[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted by AfD in 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giora Ram. The current version is longer, so it's not identical to the previous version. However, the additions are mainly biographical and do not address notability criteria as pointed out in the previous AfD. ... discospinster _talk 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The previous AfD stated that his books are self-published. Is that still true? Some are available in paperback and list Imexco as the publisher. Does that confirm self-publication? How do we know? Thanks. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I should have looked more closely. That's his company. But I'll leave my question here in case others have a similar concern. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability criteria. This appears to be an attempt to write his own article. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Promotional, badly sourced, with no evidence of general or academic notability. Salt because of both the repeated re-creation and the promotionalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT doesn't pass any notability standard and shamelessly promotional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A7 & G11. Dede2008 (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. A7, G4, G11. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:TNT. He was not notable in 20912, and isn't now. He's not notable because he was a cantor's grandson, nor is he notable for winning very minor awards. He's never been a full professor. The page is filled with messy cruft and trivia. Pinging DGG. Bearian (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Gone on far enough. (I in fact just did it myself, but seem to have deleted this AfD instead). DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC) myself[reply]
Del - the majority of the entities listed in that article are not notable. Would also support creation protection. A a s i m 05:23, 11 February 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. As pointed out, merely being an author is not a notability criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu[edit]

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

I doubt that she meets WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Cannot find any reviews of her work and she is not tenured, let alone a named chair. The only reason to keep would be the award, "The Order of St. Antimos of Iberia", but it seems pretty obscure as I cannot find out anything about it online. Even so, without demonstrated coverage in independent sources I cannot recommend keeping the article. b uidhe 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article lists three authored books (ignoring the edited volumes) but although I searched I did not find any published reviews of them. One of them won an honorable mention for a prize of the Early Slavic Studies Association [4] but that's not enough for notability via WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. I also don't think the other accomplishments listed in the article (most of which are everyday things that any academic would be expected to do) and the The Order of St. Antimos of Iberia (whatever that is) are enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely lacks independent sources or evidence of passing WP:PROF. I also note the undeclared conflict of interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- We have an IP who keeps removing the AFD tag. An early author was the subject herself, which is a clear conflict of interest. On the other hand, she appears to have three books published by academic publishers and there is other stuff, preceded "source", which seems to be intended to be references, but not using WP syntax - they need wikifying. I suspect that she does qualify for WP-notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely publishing stuff is not part of any notability guideline. We need that stuff to have made an impact that can be seen in independent reliably published sources. One way to measure impact and notability is to find published reviews of the books. Have you found any? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a comment on the last two entries regarding an alleged conflict of interest. It is my understanding that the amendments made by Elena Ene D-Vasilescu were an attempt by her to answer the citation needed tags in the article. Peter Ells (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what they look like to me, as well. It's a bit easier to see when they're reformatted as footnotes. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 5 February 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.

Don't delete this. I came here to find out what happened to Boyd's Bears and found great information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.183.124 (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boyds Bears[edit]

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

Defunct company with zero reliable sources that are independent Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that the company is defunct and no longer making these products has no relevance to notability or lack there of. I have removed the promotional material that was added to the page since my last visit and I have added a couple of independent sources. There are a multitude of books discussing these as collector's items and the state of the secondary market for them in various years. Most of the books were published independently of the company. I do not have access to those books at the moment, however I have left an example on the article talk page.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found significant coverage, especially in a search of Google Books. Worse case scenario this could be merged with Enesco but that page needs extensive cleanup. If merge is decided, I will gladly do it if someone pings me. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CNMall41 and ONUnicorn for finding those additional sources which I couldn’t - if you could add some of the independent sources into the article please I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to work on the page, but not as a way to keep the page from deletion. As AfD isn't cleanup, I think it would be best to either tag the page for cleanup or do the cleanup on your own. It's not really a topic that interests me but if the page is kept I can go and do some cleanup on it later on. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CNMall41 - I’m very happy to do this cleanup but as you’ve found some useful sources, maybe you could dump them in this - both so that they can be added in and so that other editors can use them to decide on their vote? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that people adding their opinions will do a search on their own WP:BEFORE they vote. Like I said, I will gladly revisit and do the cleanup if it is kept. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCG Systems[edit]

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

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

Zero secondary independent sources, and no reliable sources at all currently listed in the article. Article has already been nominated for PROD but no new sources have emerged as a result. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Couldn't find anything to help with notability either. Kind of seems like a low key advert anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a second find-sources above for the company's current name. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are not finding WP:RS sources to verify the product claims in the article, nor more generally to indicate that the company is notable under its former or current name. AllyD (talk) 22:55, 7 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. E. Hart[edit]

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

Currently unsourced, can't find any significant coverage online, and doubt it exists ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would be hard pressed to think of an article I have seen on a less notable person on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This so-called article displays a total lack of Wikipedia notability guidelines. No coverage and no notability of the subject has been shown. An online search turned up nothing significant. Sorely fails WP:BIO and flunks WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SportingFlyer T·C 12:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and my standards for lawyers. He's totally run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability whatsoever. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Canada[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines. It isn't normal to have future "[year] in [country]" articles. We have a few elections listed here with unspecified dates, but as we saw recently with the UK elections, the dates and years that these happen are not always set in stone. At best it is a list of future events that are likely, at worst its WP:CRYSTAL. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Canada has scheduled elections but parliament can be dissolved at any time, so these dates are not set in stone. b uidhe 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Couple years in the future is still too far out, we don't know much set in stone for then right now. Hog Farm (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to have a "future [year]" in [country] article. Looks like 2025 in Singapore should be deleted as well. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's just too early for this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in late 2021 when there are actually things to start saying. Creating new articles is not hard enough that we would need boilerplate pages like this to exist this far in advance of their actually being needed or useful. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in the Philippines as a very bad precedent, because apparently consensus has in fact changed. I can't begin to state how categorically I disagree with this change in consensus, but it is what it is. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – You can have a proper article about future elections – e.g. 2022 United States Senate elections – but it has to be filled with at least some sourceable content. As something like 2022 in Canada has pretty none of that, it is probably deletable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IJBall, Fore sure! For an article that is actually about the future election, it is totally reasonable. In fact, even WP:CRYSTAL gives advice about this "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". This article isn't about the 'events' it contains, it is merely a list of things currently expected to occur in 2022. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 11:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sanjeeb Bharadwaj[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY of a non-notable doctor. I cannot find any coverage in independent sources to indicate notability according to general notability guideline. b uidhe 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a not even close to notable physician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7, seems to be an average physician. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non notable person. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable and independent sources on him. Fails WP:GNG Tayi Arajakate (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and possibly a WP:HOAX. I literally can't find anything online at Google books, news, newspapers, nor scholar. If he did this himself, then he and everybody else in 2020 knows you can't use us as your private web-host. Bearian (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete a non notable person. I cant even be sure if he really exists or not. Creator of the article removed ProD, with a summary "added citation" special:diff/938999075. Also per Bearian. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:53, 7 February 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 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Newsom[edit]

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

Newsom was previously the subject of an AfD in 2017 that reached no consensus. Since then, no additional evidence supporting WP:MUSIC notability has come up.

Regarding criteria 1 about "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable...", the only such source I could find was this brief review in 2012 written by Pride.com, an LGBT website. A google search for "Landon Newsom" Matriarch returns just 26 results. Same applies for criteria 4 about reliable sources comprehensively reporting on live performances/concerts.

Newsom also does not meet criteria 2 and 3 about having work that charted anywhere in the world or was gold certified.

Regarding criteria 5 "two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", discography pages on allmusic and discogs do not indicate she (or her band Killmatriarch) meets that standard.

The one part of WP:MUSIC she could meet is 10 about "performed music for a work of media that is notable" due to her music being featured on mainstream TV shows The Real World and 90210.

Nowadays, Newsom has given up music for a podcast called "GrowUpLive" that has just under 150 subscribers on youTube as of this writing. So she wouldn't be notable as a podcast host either. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble finding features focused on her solo career, and articles on her superband project were slim as well. I'm not comfortable recommending a simple delete when she's collaborated with quite a few projects and a redirect to one of them might be more appropriate. I would say merge to a KillMatriarch page if that seemed more supportable itself. JamieWhat (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she indeed charted in the Billboard Hot 100, as claimed, she would pass. A basic search to verify this turned up nothing, but a deeper word search of the Billboard Charts is behind a "professionals account" paywall. If another editor has such an account, this should be easily verified. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she did chart on any Billboard chart, Billboard.com would have an entry for her that is free to the public. It does not, so that claim seems to be an unverified claim made up on Wikipedia. Arbor to SJ (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- That is incorrect, Billboard has deleted a lot of public content, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every full Hot 100 chart dating back to August 1958 is available for free on Billboard.com (using the calendar menu). Individual artist pages list Bubbling Under Hot 100 (where her single might have charted), but Billboard.com has no entry about Landon Newsom, Landon, or Matriarch. If it cannot be verified that she ever had a song chart on Billboard, the chart notability criteria isn't met. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person does not satisfy either the GNG or MUSICBIO. Plenty of false chart claims are made on Wikipedia, and this looks like one of them. PK650 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (ec) The Hot 100 archive is easily searchable using google "Only 20" gets a couple of ghits from 1988 about a different song. The Pride article is nothing more than promo and there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage about her. Mattg82 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Greenstein[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No indication this individual meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:NCREATIVE John from Idegon (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect.
ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Individual received 2000 Primetime Emmy Award, as well as multiple nominations.
AUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Individual has written, produced and directed several acclaimed comedy series (Friends, Will & Grace, Desperate Housewives).
Tagging this page for deletion is an act of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141C:C878:D02B:3CDD:6A4D:5EE2 (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 2605:E000:141C:C878:D02B:3CDD:6A4D:5EE2 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
- Please read the instructions prior to posting here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In [5] the IP identifies himself as Jeff Greenstein, the subject of the article in question. Meters (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable. Jonathunder (talk) 1:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Why are we having this discussion? The guy wrote on 'Friends', ran 'Will and Grace' for years, and has become a skilled Director as well. 104.174.3.170 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — 104.174.3.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Greenstein has received an Emmy Award, a clear ANYBIO keep. -- Toughpigs (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Greenstein has been nominated for multiple Emmy, Producers Guild and Writers Guild awards. Has written, directed, and/or produced hundreds of hours of US network primetime tv. Satisfies both ANYBIO and Creative Professional guidelines. Wzzy (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep: this person is notable if only for his work on 'Friends', but has clearly done much more worthy of note2605:E000:60CD:3C00:18F3:AA29:B718:67BC (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — 2605:E000:60CD:3C00:18F3:AA29:B718:67BC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: He's a prolific writer, director and producer in Hollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D152:0:3500:FDA2:E65F:F963 (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — 2604:2000:D152:0:3500:FDA2:E65F:F963 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Subject of article has a distinguished career as a writer-producer on two of the most popular comedy series of the past 30 years, and more. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." To wit, one Emmy award, 19 nominations; multiple Writers Guild, Producers Guild, and CableACE Awards nominations. Subject also appears to more than adequately fulfill WP:ANYBIO requrements. To target the article for deletion seems questionable at best, as the claim that the cited criteria are not met is clearly untrue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazerac (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's no real argument to be made here of why this article should be deleted. Once it is backed up by more citations, of which it needs more and which I will presently go seek for it, it seems logical it be kept. The flag for deletion should be immediately removed, and the page preserved, in accordance with Wikipedia policies. PickleG13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Variety is an industry publication leader and has been following Greenstein’s career since at least 1999 (‘Friends’ Greenstein signs deal with NBC, Variety, Aug. 3, 1999). His work as a writer and producer on Friends is verifiable from show credit lists since its early years. All of which was the start of a career that moved to key positions on Will and Grace and beyond. For Grace, again, Variety, Jan 2, 2002, “NBC Ups ‘Grace’ Producer” confirmed an Emmy win and other nominations. A brief quote to confirm: “This is a key deal for us because there is nothing more important to NBC Studios than ‘Will & Grace,’ ” said NBC Studios prexy Ted Harbert. “Jeff’s proven showrunning ability assures that the show will remain a well-oiled comedy machine...” Greenstein won an Emmy in 2000 for his work as a producer on “Will & Grace.” He’s also snagged several Emmy-writing noms for “Will & Grace” and “Friends.”” If it’s strictly a question of cited sources then the page might benefit from further elaboration. It appears clear, however, that his significant impact on television began more than two decades ago and has only increased from there as the driving force behind a number of other series, as has been noted by other reviewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BC20:58F0:D5C4:A509:E4E1:179F (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1700:BC20:58F0:D5C4:A509:E4E1:179F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.189.29 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8004:B2B0:F880:3434:9DC6:AAFE (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jeff is a prolific and successful hollywood writer, producer and director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00D:9253:1D71:3A4B:D924:B66F (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.235.186 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and accomplished industry professional. His substantial credits and Emmy Award (!) attest to his position as a leading and notable figure in the entertainment industry.96.233.102.142 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — 96.233.102.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Good sources, appears notable in the industry. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per #2 on WP:SKCRIT. This is based on the series of edit warring behavior starting here. Bait30 ^Talk? 05:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the second time in the space of a week or so that this particular nominator has been involved in an editing war on the subject's page. See the AfD on Lesa Wilson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesa_Wilson). Dflaw4 (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Lesa Wilson" AfD was closed as "delete"; in fact, not a single person participating in that discussion seems to have !voted to keep the article. Are you suggesting that it be restored because the close was in error? If that's the case you can try WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or WP:DRV, but it seems to be have been a fairly strong consensus and a properly closed discussion. If your concerns, on the other hand, are related to other things, then this AfD might not really the right venue to discuss them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all, Marchjuly—in fact, I too voted "Weak Delete" on that Afd. My comment here was only prompted by Bait30 ^Talk?'s comment above regarding another edit war, which I found a little disconcerting. I have no intention of taking this further—more experienced editors may want to—but I simply wanted to call it to the attention of the closing administrator. If you or anyone else feels that it merits further discussion, feel free to get in touch. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The administrator who closes this is only going to assess the consensus of this discussion, not necessarily the behavior of anyone involved in it. If you or anyone else wants or expects them to look at something else, then you should bring it up for discussion at one of the WP:ANs. FWIW, unsourced or poorly sourced content can be removed at anytime from any article per WP:UNSOURCED, but particularly in the case of BLPs per WP:BLPSOURCES; moreover, the repeated re-adding of such unsourced or poorly sourced content is also likely to continued to be removed for the same reason. Same goes for the inappropriate removal of AfD templates from articles being discussed at AfD; such removals are bound to be reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for your response, Marchjuly. I apologise if my comment hit a nerve with anyone—that was not intended—but, as you said, this is not the place for a discussion of this nature, and I have no intention of carrying out a protracted exchange on what is, I think, a relatively nominal issue. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his "helmsman" work has been more of a director than an ordinary producer. Bearian (talk) 12:09, 7 February 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) b uidhe 02:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onward for Future 4.0[edit]

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

This is about provisional political organization #1, and no have relevant references. --Garam (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 02:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have 6 references, but all in Korean, so I cant evaluate them.Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Of course, this article have 6 references. But 2 of them are WP:RSSELF, and I think anothers are WP:QUESTIONABLE. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be keep. This party held founding ceremony at Jan 19, 2020 and Officially registered as a party at Jan 22, 2020. Officially registered party with a seat in National assembly is notable. --2001:2D8:EA40:AEB4:0:0:BA48:3002 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGO, NGO has 2 requirements "activities is national or international in scale" and "significant coverage." They political party holds office in the National Assembly, which is half of what NGO requires for notability. Unfortunately, I can't read the sources but there is 6 of them, and at least 5 of those sources are from different organizations. That appears to be adequate for "significant coverage." Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I think 5 references are not WP:NEWSORG. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the party is represented in the Gukhoe and the next elections will make it even more popular probably. --Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Naver reveals fairly extensive coverage of party alliances, leadership, and platform. There seems to be a large volume of mentions being published daily, as well, as sorting the articles by most recent will reveal. The article needs expansion beyond the skeletal state it's in now, but the subject seems soundly notable. I'm not sure I'm familiar enough with the Korean political system (or the Korean language) to trust my ability to add coherently to the article, so I hope someone with more expertise can help improve it. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 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. Sources as they are are sufficiently refuted and since better sources have not been produced the outcome is clear Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShifCustom[edit]

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

Non-notable motorcycle workshop per GNG and NCORP. Sources are mostly non-independent or unreliable, and what's more important, they are far from being able to support any claims of notability. This is just an ad-like article for a run-of-the-mill bike shop. PK650 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against The list of awards indicates notability. All sources of the article are independent of its object. -- Maksim L. (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that all citations link to blogs, press releases or the very same "award" websites, right? Also, none of the awards have a Wikipedia article, which is usually a fair enough indication that they're not notable. Note that Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. This criterion has not been met. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You doubt the credibility of the World Championship of Custom Bike Building or Motor Bike Expo (:it) or Germany's Custombike (:de) or other awards in the industry? No links to releases published by the subject. There are links to releases of events where the subject participated among others. The "blog" is owned by Cyril Huze (:nl), a reputable industry competitor to the subject. Cyril writes not about the subject, but about projects built by the subject, which is used in the article. Links to national-level media — sb.by and kp.by (the largest newspapers), awb.by (largest auto-moto newspaper), tut.by and onliner.by (largest online media) of the subject's country of residence. These media do not briefly mention, but large publications. There is a link to a paper publication (Uli [Ulrich Peter] Cloesen[6]) where the subject is described among others in the industry. There is also material published by the Belarusian Television and Radio Company, but giving the video as a source is not a tradition. --Maksim L. (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the notability of a bike workshop whose only claim to notability is having achieved 10th place in the 2016 Freestyle Class Results of the WMD. The appears clearly non-notable, as there is simply no significant coverage about it. Having dozens of poor quality links that only point to specific events serves no purpose besides confirming this should be deleted. Releases are worthless when it concerns notability, especially event listings where they've attended. This is unless you can provide a series of reliable sources (of which I found none), of course. Are you in any way associated with the company? Best, PK650 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comply with the terms GNG. I am not. The question is incorrect. Maksim L. (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your reply above. For your reference, the general notability guideline is a test to gauge whether a topic warrants an article. It states topics need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant means the coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Reliable means "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability"; this usually translates as sources which have attributable bylines, an editorial process behind it, and that are held to be accurate in their usual coverage as seen by third parties. There is a lot more to this last point, so I recommend you read WP:RS in detail as suggested previously. Also, continuing with the GNG, sources should be secondary and independent. Finally, and most importantly, coverage does not guarantee an article for the topic. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point discussing your assessment of the sources used. What to do in this case explains WP:ARTN (see also WP:NEXIST). The terms of the WP:GNG are not required from the content of the article, only to its subject (WP:CONTN). So, not the sources, but the notability of the subject should be discussed. The significance of the subject is not based on news. Notability for over 13 years. The subject has been repeatedly evaluated by industry professionals. So, the subject will remain in the history of the industry, his notability is not temporary. Notability is not local - USA, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Russia, Hungary and others - so, the coverage of notability is significant. There is no problem verifying information. This complies with the terms of the WP:GNG, even if someone considers all sources used to be unreliabled. --Maksim L. (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited fail to meet the basic test of notability for an organization. Glendoremus (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 3 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harpy (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Kept as part of a bulk nomination over a decade ago. Current reception doesn't even belong in the article. Otherwise no sources attempting to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's completely silly to have pages for every single creature here, I think that's the kind of stuff suitable for a fansite. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to harpy as it is the same critter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage presented in the article from non-game books is trivial, and in one case, not from a reliable source. They say nothing but one sentence giving the common sense fact that D&D based their harpies from the mythological monster. This is insufficient coverage to establish any kind of notability. I would also be opposed to merging this to the main harpy article as proposed, as this iteration is not notable enough to warrant a mention there. Rorshacma (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usual variety DnD fancruft. Nothing here deserves merging anywhere.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft, fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:26, 6 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse project[edit]

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

No evidence for the notability of this term in English. This article has never had any real sources since its creation in 2015 (the one source given is a ngram showing the use of the German term). The term occurs in various ghits (though most often with reference to a physical lighthouse), but no definition or discussion of the concept seems available, hence nothing to create a useful encyclopedia article. I misguidedly tried to draftify it until sources could be found but it was pointed out that an article which had survived an AfD should not be draftified.

The previous AfD was closed 3 months ago as "No consensus" (nomination plus just one Keep and one Delete, even after relisting, plus a Comment which included "not seeing much reason to keep"). The essay at WP:RENOM suggests 2 months as a reasonable limit before which an article should not be nominated again. This article is still not an asset to our encyclopedia. PamD 16:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. PamD 16:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, 4meter4, Rhododendrites, and Phantomsteve: Participants and closer in previous AfD. PamD 16:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only substantial change since the previous AfD has been the addition of an unsourced paragraph about Indonesian terminology. PamD 16:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search found some mentions of the term, but didn't reveal any significant coverage by reliable sources needed to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO. This appears to be a literal translation of a foreign language metaphor or idiom. We don't have an article on Under my roof, nor one for Go with me, nor The sweet life, nor Shadow joy, so there's no reason for this idiom, either. If it's kept, as with Sisu or Seny, I'd like to see much more sourcing. Bearian (talk) 12:08, 7 February 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. The nomination is withdrawn. With thanks to Pontificalibus for brilliant research. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nushki railway station[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Official Web Site of Pakistan Railway's archive page should be enough. Here is another link showing this railway station.Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is not WP:INDEPENDENT and the second one is routine coverage of a terror attack on the railway station. Neither helps (at all) with notability. b uidhe 19:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An actual mainline rail station that comes with inherent notability. Such a station in the UK or US would never even be considered for afd. Might this be a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade Any guidlines you can cite that they are inherently notable? I don't think so, as every article should pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former terminus of politically and economically significant railway ([7], [8]) but then its importance was considered so great the line was extended and it ceased to be a terminus ([9], [10]).--Pontificalibus 12:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep all railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Please demonstrate, as you are using circular reasoning. Störm (talk) 17:06, 5 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tok Nimol[edit]

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

Plain ol' vanity spam. a search of Tok Nimol and "តក់ និមល" give nothing in the way of useful, reliable sources and appearing on a "x Got Talent" show doesn't equate to notability.In fact, neither of the sources in this article mention him under any name. Praxidicae (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's concerns. Also the article appears to be an autobiography by Toknimol (talk · contribs) who is writing articles about various performers from what looks like their own production company.Citing (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly Speedy Delete under G11. Little more than WP:VANISPAM. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creating your own article as a non-notable musician could have been excused in 2007, but is just spamming today. Bearian (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. This needs to stop. PK650 (talk) 22:12, 9 February 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 50 Greatest Players in NBA History#Coaches. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 Greatest Coaches in NBA history[edit]

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

Article which serves only to replicate another organization's proprietary listicle, referenced only to that listicle itself with no evidence of outside reliable source analysis about the significance of the listicle. As always, we do not simply and uncritically replicate other organizations' own internal "Top 10" lists on Wikipedia, as it poses copyright issues to simply repost other non-CC content here. As always, the notability of a topic is never established by the mere ability to primary source it to itself as verification that it exists -- notability is demonstrated by the ability to reference it to media coverage about it in sources independent of itself as verification of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ping Diannaa, our expert on copyright cleanup who fixed issues there. ミラ P 16:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOPTEN. No independent sources to make this list remarkable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content I removed was not a reproduction of the list, but was some descriptive prose that was in the lead. Lists of this type I've dealt with in the past are things like Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, where we list only the top ten. Ranking the list adds an element of creativity that an alphabetical list does not have, no matter what its length. — Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 50 Greatest Players in NBA History#Coaches, an anchor pointed to by existing redirect Top 10 Coaches in NBA History. That target is an existing FA that covers these coaches. Per WP:N: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 50 Greatest Players in NBA History#Coaches, per Bagamba, since the material is already covered there and this is a plausible search term. Rlendog (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 50 Greatest Players in NBA History#Coaches as a plausible search term. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aragon Place, Arizona[edit]

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

These articles were created from GNIS records that list them as Populated Places, but a thorough BEFORE search did not return any sourcing to verify that they were indeed populated or notable in any way. Checked Google Search (returned only sites that happen to use GNIS location data), Google Books (some are listed in Arizona Place Names, but simply verifying the source for the name does not establish notability), Google Scholar and Newspapers.com. "Place" refers to a family homestead or ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 13:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 13:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete all The three that I checked were just names on a map except for one which showed a building for a while and then was eliminated from the maps entirely. Certainly none of them were like a town or village. Mangoe (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these are or were significant communities for which Geoland1 would apply; generic people's ranches that used to be marked on maps. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 5 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrudheen Cheriyath[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 10 February 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. I Afded this article based on this revision which didn't cite any sources at all. I then noticed a film is currently on production process with the same title and now I have decided to self keep this one. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayalaan[edit]

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

Unsourced and non notable film. Fails to pass WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I proposed for Afd based on this revision. I also noticed recent developments that a film with a same title is also currently at post production level but my intention was not that. The article if you look at it, it was created in 2013 whereas the new film announcement was revealed in 2020. The article is also tagged with various issues since 2013. Abishe (talk) 18:25, 3 February 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) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jokers' Masquerade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor, whose rationale is below (as posted at the article's talk page). I make no comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated in 2014 for deletion without a substantial edit history.

Creator of the page User:Ivondudley has a promotional link to this company in their bio suggesting affiliation.
All sources in the Awards section (which would make them notable) require citation
Previous deletion request for not being notable
Citations reference company / Facebook page of the company which are not ["reliable sources unrelated to the organisation or product"]
Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:7004:af00:f12b:3014:9e23:aaea (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep The sources for the article are quite shoddy now (2 primary, other 2 are for a unimpressive world record), but a search revealed that this company has continually caused controversy in Britain over the last few years, such as when they sold an Oscar Pistorius costume (complete with toy gun!), a psych ward costume that was condemned as rienforcing stereotypes, and were forced to surrender one of their star wars domain names to disney. I couldn't find anything supporting the unimpressive hitwise awards and will remove their mention, along with the primary sources, but I think this just barely passes WP:GNG. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate further participation. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Money Emoji are independent of the subject, and enough to make the article meet WP:ORGCRIT. The information about the awards should be removed unless it can be verified. Not a very active user (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Money Emoji. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:46, 11 February 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. Consunsus was the article has been sufficently improved (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Purpuro[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. No actual references and three external links to movie databases. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep: It's a shame that an actress with so many credits and recurring roles would struggle to meet notability standards—however, I do believe that to be the case here. But, I think that, with some work, the article could be considered borderline and allowed to remain. She is mentioned in some sources online, and there are currently none contained within the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Given the work that has been done on the article since the nomination, I am upgrading my vote to "Keep", as per WP:HEY. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we should only have articles on people who are clearly notable. To show such we need to find sources beyond routine, directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article now has 13 references while at the start of the AfD it had none. Sources including the New York Times and Chicago Tribune and book sources show that the subject had a notable theatre career as well as film and tv. With these improvements deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Forgotten Realms nations[edit]

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

This is an article for the collection of non-notable topics that do not justify a content split. There is no reason a general encyclopedia needs to list every fictional nation in a work. There exists Faerûn to cover the fictional world in general, assuming that article can even establish its own notability. TTN (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate how this passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN, as no secondary sources discuss this grouping. Since none of the items in the list have their own articles, it has no navigational purpose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:46, 4 February 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) 12:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Ishii[edit]

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

Despite my best efforts to improve coverage about this model in the wake of the pornography biography notability guidelines being deprecated, Ami Ishii does not pass WP:GNG. I have only been able to find minor mentions of the subject, if anything. Of the two sources provided, one is broken and the other is about her husband. Japanese Wikipedia does not offer any new sourcing. Ami Ishii does not pass our general notability guidelines. Thanks for your reviews and assuming good faith in my efforts – and perhaps, if we're lucky, someone will prove me wrong and this article will be improved to meet GNG. Missvain (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what this has to do with the deprecation of the pornography guidelines: there's no indication of that in her article. One would think the sources for this would be most likely to be in Japanese. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely difficult for a non-Japanese speaker to review the Kanji sources available, even with the help of Google Translate. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are the articles I could find about her.[16][17][18][19] No idea about their reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife – the type of modeling the subject does is considered soft core porn. Missvain (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? There's nothing in the article to suggest it and the claims to notability seem unrelated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG as it is written. I think the pron guidelines caused people to accept a whole range of marginal awards as showing notability which I believe is why there is that reference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's not even a reference to her doing porn, let alone winning awards for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we didn't write it LOL. At the time of nomination, she failed general notability guidelines regardless, but she is part of WP:PORN. Missvain (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole delete vote is contested sufficiently to warrant a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 19:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR, which appears to have subsumed the old pornography guideline in any case, assuming I'm reading things correctly. Anyway, failing that a WP:BASIC pass would be enough, but the significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources is distinctly lacking as searches failed to yield any. Would be willing to reconsider if someone could find foreign language sources that establish it. I reviewed the ones above, the blogs are no good. It's hard to assess the cinematoday reference, but even if that passed, it's just one source, as IMDB is not reliable, that's not enough. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Heritage Organization[edit]

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

Essentially a web page for the organization; there are no third party sources at all, and I can't find anything substantial. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a new organisation and as the nominator says has left practically no media footprint. It may prove to be notable in time, but for now it isn't. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete third party coverage in reliable sources really is required, and I cannot find it.IceFishing (talk) 22:49, 5 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Brucker[edit]

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

no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable, acting heads of diplomatic missions during changes in official head even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable, and as John Pack Lambert points out acting heads of missions even less so. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we've had US Ambassadors randomly kept before on marginal sourcing, but there's not enough there to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia does not extend any "inherent" notability freebie to all ambassadors just because they exist — an ambassador's includability depends entirely on whether she can be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing or not. But a "staff" profile on the self-published website of her own employer is never a notability-making source for anybody in and of itself, and the only other source shown here is a 116-word blurb in a directory of diplomats, which is not a notability-boosting source either. We require journalism about her and her work, not just technical verification that she exists, to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 9 February 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. Being liked or disliked by the government is irrelevant for Wikipedia inclusion. Sandstein 17:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AbdolReza Razmjoo[edit]

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

Not notable. Deleted in fawiki (AfD). ARASH PT talk 09:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 09:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a Kurdish composer and is not a favorite of government men. He is not supported by the government. He is one of the country's leading composers.Abarz54 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and has incredibly poor sourcing. Not being liked by one's government is not a notability pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 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. A bit on the weak side as we don't have a clear indication of WP:GNG notability yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mykonos windmills[edit]

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

There are windmills on Mykonos but there is nothing special about them. There are identical windmills all over Greece. No notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mykonos, where there is landmark section.Djflem (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are actually a lot of sources that mention the Windmills of Mykonos are important/iconic (e.g., this). However, almost none of them then go on to describe anything about them. I found one apparently-reliable source I found that spends a paragraph discussing them is this. Another gives a lot more coverage and does appear at least to be a WP:NEWSORG based on the information available about their editorial team. I'm inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt as a lot of people writing for reliable sources seem to think they are "famous" or "iconic" for some reason. FOARP (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are indeed quite a few mentions of them but they're basically all in promotional tourist literature because Mykonos has decided to promote itself as 'the island of windmills'. None of these refs really says anything substantive about them and indeed there is essentially nothing encyclopeadic about them to say. We might equally well have an article on Bridges on Skye or Pubs on Jura if tourist offices decided to take some nice pics and make a feature out of them. The windmills of Mykonos are no more distinctive than the pubs of Jura or the bridges of Skye. Mccapra (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fodors calls them "famous."[20] Greek Reporter gives significant coverage to them as well as calling them a "landmark."[21] Mother Nature Network and The Independent call them "iconic."[22][23]. I'll go by what independent reliable sources call them. Oakshade (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources above while perhaps not satisfying GNG are enough to strongly imply the windmills satisfy WP:NBUILD due to their historic and economic importance. Per WP:NEXIST we therefore shouldn't contemplate deletion without at least looking for Greek language sources, which it appears no one has done yet. ----Pontificalibus 09:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mykonos is famous for its windmills. It is appropriate that we have an article on them. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete any article. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The photo at right, which was/is included in the article, establishes significance clearly. These are obviously historic. Probably the cluster pictured, as well as other clusters or individual windmills, could be individually notable. Certainly the collection is. --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very clear keep. Plenty of sources available in print and online that attest to their notability. It doesn't matter whether the island "branding" decided to promote the things or what, but the clear fact is that they're notable and discussed in different media. If they're iconic, and treated as such as evidenced by reliable sources, then they pass WP:GNG; we're not to judge any motive behind their fame. They've been there for centuries, might I add...perhaps the article should reflect that better. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 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. Or at most no consensus. Sandstein 17:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Grant (author)[edit]

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

I lean towards keep since there's a fairly wide variety of reliable sources with different dates, but the coverage in those sources is shallow and there don't really seem to be more available than are already in the article. Thus, posting to get consensus on whether the subject is notable enough to keep, per the talk page. Benny White (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Benny White (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar to a number of other Christian reconstructionist figures nominated a few months ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary DeMar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Chilton). Julie Ingersoll devotes several pages to Grant in her Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2015). St Anselm (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the page are nearly all just 1-2 sentence passing-mentions of the subject or local paper op-eds, none rising to the level of notability by themselves, and very far between mentions. The Ingersoll reference is a good one though and if the page is kept, should be added as a primary source. (does Ingersoll meet notability?). Most of the content is related to association with Christian reconstruction so maybe worth mentioning on that page? Jimstevens25 (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added well-sourced material on some of his more notable activities, the difficulty was that he has such a common name that it is necessary to figure out good search words. Although the page is labeled "author", Grant is notable as a pastor and Christian political activist.IceFishing (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources that combined show a pass of WP:Basic so that deletion is not necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) nom does not ask for deletion (2) 60 books + 13 editions is a notable lifetime output (3) A lack of or weak sourcing is not a ground for deletion: the test is whether the content is verifiable, not whether it is verified. Clearly his views are controversial and contrary to the current liberal consensus , but WP:IDONOTLIKEIT is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 9 February 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.

Keep.

This AfD had a high level of participation, including some participation drawn by offwiki canvassing. We do not believe this canvassing had any impact on the final consensus.

There is broad consensus among editors that this topic is notable, and that information about this topic can be verified. A minority view, among some editors supporting deletion, disputed notability because race is considered by many scholars to be a social construct. There is also broad consensus among editors, that there are a variety of content issues with the article. Finally, there is a consensus that the article can and has been used to promote white supremacy positions. However, this kind of consensus is reflective of a content problem, and content problems are not a policy based reason for deletion.

The policy-supported reason for deletion offered by some participants is that this article is a content fork. However, this view did not have consensus. Some editors suggested that based on the history of this article, other articles should be considered a fork of this. Other editors suggesting that owing to the size of the scope of this topic, that this would be a candidate for splitting into multiple articles. For some, the content issues rose to the level of suggesting WP:TNT, which, while an essay, is sometimes used as a basis for deletion in AfD discussions. However, there is not consensus for this action. Nor is it clear that there is consensus that the content issues identified would be solved by a TNT delete. It seems likely any rewrite would be subject to the same issues of disruptive editing. There is evidence of this disruption since its nomination for deletion at the beginning of February.

We found that most of the arguments for deletion were not policy-based. Use of non-reliable sources, and non-neutral or fringe content, can be fixed by editing. That outside entities have criticized the article is not a reason for deletion. A title change can be debated and enacted as a normal part of the editorial process. On the other hand, those arguing to keep clearly demonstrated that the topic meets verifiability and notability, which is really all that's needed.

Jointly submitted, Scottywong, Barkeep49, RoySmith 21:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Overturned close

The result was delete. delete and redirect to History of the race and intelligence controversy The argument that this.article is a POVFORK is clearly the consensus of this discussion. There is, however a lot of heat, and its seems pointless enacting the consensus until the inevitable DRV. The close is therefore on hold until there is either a DRV or it is clear this close has been accepted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a serious and considered qtuestion as to whether this article should exist at all on Wikipedia.

The article Race and intelligence appears to be a notable subject because it is contentious and many people do talk about it. Indeed many people talk about this article. Nevertheless the notable aspects of the debate are twofold and are synthesised in this article to produce a debate on a contentious subject where all the information can be found elsewhere.

The two notable subjects are Race and genetics and the Heritability of IQ. Both those are notable subjects, but "race and intelligence" is a synthesis of the two. Because it is controversial it has WP:UNDUE visibility. It seems unlikely that anyone would argue that an article about "Race and prostate cancer" nor even "race and sickle cell disease" are notable articles, because although it is known that certain human populations have higher instances of these diseases, that fact is adequately covered in articles on the diseases themselves or asides elsewhere. Moreover in those two cases, the link between genetics and the disease is known and understood. In the case of intelligence, there is simply no evidence of a genetic link between race and intelligence. The very existence of this article appears to take sides on the issue - making a question out of an issue that is a non question. See for instance, Stop talking about race and IQ.

The article itself is written as bi-pole argument between two extremes, and all editors of the page appear to be broadly in agreement that this is not correct (even though they are not in agreement as to what to do about it). There have been recent edit wars as some want to remove clearly WP:UNDUE material at once, and other editors believe that would leave the page unbalanced and WP:POV and argue a complete rewrite is necessary instead. Editors from both sides of the debate have mooted deletion of the page as a possible solution as per this talk section. In view of the highly problematic article structure, which contains a lot of WP:UNDUE weight on just two extremes of the debate, there is no salvageable or mergeable content and WP:TNT is called for.

An objection to the above argument may be that the above is true, and yet there is a notable disagreement as demonstrated by the Rushton and Jensen material in the article, and that this gives the article notability. However there is heavy WP:UNDUE here, and we already have an article that discusses the debate, which is "Scientific Racism". See particularly section Scientific racism#Interbellum to World War II and on to the end of the article. This fully covers, and in a much more balanced manner, the notability aspect of the debate. That is, it discusses that there is a debate, and describes what it is.

Redirects are WP:CHEAP so I believe deletion and a redirect to Heritability of IQ would be the best solution here, or else a redirect to either Scientific racism or Race and genetics. A disambiguation page would also be a suitable solution. Sirfurboy (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although automatically listed as a 4th nomination, there is no record of a 2nd nomination (unless the multiple page nomination that included this page and many others is counted). The proposer of what is listed as 3rd nomination was in error, so this is, in fact, the third nomination I believe. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title suggests that there's a causal connection between someone's race and intelligence, a claim that contradicts scientific consensus. Perhaps because of the title, the article is a magnet for people who wish to use Wikipedia to give credence to sources that push scientific racism. The article was mentioned by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an example of bias on Wikipedia, caused by the dominance of white male Americans among active editors and by the growth of the alt-right in America. Note that the article Scientific racism, which covers the topic, is compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and has none of these problems. NightHeron (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: What if we just changed the title to remove any indication that race and intelligence are related? Mgasparin (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgasparin: Although the title is bad, it's only a symptom of a deeper problem, which is non-compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Rather than thinking up a new title and then putting a lot of effort, with long contentious debates, into a total rewrite, it would be better to redirect Race and intelligence to one of the other articles covering the same subject, as suggested below by David Gerard. NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that. My suggestion was based on a desire to save the article given the amount of work that has been put into it over many years. Mgasparin (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title is "Race and Intelligence". That does *not* suggest causality. It's just putting the words together, and connecting them with the word "and". --Toomim (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NightHeron - the title presumes a link, it's a magnet for cranks and POV-pushing white supremacists, and scientific racism is the version that is reality-based. Redirect to scientific racism, probably, but any of the nom's suggestions are good - David Gerard (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NightHeron. Whatever NPOV may be put into the article text, the page title itself is not neutral (by analogy: "XXX suprematism" is a NPOV-topic, "Inferiority of ZZZ" is not). Redirect to the NPOV-page scientific racism is a good solution. –Austronesier (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above. Unencyclopedic and harmful to the project. The WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV violations are baked in by the title. Unclear that there ever could be an appropriate article at this title even in theory, and after all these years it's pretty clear that there never would be one. Support either salting or redirecting to scientific racism. -- Visviva (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is anyone reading the earlier deletion discussions? I hadn't previously been aware that three past deletion attempts were all closed as keep, but that shows something about whether the article's topic is notable as a topic that's distinct from scientific racism. I find the comments in the third deletion discussion, in which almost everyone voted keep, especially informative. If the topic was notable in 2011, then it's notable now.

The reason I'm not voting either way yet is that I think the WP:TNT argument might be compelling. (I'm not sure yet.) Virtually everyone agrees that the article has major problems, but we haven't been able to agree on a course of action to address them. Instead of trying to get a consensus to update the article one section at a time, a simpler solution might be to just delete it and start over from scratch. I need to think about this for a while. 2600:1004:B168:C80E:5DF3:894E:7AC0:5C79 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and for considering carefully. I reviewed the previous discussions but the thing we must always remember in deletion discussions is that deletion is not a vote. It is the arguments that are made that are important. You can have 10 "delete per noms" and one good "keep" based on policy and the result is keep (or vice versa of course). Thus those previous deletion discussions are relevant only inasmuch as the points made then are pertinent and point to policy based reasons to keep. I reviewed all the keep comments in that AfD and they all boil down to "subject is notable" or "nomination does not make sense". It is for you to judge whether my nomination makes more sense, but you will see I have addressed notability in the nomination. The subject is notable for mention in an article, but I don't think it is notable for this article. Scientific Racism covers this, and as long as it does so adequately, this article is not required. It does not add anything because we already have a place for all the notable information. Once again, thanks for taking time to comment. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After reading the discussion below, I've concluded that the article should be kept. None of the deletion reasons seem to be well-supported by policy. Peregrine Fisher has already discussed problems with several of these reasons, but I'll address two others:

One of the deletion arguments being presented is that this article is a POV fork of either History of the race and intelligence controversy or Scientific racism. The explanation of POV forks at Wikipedia:Content_forking#Point_of_view_(POV)_forks says that if an alternate version of an article is created with a different viewpoint, "This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first". However, the Race and intelligence article predates both the "Scientific racism" article and the "History of the race and intelligence" controversy article. The Race and intelligence article was created in 2002, the Scientific racism article was created in 2004, and the History of the race and intelligence controversy was created in 2010. Therefore, if anything is a POV fork, those articles are POV forks of this one, not the reverse.

The strongest argument anyone has presented for deletion is based on WP:TNT, but this article does not seem like a case where that guideline was meant to apply. The examples that page gives of when deletion is appropriate are copyright violations and examples of paid advocacy, but this article is neither of those. The central problem with this article is that it reads as though the whole thing was written in 2013 (which it may have been; I haven't looked closely enough at its history to determine that). Normally, a problem like that could be fixed by updating the article.

The main reason it's nearly impossible to update this article is that even when there's a consensus on the talk page for a change, there is a small group of users who think it's acceptable to edit war to undo the change if they disapprove of it. But that's a user conduct problem, not a problem with the article itself. Some of those same users are now voting for deletion, which seems very disingenuous. If you're going to prevent the article from being improved, you shouldn't subsequently argue that the inability to improve it is a reason to delete it. 2600:1004:B11C:DD81:9097:4C1A:1A0B:AEA5 (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am naturally disappointed that you have gone with keep here, because I have observed that you have been an involved and knowledgeable editor of this article for some time. In view of the SPA IP hopping going on elsewhere in this thread, it is worth saying that 2600:1004:B1::/38 is the range you have consistently used and there is no suggestion of any misuse of IP anonymity here. Indeed, I noticed that you spoke out against edit warring on the page and I have a great deal of respect for your opinions. It was your own summary (from the article talk page) of the state of the existing article that I used as reference when writing this AfD. On the POVFORK argument, you will notice I never called this article a POVFORK. As you say, this article is the older one. Yet there is a content fork here. It was probably not intentional, but the History of the race and intelligence controversy has developed and matured, and now comprehensively covers the issue, whereas your own summary of this article admits "Until December, the article was mostly structured as a debate between two controversial sources: A 2005 paper by Rushton and Jensen published in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, and Nisbett's 2009 book Intelligence and How to Get It. (Some people don't believe that Nisbett's book is controversial, but see the reviews listed in the Intelligence and How to Get It article, as well as Hunt's comments on Nisbett in his textbook Human Intelligence, "Nisbett's extreme statement has virtually no chance of being true"). This was a slightly strange way for the article to be structured, but it still gave a decent overview of the debate." Your view, as I understand it, is that the article needed rewriting, section by section, from the ground up to make it more balanced. Yet I think we have that rewrite already. It is an article called History of the race and intelligence controversy. That article comprehensively covers this topic so I don't think the proposed rewrite adds anything. Please bear in mind that this is not a partisan view. I took no part in editing the article, and I believe that you, in particular, made some excellent points. I just don't think that this is the article you should be spending your time on. I think you could help improve the other articles we have identified instead. I do hope I can convince you to reverse your !vote, but I trust you will understand I will continue to respect your point of view regardless. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good solution, seeing as most of the arguments coming from the "the article is written from a WP:FRINGE" are in fact based around the topic of the article itself and the readers' possible interpretations of said topic. These arguments, in turn, lead to opinions such as that there is no need to mention the fact that IQ differences between ethnic groups exist (which both sides of the debate seem to agree is the scientific consensus) in the lede, which is now problematic for the other side.

Deleting the article and summarising its contents elsewhere will resolve this problem, which seems to be what's causing most of the disagreement on the Race and Intelligence article. However, the contents also need to be summarised adequately; for example, in the article "scientific racism", it is claimed that "a connection between race and intelligence" is "unsupported by available evidence", according to "critics", even though the scientific consensus is that there is good evidence for differences in IQ scores (a valid and reliable measure of intelligence) between self-identified races and ethnicities. As long all the relevant information pertinent to the topic of race and intelligence and notable enough to be mentioned is summarised adequately (which may entail creating a section on race and intelligence on the "scientific racism" article), I see no good reason why the article should be kept, given that it clearly causes more problems than it resolves. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 16:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Upon further inspection, it would be pretty absurd for the article history of the race and intelligence controversy to exist without the article race and intelligence existing as well. It also seems like most editors' problems here stem from the article's title and not anything to do with the article's body instead. If that is the case, renaming the page would surely be a more efficient solution, especially given that the content of the article is obviously notable enough to be kept. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Oldstone James, but I would note that history of the race and intelligence controversy is talking about all the issues that we are agree are notable regarding the controversy. There is then no reason to rehash the controversy itself on Wikipedia, as that article fully describes it. That is what this article is trying to do too. Wikipedia does not need this article. --Sirfurboy (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, merging the two articles would be the appropriate solution; the reason that I'm confused about why the article "race and intelligence" specifically needs to be deleted is that it is difficult to envision that a concept on its own might not be notable enough but its history would be. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any mergeable content in this article that is not already found in history of the race and intelligence controversy or scientific racism, or indeed The Bell Curve, Heritability of IQ or Race and genetics. That is why deletion makes sense. Thank you again for considering this carefully though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I found one sentence that was worth merging somewhere, would you change your vote? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For one sentence? No, I would probably just go and add that sentence to one of the other articles. There would need to be substantial mergeable information to merit a merge, and there isn't any, because the information is already in the other articles. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork, already covered neutrally at History of the race and intelligence controversy. –dlthewave ☎ 17:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is at once a fork and a POV synthesis of topics covered by existing articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is superb analysis and it is exactly this sort of thing we should be encouraging to break the juggernaut of this problematic topic on Wikipedia. I tip my hat to Sirfurboy and Night Heron. jps (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. It's referenced. Still working on NPOV. If we want to split or redirect or whatever we can do that later. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a look a the nom. First they say it is notable. Not a reason to delete (NARD). Then they say in their opinion this is not good science. NARD. Then they say there is edit warring, and UNDUE problems. NARD Then they say this is covered as a subsection in another article and in their opinion done correctly there. NARD (US mentions California as an extreme example) Finally they say they want to redirect it, which is basically saying this AfD should not have been started. They could have redirected with one edit. Probably start an RfC about that first, I guess. Anyways, seems to just be IDONTLIKEIT and I don't want to seek consensus for a redirect so AfD it is. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like an IGNOREALLRULES delete. But let's look at more of the arguments, cause it's fun.
  - NightHeron thinks the article is racist. So that's IDON'TLIKEIT. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - DavidGerard same IDON'TLIKEIT
  - Austronesier same IDON'TLIKEIT
  - Visviva same IDON'TLIKEIT
  - dlthewave POV fork, still not a reason to delete, but it's better
  - Chiswick POV fork, again not a reason to delete, or salt or whatever
  - JPS seems to think it's racist also, again, corret me If I'm wrong.
  - Keep per me. Obviously the correct policy based decision, pretty much by definition. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - - OK, the comments below have convinced me that POV fork argument is rediculous. To take it to the extreme, they're saying delete Israel because History of Israel makes Israel look bad, and we need to make it look bad. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - dlthewave said POV fork could be a valid delete reason.User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher#POV_forks He's making me question myself. My understanding is/was that a POV fork should just be redirected. Could be wrong about that one. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are correct per WP:DEL-REASON. Content forks should be deleted unless a suitable merge can be agreed. Rather than attempting to characterise other people's views, you might want to consider what mergeable content exists on this page that is not already found in any of the possible merge targets. I don't think there is any, and editor discussion on the page seemed to agree that the current content is problematic.

In that same discussion, I noticed that you had agreed, when AfD was mooted, that: "If one of you guys would jump through the arbcom hoops, I think that would be great. They might say that your side is correct, and I can remove this page from my watchlist! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)". I think you meant AfD rather than arbcom, but I understood that you, along with several other editors, were in agreement that there was a case for deletion, so I am naturally disappointed that this turns out not to be the case. I would just like to re-assure you that I consulted with no one before making this AfD, and I took no sides in the debate, nor did I ever edit the page. I did that in the hope editors on both sides would understand that this was not a partisan nomination, but a serious hard look at whether this article was really serving the purpose of furthering the scope and benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole and providing material of educational value to the readers. I thought you would be on board with that.-- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the sources flatly fail WP:RS per the authors, which creates a completely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV article. We have other articles that are better at dealing with this topic, like Pioneer Fund and History of the race and intelligence controversy among others mentioned here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article is very controversial, it is notable and thus should be discussed. As some editors have noted, the title suggests that there is a connection between race and intelligence (simply not true). I then propose that instead of deletion, the title be changed to reflect this connection (or lack thereof). Thus, we keep a notable article and remove from the title indications that intelligence and race are related. Mgasparin (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, though, we already have multiple articles covering this question - the nomination includes a suggestion of redirect targets for the title - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a redirect to a disambiguation page that begins with something like, "The former Wikipedia article 'Race and intelligence' was deleted in part because it duplicated relevant content from the Wikipedia articles listed below. You can read the discussion among Wikipedia editors about deleting the 'Race and intelligence' article here {hyperlinked to this discussion}. ¶ Heritability of IQ | History of the race and intelligence controversy | Race and genetics | Scientific racism". I'm not personally persuaded, but there are scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals that argue for genetic differences between races with regard to IQ. As long as that literature is covered in the other articles, then keeping Race and intelligence is superfluous. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep All the delete !votes above seem utterly absurd and when I first saw that this article had been AFD'd, I was shocked--even more so when I saw it was a serious nomination not made by a bad-faith troll (no offense to Sirfurboy). This is a (very) notable topic, and the mere existence of this page does not constitute endorsing any specific perspective on said topic. If the title was "Black people are genetically stupid" or "Race causes IQ" then that would be another matter. We need to ensure that this article keeps existing and is written in accordance with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but it would be a very bad idea to delete the central article on this widely-discussed topic, which discusses the topic in great detail in a single place, and split off material into separate articles only tangentially related to it. I would, however, be potentially OK with renaming this article if other editors object to the title (which seems completely fine to me; a title "X and Y" is not tantamount to an endorsement of any sort of causal connection between X and Y). IntoThinAir (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IntoThinAir: We have other articles that describe the topic in a neutral way. This article is unnecessary and is just a remnant of earlier Wikipedia edit wars. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nomination and the above !votes for deletion make a good WP:TNT argument. Sometimes, there's just no practical way to write a good article in a given spot, and the best thing to do for the community is to drop the dead weight. "Lots of people have discussed the topic" is adequately answered by "redirects are cheap". XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the nominator's rationale compelling. Any article that spends so much of its time alternately explaining how the subject is somehow simultaneously a thing and not a thing, clearly has serious problems. The fact that we haven't been able to fix this after so many years suggests that the problem is irresolvable. Guy (help!) 00:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you're saying "this article should have been written better, but we haven't done so, so delete". You got a policy for that? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, and even a topic having been controversial for many years off Wikipedia, and this controversy reflected in the opposing views both being discussed in the article in accordance with WP:UNDUE, and even if this controversy has persisted for many years, certainly in no way constitutes a compelling reason to delete the article. Similarly, even if the idea that X "causes" Y in some sense is not scientifically valid, as is the case with the idea that race "causes" an individual to have a given level of intelligence, this does not mean that there should not be an article on the prominent, widely-discussed idea that there is some sort of connection between X and Y should not be given its own article. If editors do not want both this page and history of the race and intelligence controversy to exist, that's fine, but clearly the right thing to do then is to redirect the latter to the former, not the other way around. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher, no, I am saying that it's a POV fork and a coatrack and the superficial referenciness obscures the fact that its primary function appears to be to erect a false balance between racism and science. Guy (help!) 14:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pov-forking concerns are valid, while the subject is already sufficiently covered in Wikipedia. Alternatively, delete & redirect name only to Scientific racism, then salt the redirect to avoid recreation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warning to closing admin: I have no comment on the article topic's notability, but given the snowy consensus to delete, it should be extremely important to note that this page has been edited more than 5000 times, so you need to get the stewards here at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. ミラ P 03:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miraclepine: What does "snowy consensus" mean? I am unfamiliar with that term. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: WP:SNOW says to use common sense and don't follow a process for the sake of it. But do allow discussions to take place if in doubt. AFD is currently 12 delete, 4 keep. ミラ P 04:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the talk page has been edited 23,000+ times! That's another article to take to SR/M. ミラ P 15:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per all the above. Merging is not appropriate. Wikipedia's standards for sources have thankfully gotten higher, and whatever is worth preserving elsewhere will need to be reevaluated on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename. Race and genetics, Heritability of IQ and Race and intelligence are related different subjects. If there is an actual correlation between the intelligence and race (whatever the "intelligence" and "race" could mean) is irrelevant. It is only relevant that the subject (the controversy, whatever) is highly notable and was covered in a huge number of sources. Is it a content fork of History of the race and intelligence controversy? No, to the contrary, History of the race and intelligence controversy is a legitimate sub-page of this page. However, I think this page could be renamed to Race and intelligence controversy, so it will be clear that we do not assume any casual connection between the race and intelligence. That solves it. My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we could just rename the History of the race and intelligence controversy article to Race and intelligence, making it the main article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we could merge, or rediect, or whatever the heck we want. None of which is deletion. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, both History of the race and intelligence controversy and Scientific racism sub-pages are already correctly linked on History_of_the_debate subsection of this page. This is the best way to handle it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

obvious Keep; rename to "Race differences in psychometry" and redirect current page to the renamed one. The proposal makes misleading and severely POV arguments to the point that it just looks like an attempt to censor a subject that the proposer finds uncomfortable. If a large fraction of the discussion of both A and of B is actually of A-and-B then it makes good sense to have a WP page on the intersection, A-and-B. There are, accordingly, WP pages on similar A-and-B combinations in intelligence-related subjects Jewish intelligence (redirects to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence) and Sex differences in intelligence (as well as Sex differences in psychology). The IQ/Heredity page is about inheritance in individuals, not the race/intelligence question of the possible differential distribution of the IQ genes in populations. Nor is it currently possible to answer questions on "race and intelligence" by going to the page on the race/IQ controversy because the latter article is a very long and disorganized list that does not even discuss many of the relevant topics. That said, the word "intelligence" is vague and the population differences are on psychometric tests, so the page might be better renamed as "Race differences in psychometry" ("... in psychology" is too broad, unless a page on this parallel to the one for sex differences were created). The question that has generated so much discussion is about intelligence in the large and not the narrower matter of IQ-type tests, so either alternative is defensible. Renaming to "psychometry" would also focus the article more and perhaps prevent the recurring AfD requests. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)— 73.149.246.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your input, but I note that reference to the fact other pages exist is not a policy reason to retain a page, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The conjunction in the title "a AND b" is a clear indication of a synthesis between two different things, and inasmuch as the synthesis is itself notable, it is already covered in our article covering, in depth, the history of the controversy. Finally, I would say that I fully understand why editors wish to strengthen their votes with qualifiers like strong etc., but if the case for keeping the article really were obvious, it would not need stating. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "and" in the title does not indicate a synthesis, let alone a redundant one. Your proposal to delete did not identify "Race" and "Intelligence" as the root topics A and B. Rather, you cite Race and genetics and the Heritability of IQ as the subjects supposedly synthesized, each of which is itself a compound. The subject of "race and intelligence" has to do with race, genetics, inheritance and IQ (among other things) in its own way that is not a simple-minded combination from two or more source articles, or anything that could easily be inferred by someone reading the articles separately. Like it or not, racial intelligence-ology is its own thing, some of which has been pseudoscience and some of which has not. Part of the point of an article on a subject like this is to distingush science from fiction and that is not accomplished by summarily declaring the whole thing an artificial "non-question" as done in this AfD proposal. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And" is a conjunction, "of" is a preposition denoting possession. Note also that "Race and genetics" can be recast as "the genetics of race", which you cannot do with "race and intelligence", but let's not get sidetracked on grammar. I said it was indicative, but not a necessary conclusion. The point is, and remains, that other articles on Wikipedia cover everything this article is trying to be. The science, the controversy, even the books (see for instance The Bell Curve). This is just not an article we need. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Half the articles on Wikipedia have all their information covered in some list of other articles. In this specific case, if you were to make an honest list of the other articles needed to cover the material for this one, it would be quite a lot longer than the two you mention, and in one of those two any relevant material is buried under a heap of irrelevant material. This is pure IDONTLIKEIT, not something that makes Wikipedia more useful as a reference.73.149.246.232 (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Half the articles on Wikipedia..." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not a policy reason to retain. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That it's a large fraction of WP content is a reason to consider the AfD proposal as special pleading, the special exception being that you don't like this article and are throwing the proverbial everything-at-the-wall polemically in the hope something will stick. The "policy reason to retain" is the same as for any other encyclopedia topic: if something is notable enough to have had lots of academic and popular material written about it, there is a presumption in favor of having an article on that topic (if there are editors are willing to write and update it). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF is probably a bit stronger that IDONTLIKEIT. Whoever questioned why an article on "A" is shite, but an article on "History of A" is OK, has an argument I'd like to hear refuted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fairly straightforward. The existing "History ..." article has (IMO) reasonable subject matter but an infelicitous name, because it was conceived as part of a hierarchy descending from the unworkable and unencyclopedic article at issue here. The "History ..." article seems to be basically a (confusingly titled) history of scientific racism with respect to intelligence. In a hypothetical complete Wikipedia, I imagine the ideal hierarchy would be something like Scientific racism -> History of scientific racism -> History of scientific racism with respect to intelligence [coordinate with histories of scientific racism with respect to sexuality, physical ability, etc., about which there is certainly plenty to be said]. Of course in our actually-existing Wikipedia, such gaps and inconsistencies in the topic hierarchy are par for the course. Whether and how to rename that article is probably a worthy question but I don't think it needs to be addressed here. -- Visviva (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"infelicitous" is one of my favorite words! Felicitous is number uno! What you said seems to support keeping this article, and redirecting it, or splitting it, or combining it. Why exactly are those options wrong? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with filing everything under Scientific Racism is that it is even more POV-loaded and question-begging than what this AfD proposal accuses the current article of doing. For instance, there is no indication that Jensen (or Flynn or any number of others who have published things on this subject) is a racist or ever argued what he did in order to support racism. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Racism Does it exist? Sort of. Leads to a wiki project. We should create a good essay or policy about it. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comparison to "race and sickle cell anemia" (or prostate cancer, hair and skin color, etc). The only reason there is no such page is that there has never been much controversy about the subject nor any connection to social policy at the largest scale. The way the science developed is actually very similar for intelligence and prostate cancer, in that correlation to race was noted, speculation about genetic causes ensued, a few relevant genes were found, that appear at different frequency in the respective populations (e.g. microcephalin, or the collection of genes used by Piffer in his recent statistical analyses). Of course this is not a complete explanation yet for prostate cancer, and very very far from a full analysis for intelligence, but conceptually it is pretty similar. In the case of prostate cancer there is a better understanding of what causal role the specific genes play, which is mostly missing for the brain. But the logic is fairly similar. This also illustrates why facile claims of "no evidence it's from genetics" are ridiculous. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By similar logic we can also get rid of all articles on sports rivalries between teams or athletes A and B, since with enough effort the information can all be gleaned from the articles on A and B.73.149.246.232 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long standing article based on numerous empirical studies with academic interest going back to the start of social science, and historical interest going back hundreds of years. It fulfills virtually every inclusion criteria one can think of. Not only that, according to a post on Nature news in 2011, it was the 4th most important topic in social science. AndewNguyen (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC) — AndewNguyen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That is a wild mischaracterization of that Nature post, which does not refer to either race or intelligence. Item 4 in that list is "4. How do we reduce the ‘skill gap’ between black and white people in America?" The impulse to connect that valid policy question with the dubious subject matter of this article is ... interesting. -- Visviva (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron makes the argument that the mere title of style "A and B" "suggests that there's a causal connection" A and B. I don't know why this makes sense, Wikipedia has many other similarly titled pages: vaccines and autism, religion and sexuality, sexuality and disability, just to pick some random pairs. AndewNguyen (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention of Vaccines and autism is quite interesting. The first sentence of the lede of that article reads: Extensive investigation into vaccines and autism has shown that there is no relationship, causal or otherwise, and vaccine ingredients do not cause autism. Although a reader might initially think that the title suggests a causal connection, as soon as they read the first sentence they will be disabused of that notion and be correctly informed. If the article Vaccines and autism were written in a very different way -- suggesting that there's a legitimate debate, and that maybe vaccines do cause autism, that Andrew Wakefield's paper published in Lancet says that they do, etc., etc. -- then that would be analogous to the way Race and intelligence is written. Just substitute Jensen for Wakefield and Harvard Educational Review for Lancet. The problem is not just that the title "Race and intelligence" is likely to be read by readers as suggesting a causal connection. The problem is that once they start reading the article the strong POV legitimizing fringe theories will reinforce the racial supremacist interpretation of the title. NightHeron (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are group differences in psychometric instruments that are colloquially called "Intelligence". This is uncontroversial and accepted across the political aisle. Mainstream news sources on the Left and Right both acknowledge this, many think tanks cite group differences in scores as motivation for further advocacy, anti-racism efforts, more funding for education, etc. Deleting this part of the article would be going against scientific consensus and mainstream media consensus. The study of the causes of this difference is the controversial part. I think this page as it currently stands does a reasonably good job of showing the controversy among scientists on the root causes of this average difference in scores. Deleting this page would be a politically motivated and intellectually dishonest action. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, and I agree it would be wrong for Wikipedia to delete any mention of psychometric instruments as measures of intelligence, but that is not the subject of this page. Wikipedia has pages on Psychometrics, on IQ and, crucially, on Heritability of IQ. Deletion of this page will not delete that information from Wikipedia (and neither should it). Deletion of the page is not politically motivated. As the nominator, I can assure you my motives are purely about the benefit of the Wikipedia project as a whole, ensuring our coverage is encyclopaedic. If we did not cover the information elsewhere, we would need to keep the page, but no encyclopaedic information will be lost if we delete this page. Thank you again for raising these concerns, and I trust this answer allays them. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Race and intelligence is an important topic on which much research has been conducted, and on which many books have been written. There has not been nearly as much scholarly debate on topics such as race and sickle cell disease. As it stands, the page is both detailed and balanced. None of the arguments for deleting it is convincing. Mr Butterbur (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last three responses have all made the point that this issue is clearly notable. It is, beyond dispute. Yet that is not the reason for deletion. The question is whether the Wikipedia project is enhanced by this particular article, given that all notable issues are covered in the suite of articles discussed above. There is no doubt that we need an article about the race and intelligence debate, but do we need this article when we have Scientific racism and history of the race and intelligence controversy and the other articles covering all the issues that could be in this article. What encyclopaedic value does this article add to Wikipedia? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other related articles do not cover the same material, and to the extent there is an overlap, the material corresponding to the contents of this article is strewn haphazardly inside a much longer text. There is a pretty good division between this article and history of the race and intelligence controversy, with none of the history appearing here and a lot less detail on the psychometry appearing there. Relying on Scientific racism would be even more POV than what you accuse this article of being, since there is for example no reason given for the presumption that Jensen was a "scientific racist" (e.g., did fake science to support racist beliefs, had anything against black people, or considered white people superior to them).73.149.246.232 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — 73.149.246.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per arguments by IntoThinAir, Gardenofaleph, and AndewNguyen. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I encourage those !voting to keep to review this article's sources, specifically their age. The article cites many studies which are out-of-date, and fail WP:RS AGE. We are using old sources to misrepresent the modern academic consensus, which is not appropriate for many reasons. This article fails to summarize modern secondary source, instead citing obscure primary sources without appropriate distance. This information is historically important, and with context might be useful at History of the race and intelligence controversy. This article, however, purports to explain the topic at large, including the modern consensus. Hopefully everyone here is aware that genetics has advanced considerably in recent decades, regardless of how these older works were seen at the time. If your argument is that the article should be kept because the topic is covered by sources, then the article is not representing these sources in an encyclopedic fashion. Other articles already do a better job of summarizing sources, so this one has been made superfluous, at best. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DINC, to the extent that the article in its current form has flaws, this is not a legitimate reason that it should be deleted. Given that there are stand-alone articles about "A and B" and "B and C", it only makes sense to also have an article about "A and C" (here A = race, B = genetics, C = intelligence) insofar as each article covers the independently notable intersection of two topics. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my point. Your presumption that this is independently notable is directly contradicted by the article's current sources. Many of the article's current sources are only relevant in a historical context. We cannot ignore this context, and these sources wouldn't belong in a "clean" article at all. These sources are already much, much better supported at other articles, with proper context. Therefore, their inclusion here is another demonstration that this is a POV fork. Articles must be based on actual sources, not hypothetical ones. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources of what age in the article do you have in mind? There should certainly be newer sources added to include more recent work on genetics, as you pointed out. But adding some of the ones most directly relevant to the "race and intelligence" controversy would tend to be exactly the sort of material some people here are suddenly looking for ways to suppress. For example, Plomin and collaborators' construction of polygenic scores that are "the most powerful predictors in the behavioral sciences", https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/418210v1, or Piffer's open-source statistical evidence for recent selection pressure on polygenic scores that predict cognitive ability, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/008011v1).73.149.246.232 (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:MEDREV applies here as well. Instead of presenting the arguments of both sides, we should be using reviews to present the current medical consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a topic (with 362 million Ghits) that has generated a lot of controversy, so readers may come to Wikipedia to find out why. The article should list the pros and cons of the issues but not draw conclusions as these are disputed. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The number of search results does not establish notability. Per WP:MEDREV, it is inappropriate to present the pros and cons of both sides without drawing conclusions; the guideline requires us to either present the conclusions of a secondary-source review or remove the content altogether if no such review is available. –dlthewave ☎ 05:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDREV does not apply here because Race (human categorization) does not belong to Medicine (may be to social sciences?). I do not think anyone above reasonably argued the subject is not notable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic is really controversial, but that would not seem to be a reason to delete an entire article. Is this an ongoing scientific debate among experts in many disciplines? Yes. Do "racial groups" in scientific literature differ on average in scores on supposed tests of "general intelligence", like IQ? Yes. When you search "Race and IQ", you are redirected here. On the contrary to what one or two people have said here, there is no scientific consensus on the causes for these disparities. There is only a consensus that a correlation exists between average scores on intelligence tests and certain self-described racial groups. Maybe the article should be renamed to "Race and IQ", or "Race and intelligence testing", because that is what is really involved here, and is a topic in its own right. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Admin required Can we get an SPI or an admin to look at this comment please. This looks like a sock of "Human Taxonomist" AKA perma-blocked user User:Sprayitchyo. this user is clearly this one, and maps to this one, same style, same interests, same IP range, known to be one of Sprayitchio's many IP socks. All IP addresses geolocate to the same city and this subject falls into Sprayitchio's area of interest.

Looks like a duck to me -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be accused of being associated with a group of other users. I'm not them. I began a few edits with the mobile app last year, and do so here and there, like those few at human clustering the other day. There are tens of thousands of IP sequences from this range. It covers all of Ontario, Quebec and other regions. It is not only for people from the greater Toronto area (7 million people), and I'm not from there. This is my mobile carrier. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller (talk · contribs) - Sorry Doug, but could I get some advice how to deal with this one please? I presume a checkuser on the IP is not going to yield anything, but should I open an SPI anyway? He is now commenting elsewhere on this AfD too. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. > there is simply no evidence of a genetic link between race and intelligence

This simply doesn't stand, goes for the contention, too, that race isn't a meaningful category. As IQ is a relevant predictor for a host of outcomes that are decisive for humans, both as individuals and as groups, it stands to reason that the any relation between race and IQ is equally decisive, much unlike the cited prostate cancer or sickle cell disease.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’, David Reich, March 23, 2018

»So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations? It will be impossible — indeed, anti-scientific, foolish and absurd — to deny those differences.«

Who We are and how We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, David Reich, 2018, p xiv

»When they told their computer—which had no knowledge of population labels—to cluster the individuals into five groups, the results corresponded uncannily well to commonly held intuitions about deep ancestral divisions among humans (West Eurasians, East Asians, Native Americans, New Guineans, and Africans).« tickle me 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::This unsigned comment appears to have been added by User:Tickle me at 04:26, 6 February 2002. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)~~ now signed.[reply]

As you quote David Reich, it is worth noting that he is not saying anything about the link between race and intelligence there, nor does he at any point in his book. He does mention sickle cell - see page 222 and following, showing why it has higher prevalence in West African populations. He has an argument about sprinters on page 264 onwards. Understanding that should help clarify the difficulty of simply asserting "because race, therefore race and intelligence" (which is fallacious). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

> This unsigned comment appears

Yes, I signed it now, you may want to delete this for better readability.

He speaks of traits, not diseases. All traits are heritable to a relevant degree depending on the amount of shared genotypes. The discussion here boils down to a rehash of The Blank Slate, according to which environment is decisive, heritability negligeable, and evolution stopped for humans with the advent of culture, at least for any trait that could be of any importance.

> Understanding that should help clarify...

You interpret his words and assume bad faith. tickle me 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering who said you're a single purpose account, I asked at User_talk:David_Gerard#Is_what_you_did_kosher? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:N (it is very notable with a very large body of research attention given to it and many books written, many of which are well referenced in the article), it also passes WP:V. The delete votes seem weak to me, but understandable as this article is controversial, offensive to some, and attracts drama, and these seem to be the reasons behind the delete votes — but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I am not convinced the article’s existence is undue given it passes WP:N. Further, if this article is deleted then people interested, even with good intentions, will search out other sources of information on this topic which will likely lead to exposure to heavily biased extremist white supremacy websites: why not let those interested have access to a much more balanced summary of academic debate and evidence on Wikipedia? Finally, many Wikipedia sub articles depend, to varying degrees, on the existence of this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Literaturegeek Thank you for your input, and I agree about your concern that Wikipedia really should cover this subject, but I wonder if you actually read all the arguments (understandably they are getting quite long, so you may have skimmed them). The question is not whether Wikipedia should cover the topic - it should. The question is whether it should cover the topic in this article, given that we already cover the whole controversy with extensive background in History of the race and intelligence controversy, and within the wider context in Scientific racism, and with the science in Heritability of IQ and a full article on Race and genetics, and with articles on the book that this article covers in depth, The Bell Curve. This is just an article that has no niche, but is the magnet for edit wars and controversy, which is not what the Wikipedia project is about. There is no risk that this notable issue will not be fully covered by Wikipedia. I do think you are quite right to raise the concern, but wonder if, in the light of this explanation, you might reconsider your position. Thanks again. — Sirfurboy (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, by way of clarification, my keep vote includes and means do not merge as well as do not delete. Those articles you mentioned are all better described as sub articles of the main topic proposed for deletion/merge — I already stated or alluded to this in my above vote and comment. So it makes no sense to delete or merge the main article, which covers all aspects in summary style, of the topic, including social aspects of possible intellectual differences, such as poorer education, research bias, social racial discrimination, and of course the hugely controversial genetic one etc. There is no Wikipedia policy that suggests that controversial articles should be deleted or merged to avoid edit wars; should we delete Donald Trump or merge it into a sub-article, to avoid the drain on the community from the constant content disputes and controversy and drama there? My position remains the same but thank you for bringing your thoughts to me for consideration.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Scientific racism can be seen as a sub topic of this one. Clearly the other way round. As for History of the race and intelligence controversy, there is a clear strong overlap between these to the point it is clear that we do not need both. So which should go? This article may well be older, but when there is a content fork, it is also relevant which article is in the better state. The content on the history article is fuller, more up to date, broader and more settled. That is simply the more mature article. The only other question is the name. Your analogy to Donald Trump is not entirely comparable because that is a BLP. Take another article about a controversy in another area instead as illustration. 2019 British prorogation controversy describes a political controversy. Suppose we had a second article called History of the 2019 British prorogation controversy, it would appear clear that the two articles are substantially covering the same issues and one should go. Which title is best is moot at this point. Names can be discussed and changed. The question is only, given two articles covering the same material and with almost the same name, which should you keep? Both? The more mature one? So here: what information would you like to see in this article that is not covered by the other? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the other way round? I disagree that this area of research should fall under scientific racism by default, the reality is that most academics, the vast majority in fact, researching this are not motivated by scientific racism, instead they are highly professional neuropsychologists and similar disciplines trying to make sense of a very challenging and sensitive area of research and they consider other lines of evidence such as discrimination, socio-economic factors etc., alongside genetic factors. Of course there are a tiny minority of researchers who are genuine racists who get exposed as such in the media or exposed in history books. The history article is a detailed summary of the history of the controversy and is clearly a sub article of the race and intelligence article. It is crazy to delete the main article but keep the sub article, it makes little sense.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last attempt at AfD for this article was in 2011, and a lot has happened since then. There is much more awareness now of the use of the Internet to spread fake news, conspiracy theories, fringe views, pseudoscience, and racism. There is also much more awareness of the problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia, where the dominance of white male American editors affects coverage and content. In 2018 the Southern Poverty Law Center mentioned Race and intelligence as an example of racial bias on Wikipedia.^[1]

The article's lede states that "The debate reemerged again in 1969, when Arthur Jensen championed the view that for genetic reasons, African people were less intelligent than white people" but nowhere says that the consensus of academics is, and for a long time has been, that Jensen's white supremacist views are racist nonsense. Wikivoice is used to suggest that there's a real legitimate debate going on about whether Africans are stupid people. Would this statement be in the lede if Wikipedia were being edited primarily by Africans, rather than by citizens of a country whose head of state "referred to Haiti and African nations as 'shithole countries'" (NBC news, 1/12/2018)?

There is a long history of questionable editing of this article. For example, between 2003 and 2006 a single-purpose account User:Quizkajer (which was abandoned in 2007) made 1152 edits to the page. That user was responsible for a large proportion of all edits made during that period and a large proportion of added content.

As a practical matter, it's a Sisyphean task to improve this article, in part because its inflammatory title attracts editors who want to lend credence to fringe theories about genetic superiority of white people. Efforts to remove bias are met with edit-warring and interminable discussions on the talk page, which soon become a time sink. So most editors give up on this article. The presence of this article on Wikipedia contributes nothing positive, and much that is negative. NightHeron (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets".

I would just like to point out that what @NightHeron: calls “Jensen’s white supremacist views” is actually part of Mainstream Science on Intelligence. What NightHeron calls “scientific consensus” is actually anything but consensus. (I’m writing this from anonymous IP precisely to avoid the kind of “white supremacy” smears exhibited above). 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:26 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns are important @NightHeron:, but one or more problematic sentences in an article has never been a reason to delete an article. Instead the solution is seeking consensus on the talk page or, if necessary, starting an RfC. As far as white supremacy, I actually thought the controversial IQ research that suggested a difference between racial groups had suggested people of Asian and Jewish descent had the highest IQ and white people were of average intellect (so is the article/topic area not more of an Asian and Jewish superior IQ dispute rather than a white supremacy issue?); but I have only, years ago, skim read that article and read a couple of content disputes on the talk page, and I chose not to get involved as it is outside my knowledge area and I am not overly interested in the subject matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek, the issue is not problematic sentences so much as a problematic title, problematic organisation, a problematic premise, problematic history, problematic conflicts with coverage of the same topic from a non-racist perspective in other articles, problematic false balance, and problematic editing literally all the time. Guy (help!) 14:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This topic is notable, it is true. But this topic is being covered in more that one article, and we don't need redundant article forks. I don't see anything worth merging, so we should delete this one and redirect to the superior treatment at Scientific racism. Directing our readers to this article when we have a better one elsewhere is doing them a disservice. - MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that implies studying correlations between races and average IQ scores is tantamount to scientific racism. It isn't. This is not a subheading of that article. These average discrepancies between groups exist, are discussed by experts in several scientific disciplines, and currently has no consensus as to cause. It is, thus far, only average IQ scores which evidently differ, so maybe the article title could change. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)— 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. After reading all of the comments and comparing this article to History of the race and intelligence controversy, there is clearly excessive overlap between the two articles (WP:CFORK) and I agree that the "history" article provides better coverage of the subject. Schazjmd (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the 'hotness' of the topic and amount of public debate it generates in the current zeitgeist, it is simply imperative for Wikipedia to have a well-informed and heavily-referenced article addressing this very question with reason and empirical data, conditions which this article does fulfil! I find this entry measured, well-grounded in the empirical data and, frankly, quite conservative with its claims.

Similarly, I reject the idea that this treatment of the matter generates support for 'white supremacy'. This is ludicrous in light of the clearly stated and well-documented findings of the psychometric community in support of the Jewish and East Asian advantage on g. I may reconsider if you folks start gathering evidence for the rising tide of Vietnamese supremacy in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skunkworks22 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Skunkworks22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Isn't it peculiar that two different advocates of keep have disputed my characterization of Jensen's views as "white supremacist," when the excerpt I quoted from the lede of Race and intelligence says that "Arthur Jensen championed the view that for genetic reasons, African people were less intelligent than white people"? How much more explicit can you get? As far as Jews are concerned, it's also peculiar that editors would refer to Jews as a race. As far as I'm aware, Jewish people consider Judaism to be a religion -- no more a race than Catholicism, Buddhism, etc. -- and regard the notion that Jews are a race as offensive and anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothesis that genetics play a role in the racial IQ score gap is widely studied in the scholarly community and certainly isn't a "white supremacist" view. The fact that some white supremacists might also hold this view won't change this. And, as for Jews, sorry, your information is wrong. As per Law of Return, any person with any amount of documented Jewish ancestry up to the 3rd generation is eligible for Israeli citizenship, even if that person isn't religious at all or is of a different religion. Besides, even if Jews did not view themselves as an ethnic group (which they do), the fact that they are one has been repeatedly confirmed through genetic testing. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're making no sense. The article Law of return says: In 1970, the right of entry and settlement was extended to people with one Jewish grandparent and a person who is married to a Jew. That in no way shows that Jews regard Judaism as a race. And how do you "confirm" an ethnic group through "genetic testing"? Maybe you should look up ethnic in dictionary.com.

Just because some fringe academics write articles in support of white supremacist theories, that doesn't mean that those theories cease being white supremacist. NightHeron (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Oldstone is speaking about how Ashkenazi Jews form their own population in genetic studies (try a DNA test), and possess a good amount of recent genetic ancestry from the Levant region of the Middle East. Many have always claimed ancestry from the Jews or Israelites in Judea. They're a genetic population in studies, and so are other ethnic groups ('ethnic' and 'population' are used more so as terms instead of 'race'). 2605:8D80:668:39E9:DB8E:11E8:912F:2CD0 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)— [[User:2605:8D80:668:39E9:DB8E:11E8:912F:2CD0]|2605:8D80:668:39E9:DB8E:11E8:912F:2CD0]]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:668:39E9:DB8E:11E8:912F:2CD0]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:668:39E9:DB8E:11E8:912F:2CD0]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you the same IP editor as 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C above, also geolocated to Rogers Communications Canada Inc, Toronto? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NightHeron, actually your comment claiming Jews are not a race is one of the most anti-Semitic and offensive things someone can say about or to Jews. Although I am not suggesting you are anti Semitic, rather I think you are ill-informed of this subject matter. And Judaism and Jewish ancestry are not the same thing, although they heavily overlap, obviously.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: If you wish to become at least a little bit informed about issues of Jewish identity before you next express a strong opinion on the subject, that's not hard to do. A 1-minute Google search reveals many places that discuss this intelligently, such as: [24][25], [26]. It's clear from the sources that the consensus view among Jews is that Jews are not a race. Moreover, many Jews consider the notion that Jews are a race to be dangerous, because it is a common view among white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, and other anti-semites. So no, I was not expressing an anti-semitic view when I said that Jews are not a race. Quite the contrary. NightHeron (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the publication Confronting Anti-Semitism of the Anti-Defamation League: Today, anti-Semitism can be based on hatred against Jews because of their religious beliefs or their group membership (ethnicity), as well as the erroneous belief that Jews are a "race."[27]

I was unaware that this is a "hot topic", do you have any reliable sources that describe an ongoing public debate? –dlthewave ☎ 23:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

362 million Ghits. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This isn't a WP:MEDRS quality source, so I wouldn't suggest to cite it in the article itself, but it gives a good overview of the public debate that's existed recently: https://areomagazine.com/2018/04/18/sam-harris-ezra-klein-and-the-politicization-of-science/ 2600:1004:B14D:2F77:A5C5:E4DE:D21D:793A (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not covered by WP:MEDRS (it is not medical). --AndewNguyen (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles under discussion and their references list dozens of books and articles from the publication of the Bell Curve in 1994 until today. That's excluding the thousands of sociological studies on achievement gap between groups. Some of the anti-hereditarian researchers like Turkheimer and Nisbett are rather active publishing and blogging about this, e.g. debating with Charles Murray in a series of Vox articles in 2018 (or 2019). Or the popular books by Nicholas Wade and two by Angela Saini, both journalists, all in the last few years. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing so maybe someone can say how many examples of what recency would suffice to qualify this topic as WP:N-worthy Notable. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very fundamental topic about the human condition and it's absurd to not have a high level article about it. The other articles suggested, from History of the race and intelligence controversy to Scientific racism are different topics. In fact, History of the race and intelligence controversy is properly a linked subsection of Race and Intelligence. This topic is highly notable and WP:NOTCENSORED applies even to articles to some find distasteful or that are hard to come to consensus on. Phil153 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As unsavory as many find the topic, it is a significant academic topic of discussion and is not the topic of scientific racism, although there is overlap. Nor is it just a historical topic. And WP:RELAR is clear about the following: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. [...] Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term. (cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)." If there is too much overlap, trim. Use WP:Summary style. WP:AfD is not cleanup. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Frozen, well argued. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELAR gives the example: "clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork." so this applies to articles with considerable overlap that are not the same subject. The article at History of the race and intelligence controversy is more than a considerable overlap - it is the same subject. It is not just a subsection of Race and intelligence - it is saying everything encyclopaedic that can be said on the subject, except for the specialist subjects of Heritability of IQ, Race and genetics, and The Bell Curve (and even here the history article covers these subjects fully too). The history article is properly a sub article of Scientific racism, not of this article which does not have anything to say that is not covered in these. Also, although Wikipedia is not for cleanup, WP:TNT applies and there is simply nothing in this article that needs keeping. The mature coverage is comprehensive in the history article. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, what the non-racist investigation and evidence of the differences in intelligence between racial and ethnic groups? That's what belongs principally in this article and not in those others. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an insane subject. We don't have an agreed definition for race. (Many countries, including mine, ignore it at an official level.) We don't have an agreed definition for intelligence. We do know what IQ tests are, but there is no way we can correlate their results with the ill-defined concept of intelligence. The topic is obviously a magnet for racists. It's simply a bad title for an article all round. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title to "Group differences in psychometry" would seem to address all those points. The question of how real and precise "race" and "intelligence" are is not actually that important for purposes of the science or the nature/nurture controversy, in the sense that all the different ways of making them precise in particular studies correlate extremely well with each other. To the extent that there are complications, the researchers are usually well aware of that, are trained to be well aware of that, and comment on the difficulties in the published papers which are refereed by people who are well aware of that. The results in mental testing actually are much more replicable than in most fields of psychology and social science. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. There's a discussion on a possible rename at Talk:Race and intelligence#Rename to Race and IQ scores. Do you want to take this idea there? HiLo48 (talk)

Keep, mostly per My very best wishes and Flyer22. This is a notable, if controversial, topic, and it does not fit neatly into any pre-existing article. Aside from continued controversy surrounding the topic, nothing seems to have changed since the 2011 AfD discussion where there was near unanimous support for keep. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who didn't participate in the earlier discussions, I find that insulting. How about you actually tell me what's wrong with my views? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilo, your reply is unnecessarily combative/uncivil and seems very eccentric. Hrodvarsson made a neutral chilled out opinion that does not mention you but yet your reaction is to take personal offence where you somewhat demandingly instruct him to analyse your viewpoint and refute it. Bizarre. You may want to strike.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hrodvarsson, the 2011 AfD responses all argue for the notability of the subject or that the nominator's rationale was in error. This AfD recognises that the subject is notable and should be covered in Wikipedia, and the arguments are that it is comprehensively covered in a suite of articles, including one on the exact same subject. The argument here is not that we should remove notable information. Thus the 2011 AfD responses are not relevant to this discussion. The question for us to answer is whether having this article adds anything to the Wikipedia project. What is best for Wikipedia and the educational value of our content? If we have comprehensive coverage of the issue, and if that coverage is not coming from this article, then this article is merely preventing readers from finding that information. My proposal was not meant to be partisan. I am not asking us to remove educational information about this debate from the public eye. I honestly believed all sides of this debate would see that the educational benefit of having focused and mature content in all the other articles, visible and available, would be far better than having people land on a page filled with outdated and partisan commentary that, by the acknowledgement of all page editors, is not meeting Wikipedia's educational remit. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many delete !votes that do not acknowledge that the topic is notable, so I felt the need to state the topic is notable. As I said in my comment, I do not think the topic fits neatly into any of the aforementioned articles. For the "History of..." article, it is similar to arguing 'we have an article on "History of China", so why do we need an article on "China"?'. That may not be a completely realistic example, but I believe it illustrates my position. Scientific racism is more of a sub-topic of this article than vice versa, and this article's content is not adequately covered there. (E.g. 20% of the "After 1945" section is simply details on one, primary-sourced Playboy interview with George Lincoln Rockwell.) And in your nomination you mention sickle cell disease, but we do have an article on race and health that covers this. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to "Race and Intelligence controversy" and merge with [[History of the race and intelligence controversy ]] - Since when did controversy become a criteria for deletion? The fact there has been (and continues to be) so much controversy on the subject makes it more notable, not less. I do agree with some of the concerns about the title framing the issue in a wrong way, though. One way of counterbalancing this would be to improve the lead. Another possible solution is to merge with History of the race and intelligence controversy which has some overlapping content. Danski14^(talk) 13:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar pages do not have such titles. Perhaps the most analogous page in terms of title is vaccines and autism. The page it not mainly about the controversy, but about the findings. I think controversy of the topic could be a stand-alone page and also a subsection, but it is not identical with the topic. The relationship between these two is a matter of ongoing scientific work, not mere historical controversy. --AndewNguyen (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented before, much has changed since the last AfD in 2011, because of the increasing use of the Internet to spread conspiracy theories, racism, pseudoscience, and alt-right propaganda. There is now much greater awareness of the dangers from this. Surely the vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not want Wikipedia to be used in this way. The danger is real, because of how widely Wikipedia is used by people who have confidence in its reliability. On average over 1000 people per day view the article Race and intelligence. In the lede they read that there's an academic debate going on about "the view that for genetic reasons, African people were less intelligent than white people." According to WP:FRINGE and WP:GLOBAL, Wikipedia should not give a WP:FALSEBALANCE in presenting fringe theories that disparage Africans (the same would apply to President Trump's belief about African nations being "shithole countries"). But it is difficult -- often impossible -- to get a consensus for removing racist content among the editors who gravitate toward this article. The article accomplishes nothing but to give credence to fringe white supremacist notions and tarnish the reputation of Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 3 hours after my comment, an editor who's a keep-advocate removed the section of the lede that I quoted here, presumably so that the blatantly racist content in the lede wouldn't be there when this AfD is closed. When there's no AfD in progress, the editors who defend the Race and intelligence article are very resistant to removing fringe content. NightHeron (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting argument. The increased use of the Internet to spread conspiracy theories, racism, pseudoscience, and alt-right propaganda is indeed undeniable. Did our policies also change? No. But this must be a policy-based argument to delete the page. Do this page spread conspiracy theories, racism, etc.? I do not think so. In fact, this page, although on a highly controversial subject, is written much better than a lot of other pages, which indeed may advertise someething or mislead. Thanks to many people who edited in a good faith and improved this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absurd to delete a subject of such importance, as if it does not exist. Controversy should be debated, not deleted. ---Asteuartw (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flyer22 Frozen. This WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletion-seeking (ie censorship) of controversial if not painful subject matters is dangerous and unproductive. Loksmythe (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia doesn't need this. Dorama285 19:40, 07 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is quite irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't need holocaust or genocide. The question is whether this topic meets GNG, that is, being the topic of multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability. And it clearly does. Carrite (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has been linked to from several places that are disproportionately favorable towards the article topic: on reddit (r/theMotte, r/samharris) and 4chan ([28]). There were 1,800 page views here yesterday when a typical AfD gets less than 100 in a week. That said, the argument advanced in the nomination —that this article is an innapropriate synthesis of two different topics— is not convincing to me. The R&I subject is treated as a singular topic in many sources and articles like this are common and useful here on Wiki e.g. Democracy and economic growth, Vaccines and autism, Wealth and religion, Buddhism and psychology, Homosexuality and psychology, Education and the LGBT community (all of those found in only a minute). So I lean keep. I have no opinion on the other arguments advanced. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note: It seems the sudden and dramatic increase in the proportion of keep-votes and keep-comments starting two days ago is a result of off-wiki canvassing. I hope the closing admin takes this into account. NightHeron (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I hope the closing admin ignores the above appeal as it's an attempt to poison the well against those with different opinions on the matter here. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comment immediately before mine. I'm not saying anything other than what's obvious. NightHeron (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's super disingenuous. Just 18 days ago, when consensus wasn't going your way, you went out of your way to recruit editors from other pages who might agree with you. Now you're accusing other people of "canvassing" — without evidence — which is what you just did. You have lost my respect. This is blatant politicking. Toomim (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily respond to User:Toomim's false accusation against me. On the talk page for Race and intelligence I suggested (more than once) that we get more editors involved by posting notices on related talk pages and WikiProjects. I had learned about the Talk:Race and intelligence discussion from a notice posted on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and I thought that notices posted on other pages would help get the discussion out of a rut. To the best of my knowledge no one took my suggestion, so (on 31 January, not 18 days ago) I put neutrally worded notices on the talk page for the most closely related article -- Scientific racism -- and on the talk pages of the WikiProjects that listed that article as High-importance or Top-importance. I did not notify any individual users, and did not select WikiProjects other than by obvious relevance to the article. This is compliant with policy. Finally, in my comment here, I was merely calling attention to the information presented in the previous comment by a user who, although leaning toward "keep" in their own opinion, was clearly bothered by off-wiki canvassing in support of "keep." Please read the comment of that user if you haven't already: [29]. NightHeron (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please keep this civil. Toomim, you may wish to strike the above that appears to be a personal attack on another editor rather than discussion of the AfD, although I am sure you did not mean it as such. Jweiss11, Nightheron's statement is not actually required. The closing Admin (and I don't envy whoever that is) will take off wiki canvassing into account, and will also take account of other factors (such as whether an inactive account has suddenly popped up just to make a response, or whether an IP#s first edit was to respond here, or whether socks are involved, or whether a response makes an argument or is just a vote - AfD is not a vote). The number of keep or delete votes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the arguments made and the closing admin will take that all into account. We don't need to raise the issue, because that is just what they must do. I wonder, however, whether the size of this AfD and its controversial nature would warrant the closing admin looking for support from peers - maybe admin closure could be carried out by consensus of more than one admin, or even by steward involvement. That will be for the admins to decide. I have faith in the impartiality and fairness of this process. I hope we can all say the same, and thus avoid getting into a meta discussion. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Additional off wiki canvassing came from a twitter account of one "Nim Chimpsky"[30] (over 3,200 followers), clearly encouraging followers to get involved in what he saw as a vote (he said it was 13-11 for delete at the time of posting so was clearly just counting keep/deletes - he also forgot to count the nominator). He deleted his canvassing tweet of 5 February after the off wiki canvassing was noted here, but it can still be found in the google cache here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: The steward part is more justified by the 11k+ revisions part, but an multi-admin close would be interesting because of its potential to set precedent for years to come. ミラ P 00:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some editors want to censor the data on Race and IQ. First they deleted the sentence explaining the correlation in the lede. Then when we tried to put it back, they got into edit warring, and when we found consensus to put it back, they proposed to delete the whole article. This is an obvious attempt at censoring data and denying science, and this behavior does not belong in Wikipedia. Toomim (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC) — Toomim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment on the "censorship" argument (which btw is only used by a small minority of the keep-advocates): if you read the delete-arguments well, especially those by Sirfurboy, Visviva and Markworthen, you can see that it is not the presentation of uncontroversial and controversial data from various schools of scholarship which is contested. It is comprehensively covered in other articles and will—in principle—not vanish with the deletion of this article.

What is contested, is the format of the current article which is an inherent consequence of the page title "Race and intelligence". "Race" is a disputed concept (to deny this is denying science), and there is wide scholarly consensus that its application to human populations is a social construct. For some, the very notion of categorization into races is already racist (the prevalent view among scholars and laypeople in many European countries). For others, race is part their social self-identification, without any necessary implications of biologizing or even suprematist thinking (the mainstream view in the U.S. public). For a minority, "race" as applied to human populations is an objective biological taxonomic concept. "Race and intelligence" is thus not just "A and B" like "Vaccine and autism"; in the latter, A and B are well-defined concepts, and "Vaccine and autism" is a neutral way to cover the "Vaccine and autism" debate. "Race" however is disputed, and an article working under th title "A and B" is inherently not neutral when A is dipsuted, unless the article primarily adresses the dispute about A itself (cf. Race and genetics). The disputed nature of "race" inevitably leads to problems like WP:synthesis in this article. E.g. comparative IQ-studies that include sub-Saharan countries are not by itself connected to "Race and intelligence", unless you superpose the social construct "race" to the findings of studies that are neutral or agnostic about "race"; doing so is blatant synthesis based on a specific POV abbout the notion of race. This is apparent e.g. in the section "Global variation of IQ scores": the further-hatnote "Nations and intelligence" carries this flaw, as well as the opening statement "A number of studies have compared average IQ scores between the world's nations, finding patterns of difference between continental populations similar to those associated with race". The fact that the rest of the section is about Lynn & Vanhanen (who explicitly subscribe to the notion of racial differences) and their critics, alleviates it, but doesn't cure the inherent flaw.

About Peregrine Fisher's challenge to Sirfurboy ("If I found one sentence that was worth merging somewhere, would you change your vote?"): is Templeton (2001) covered in any other related article? Deleting this article without any mention of Templeton (2001) elsewhere would indeed be counterproductive. –Austronesier (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Austronesier for possibly the most carefully considered comment on this thread, looking at all of the content in such detail. You also raise the first clear example of material on this page that is not found in other articles. The paragraph that references Templeton (2001) in section "Genetics of race and intelligence" is not found in the stated parent article for that section, Race and genetics. It should be, because the article references that page as the main page, so this section should summarise that page. The paragraph should be merged there. It would also deserve a mention in Scientific racism where it is clearly relevant, and I believe those updates should happen regardless of the outcome of this discussion. My view is that the one paragraph is insufficient reason to retain the whole article, but it is definitely information that should be presented to the reader. So thank you again for you clear, informed and balanced contribution. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone found a paragraph and you still want to delete. It seems like you want to delete, and don't really care if there's information to be used elsewhere. I know when I want to delete something, I don't care about the particulars myself. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to you above. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no any problems with WP:SYNTHESIS whatsoever. This is because such precise subject ("Race and intelligenc") as a whole appears in a large number of RS. Simple Google book search [31] immediately reveals on the first page of the search a couple of books with "Race and Intelligence" in the title of the book. In other words, the connection between the intelligence and race, whatever these terms could mean, was made in multiple RS (not by WP contributors) and the subject has been described in multiple RS as a whole (this is not the case of WP:COATRACK). My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, when I click on that Google search link, the first book that appears is Race and Intelligence: Separating Science From Myth, by Jefferson M. Fish (ed.). This RS does not make a connection between intelligence and race. Quite to the contrary, both concepts "race" and "intelligence" (the latter in the narrow one-dimensional and quantifiable sense) are questioned and deconstructed as ideological concepts of oppression. One summary by the editor is: "Racial categories are developed to serve social ends, including the justification and perpetuation of inequality. IQ testing has been a part of this of this process of stratifying groups." Don't get this wrong, this is no soapboxing for Fish's book, but just a random pick from a "simple Google search" that was supposed to show that the connection between intelligence and race is made in multiple RS: some of the sources in the search do indeed make the connection, others don't. Ok then, you might say: if even J.M. Fish uses the page title "Race and Intelligence", so how could there be an issue with the page title in WP? Fish and his colleagues use a title which at least gives a hint in the second part ("Separating Science From Myth") that they see both concepts and the "connection" between them on the myth side.

As for that censorship red herring: Race (human categorization) is a controversial subject and deserves a WP article, anything else would be censorship. Using the controversial term "race" in a title like Race and intelligence as if it were uncontroversial inherently violates WP:NPOV, and is inherently prone to WP:SYNTHESIS (cf. my examples above).

On a side note, I am surprised to see the high degree of empathy here, visible in the claims by some editors to know what other editors like or dislike. –Austronesier (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "connection" above does not mean causual relation or correlation, but merely that the subject of "Race and intelligence" is notable because it has been discussed as a whole in a large number of RS. Yes, sure, there are numerous RS telling there is no any scientifically provable connection between the intelligens and race, and it is not even entirely clear what the "intelligence" and "race" mean. But these sources do discuss/connect them together as a coherent notable subject, which justify the existence of the page. We simply say what RS say on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, hence why nobody is suggesting deleting the History of the race and intelligence controversy article. The current Race and intelligence article is not about what the reliable sources say is notable on the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can see by looking at these pages, the history of the controversy is a sub-subject of the controversy itself (same is true for histories of many other subjects). Of course the content of the "history" page could be merged into this page, but they are both very large. The "scientific racism" is simply a different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Scientific racism is precisely about the discredited myth that a link exists between race and intelligence. What do you think it's about? Of course the history of the controversy is a sub-subject of the controversy itself, but are you trying to say we should rename this article to Race and intelligence controversy? If so, what sources/topics would belong in it that are not already covered by History of the race and intelligence controversy or Scientific racism? --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether a subject is controversial or not is of relevance to keeping an article, Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR. Given that the subject is something commonly debated in academia and public, it is clearly notable and easily satisfying WP:GNG, therefore it should be kept. If there is any flaws in the article, you can try to fix an article for any perceived flaws, but I frankly can't see any issue with WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV in the article apart from the nominator not liking the article. Many of the points raised (e.g. whether race or its relation to intelligence are valid concepts) simply have no relevance on whether to delete the article or not, and trying to raise those issues would make it seem like they viewed it in a skewed perspective and trying to force a POV. Hzh (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is obviously something that is getting an incredible amount of attention, so I feel compelled to expand on the remarks I made in my rationale.
This subject is not a matter for debate in mainstream science, at least how the article presents it. There are few proponents of the theories that certain races are inherently superior or inferior in intelligence, and this idea does not have any significant mainstream support in either psychology or genetics. Any genuine assessment of "race and intelligence" would be about the social consequences of race on human intelligence, rather than trying to frame a debate between what appears to be two positions on the heritability of intelligence by race. The only proponents are people who have been or were connected to Pioneer Fund and International Society for Intelligence Research, and so have many of those who have claimed that they do not take a position but that there is a valid debate. The notoriety of those organisations is well known, and are not trusted by reliable sources.

History of the race and intelligence controversy is a far better article at describing what this article pretends to describe. That article could easily be renamed Race and intelligence and would be a great improvement of the current situation. We could also redirect the article to Scientific racism, but I would prefer that article to be named Scientific racialism, as a title that includes "racism" would be prejudicial.

The consensus was overwhelmingly to delete this article, until contaminated by blatant off-wiki canvassing in numerous places (here, here, here and here.
If there are any further concerns about the issues related to this subject, please feel free to raise them with me on my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is covered in historical context in History of the race and intelligence controversy and Scientific racism. Similarly, while it is appropriate that we have an article on Phrenology, a second article called Head shape and intelligence would do little more than grant hooey the status of a real thing. Ewulp (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should have an article which discusses this subject as an empirical matter with History of the race and intelligence controversy being a sister article (regarding the related political and social history). If we were to delete this article, large segments of its body would most likely be merged into that article, and both articles are already bloated as they are now. To combine the two would be a complete mess. As Onetwothreeip has pointed out, credible research on this subject pertains to the impact of race as a social phenomenon on measures of human intelligence. Race is bound up with access to education, nutrition in early childhood, and more. It is important to outline what researchers have to say about this matter especially because it is the subject of widespread misinformation and controversy. Cherio222 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about what you are saying the article should be about. That would indicate the article should be deleted and recreated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Better coverage at history of the race and intelligence controversy and redundant with scientific racism (and a WP:POVFORK of it). Also a time sink to the project because of its confused scope. Notable? Yes, that's why we have those other articles already and this doesn't address the fork issue. —Paleo Neonate – 07:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: the article is being manipulated by a tag-team of editors to better fit the AfD proposal and make deletion likelier. Details at the talk page here (ADDED: link broken, but archived at permalink). The article as it looked at the time of this AfD nomination, before these destructive edits, is here. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article is not manipulating anything, let alone a conspiracy to make deletion likelier. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you take out all the content that addresses the subject at face value—the very that differentiates it from Scientific racism and History of the race and intelligence controversy—then the delete arguments become stronger. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content certainly did not address the subject "at face value". Instead itt entertained the ideas of Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen while providing contrary views from Richard Nisbett. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's an improvement is obviously a matter of debate, as indicated by the current AfD conversation and the edit war resulting from the deletions. Improvement or not, it should not be done while the AfD is live by people with a COI. Why edit at all if you hope the article will be deleted soon anyway? Why can't it wait until it is known if the article will be kept or not? This article has been up for 16 years and suddenly when the AfD argument doesn't go your way a flurry of "correlated" COI edits starts. That's abusive regardless of your justification of the individual edits. Someone on my talk page asked me to improve the article, which I would like to do, but I will wait out the AfD process and so should anyone else with COI. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing during AfD is permitted and encouraged. I have made edits to the article before this AfD as well. There is no conflict of interest, and you are clearly misunderstanding what a conflict of interest means. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thank the IP editor for raising concerns and for linking to the article talk page where the same IP raised these. I note that Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs) made a full and complete refutation of the concerns on that talk page, and suggest that we don't therefore need to discuss it further here. The article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss editing of the article. The closing admin is now aware of your concerns and can see Onetwothreeip's response. Discussion on this page should concentrate on reasons to delete or retain the page. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable, and in some ways commendable, to always start replies in an excessively polite style. However, when you presume to referee your own AfD discussion, such as (in this case) jumping in to declare, preposterously or at the least self-interestedly, that a "full and complete refutation" has occurred; or swooping in with Walls Of Text filibustering against dissenting views; and acclaiming supporters (likewise declaring their posts as best-of-thread, unusually penetrating, etc) ---- it creates the impression that you are treating the question as personal property that you "own", and trying to manipulate discussion toward preferred outcomes by means other than direct logical persuasion. I am happy, indeed prefer, to continue any discussion of the WARNING on the talk page, but your repeated pushing and steering of the conversation is POV-pushing no matter how polite in outward form. Sticking to issues, answering objections and remembering that who raises the question doesn't own it would be a lot better and more polite in substance. Sorry for the lecture but it had to be said. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nightheron and others -----Snowded ^TALK 07:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The designation as a Single-Purpose Account ("user has made few or no edits outside this topic") has started to appear next to some, but not all, of my comments here. Is this an automatically generated label by some WP statistical algorithm, or something an editor has to go out of their way to assign to a user? If the latter, and it seems that way by dint of the label not applying to all my posts on this page, was the decision made by an interested party to this AfD discussion? If people with an interest in the outcome can flag or designate others as single-topic trolls that is certainly a concern and can be easily abused. I invite anyone interested to read my posting history prior to this AfD and see for themselves whether the label applies --- the recent account activity could easily trigger an algorithm but if a person has assigned the label that is a much more interesting and troubling possibility.73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found: "Mr Ollie", who voted Delete, has attached SPA labels to some posters here, and from comment below he is not the only Delete voter doing this. Apart from whether the designation is correct in my case (it isn't), and I have no idea if it is correct as applied to the other users so labelled, this is clearly another way to manipulate the discussion. The people who want Delete really need to stick to arguments instead of the manipulative and propagandistic FUD about fakenewsCanvassedNaziRussianAltrightFascistRacistIQist trolls.73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can look through the history and find who did it. I asked someone who was doing a similar thing on their talk page if this is an allowed thing, no reply. User_talk:David_Gerard#Is_what_you_did_kosher? Since you can't tell who wrote what and when if they don't sign. They did not respond. Seems shady. Or maybe you can accuse all the people you dislike if you do it a certain way. Not sure. Extreme example would be to create a bot that accuses people and doesn't sign. Doesn't seem right to me. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Fisher, you might want to see the deletion discussions on Template talk:Single-purpose account. The AGF concerns about this template have been raised before, but there tends to be a consensus to keep the template. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a note to assist the closing admin, that they might want to check the editor's contributions when weighing arguments. Pretty standard on contentious AFDs. If the closing admin reviews and thinks it was unwarranted they will ignore it, no harm done. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: adding an unsigned derogatory note to another editor's signature is utterly inappropriate and hostile behavior. I've never seen this practice before. I already reverted it once, but its seem that you have restored it. I encourage you to remove or I may be compelled to seek a remedy for this behavioral transgression. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you've never seen it, it is fairly common. There's a standard template for it, which you can find at {{Single-purpose account}}, If you feel you need to report this somewhere go right ahead. - MrOllie (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is not the template but using it while participating in the same AfD. In line with Jweiss11's comment I would think a signature and a very specific explanation in the edit (eg. "80 of 100 edits are on this one topic") are de rigeur in such situations. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PaleoNeonate and WP:TNT. Once deleted, redirect into the history article. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At present the content of this article is almost entirely the history of the race and intelligence controversy – but we already have an article precisely on that topic. The basic fact is that there is no link between race and intelligence, and any article titled Race and intelligence would need to be cognisant of that, which the current article fails to do. If Wikipedia is to have an up-to-date article that examines the mistaken belief that a link between race and intelligence exists, then surely it should properly be titled Scientific racism – but we already have an article precisely on that topic. The question then becomes if material that properly belongs in History of the race and intelligence controversy and Scientific racism, along with any other outdated content based on old sources, were to be excised from the article, would anything be left that is worth keeping? I contend that the answer is "no". Any sources useful for other articles that should properly exist can be added there, and this article deleted as serving no useful encyclopedic purpose. I challenge any 'keep' !voters to consider the points made in Saini, Angela (12 June 2019). "The disturbing return of scientific racism". Wired UK. Retrieved 9 February 2020. and then explain just what they think the scope of this article should be. --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This page cites a lot of developments even after 2000. Yes, one could merge the content of the "history" page into this page, but they are both very large. The "scientific racism" is simply a related, but different subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your link [32], a commentary dated 2019, and it proves my point: the controversy is very much alive, rather than just a history. Other than that, this opinion piece is not good for sourcing. It just scores a few political points like crackdown on illegal immigrants and racism, points I completely agree with author about. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been developments in the History of the race and intelligence controversy since 2000, but they belong in the article dedicated to the history of the race and intelligence controversy, not this one. Scientific racism is the correct article to discuss the discredited notions that intelligence is linked to race.

The controversy is indeed still alive, as there are still many examples (as collected in Saini's book) that demonstrate the ease with which researchers can delude themselves into the sort of thinking that produces the "chopsticks fairy tale".

I'm not suggesting that Saini's book be used as a source here; it's much more appropriate to the history of the controversy article.

You still haven't explained what you think the scope of this article should be. Why not? --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any serious problems with current organization of the page [33]. It is obviously different from organization of materians on the "History" page, as it should be different. Therefore, I think that megring these two different pages would be a bad solution (one should be a sub-page of another). I am not an expert in human ethnic groups or intelligence, but more familiar with the subjet of Race (biology)... My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable and well-sourced page. This is an active area of academic research, so it's not appropriate to only cover as history. Deletion has been considered three times before and every time it has been kept. Yes, this is a subject that inherently makes all of us uncomfortable, but we can't just delete it away and pretend it's not an active area of research. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring that the article is poorly sourced, this is absolutely not an "active area" of mainstream academia. Why would this subject make people uncomfortable, When the racialist claims are untrue? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to know if the editors who voted "keep" in the most recent AfD of this article before this one would still vote "keep" all these years later. And if not, why? So pinging those who are not blocked and are still active (recently active): Dennis Brown, Carrite, Sjö, Eduemoni, and Bluerasberry. Also pinging the lone "delete" voter from that discussion, Anarchangel, even though they sporadically edit and haven't edited since January 18, 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Frozen: You probably realize that you now must also ping those who voted "delete" to avoid WP:CANVASS? —Paleo Neonate – 00:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeonate, eh? I was very clear that I pinged the lone "delete" voter from the third AfD discussion. I focused on the third AfD, the most recent one before this one. I am not going to ping everyone from the previous AfDs, and I'm under no obligation to do so. With the exception of Anarchangel, if not characterizing that editor as recently active, I also pinged those who are not blocked and are recently active; in other words, there were other "support" voters I could have pinged, but I did not because they are blocked, are typically inactive, or haven't been active in months or years. And whether pinging should be considered canvassing has been debated times before, with either consensus being against that consideration or no consensus forming on the matter. The most recent discussion on that is seen here. No need to ping me when replying to me in this AfD. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm sorry that I missed that. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 00:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's primary inclusion criteria is WP:GNG, and it is easy to establish that thousands of sources over centuries feature this topic as a subject. Wikipedia has not established standard rationales for deleting controversial articles like this one which pass the inclusion criteria. I am not opposed to adopting deletion rationales, but in this case, I prefer to not entertain the deletion argument because it does not seem mindful of the costs of deletion. This is a subject established as a social and cultural interest. This article is among Wikipedia's top 0.1% of articles by popularity. Deleting this article would delete the logs of discussion about presenting this topic, and those logs are probably the equivalent of about 1000 pages of paper text of moderated mostly civil discussion. I recognize that the group of people most likely to obsess over this topic are most likely to be hatemongers, and I do not wish to tolerate misconduct. At the same time, I fail to recognize how deleting this article is going to improve public discourse and understanding on this popular topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Thank you for your response, but once again, notability is not the question, as the article content will remain full and comprehensively covered by the suite of related articles including the one that is essentially on the same subject. However you are quite right that deletion would remove the page history from view, and you raise a good point about popularity of the topic, no doubte reflected by in-links to the page URL. The answer to that is to redirect the article. Scientific racism turns out to be the most popular reditrect suggestion above, and Scientific racism can then have a link to History of the race and intelligence controversy as a child link. All incoming links will still work, and a redirect preserves all the edit history. I trust that satisfies your concerns, and that you might agree that "redirect" is a suitable compromise. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I can entertain a redirect or rearrangement discussion, and there might be a useful compromise there, but I am not seeing a workable plan for rearrangement of text.

Per WP:Article size when an article is over 40kb of readable text, then size becomes a factor in a discussion to split. All of these articles are already around that size, and unable to accept any incoming merge of content without thereafter meriting a split.

Here are numbers -

Race and genetics - 35k
Heritability of IQ - 22k
Scientific racism - 56k
History of the race and intelligence controversy - 54k
Race and intelligence - 69k

Over 50k and anyone can split an article with size being the only justification. How much content do you think ought to be deleted outright? 25, 50 75%? There is no way to merge content without deleting a lot of it, right?

Wikipedia does not have clear guidance on when to practice Wikipedia:Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics. I remain unconvinced that there are two topics only, "Race and genetics" and the "Heritability of IQ", and that "race and intelligence" is somehow not a standalone topic distinct from the other two. Despite that, I could support major redesign and rearrangement of this field of information, if someone had a proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a clearly encyclopedic topic, a massive GNG pass. Whether we like the topic or not, or feel it valid or not, or feel it a magnet for fascist trolls or not, is completely irrelevant. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. The fact is that the topic is covered substantially in multiple published sources of presumed reliablity. GNG pass and we are done here. Monitor to assure NPOV is maintained. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also: if this is a question about whether a fork exists, it is wrong venue for that. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your input. As above, notability is not the issue here as full coverage will remain. Arguments about this article being a troll magnet made by others are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT because again, the content remains in the other articles. The question is over the ability to make something out of this article that is encyclopaedic in view of the failure to do so to date. Finally you are incorrect to say this is the wrong venue to discuss whether a fork exists. The existence of the content fork is a reason for deletion covered in WP:DEL-REASON, specifically point 5. In view of that, perhaps you would consider changing your view to "redirect". -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article creates a connection of race with intelligence. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Would Wikipedia have an article about Gender and Intelligence? I agree with NightHeron comments regarding POV and FRINGE. WP:TNT would not solve the issue of connecting race and intelligence and would just be a rehash of Scientific Racism and History of the race and intelligence controversy. The article sources are a mess and don't meet WP:RS. Agree with Guy "problematic organization, a problematic premise, problematic history, problematic conflicts with coverage of the same topic from a non-racist perspective in other articles, problematic false balance, and problematic editing literally all the time." Redirect to scientific racism per David Gerard. What scientific racism doesn't cover is covered in History of the race and intelligence controversy. Any salvageable content is already covered in those articles.

Again I have to ask Would Wikipedia have an article about Gender and Intelligence? // Timothy :: talk 05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I was hoping we didn't have an article on that, so I could create it! Seems like I only ever get to create articles on minor subjects because someone got there before me. Anyways, Sex_differences_in_intelligence exists. Or else you mean something about transgender and intelligence? That would be interesting if their are reliable sources that cover that. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another good AfD nomination to redirect to Sexism // Timothy :: talk 05:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, with regard to the Sex differences in intelligence article, you must be kidding me. We are not going to delete a clearly valid academic topic such as Sex differences in intelligence, which is covered by sources such as this 2010 "Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology: Volume 1: Gender Research in General and Experimental Psychology" source, from Springer Science & Business Media and this 2015 "Learning and Memory: Basic Principles, Processes, and Procedures, Fourth Edition" source, from Psychology Press, because you don't like it. Discussion of sex differences in intelligence cannot simply be chalked up to sexism. There are sexist aspects to the topic, yes, but the literature on the topic is generally clear that most studies find either a very small difference in favor of males or no sex difference with regard to general intelligence. The literature is also consistent in finding a male advantage in mental rotation and assessing horizontality and verticality, and a female advantage in spatial memory. We aren't going to neglect to cover this topic and redirect it to the Sexism article or cover it by only covering a little bit of it at the Sexism article. The only material in that article that is relevant to the Sexism article are reliable sources that tie some of the findings to sexism or gender inequality (such as what is currently in the "Mathematics performance" section). Before I took to sourcing and tweaking that article, it was in dire need of cleanup. After this discussion about that article's overrealiance on primary sources, I overhauled the article so that it is significantly compliant with both WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There is still more sourcing improvement and tweaks to be had. But the suggestion to delete the article? What? You might as well suggest that we delete the Sex differences in emotional intelligence, Sex differences in psychology, Neuroscience of sex differences and Sex differences in crime articles as well. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good candidate for an AfD. But that should be another discussion. // Timothy :: talk 10:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another "I want it deleted just because" argument. I see. Good luck with that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That this article is among Wikipedia's top 0.1% of articles by popularity is all the more reason to convert it into a redirect to the superior History of the race and intelligence controversy, which would better serve readers curious about this historical fallacy. The problems with the Race and intelligence article begin with the name, which seems to suggest in Wikipedia's own voice that there is a relationship between race and intelligence. Consider the difference between an article named Graphology and an article named Handwriting slant and intelligence, or the difference between 11:11 (numerology) and 11:11 and major world events. Don't these "x and y" names encourage readers to believe that a meaningful connection between x and y exists? Ewulp (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems that much of the argument in favor of deleting this article is motivated by a sort of ideological science denialism. When you have two or more populations of humans that have bred largely independently of one another for thousands of years, the chances that those two groups will have same mean and distribution of cognitive/psychological traits is vanishly small. A similar dynamic is obvious and non-controversial to most people when it comes human psychological traits or any traits when applied any sort of non-human life forms. But the human brain has not been except from the same general forces of evolution. The subject of this article is area an of legitimate scientific investigation. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the title seems (to some people) to presumptuously "create" a connection between race and intelligence, then the obvious solution is to rename the page ---- as is under discussion on the talk page and in earlier comments. The history-of-the-controversy article has little overlap with this one other than sharing some of the same cast of characters. It is frustrating to see people keep repeating the false statement that either article subsumes the other. Also, had there been a notorious century-long controversy still in progress surrounding a mysterious correlation between handwriting and intelligence, of course that correlation would be Notable enough to have a WP page. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Fund grantees and the occasional "maverick" researcher periodically publish findings that disintegrate quickly when their methodology is examined, in a pattern familiar from ESP research. This looks more like denialism than like controversy. In this article, Ian Tattersall states that human brain power finished evolving long before humans began dispersing from Africa to Asia and Europe. The same article describes a 26.3 point increase in IQ scores of Kenyan children between 1984 and 1998. Remarkable evolution in 14 years, or the result of better nutrition, parental literacy, etc.? Maybe Race and intelligence should be renamed Nutrition & parental literacy and intelligence, as these are a subject of legitimate study. Ewulp (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, so we can reference/include Tattersall’s views in the article rather than the insanity of deleting the entire article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would make much more sense to reference Tattersall in Heritability of IQ rather than try to shoehorn it into a an article that, as described, already assumes its conclusion in the premise of its title. This article can go and we can still comprehensively cover the subject. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on some points from the proposal that seem to have gone unaddressed despite the large number of comments.

"Race and intelligence" is a loose way of referring to a more specific subject "group differences in cognitive tests such as IQ". The core content of an article on group differences on IQ-like tests, will therefore be statements of the form "group A and group B differed by amount D on measure M". The most notable such material in the article, and the center of the controversy, is the statement about a one standard deviation black/white IQ gap in the USA.

Race and genetics article has no such comparative data, since it does not contain the word "IQ". The Heritability of IQ article has no such data, since it does not discuss "race". Scientific racism doesn't have it. The closest is history of the race and intelligence controversy which has no direct discussion of the IQ test score gap. It mentions differences in US scores once or twice in passing when quoting other material, buried under a mountain of other historical-political controversy stuff, not relevant to the question of group differences and how to explain them.

The proposal claims "notability synthesis" of this article from other topics, but the topic is directly notable. The references in this and related articles contain numerous secondary sources talking about the group comparisons and reasoning about that data, independent of any controversy. Most textbooks and handbooks on intelligence (as IQ) have a chapter on group differences. Textbook prominence is already sufficient for many topics to appear in WP and R&I has more than that (plus historical notoriety).

If the objection to having this material on WP is simply that publishing the sentence "whites outscore blacks by one Standard Deviation on IQ tests" is unacceptable, being somehow racist or impolite or helping Bad People, that should be stated clearly as it is a censorship policy. If the IQ data are considered OK, but the objection is to any discussion whatsoever of the possibility or probability of a genetic explanation for that data, that too is a censorship policy that should be articulated before it is acted upon. (There is no current basis for such censorship on the grounds of "scientific consensus", which is very much unsettled.)

73.149.246.232 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLUDGEON, —Paleo Neonate – 09:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened. It would not get any shorter, and would fragment the thread more, to add multiple comments rather than a consolidated one. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not you making a single lengthy post which made interesting points, it is making lots of comments and dominating the conversation. Sirfurboy is just as bad in this regard. You are both bludgeoning with lots of posts.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's address your issues then.

1. "group differences in cognitive tests such as IQ". Primary studies are completely insufficient to support the sort of conclusions to want to draw. We don't allow editors to analyse primary studies – that is solely the remit of the mainstream reliable secondary sources, and those don't agree with the POV you're pushing. When you start assigning race to those groups, you are extrapolating without scientific justification. So, no, Race and intelligence is not a loose way of referring to "group differences in cognitive tests such as IQ". It's simply a discredited myth that needs to be presented through the lens of our modern understanding that no link exists or has ever existed.

2. There is no "IQ test score gap" between races attested by reliable modern sources, so your complaint that our properly sourced articles don't discuss it is complete hogwash.

3. The topic is certainly notable as "Race and intelligence" as Google Scholar has over 3,000 hits on the phrase. However, if you bother to read the results from the last 20 years, you find that the content is almost uniformly along the lines of "Ashley Montagu, who first attacked the term "race" as a usable concept in his acclaimed work, Man's Most Dangerous Myth, offers here a devastating rebuttal to those who would claim any link between race and intelligence …" It's worth remembering that passing GNG is not a guarantee that an article should exist; WP:NOT must also apply for example. Wikipedia:Notability is clear:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

If we are to cover the notable topic "Race and intelligence", then we should be acknowledging the fact that most of the sources currently used in the article relate to either History of the race and intelligence controversy or Scientific racism. There is nothing more to be said about the topic beyond "there's no link between race and intelligence" that isn't already dealt with well in those other two articles. We don't need this one to cover the encyclopedic topic, and the only purpose of the current article is to give credence to the racist POV that any such link exists.

4. This is where we really get to point of your wish to keep the article. You want to publish the sentence "whites outscore blacks by one Standard Deviation on IQ tests" and you want to use this article as a coatrack for racism. We won't be publishing that, not because Wikipedia is censored, but because we don't publish nonsense that is unsupported by the mainstream scientific view. You can't define what you call "whites"; you can't define what you call "blacks"; and you can't explain how to construct "IQ tests" that are free of cultural bias, much less tests that can be reliably employed to measure a trait of an entire race. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination, as lengthy as it is, doesn't actually present a deletion rationale. Whether the article is appropriate titled is a matter for WP:RM. Whether the content is duplicative of the history article is a matter for WP:PM. WP:TNT is an essay. WP:ATD is policy. GMG ^talk 13:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD #5: "Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)" —Paleo Neonate – 13:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? And per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is what people seem to be arguing, If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article. Beside the fact that one article is nearly a decade older than the other, it makes little sense to argue that we should delete Rail transport as a fork of History of rail transport. History articles are clearly hierarchically nested beneath the thing they are discussing the history of, as are other types of regularly used forks clearly subordinate in scope, such Timeline of X, Philosophy of X, Glossary of X, and List of X. GMG ^talk 13:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is History of the race and intelligence controversy, Scientific racism, Eugenics, Richard Lynn (most popular promoter of this hoax) and others. Any meaningful content has been already included in those articles so why do we need more POVFORKs? Makes no sense to me. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 13:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the correlation between IQ score data and self-identified Race data. Those other articles are not. Toomim (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make cuts. No valid deletion rationale has been presented. The topic has multiple reliable secondary sources discussing it, and squarely it. It obviously passes WP:GNG. It is not a fork, because Scientific racism is a different but related topic. Merely being related does not a fork make. And, it makes no sense to have a "history of" article about a topic for which we do not have an article. Whether the "history of" article and this one should be merged, and/or this one has undue weight, are not AfD matters (deletion is not cleanup). Primary sources, old sources, and sources from fringe journals or authors are strong candidates for cutting if these are being treated as authoritative.
The title is not POV any more than Flat Earth is. And titling is not an AfD matter anyway.
I sense that some people are frustrated with this topic and just want to blow it up and get rid of it. This is not the answer. Instead, judicious use of RSN, NPOVN, RFC, etc. are.
On a side note, I think the idea that this article inherently benefits racists should be seriously questioned. The answer to hateful and deceptive claims is truth, not ignoring the deceptive claims. Yes, I know diehard racists won't be convinced, but people who have heard their claims and are unsure will. If we just treat this topic as purely history, or just say it is racist, and we fail to explain why the racists' claims are wrong using the sources that do so, does this not leave their claims unanswered? What benefit is there in that?
I urge the closer to ignore the drama and focus squarely on the arguments. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! The answer to the racism and xenophobia in general is education. This page does just that, or al least it should. Deleting it would do disservice to community. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant article which is likely to attract more content forking. The article is doing nothing but serving as attraction to White supremacy and should be deleted as coverage of this very subject has been already made elsewhere. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. This is clearly a notable topic. If there are problems with the content, deal with those elsewhere. This discussion should not be happening. Lepricavark (talk) 21:14, 10 February 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. Sandstein 09:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golos Pravdy[edit]

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

A newspaper that only published for four months before shutting shop. No indication of why it is notable. fails WP:ORGCRIT DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, from what is available in the article. 1) notability isn't temporary. the fact that the publication only lasted 4 months is not a valid argument for deletion. 2) a daily newspaper in Kronstadt in the midst of the Russian revolutions of 1917. The role of the Bolshevik Kronstadt sailors is well recognized in the events of the October revolution, events that shaped the 20th century world history. 3) the newspaper was clearly notable enough to get the national government to order its closure. --Soman (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
If you have any evidence of the subject passing WP:ORGCRIT then let me know. Simple WP:ASSERTN and repeated chanting of "WP:Clearly notable" doesn't really make something notable. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many contemporary internet hits for the contemporary paper Голос правды, a different publication. Acknowledging that, here we have an excellent encyclopedic contribution of the organ of the Kronstadt fleet during the Russian Revolution. Passes GNG for coverage in monographs by Saul and Getzler and more extensive coverage in Большевистская печать: кратике очерки истории, 1894-1917 гг [The Bolshevik press: Short historical essays, 1894-1917."] Carrite (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The nominator mistakes longevity and personal perceptions of importance for notability, which in Wikipedia terms means being the subject of multiple instances of substantial published coverage of presumed reliability. Our GNG rules exist to eliminate such normative assessments.Carrite (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - absolutely what Soman and Carrite have said. The newspaper is the subject of scholarly studies of the early Bolshevik period and the Kronstadt events of 1917 and beyond to 1921. Definitely a notable, even an important, subject, and I have to concur that a normative assessment has been made in nominating for deletion. Spokoyni (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@all, if the newspaper did extraordinary things in its short lifespan of four months, then it should be easy to show how it passes the WP:ORGCRIT (which as you might be aware is a higher bar than GNG required for Orgs to have their own article). Without hard evidence of how WP:ORGCRIT is met, hand waving comments stating WP:Clearly notable and WP:Assertion don't really help the AfD.DBig Xrayᗙ 08:17, 4 February 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. Sandstein 09:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trud, Zemlia i More[edit]

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

A newspaper published by a political party for only two months before election. Fails WP:NORG DBig Xrayᗙ 06:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first of all, notability isn't temporary. The wording 'for only two months before election' shows a lack of understanding of the context that Russia was engulfed in during the revolution. Secondly, the source Getzler source confirms its contemporary notability. One cannot expect that a publication that preceded google (especially over 100 years ago) would have a lot of google hits, as if had existed today. --Soman (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Vote is from creator of the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to agree that the wording 'by a political party for only two months before election' and is troubling, as if its short-lived period and political connections made it non-notable. Sources on historic publications such as this are academic in nature, and the article clearly shows it has been studied and referenced by scholars in the Russian and English languages relating to early Soviet politics. Just a few others to have included studies of the paper in their works are V. V. Petrash's Моряки Балтийского флота в борьбе за победу Октября, N. M. Yakupov's Борьба за армию в 1917 году, and A. Yu. Dvornichenko's Российская государственность: история и современность. Spokoyni (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the paper in its short lifetime of 2 months did something extraordinary that passes WP:ORGCRIT and merits an article of its own then It must be easy to show. I don't see that extraordinary coverage. passing mentions or dependent coverage while discussing another main topic, don't count. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure WP:NORG is intended to apply to a century-old Russian newspaper, but I'd wager it also passes that as well. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 5 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shout Out UK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

GargAvinash (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GargAvinash (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Do we not even get a nomination reason? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes we do have reason. The subject is not notable as per WP:GNG. Almost all sources only states that subject was appeared in some TV show. GargAvinash (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The subject is clearly notable as per WP:GNG, having received pretty significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. I've really no idea why anybody would suggest that this didn't pass general notability. --Jwslubbock (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already in the article seem to be enough to indicate a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No reason given; otherwise keep as meeting notability requirements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: No reason given for the nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 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 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG, as the article cites only one non-primary source, and multiple sources are generally needed to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not the player's guide and this is not notable outside of the game. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an article by article game guide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate how this passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a ton of Dungeons & Dragons articles on Wikipedia and a lot of them do not need to be standalone articles. I recommend deleting a lot of these unless there are significant out-of-game references to support it. Wikipedia is not a game guide or a wikia. Michepman (talk) 04:33, 4 February 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 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shugenja (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG, as the article cites only one non-primary source, and multiple sources are generally needed to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not the D&D guide and this is not notable outside of the game. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A particularly obscure D&D character class that really does not have anything in terms of reliable, secondary sources that have any sort of content that would pass the WP:GNG. Searching for additional sources using both potential spellings turned up nothing of substance regarded the D&D-specific version of the class. Rorshacma (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient RS to demonstrate how this passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 18:02, 3 February 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 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jadid al Qaeda[edit]

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

The article clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Even, via google search I find nothing about its notability. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability.--Rocky Masum (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, Notabililty not established. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:41, 9 February 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 09:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heed (cat)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, and is supported by only one source (The Daily Mail). KidAd (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daily Mail has been deprecated as a source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Hog Farm (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 3 February 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 09:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yakup Avşar[edit]

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

As the creator of the article, after the discussion we have made in the Turkish Wikipedia, I am not convinced that the article is notable. Sources that look independent aren't really independent. Even there are some independent sources, I am not fully convinced that they prove the article's notability. Therefore, I nominate the article for deletion. Nanahuatl (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 3 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romalis Scott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Promotionally-toned biography, entirely sourced to primary source interviews with Mr. Scott on YouTube and his own website, and there doesn't seem to be any coverage in independent reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a self-written promotional brochure. Dorama285 19:38, 07 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acors Corner, Virginia[edit]

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

All of these are "Corners" in a single county! Mass-produced from GNIS within seconds of each other, and looking at GMaps it is clear that these are not communities. Back in the day they would put random people's homes on the map, which eventually ended up in the database of names on a map, but they are not necessarily towns or villages with automatic notability. Unlike the GNIS, the USGS's Virginia Geographic Names has them properly listed as locales rather than populated places. Also see this topo map, where they are written in a different typeface from the community of Ladysmith, Virginia and don't show concentrations of habitation. I was largely unable to find even passing mention of these in newspapers.com.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I don't like mass nominations, my impression from a sample of the articles in question is that they are non-distinct "populated places" by the USGS definition: "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village)," versus "locale," a place of human activity. In short, these are named places with permanent residential buildings. The only possible U6 community I found was a false positive, Davis Corner. The reference was pointing to the wrong database entry. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have established that the GNIS is not reliable in its online classifications: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. These are in fact appropriately in the Locale class in the USGS's Virginia Geographic Names gazetteer. The mere fact a person once lived somewhere is not a basis for notability. We wouldn't have to do mass nominations if there weren't such mass creations...an impossible waste of time to do individually. Reywas92^Talk 03:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:PROVEIT, with the recreation of any of these with the addition of a reliable source confirming it is or was a populated place to be encouraged.---Pontificalibus 08:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the lot with the understanding that those for whom substantive documentation can be produced may be recreated. I commend the nominator for checking all of these, because my patience has been exhausted. Some of those I've checked in this group did not have any signs of habitation around them; in one case there was a single house which was built long after the name appeared on the topo map which is the source. GNIS populated places can give locations, but have to be checked against other sources to verify that there is some meaningful concentration of population. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've spot-checked enough of these at random and none of them appear sourceable - they're known place names and some get a couple hits on legal designations but we can't say anything about them, really. SportingFlyer T·C 10:51, 5 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Piker[edit]

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

Delete as nominator As of now, the subject of this article does not meet notability requirements established by WP:GNG. He is also not inherently notable for his comments about Dan Crenshaw, which yielded some media attention outside of his YouTube bubble per WP:BLP1E. If others are opposed to an outright delete, I would support a redirect to The Young Turks. KidAd (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hasan Piker is very notable in American media circles and one of the prinicipal presenters in The Young Turks. We have extensive coverage of the presenters of this site. Refer to the template: Template of TYT Network werldwayd (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC). werldwayd (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are untrue. He's not a principal on TYT and never has been; he is almost never on the main show... he does Facebook videos. (FB views are notoriously unreliable because they autoplay and views count almost immediately even if you scroll past or turn them off.) It's not even clear that he even works for them anymore; the last video posted here was on Dec. 12: [37] It looks like TYT has ended this "Breakdown" experiment, because Francis Maxwell also appears to be gone. And he is certainly not and has never been "very notable in American media circles". He makes FB videos FFS; he's not Don Lemon. That other TYT presenters have pages is a nonsense argument. They earned their pages based on their own notability, not simply because they work for TYT. In any case, I say don't delete; redirect to The Young Turks Bueller 007 (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going through the sources in the article, the Cosmo piece is qualifying coverage - is there any other qualifying coverage? It can be hard to find for streamers. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the RS noticeboard, There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. KidAd (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need two qualifying sources in order to keep this (closer please read this as a delete at least for now.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The only notable part is the controversy section. Bring him back if he says three or four more things that make national news. If he disappears into obscurity in a couple of years — which is probably more likely — he ultimately wasn't notable. -- Dorama285 18:18, 05 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. His Youtube-channel, from which he earns the most notability/gained the most controversy, only has 64.6K subscribers. According to WP:NYOUTUBE, only 9% of the Youtubers with >100K subscribers survive an AfD. The number of subscribers *does* have bearing on notability according to the second point of WP:ENT. Thus, I do not mind recreation of the article if mr. Piker's channel passes the 100,000-mark. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - close but I agree one controversy doesn’t meet notability guidelines. Lorelai1335 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335[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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gabrielson[edit]

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

After a routine look for reliable sources for this WP:BLP, I couldn't find anything resembling significant coverage, in fact not much coverage at all. Mattg82 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. A couple of passing news references but nothing here that meets WP:GNG and the article is perma-stub. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' a non-notable mid-level manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely fails the GNG. PK650 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 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.

[1] "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets".

[1]