Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 10 July 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Respublik (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Azov War (1501-1502)[edit]

Azov War (1501-1502) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not apepar to reach notability guidelines as searching the articles name results in only the wikipedia page and websites that simply copy from wikipedia, as well as a few websites unrelated to the article's subject. The article was also created by a user who has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of the user Ea-Nasir, in case that information helps. Withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found Gaismagorm (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expand, don't delete. The Russian Wikipedia article [1] for Meñli I Giray, who was the Crimean Khan, has the following paragraph (via Google translate):

In the winter of 1501-1502 , Sheikh-Ahmed, the khan of the Great Horde, began to prepare for a new campaign against the Crimean Khanate . Mengli Giray, warned of the impending invasion, ordered the mobilization of the entire male population over 15 years old [24] . Khan of the Great Horde, Sheikh-Ahmed, at the confluence of the Pine River into the Don, joined with the army of his elder brother Seyid-Ahmed [24] . The brothers built a fortification here, preparing to repel the attack of the Crimean Khan. However, the khans soon quarreled, and Seid-Ahmed with his detachments retreated to Astrakhan [24] . Ottoman Sultan Bayezid IIinvited the Khan of the Great Horde to migrate to the Southern Bug, but the Turkish ambassador was captured and killed by the subjects of the Khan [25] .

The references are to a book in Russian, which I cannot obtain or read even if I could get my hands on it. But the content of the paragraph largely matches the content of this article that was submitted for deletion. I would tend to assume good faith and trust that the citations aren't made up, but unless someone wants to verify it once and for all, I land on the side of keeping the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i tried to search up the references and didnt get any books. the first one did give me a russian wikipedia article. is it possible for you to provide a link for the book (using google books or something) Gaismagorm (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unless of course you are talking about the russian wikipedia article, however i do still feel that the english wikipedia article needs some much better references. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's references #24 and #25 in the Russian Wikipedia article I linked. Повелители двух материков RecycledPixels (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, if you search that title on some of the ebook piracy sites, there are PDFs available for download, and the text can be selected and pasted into Google translate without much effort. Pages 74-77 of Volume 1. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ah, thanks for the information. well in that case, we should keep the article Gaismagorm (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one question i do have is who Beslan (listed in the commanders and leaders section of the infobox) is Gaismagorm (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found. Gaismagorm (talk) Gaismagorm (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2023 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reality shifting[edit]

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

The reality shifting article should be considered for deletion on Wikipedia due to its lack of substantial scientific evidence and its reliance on pseudoscientific and unsubstantiated claims. While the article mentions the popularity of reality shifting on social media platforms, such as TikTok and YouTube, it fails to establish a solid foundation based on credible research or empirical evidence. Wikipedia's guidelines require that articles provide reliable sources to support their claims and assertions. In the case of reality shifting, there is a lack of scientific studies or academic research supporting its validity. The article references the involvement of the CIA in studying Robert Monroe's research on altered states of consciousness, but it fails to demonstrate any direct link between this research and the practice of reality shifting as described. IceStar12 (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Tassinari[edit]

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

The article completely lacks independent third-party sources, there are only links to the guy's own pages and books. Seems a lot like advertising. HPfan4 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search, but the nom is correct, the article fails GNG on its face. (I looked into this very quickly but wanted to leave a quick note.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think since there is no secondary sources to satisfy WP:V and decent WP:BEFORE should be done per best practice. I found this book review [2] which might go some way towards WP:NAUTHOR. I think probably the book The Pursuit of Governance at [3] may be notable, but I suspect he is not. It needs a better academic search, but no other reviews on any of this work turned up. scope_creepTalk 11:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced two useless citations to books that he wrote himself with citations to independent reviews. More needs to be done. Why is it that most of our articles about academics seem to cite their own writings rather than independent sources? Are academics uniquely thick in that they write this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His G-Scholar showing is actually pretty low - a total of 650 cites, and most of his articles have cites in the low 2 digits. That isn't enough for WP:NACADEMIC. I found a few places where he is quoted, but that's all. I also checked Italian newspapers and he doesn't turn up there either. This was done by an SPA, and the entire upper portion of the article is unsourced, so possibly the creator got the info from him directly. I don't think we have enough here to keep this. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lamona. I trust their understanding of WP:NACADEMIC more than my own.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Daniels[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actress, many AVN wins, but no discussion outside of these in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete - The article is very new. Please give some time so that other editors can also contribute. As far as being Dani being popular is concerned have a look at the numbers. She is top searched porn actress. Just to note she has over 7.7 million followers on Instagram. There are new articles which have mentioned her for one of the other thing.Shaan Sengupta (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural note. Since the user made a less-ambiguous !vote later in the discussion, I have struck the !vote in this one. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She did receive various awards over a reasonable period of time. A brief research makes her appear rather notable: portrait in GQ Italy or in The Daily Dot (here), among other things.— MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)— 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC); additional: CNBC (and here too) or The Daily Beast are examples of reliable sources attesting Daniels is considered a famous porn star, hence notable.— MY, OH MY! (mushy yank)— 08:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those sources are usable. First, the GQ link is barely a blurb and totally devoid of substance or depth, where we learn such gems about an Insta page titled "suckingallthedicks", or that the subject was "too horny" to remember going down on her first porn co-star. Second, the Daily Dot is useless user-generated twill. The byline is literally "Blank Author", and goes on to list 14 pieces of utter trivia. Awards in the porn industry also cannot count towards notability. Zaathras (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Dot page's metadata, along with autofill in RefToolbar, lists the author as "Jessica Machado", who is the "IRL" section editor. In any event, lots of media is authored by anonymous staff writers without being user-generated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual litany of AVN and industry sources. All in all, appears nothing has changed by the look of how the discussion went at afd #1 in 2021. Zaathras (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:- Well there are discussions like this one on India Today and this one too of NY Post. Although these are not related to the things mentioned in the article but these reliable media houses are discussing about the subject of the article. There are many media houses in India which have recently published an article on a Pakistani Commentator mistakes Danny Morisson for Danny Daniels. There are more media articles that have discussed abiut the subject.Shaan Sengupta (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding the above being a doublevote, the provided sources do not indicate any notability of the pornographic actress in question. User:AllfadrOdinn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The double !vote has been addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The Daily Beast article goes into some depth on Daniels' life & career, & just barely meets WP:BASIC when supplemented with the CNBC, Daily Dot, & GQ sources. They're mostly fluff, but some relevant info can still be extracted from them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly fluff appears to mean completely unsuitable sources on which to base a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 05:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources provide the unambiguous solid reliable sourcing that is required for a BLP. Awards have not counted to notability for many years and the industry sourcing has well established and clear weaknesses. GNG and ENT are not met. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. For example, the Daily Beast article is mostly about catfishing / online scams, and is incidental to the subject's career. GQ is a three paragraph entry, and the other source is a listicle. Nothing here raises to the level of encyclopedia notability. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not accurate to say the Daily Beast article is mostly about catfishing / online scams in general when 12 of the 18 paragraphs in the story directly focus on Daniels, her experience being impersonated, her lawsuit against a stalker, etc. Calling any of these events incidental seems oddly dismissive since they get more RS coverage than anything else in Daniels' career. Our concern is to summarize what RSes say, not make up ad hoc reasons for excluding certain content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it's not being proposed that the subject is notable as a scam victim. The presumed notability should follow WP:ENT; for that, I would expect sources to discuss the actor's significant roles; their impact on the genre; etc. In contrast, the sources here are not suitable. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was asked to revert my closure and deletion of this article and relist this discussion for another week. My original close stated "This discussion initially seems close but those arguing Delete successfully refute the reliability and importance of sources brought up in this discussion." I will leave this AFD to be closed by another administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that relisting. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 22:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is a working actress with several years of credits whose work has been respected by her peers. I'm not seeing anything in the current article which clearly passes WP:BASIC. Hundreds of folks get catfished, but tabloid Daily Beast, the best of all the presented sources, published an article saying she was once a victim of a crime. The rest are routine entertainment news. In order for the subject to pass general notability, multiple reliable sources must be presented or demonstrated which significantly cover the subject and are regarded as independent. I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to pass WP:BLP, and my reasonable search doesn't find much better. I think User:Liz's close was sound and I'd remind those asserting "keep" the WP:ONUS of sourcing contentious material on biographies of living subjects is on those who assert adding or retaining such material. I concur with opinions sources which are mostly fluff are IMHO insufficient to support a policy-compliant BLP. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should not have been relisted just because of one recalcitrant user who saw it not go their way. You're one of the better admins around here Liz, (IMO), in the future I would say just let a complainer like that file a Deletion Review if the bees are still buzzing their bonnet about it. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't a unanimous decision to Delete plus going to Deletion Review is like getting root canal surgery. But I don't revert closes on any AFD if requested, I thought that another week for this one would just make consensus clearer. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no problem with a delete close. Its well founded in policy. If I may say so, reverting feels like a cop out to avoid courting controversy. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see my role as assessing consensus of a discussion, I don't think it's a "cop out" but I'm not here to court controversy. I'm not here to be bold and blaze trails. Plus, I think in the hundreds of AFDs I've closed, I've probably reverted my closures on 3 or 4. I don't think that number is out of line. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like to view Liz's reversion of closure as an extension of good faith and I support it. Liz knows XfD readers like all of us who'll look over relisted discussions. The action drew my attention to this procedure. I was not impressed by the strength of argument or sourcing, so I did the reading. There's every reason to believe such a subject may find additional coverage or accolades. I'm uncomfortable with BLP pages when there's very little directly detailing RS to go on, but lots of routine coverage (like performances, statistics, and minor incidents) which may used to "tease out" what I view as synthesis on a subject. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a liberty and extend my concern, which I'll confess is a personal one. Like many of my fellow wikipedians, I have a number of acquaintances who might themselves meet the thresholds of GNG and BASIC, or who already have found themselves with articles. This is an awkward situation for a BLP subject. They restrain themselves from contributing on their own pages and often find their pages laden with inaccurate or out of date info. I largely do not edit these subjects. These are not people who are self-promoting; these are tens of thousands of living human beings who are depending on Biographies of Living Persons policy, our five pillars, the Foundation, and our many thousands of volunteers to protect their real-life integrity. If a Seigenthaler-like incident is again hung on our brand, no data is lost, but our community's integrity shrinks ever so much. Sorry for the soapboxing. I try to limit such preaching to my friends. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are also several articles about this incident, which is quite humorous but probably doesn't count for much notability-wise. On another note, I support admins (including Liz) being able to use their discretion to revert their recent closes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Daniels was also one of the few actual pornographic actresses/actors chosen to appear in Don Jon (2013). Non-English sources exist ( example (Sp.), (contains nudity); and for what it's worth, except one, all pornographic actresses listed among the Dirty Dozen by CNBC (see above) have their page (and Daniels is the only one to appear two years in a row in that list, which CNBC notes). All in all, it appears quite reasonable to describe her as notable.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 14:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And if she were an ice-cream brand or a TV episode (a consumable), we might consider such a position, with such sources. But Ms. Daniels is an actual human being (a person with every right to their reasonable privacy, dignity, and self-expression), and Wikipedia holds itself to a far higher standard of sourcing and restraint when we are discussing such topics in ANY PART of the pedia, by policy. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling this cherry-picking would be insulting to actual cherries. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samta Sagar[edit]

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

She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR and there is a lack of in-depth coverage to verify notability. DSN18 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Article author requested deletion. Whpq (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Традиционная одежда Липецкой области.[edit]

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

Article is not in English, fails WP:N, no sources. 64andtim (chat) 21:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank). Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clank (Ratchet & Clank)[edit]

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

Article's sourcing doesn't show any independent notability, and hasn't for a very long time. While the argument is being made that "the article was only recently tagged", WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything either depressingly enough and more commentary on the games themselves. There just isn't anything here. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. And it looks like the nominator has changed their mind about seeking deletion so this is unanimous. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted military area[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT per Isaidnoway's PROD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably be an article if there was expansion with discussions of the implication of a restricted military area on things like protest rights or other civil liberties. I'm certain these sources exist in scholarly sources like law reviews, but as is the article is pretty much a dictionary definition. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - As per TulsaPoliticsFan, I could see this being expanded to discuss the legal implications of such areas. For example, this[1] would be an academic RS that includes discussion of differences between military and non-military areas in terms the powers granted to (military) authorities in Finland.
    Another example of a potential (albeit non-academic) source on Finland specifically would be this Kaleva news story that states, among other things, that no events that could includes features of political activity are held on [the FDF's] military areas.[2] The same story appears to have been reported on by multiple other Finnish newspapers. There's also a bunch of news stories about photography near and on (sometimes temporary) restricted military areas in Finland.[3] The last decade or so has also seen a rather a constant stream of news about land ownership inside and close to restricted military areas in Finland, especially from the perspective of foreign nationals purchasing land.[4][5][6][7][8][9]
    These alone push me to a weak keep, and I'd imagine there's plenty more in other languages and about other countries. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a one sentence definition.
The concept, "restricted military area", is so broad and nebulous it's hard to visualize what a full article might consist of. We could just as easily set ourselves the task to write articles about "scary places" or "boring drives". There may be better articles about specific topics like the one in Finland that Tulsa Fan cited above. That would be more along the lines of "scary Icelandic lava pit" or "boring Long Island bus route"
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a pretty unuseful bunch of comparisons. First, as to what the article would look like, I'd imagine something along the lines of Military base or perhaps Battery (crime). As to what separates a "restricted military area" from "scary places", I'm not aware of any polity where "scary place" was defined in law and designated "scary places" were guarded by armed dudes who had the right to restrict the basic civil rights of those who enter the "scary place". The reason I used Finland for my example is that I have easy access to sources about it. I'm sure similar sources could be found about the US, which has laws like this in the books, and for the UK which has laws like this. I doubt similar laws exist for "scary places" or "boring drives". Ljleppan (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva's generous offer below. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as a significant legal/regulatory concept meriting a broad-concept article, although definitely a tough one. I don't think there's a real question of notability here; plenty has certainly been written about restricted military areas. A plausible prototype of coverage can be found at de:Militärisches Sperrgebiet, which is currently inaccurately interwikied to military exclusion zone. Our legal coverage is awash in BCA-shaped holes, partly because they're very hard to write from a global standpoint, partly because we've never had a robust editor corps for legal topics anyway, and partly because BCAs tend to be a slippery mess in general. IMO the optimal approach here is definition + any comparative scholarship we can dredge up (probably not much in this case) + bulleted list of paragraphs briefly summarizing the concept as applied in each country. We could start with US, UK, and Finland paragraphs based on the links posted in this discussion. I'll take a stab if the article is kept. -- Visviva (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Visviva! I'll change my !vote. Thank you also for introducing me to the notion of a "broad-concept article" - that's what I was struggling to articulate above with my talk of scary places and boring drives.
    I have confidence in your ability to pull this off. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and expand this notable topic. Okoslavia (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I am the nom, I mainly nominated this because I agreed with the PROD at the time, but I have now decided that this should be kept per @Visviva and Ljleppan. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Järvenpää, Marika (2016). "Viranomaisten toimivaltuudet kohteiden suojaamisessa hybridiuhkia vastaan" [Powers of authorities in protecting targets against hybrid threats]. Tiede ja ase (in Finnish). 74.
  2. ^ "Puolustusvoimat esti Suomen Sisun juhlat sotilasalueella" [Finnish Defence Forces Blocks Suomen Sisu's Party inside Military Area]. Kaleva (in Finnish). 11 November 2013.
  3. ^ Vuorinen, Terho (23 August 2018). "Tilanne sotilaiden ja poliisin välillä kärjistyi Tikkakoskella – sanailun jälkeen komisariota uhattiin rynnäkkökiväärillä" [An Encounter Between Soldiers and Police Escalated in Tikkakoski - A Police Officer was Threatened with an Assault Rifle Following an Exchange of Words]. Ilta Sanomat (in Finnish).
  4. ^ Malin, Tuula (16 October 2014). "IL paljastaa: Sotilasalue myytiin ulkomaalaisille" [Iltalehti Reveals: Military Area was Sold to Foreigners]. Iltalehti (in Finnish).
  5. ^ Kerkkänen, Tuomas (1 November 2016). "Puolustusministeriö selvittää venäläisten maakauppoja sotilasalueiden liepeiltä – työ pidetty piilossa" [Ministry of Defence is Looking Into Russian Land Purchases near Military Areas]. Yle uutiset (in Finnish).
  6. ^ STT (20 April 1017). "Puolustusministeri Niinistö: Valtion etuosto-oikeus maakaupoissa olisi järkevää" [Minister of Defence Niinistö: State Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales Would be Sensible]. Kaleva (in Finnish).
  7. ^ Kaarakainen, henri (20 April 2017). "Valtiolle halutaan lunastusoikeus maakaupoissa" [State Wants Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales]. Ruotuväki (in Finnish).
  8. ^ Paananen, Arja (1 March 2019). "Uusi tiukka laki hyväksyttiin: Venäläisille maata vain erikoisluvalla" [Strict New Law Approved: Land Sold to Russian on by Special Permit] (in Finnish).
  9. ^ Nieminen, Rami (14 July 2022). "Kun Venäjä hyökkäsi Ukrainaan, valtio esti Seppo Sergei Kapasen "lottovoittodiilin" maanpuolustuksellisista syistä - Nyt hän aikoo kokeilla onneaan oikeusteitse" [When Russian Invaded Ukraine, the State Blocked Seppo Sergei Kapanen's "Lottery Win of a Deal" for Reasons of Defence - Now he Intends to try his Luck in Court]. Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Przanowska[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, very poorly sourced. This is a case study for WP:BLP violations. Kleuske (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The unsourced fantasy claims of holding long-extinct noble titles and mostly-redlinked genealogy have to go. And if all you can say about her academic career is the vague and unsourced "professor at multiple schools in Sweden as well as in the United Kingdom", then that's not good enough for WP:PROF either, and Google Scholar turns up nothing relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I get more hits Googling myself (3,160) than I do for the Grand Princess (406.) I tried to find any scholarly articels or papers she may have published but got nothing. Pascalulu88 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole article violates WP:V. Two of the three footnotes don't even mention the subject and the third one is some self-published page saying only that someone with the similar name Mona Perzanowska paints watercolors. Google suggests that someone with a similar name is a Swedish high school teacher. Google has zero hits outside Wikipedia for the spelling of the name used in the article. For all I can tell this could be a hoax by a Swedish high schooler centered around the name of their teacher. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Not seeing how this meets NBIO, seems like some version of nobility WP:FANCRUFT with WP:OR issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not notable on own merits, and no meaningful sourcing of the multiple nobility/royalty titles, even disregarding that notability is not inherited. Also, most likely WP:COI issues; for example, the photo in the article is claimed to be the creator's "own work", based on subject's old passport photo. Creator has also recently added lots of dubiously sourced information to related articles, such as the subject's ancestor supposedly being an illegitimate child of Alexander I of Russia. Hqb (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Swedish news sources return nothing. The subjects own homepage linked in the bio gives no hints of anything conferring notability. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Snapshots[edit]

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

Insignificant book about nude women. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found no refs when searching for
  • "Holiday Snapshots"+"david hamilton"
The article says it's banned in New Zealand because of child pornography issues but there's no ref in the article to back that up.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Farajpour[edit]

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

Fails notability. lots of incorrect information. this lady never won a "World Championship medal", I added more pages created by the same user, all of them fail notability in different levels. I can see there are lots of wrong categories for each of them, intentionally (to make them look notable) or just from a copy/paste. for example Hossein Rahmati never played a single minute for the Iran national basketball team but he is listed as someone who played at the Asian Games and FIBA World Cup here, he apparently plays for a club in Sweden which is not in the highest level. I can give examples about others too. the last two pages may be considered as notable. the futsal guy played at the World Cup and Mehran Feyz won some junior volleyball medals but I listed them to see what other people think. Sports2021 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Hossein Rahmati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omid Fouladivanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ali Akbarpour (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bagher Mohammadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mehran Feyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more participation on a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 11 July 2023 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Najmadeen Mala[edit]

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

Single source BLP. Notability tag since 2010. Fails WP:AUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Turner[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable journalist. Only coverage is for stories she's written or appearances on the network. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5 (though there is no disagreement on lack of notability). Complex/Rational 20:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shopee Maszeh[edit]

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

Non-charting single, no coverage found in RS. Sourcebot shows none of the source used are RS. appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gauthier Van Malderen[edit]

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

Nothing found for the individual, all in relation to his company. Even in .be websites, all is about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2023 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi Mehringer[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, nothing found for sourcing in Gnews or Gsearch, appears to be PROMO here. Was also deleted as PROMO back in 2020, not much appears to have changed for notability since then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Liam. I wrote the original article and have written this one as well. I've followed Mehriner's work for some time and believe him eligable for an entry. Note: I have no vested interest or benefits through this. I just like Mehringers work and I'm a big fan of Eyecandy, and feel like people should be able to more easily access who created it since Jacob doesn't do a lot of self promotion. Also I'd love to get into more wiki edits and help. Let me know if you need help with other other wikipedia pages. I'd love to contribute. Thank you sir! LIAFF (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possibly TOOSOON. I removed a bunch of sources that weren't about him or merely mentions that didn't support the statements. What is left is a substack (not a reliable source), two AdWeek sources that I can't access, and a non-independent one from his college. I don't find other sources. Lamona (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are 2 refs:
They're substantial enough to establish notability for Eyecandy and, by extension, Jacobi Mehrenger.
I recommend looking briefly at the Eyecandy site to see what the refs are talking about.
Here are two Clios for his Super Bowl ads. As Art Director, he's ranked just under the Creative Director (the top guy on the ad) in the credits:
It's enjoyable to watch the short clips
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those wouldn't pass WP:NCORP, and notability is not inherited. The FStoppers appears to be written by someone who knows the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Lorencz[edit]

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

Non-notable party functionary, with nothing else for sourcing other than what's given in the article. The PPC is very much a 4th place party in Canada, being associated with it doesn't bring much to notability (as would any party functionary). Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LakeFS[edit]

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

Non-notable software, with only venture capital funding PR pieces used for sourcing. Nothing else found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an open-source software, not commercial, that is widely used in ML/AI applications. As a regular user of this software, I noticed that there was no article about this topic, so I started one. I was unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, so I wrote something that is certainly unacceptable. I am trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and intend to improve it so that it reads as an objective article. There are multiple in-depth references about this topic in academia, most of which are available on Google Scholar (Link). Anah509 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. In addition to the books links above (I didn't check them), I found more media coverage articles that are quite easily found in English:

This is an Israeli company and the sources are from Israeli well-established media press. I also saw sources in media in Hebrew but I couldn't assess them properly as I don't know the language. However, even these sources should be sufficient for the article's improvement.--Onetimememorial (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from some editors with experience with AFD discussions and source evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly notable based on the sources listed above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. After blowing away the chaff I don't think we have quite enough to work with here. Policy-based rationale follows.
    First, the rules: WP:PRODUCT states that A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. WP:CORPDEPTH provides that significant coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. WP:COMMERCIAL reminds us why we have these rules: Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Putting this in my own words, I'd say what we need is sufficient sourcing to provide coverage that is robust against promotional abuse.
    Next, the sources. There are a lot of misleading search hits for this term. In addition to the predictable scannos, a non-commercial file system by the same name was announced to the world in a 2008 paper by a Korean team (which had some initial scholarly followup but seems to have fizzled). But that seems to be unrelated to the 2020 Treeverse project that is the subject of this article. After blowing off the chaff, I am left with two sets of sources: the coverage of Treeverse's VC funding in the commercial press (representatively linked by others above), and nontrivial coverage in a couple of recent O'Reilly Media software books, e.g. extensive in-depth discussion in this Kubernetes book (some outside preview), bulleted para of about 40 words here. The Treeverse VC funding articles often also have quite a bit about LakeFS, but in context that information seems unlikely to represent independent reporting.
    This is a tough one IMO. LakeFS is definitely a real thing that people are using and talking about, and the company has gotten some legitimate coverage of its own. But I don't think we have enough on the company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, or enough sustained in-depth coverage of the product to meet WP:PRODUCT. Nor am I really convinced that we have the kind of robust sourcing necessary to avoid promotional abuse. Ideally I'd like to follow the example of the second O'Reilly book and merge this into some bulleted list of data lake management software, but I'm not seeing any viable currently-existing merge targets. -- Visviva (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep We do count independent hebrew sources (news portals, newspapers) as RS. It is not compulsory for the sources to be in English for notability. Okoslavia (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambry Moss[edit]

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

Six official appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Lots of passing mentions from his college and int'l career, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 19:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jospin Gaopandia[edit]

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

Eight official appearances for the Central African Republic national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The sources (e.g., [14][]) are not in sufficient depth to meet general notability. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 04:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOH S264[edit]

WOH S264 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did this get missed in the LMC red supergiant purge? Listing here with the same rationale as WOH S281 and WOH S279. Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article relies on a single large-scale survey to establish notability as an extremely large star. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I could find no significant coverage in sources. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral fresh from the printing house, this publication goes more in depth that the large scale surveys (the star is mentioned as LMC3), although the depth of coverage is still not particularly deep. However, it characterises it as "the most remarkable object in the sample" and that "further investigation is needed". --C messier (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As C messier said, it is considered the most remarkable object in the sample, although notability is still questionable because there is not so much significant coverage. The star has also been noted to be one of most luminous and largest stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud and has even been compared to WOH G64, another extreme red supergiant. The authors of the paper have also mentioned that they will give more detail to the star in a future study, if the paper gets published, this could establish notability on the basis of a whole dedicated paper.SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not support a keep because there is currently not enough WP:SIGCOV from sources to establish notability yet. However I also oppose deletion because it is likely that notability will be established by new sources in the future. Therefore the best option would be to do some sort of WP:ATD to keep the page history in some form without keeping something that does not meet notability guidelines. I cannot think of a suitable merge or redirect target, and transwiki is not an option, so that leaves draftification. I think the article could possibly be kept as a {{Promising draft}} so that new sources can be added to establish notability when they come out, and the draft can then be moved back to mainspace. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to check whether or not there is any more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as a {{Promising draft}} per above comments. We'll likely want this article in the near future and will then have the refs to justify keeping. Why start all over?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:30, 12 July 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 19:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Gandwani[edit]

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

Minor roles in film and television, nothing found for additional sourcing we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the article Preeti Gandwani as it is posted from reliable sources.. I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't delete it. 116.206.202.14 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of low participation. Remember IP editor, articles on living people require reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 11 July 2023 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable criminal; nothing found about the individual. What's given here for sourcing is simply confirmation of the arrest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a dispute about the notability of this individual whose notability rests on being a fraudster.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking notable fraudster to me per the sources provided in the article. Googling Munir Khan fraud reveals [16], [17], [18] [19]. Okoslavia (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (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. And, sorry to say this, Phil, but that ring! Wow, that was mighty impressive. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swa Diamonds[edit]

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

Non-notable business, the award won does not appear significant. Poor sourcing otherwise, nothing found we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking significant and reliable coverage. Guinness World Records holders are not inherently notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  1. They have 150 stores all over India now. It's been reported by Fashion Network when they reported about their store opening in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
  2. I have removed the sentence about the award as per oaktree b's input.
  3. As you well know, the Guinness World Records is not insignificant(I have included the links from Guinness world records themselves, and media outlets like CNN, Fox Business, etc.). After I removed the 'Swadesh National Award', I believe the article stands.
  4. The article only has 4 sentences now, with 9 links for citation.


I request you to reconsider the nomination for deletion.

--Libinthathappilly (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider Guinness Records notable, as you can pay to have them certify your "record". Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have only added details that are factual. I believe the language is neutral. And have provided several relevant citations from- including and not limited to - CNN, Guinness Book of Records official website, fox business, International Gemological institute, and several Indian news and articles. I don't understand what the issue is, and the reason for nomination for deletion. Please tell me what it is. They are a credible start up brand from Kerala, India who created a Guinness record winning ring. A growing startup business from a small city in a small state of India, who garnered international media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libinthathappilly (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Plus, if this discussion is closed as a Soft Deletion, I imagine it will be immediately restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry informing them of this discussion.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • My search for reliable sources to prove notability come up empty except for that big diamond ring. Maybe we should have an article about the ring instead of the company.
@Libinthathappilly, I understand your assertion that the company should be notable - I think with 150 stores it should be, too. But Wikipedia needs in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our requirements to prove a business's notability. Why? It's all about reliability. Wikipedia requires that kind of in-depth reliable coverage to make sure we produce a quality, neutral article. So Wikipedia requires we prove the company is notable in order to keep the article. Here are the relevant rules:
Read over these. If we get good references we can keep this article.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Libinthathappilly, If we are to have a page about this business you need to concentrate on quality, rather than quantity, of sources which are about this business, not a publicity-stunt of a record held by one of its products. Don't include every passing mention of the company in the press and certainly don't mention that ring again. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google Books search only seems to find coverage of diamonds from Namibia, which used to be known as South-West Africa (SWA). A Google News search excluding the publicity stunt just shows me one press release and two passing mentions in lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benika Bisht[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, only having minor roles in a few productions, no sources found to support keeping the article Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the article Benika Bisht as it is posted from reliable sources.. I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't delete it. 116.206.202.14 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There remains disagreement as to whether the framing of this article comprises WP:SYNTH. In addition to weaker arguments, editors arguing for deletion assert that the cited sources do not provide analyses of all three aspects--Zionism, race and genetics--together, particularly noting genetics as an often-missing element of studies of Zionism and race, or else allude to a WP:PAGEDECIDE situation where relevant information would be better covered as part of Zionism or another related article. Editors supporting keep argue that genetics is particularly important to the framing of many, if not necessarily all, of the studies analyzing race and Zionism, and assert that delete !voters are ignoring scholarly books/articles that do address all three topics in tandem but simply do not include the phrase verbatim in their title/abstract.

There seems to be a higher level of agreement (if not yet a consensus) that the current title is less-than-ideal, and that perhaps Zionism and racism (currently a redirect to a section of Racism in Israel), or some other expression of these topics, would be a more appropriate title. That can be taken up as a move request. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism, race and genetics[edit]

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

Oh my, this article is ostensibly on a triply compound topic Zionism, race (human categorization) and genetics. Wow. To be clear, doubly compound topics in Wikipedia have had a history of being interrogated carefully. Only when there are significant and serious treatments which identify a compound topic as significantly addressed as a topic in reliable sources (Science and technology studies, for example) do we ever have a way for Wikipedia's intentionally conservative and non-innovative reference machinery to document the subject. In this case, the article reads a lot like a original research program that is not indicative of active tripartite treatments combining these three subjects. As such, the article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. It is not for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources discusses a tripartite project called "Zionism, race, and genetics". None of them. What possesses you to think otherwise? jps (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there have to be a tripartite project? Whatever that is. Anyway
Abu El-Haj, Nadia (2012). The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology. Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
Discusses all three elements per quote below:-
Quote from the source
"As I argue through a reading of scientific studies of “the genetics of the Jews” published in the 1950s and 1960s, while Zionism presumed the existence of the Jewish people, the founding of the Jewish state put that ideological commitment to the test. What is evident in the work in Israeli population genetics is a desire to identify biological evidence for the presumption of a common Jewish peoplehood whose truth was hard to “see,” especially in the face of the arrival of oriental Jews whose presumably visible civilizational and phenotypic differences from the Ashkenazi elite strained the nationalist ideology upon which the state was founded. Testament to the legacy of racial thought in giving form to a Zionist vision of Jewish peoplehood by the mid-twentieth century, Israeli population researchers never doubted that biological facts of a shared origin did indeed exist, even as finding those facts remained forever elusive."
Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a tripartite project because that is the subject of the article! Wow! What are you doing here? Wikipedia is WP:NOT for novel research projects like this. The quote you include indicates nothing about there being a coherent subject called "Zionism, race, and genetics". In fact, I see instead an analysis that may be relevant to any number of articles we have at Wikipedia that are about genetics, Judaism, Israel, Zionism, etc. But this particular combination of three subjects is absolutely an attempt to shoehorn a thesis that these three subjects are somehow able to combine to form a legitimate research program. The very sources y'all are trying to cite say nothing about that, and this one doesn't either. jps (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above dismissing the SIGCOV was made within 1 minute of being shown the sources. You are expected to try to read them before commenting on them. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think I didn't go through the sources at your article already? You think this is the first I'm seeing your list? Please, don't flatter yourself in thinking that because you've looked at timestamps you are somehow clever. I've done my due diligence. You have not. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you didn't go through the sources, and you are fudging. One fundamental text on this in the bibliography, on its own, runs to 416 pages. It took me 3 days to read that closely, some years ago. So no, you have not read the sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. You can look at the books and the chapters and even do a quick search through those texts that are scanned for relevant sections. If we want to write an entire article on a subject, it should be absolutely apparent at a glance that there is something there. There isn't. You have to strain to come up with a quote that combines all three subjects at once. They just aren't in those books in a serious fashion. If they were, they'd be obvious and easy to point to. jps (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani and ජපස: Can you try to talk about the notability of the article rather than whether the other person is "thinking you are somehow clever" or "fudging" or whatever? jp×g 07:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I don't want to personalize this, yes. One thing, it's not really a question of notability to me because the topic is so pregnant that I think one can argue in good faith that lots of scholars are talking about all three in a variety of sources. The real question is whether a distillation in this fashion is something that doesn't run afoul of WP:NOR. If others had done this distillation before, it wouldn't be a question. I guess I just don't think every AfD has to boil down to a question of notability even though I know that this tends to be the way the winds blow these days. jps (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Form a research programme? Huh? What do you mean? The only aim here is to produce a page on a pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources. That the page title contains three words that you perceive as three separate subjects is incidental. There was already a discussion raised about whether the title was apt; one that you could have participated in. There are several ways on which the article could probably be phrased as just two things, if that is your peccadillo. It could just as equally have been named 'Zionism and race science' or 'Zionism and racial politics'. These would both have been dualistic titles for much the same material already presented. That the title as it stands uses three terms is by-the-by, and if that is your only complaint then it is a naming issue, not a notability one. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources No one has demonstrated that the subject as stated in the title of the article exists! It is bizarre that you think it does. As I stated above, compound topics themselves are fraught. The ones you are describing are somewhat less problematic than the identified synthetic subject of this article, but I have a hard time imagining any of them being legitimate research topics either. BLANK and BLANK typically are not the kind of things Wikipedia hosts because they are necessarily syntheses of two topics. Only when that synthesis is recognized as a synthesis do we host articles on the subject. I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. Zionism and "race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. Zionism and "race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. The third source posted by Onceinawhile above, a 30-year-old book published by Yale University Press, says at page 11: In Chapter 6, I investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people.... Levivich (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is there! However, I see no discussion of genetics in the chapter. As I intimated, an article on Zionism and race science is a bit more defensible. This is not this article. jps (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falk's 2017 book, published by Springer, is the 4th source on Once's list. It says, at page 3, the introduction: Correspondingly, as the conflict of the Zionist State with the Arab world intensified, so did the wish to prove "scientifically," by biological-genetic means, the immanent physical, historic connection of the Jewish people to Zion. Genetics, it was hoped, would uphold not only the historical evidence, but would also provide biological evidence that the dispersed Jewish ethnic groups (eidoth) of today are indeed one people whose roots trace back to Eretz-Israel.) This book from 5 years ago cites and discusses at length the other book I quoted above from 30 years ago.
If you think Zionism and race/genetics is not a topic covered by these books, I don't know what to tell you, other than to ask if you've actually looked at them or not. It's taken me minutes to find these quotes just by searching in Google books for "Zionism", "race science," "genetics", etc. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where is the "race" in that quote? Race/genetics is itself a fraught compound topic. It's not dealt with in a serious fashion in that text that I can see. jps (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's at the bottom of the same page, page 3: Jews were considered to be a different "race" -- a socio-cultural invention of a presumed "biological entity" ... If you are arguing that this book does not discuss Zionism, race, and genetics, then you clearly have not read or even searched it for those keywords. FFS, the title of the book is Zionism and the Biology of Jews, and you contend that this book does not discuss Zionism, race, and genetics. Rather unbelievable. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that these three large topics are not being connected as a coherent whole. I am arguing that the three topics are arbitrarily chosen as connected to create a WP:SYNTH article even as absolutely none of the scholars cited mention a topic like this. We're not just talking "synonyms" here. We're talking taking specific threads in rather large and considered academic works and then jamming them into what is supposed to be a tertiary source. I'm sure this piece could be a great college paper topic. But as an encyclopedia entry? There is no there there for a subject called "Zionism, race and genetics". C'mon. Content worth rescuing can and should be shunted off to articles that need improving. If one of them gets unwieldy, I'm sure some less triply compound articles can be spun out. jps (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These topics are connected as a coherent whole on page 3 of the book called Zionism and the Biology of Jews, which I quoted above, where the author says some Zionists hoped genetics would prove that Jews were a race, and in other sources cited on this page. It's pretty ridiculous to accuse Onceinawhile of combining these topics, as if the sources don't discuss them together, especially in the face of quotes from sources directly on the subject, using the exact same verbiage, entire monographs about this. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not understanding my point. But no matter. I'll just say that Zionism and the Biology of Jews looks to be a source that can be used to support many articles, but to me its existence does not demonstrate that there is a broader research project out there looking at Zionism, race and genetics in a distilled fashion. jps (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are already articles on Jewish Peoplehood and Genetic Studies on Jews Drsmoo (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to deal with the racial politics surrounding Zionism, a good place to start would be to work on Anti-Zionism#Allegations_of_racism. You could use the sources here. You could help improve that space. Maybe it would expand greatly. Then you could then spin-out an article from that section. That's not what is going on here. jps (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How have you got this so turned around that you think the subject has anything to do with anti-Zionism? This is about Zionism and the politics of race. If you think 'race science' is too racey, try: Zionism, race, and eugenics and Zionist eugenics, mixed marriage, and the creation of a ‘new Jewish type’ - also related articles that are sitting out there in plain view, hosted by scholarly publishers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I am turned around here, it's because the only place I see discussion of racism in relation to top-level discussions of Zionism is on the Anti-Zionism page. That's Wikipedia's fault, not mine. If it is more properly commentary on Zionism -- there ought to be a section in that article. jps (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The science or politics of race aren't equivalent to racism; they are topic areas where the theories and the polemics often just treads a very fine line nearby. And a relevant subsection on Zionism linking to this child article had already been created before this AfD. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the main article of that section Zionist ethnic unity or something of that nature? jps (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
science or politics of race aren't equivalent to racism this is true in a literal sense, but it is also the case that the science and politics of race essentially only exist because of the observed effects of racism. If racism did not exist, there would be no "science or politics of race". jps (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This morning I created a list of egregious issues with this article Talk:Zionism, race and genetics/Archive 2#List of Egregious article issues
The article is a collection of cherry picked sources WP:SYNTHd together to push a POV narrative. It disparages the work of prominent researchers by claiming they have a “Zionist agenda”, which appears to be the insinuated thesis of the article. It completely ignores findings of mainstream research and only highlights research that pushes a non-mainstream POV of disputing Jewish genetic studies. Drsmoo (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like the proposer, Drsmoo is evidently unfamiliar with the topic and the sources, which would take a sedulous reader at least a week of concentrated study to master, and they merely are the iceberg's tip. Any familiarity with the inception of Zionism, its primary and the multitude of secondary sources, will tell anyone that, predictably, since it was embedded in universal Western cultural discourse that classified people by races, Zionism's fundamental proponents from the outset were deeply concerned with race. They were no different in this than liberal thinkers of that period.

At the outset of his Zionist activity, in July of 1895, Herzl met with the celebrated writer Max Nordau, who was to become Herzl’s most stalwart ally. Herzl noted in his diary that the two men agreed that Jewishness had “nothing to do with religion” but that “we are of the same race.” What they meant by race was vague, and could, as was common at the time, have been a way of describing what would later be called ethnicity. The conflation of ethnic and racialist discourse characterizes another diary en try, from 21 November 1895, in which Herzl describes Israel Zangwill as of a “longnosed, Negroid type, with very woolly deep black hair.” Despite this racialized description, Herzl posits that it was Zangwill, not himself, who defined peoples by racial criteria, a view that, Herzl writes, “I cannot accept if I so much look at him and at myself. … We are an historical unit, a nation with anthropological diversities. This also suffices for the Jewish State. No nation has uniformity of race.Derek Penslar,'Theodor Herzl, Race, and Empire,' 2020 p.196.

So, Zionism and race, since it has been a serious topic esp. in the last 2 decades, is a natural topic for wikipedia. Since genetics, in some hands, now constitutes a relatively new 'scientific' redemption of the theory's assumptions, it is clearly part of the topic. The tripartite rubbish is just that. One could simply elide 'and genetics' and nothing would change, except the title on a legitimate topic covering modern research, would not flag the fact that a major section of the article would paraphrase a large body of genetic papers since the 1990s which aspire to establish a genetic proof for Zionism's central thesis. So the objection is ill-informed about the topic, and disingenuously quibbling over the length of the title.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As kind of a point number one, the people who write an article have a duty to get the subject right. If you think removing genetics will make the article work, then move the article to the new title, reframe it, and show your work. jps (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that at all. It was the obvious proposal someone uneasy at the three words could have suggested to overcome your dislike of tripartite titles. This is pointless niggling.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think we're looking at WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Which is pretty close to a first for me. jps (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.'s thorough analysis, and looking at the page content, it is full of SYNTH. This is textbook SYNTH, and a neutral encyclopaedic article is not going to fly based on this proposed synthesis of subjects. The appropriate place to encyclopaedically discuss this subject would be Zionism, which page does have a short section on ethnic unity. That seems appropriate, but there seems to be no good reason to spin that short section out into a full article, and then to add in race and make genetics part of the head subject. As things stand, SYNTH is baked in, and the only solution is deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy: please confirm which of the sources listed under SIGCOV above you have read? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An odd question, especially one that required a ping. Did you have a question about my rationale above? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy: The subsection on Zionism was created after this page as a summary of the emerging child. The parent page already has 65kB of readable prose, so to expand that page with derivative topics would simply be to take it into WP:TOOLONG territory. Simply bloating existing articles is not a good way of covering new sub-topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is already pushing the limits of WP:TOOBIG although not over it even with the additional section, which benefits from being placed within the page context. So the question, per WP:SPINOUT, is what should be spun out. This one clearly does nothing to address the article size, and per WP:HASTE a broader and more considered discussion is needed if the size issue is to be addressed. The reason this spinout is problematic is because it falls foul of WP:AND:

    Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased.

    Better to keep this subject within the page and context that allows it to be understood, rather than mashing up new WP:SYNTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it can't really be synth if reliable sources discuss it in this way. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That you can say that does suggest you may not be listening. You have sources about eugenics, yet this article uses them to talk about genetics. Maybe Zionist eugenics would be a better title. But then, what would you object that we lose? That is where the synth lies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were just a couple of related sources that make clear the overall interrelationship between Zionism and the politics of race. I have said below the title is likely not ideal, but that could have been addressed with an RM, not an AfD belying a clearly extant corpus of subject-matter. The full body of sources is available for anyone to peruse above, on the page, and simply through searching relevant terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And per WP:IAR, as even if it could be shown that this questionable conflation of three different topics is actually 'notable' per Wikipedia notability guidelines, the chances of an actual encyclopaedic article coming out of it seem statistically indistinguishable from zero. The inevitable fate, should this whatever-it-is be kept, is it to become a permanent battleground for POV-pushers of all persuasions. If people want to fight amongst themselves over controversial conflations (I'm sure some do), they should find somewhere else to do it. Save the article-space-as-battleground perpetual bunfights for the topics an actual encyclopaedia might consider worth covering. This isn't. It isn't a single topic. It is an argument over at least three different things - two of which only exist in people's heads - over which there is no possibility of agreement over scope, over legitimate sources, or over what the hell it all means anyway. We are under no obligation to provide an arena for article-warfare, and shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are you editors actually reading these sources? They all talk about Zionism and race/genetics. I'm not commenting on the title or the content of the article, but the topic is an obviously notable topic that has received significant coverage in academic works, such as those posted by Once and Self above. It's a perfectly valid spinoff of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally spin-offs are done by improving the parent article first. Not always, but I also do not see the relevant work done to summarize the ostensible subject of this article elsewhere in a coherent fashion. I do see some edit wars over links, but that is it. jps (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a spin-off? I've collected very substantial files, articles and books touching on this for a decade, since Bloom's monograph appeared, because is a recurrent theme in my reading in this area. It's not a topic one can jump into after a few arbitrary scraps attracting one's attention when googling with a POV mission to 'hit', say, Israel. That, a natural concern to handle a touchy topic by first of all thoroughly reading up on it sometimes over a decade without intemperate haste, and laziness/so many other interests, are the only reasons why I hadn't yet written an article on this topic wikipedia ignores. But now a sketch of one is up, I commend the main editor and, though it needs considerable thickening and development, am amazed that merely the title itself can stir up deletionist fervour. As Levivich states with great integrity, sources on the intertwining of these three elements are abundant and there is no evidence so far objections reflect a careful reading of the small sample of sources so far noted in the bibliography.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a spin-off? A spin-off of what article exactly? :3 F4U (they/it) 02:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a spin-off. Levivich says it is, however. jps (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Zionism? nableezy - 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I gathered from what is written. There is a {{main}} template in a section of Zionism used that seems to pay at least a courtesy homage to such an idea. But, as I mentioned above, I would have guessed that a different article subject would have been the main article for that section. jps (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, thanks. But the point being made is not about whether a topic exists, but rather whether this topic is a single topic that can be dealt with encyclopaedically, or whether it is a synthesis of more than one topic - and more to the point, whether this new article, as it is construed, will inevitably continue to be a synthesis unless more carefully envisaged. So looking at the bibliography provided by Onceinawhile above, there are five sources above. Yet these five sources are not on the same thing, and therein lies the problem. Whilst Burton (2021) is talking about human heredity as science, of which Jewish genetics is a part, other sources are looking at different issues. Efron (2021) looks at the historic response to 19th century scientising of anti Jewish prejudice and includes material on the appropriation of race science by Zionists. Focussing on this aspect of that book takes us from science to pseudoscience, and then we have Falk (2017) who looks at the zionist hope, that "regrouping as a nation in their homeland would have profound eugenic consequences, primarily halting the degeneration they fell prey to because of the conditions imposed on them in the past." That work is a discussion of zionist eugenics, as is the discussion in Hirsch (2009), self evidently just from the title. Now it seems to me that yes, there is definitely a subject of Zionist eugenics, of which genetics would merely be a sub-section of the discussion. There is also a subject of Jewish genetics, a scientific subject that is properly treated elsewhere. The problem with this article is that it purports to be both, as demonstrated by the source selection, and by the title. It conflates race (socially constructed) with genetics (a subject of scientific study), along with a strand of zionist thought on eugenics. The result bakes in synthesis. It is for this reason I think this article clearly needs deletion. This view is without prejudice against the creation of properly focussed articles on either the science or the pseudoscience - but not both. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-siècle Europe" by John Efron, professor of Jewish History (1994). "Zionist race science" == "Zionism, race, and genetics", because "race science" == "race and genetics". This book was written 30 years ago, and it has entire chapters about Zionism and race science. This book was reprinted last year (2022), and has been cited almost 500 times. From page 11: In chapter 6, I investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people...
  2. "Zionist Eugenics, Mixed Marriage, and the Creation of a 'New Jewish Type'" (2009) in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, first sentence of the abstract: The application of racial categories to the Jews by Zionist physicians and anthropologists in the first half of the twentieth century has been the focus of several recent studies. That was 14 years ago. "Zionist eugenics" == "Zionism, race, and genetics" because "eugenics" == "race and genetics".
  3. "Zionism and the Biology of Jews" (Raphael Falk (geneticist), 2017) == "Zionism, race, and genetics". It's written by a geneticist! The whole f'ing book is about Zionism, genetics, and race. The whole book! "Biology of Jews" == "race and genetics"
  4. "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew" (2017) (a section in Jew by Cynthia Baker, whose "research explores ideas about gender, race/ethnicity, and nationalism in the formative periods of Judaism") From page 99, the beginning of the "Zionism's New Jew" section: Zionism’s new Jew was formed at the intersection of nineteenth and early twentieth-century race science/eugenics with romanticized, racialized, ethnic nationalisms. "race science/eugenics" = "race and genetics". This entire section is about this. FFS, "The Birth of the Genomic Jew", is in the title. "Genomic Jew" = "race and genetics".
I'll say it again: anyone who claims this topic is not the subject of scholarly study is lying. There isn't a "good faith" explanation. It's not a content dispute. Just concede that this is a topic of scholarly study. If you want to argue some other reason for deletion -- POVFORK, TNT, whatever -- go ahead, but don't misrepresent the sources by suggesting they are not about Zionism, race, and genetics, as a single cohesive topic, discussed by many academic sources, for decades. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And conflates race (socially constructed) with genetics (a subject of scientific study) ... that's what eugenics is, it's a type of race science aka scientific racism. That's why these sources use those terms: Zionist eugenics, Zionist race science, Zionist scientific racism are all possible titles, as is Zionism, race, and genetics. But it's the same topic, it's about the intersection of scientific racism and Zionism, or, as the lead of the article says, various people have tried to use race pseudoscience (which includes genetic pseudoscience) to argue for or against Zionism. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This deserves a longer reply than I can give right now, but I note again that I am not saying there is no topic here, I am saying that the topic that is here is not encapsulated in the framing, which is sloppy and bakes in contentious editing. On the sources, they are not all saying the same thing. (Burton, 2021), which you don't address there, is talking about the use of genetics from the early 20th century to construct national origin myths in the middle east as a whole. It is not talking about zionism in particular, although yes, that is covered. It also goes on to talk about genetics today, both how it is used for nationalistic purposes and more progressively. But the subject there is not just genetics in zionism, and the thesis is not so easily divorced from its context.
What of the other sources? Well if we agree with the equivalence you posit: "Zionist race science" == "Zionism, race, and genetics", and also "Zionist eugenics" == "Zionism, race, and genetics" then we have a==b==z. We have a subject. Equivalence is reflexive, so it follows that "Zionism, race, and genetics"=="Zionist eugenics". That is the subject you believe is covered here. That is also, I think, the primary subject that the page creator wishes to cover, and that is thus the best page title.
My problem with this is that I don't think that the terms are equivalent. You see, Falk (2017) argues that the very concept of the Jewish race is harmful and misleading, and he covers the history of the eugenics to dismiss it, but what he dismisses is still race and still genetics, and so what another editor will find is that Zionism, race and geentics is not neutral because it doesn't cover (makeyuppyname, 2024) whose genetic studies say this, and you get a bunch of primary sources being inserted like here Early European Farmers#Studies#Studies (that one less contentiously). You get calls for balance and understanding of both Falk and what Falk argues against, and, indeed, the latest research that approves or disproves Falk. What you get is synth, because I think "Zionism, race, and genetics" > "Zionist eugenics".
Thus a more careful framing is perfectly good. It is THIS framing that is wrongheaded. If the page were on Zionist eugenics or some other wording that entirely avoids WP:AND then the deletion reason goes away. As others have noted, perhaps an RM would have been better, but we are where we are. If the narrower framing is objected to, that shows where the synth is coming in. Hmm that is a longer reply than I intended. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Levivich. Not liking a notable topic doesnt make it less notable. A number of sources clearly discuss this as a topic, and give this topic significant sustained coveraged, making this a notable topic suitable for a Wikipedia article. nableezy - 20:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it's worth, genetics is a factor when Israeli officials evaluate ethnic groups claiming to be Jewish. There are many of these groups globally, some legitimate and others either misguided or cynically trying to get to a more affluent country. See Category:Groups claiming Israelite descent. (permalink) As for "race" that's a whole different topic. These different groups hail from multiple so-called "races" and Israel's determination has not been based on "race". --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My gut reaction to the claim that this is not a notable topic was something like "what planet do they live on?" Of course it is a notable topic and there is a very large literature. Does jps think that race and genetics are unrelated concepts? Does jps not know that race was an important theme in Zionist thinking from the beginning, both through origin traditions and fear of miscegenation? Does jps not know that genetics plays some of the same roles in modern Zionist thinking as what race played in the past and that this was a natural progression that is well studied? If the title doesn't fit the article well enough, argue for a change of title. If there is OR in the article, engage with it. A cogent argument for deletion simply has not been presented. Zerotalk 02:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't a notable topic. I said it was a synthetic one. Can you think of a better title? Maybe that would solve it (who am I to say?) But when I read the article it looks like it is doing the kind of rhetorical hoops you are jumping through as the subject. I think this is a misapprehension of how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. We look for big subjects and then narrow down. We don't present unique analyses worthy of term papers. It's a question of genre. jps (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is gobbledygook. The topic can be either notable or synthetic, not both. Notable means already covered in reliable sources; synthetic is the opposite. What are you saying? That the page or its title is synthetic? The page is a work in progress. It was only just begun. The title is a naming issue. And title's are actually allowed to be created out of nowhere by editors if the shoe fits. That's what a descriptive title often is. A subject can be clear, but there can equally be no common name for it out there in the literature. Here, the titular naming is distinctly varied, even where the contents come around to the same subjects. What I personally think might be the most on the mark topic is 'Zionism and the politics of race', since this embraces both the aspect of politicization of race and encompasses the later genetic science that was dragged into the same political arena in the effort to ground the same substance. But again, you're not necessarily going to find existing sources by that title. It's just descriptive. So is that synthetic too? You can find chapters like "Race, Zionism, and the Quest for Jewish Authenticity" in books like Jews, Race, and the Politics of Difference, there is Israel, Palestine, and the Politics of Race, and an assessment of Zionism is also present in Michael Banton's The International Politics of Race , but again, there are no dead ringers to be found for such a prospective descriptive title. It just needs to be agreed upon. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, we see things differently. "Notability" has become something of a catch-all at Wikipedia in ways that I do not appreciate. I see WP:SYNTH as part of WP:OR. There are original research topics that are notable, but cannot be included in Wikipedia because the sources don't (yet) exist that treat the topic as a coherent subject. What you say is "gobbledygook" I say is a fundamental way to judge article potential. Original research isn't bad. It just isn't for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the sources do. Read just the abstract of Falk's Zionism and the Biology of the Jews. You will find references to all the pertinent terms, "Zionism", "racial" (race) and "gene" (genetics), all there. In just the abstract. The term "biology" in the title is clearly used intentionally as a catch-all for all of the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that I see a difference between separate terms that are referenced and a coherent combination of terms. I get it. There are books that use three words or their derivatives. But do they argue these three words are connected as a subject? I don't see that. jps (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided The compound topic itself completely meets WP:GNG and I strongly disagree with AndyTheGrump's suggestion that there is no possibility of a good article coming out of this topic. However, as it stands, the lede section is full of WP:SYNTH, parts of the article fly against WP:NOR, and the majority of the article's text is made up of quotations--to the point where I think its a significant copyright concern. Might be a candidate for WP:TNT. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to keep as large improvements of the article have been underway. Potentially rename as well to better match the scope of the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an shoddily written attack page. More importantly, the topic is SYNTH, as evidenced by the use of and in the title. If this article were to stand, one could bundle together any loosely written topics. We would have Ice cream and sex, and hey I've got a source! And another one! And another! and even this! Would would also have topics like Ski lodges as hookup locations or Olympic athletes and QAnon conspiracies, both of which are trivial to find sources seemingly tying them together. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you definitely could write a Wikipedia article on ice cream and sex. There is everything to be written about there from people for whom ice cream is a kink to companies selling ice cream specifically for sex to academic commentaries on the sexualization of ice cream advertising. You chose silly examples, but it's a valid topic. That the use of 'and' in a title is a daft assertion, and I think you probably know it. Are you claiming you have never seen an 'and' article before. 'and' in a title is not only allowed; it is policy. WP:AND starts: "Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article." The OP here may wish to note the use of the phrase "or more". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you may wish to note the use of the phrase "closely related" (examples "yin and yan", "promotion and relegation" etc.) or indeed the rest of WP:AND which states: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. "Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." The concepts used in the title here are all commonly combined in legion reliable sources. And it's "closely related or complementary concepts", and here the complementary nature of the topics is reliably sourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My impression is that negationist editors (asserting the topic does not exist in reliable sources) are utterly unfamiliar with the sources, indeed with the topic area's scholarship and are reflecting a knee-jerk reaction to the words in the title itself, as if this were some devious attempt to smuggle into wiki the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism, 30 years after it had been revoked by the General Assembly. That is the only explanation I can give myself for this extraordinary response. Objectors must be 'reading between the lines' and suspecting some ulterior motives in writing up such a thematic weave. Well, no. It is something Israeli and diaspora scholarship in particular, with its characteristic steady nerves, has explored in some depth over the last decades. Here is one of the sources, which the objectors obviously have not cared to glance at, which alludes to the numerous scholars exploring this nexus in recent scholarship.

Francis Nicosia has argued recently that secular and racial antisemitism generated a national-separatist Jewish response. And while civic emancipation and assimilation sapped Jewish religious identity, a more organic perception of nationhood began to crystallize. It incorporated ethnic and volkisch elements that were widespread in German nationalist circles These romantic elements, as demonstrated by George Mosse, strongly influenced nascent Zionist organizations throughout Germany. Since the early nineteenth century, the German concept of Volk had denoted a metaphys ical and eternal entity which was constituted of all the German people - a people with absolute values. It reflected the natural, wild, and emotional character of the people, while the family was regarded as its biological founda tion. The late nineteenth-century volkisch concepts were of neo-romantic mysticism and foregrounded the irrational forces of nature and genuine essence of the people, in contrast to the present, 'artificial' one. Among rising Jewish national groups this concept included the idea of a 'community of one's blood' as defined by Martin Buber, which helped to forge a Jewish national consciousness. Beyond the examination of the volkisch-cultural nature of early Zionism, several studies have considered the Jewish, and especially Zionist, discussion of race since the late nineteenth century. I might mention here the early research of Joachim Doron, Annegret Kiefer, and John Efron, while among recent studies the most relevant are those of Mitchell Hart, Todd Endelman, Raphael Falk, and Veronika Lipphardt. This work has exposed the 'scientific' racial aspects embedded in the emerging Jewish national ideology. Moreover, it contended that in particular Zionist scientists in Germany, and to some extent also in England, Russia, and the United States, employed the language of science and academic research in the fields of anthropology, biology, medicine and sociology in order to reaffirm the distinctiveness of the Jewish people.' Avraham 2017 p.473.

So the scandalized expostulations are totally misplaced. We don't censor here, we don't get our knickers in a twist over treatments of sensitive issues, screaming 'I don't wanna know!' Since scholars write of the historic nexus between 19-20th concepts of race and Zionist formulations (themselves often arising as a (misplaced) defense against antisemitists who denied Jews were a people), and this again inflects the rise of genetic endorsements of a Jewish identity, it is not only natural, but obligatory to carefully represent this debate on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the scandalized expostulations are totally misplaced. We don't censor here, we don't get our knickers in a twist over treatments of sensitive issues, screaming 'I don't wanna know! It would be better if you focussed on the actual arguments rather than the editors. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Suggest you read that through and strike the straw man and ad hominem lines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many policy flags are being waved here furiously? There is no argument just editors flaunting unfamiliarity with the topic as opposed to reliance on vague winks at a putative policy abuse outlined in guidelines. So we have WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:HASTE, WP:AND, WP:TNT and WP:BATTLEGROUND etc. Such links are not arguments and if,Sirfurboy to advise others : 'It would be better if you focussed on the actual arguments' then try for once to do so yourself, rather than walking past things like the quote from Avraham above which contradicts all of the uninformed assertions from the deletionist camp.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BATTLEGROUND concern is that you characterise the three delete !votes above as "negationist editors... utterly unfamiliar with the sources...knee jerk reaction.... scandalised expostulations... knickers in a twist... screaming 'I don't wanna know!' when in fact none of that describes nor argues with the actual points raised. If anything it makes the point that the subject as formulated here creates "an arena for article-warfare." In engaging in battleground behaviour and transparently personal attacks, it seems to me you have reinforced the argument for this article's deletion, which you don't seem to have noticed is not ignorant of a clear body of literature that there is some subject here, but that the subject that is here is not the subject as formulated in this article.
As for your remarks about policy that has been cited: you may not participate in many deletion discussions but you have participated in enough that you ought to be aware that deletion reasons must be policy based, and that we don't just have a vote based on personal opinions. Thus citing WP:AND, for instance, which says: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. are exceptionally pertinent to the actual discussion. A title that focuses on one thing (e.g. Zionist eugenics) makes sense. A title that allows multiple issues to be conjoined, both scientific and pseudoscientific, is a recipe for... well, BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Don't you think? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The precise formulation of the title aside, this page reflects a topic that clearly exists in reliable sources, with the page being created expressly to reflect those hitherto ignored and unreflected reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re title: looks like it is worth having a WP:RM discussion in due course. I was originally going to write an article about “Zionism and genetics”, but it would have needed a large background section about “Zionism and race”, because all the recent sources cover both together. I figured the tripartite title would fit well, following the parent article Race and genetics. The topics can’t be coherently separated, which is presumably why Falk’s book went for "Zionism and biology", which is an option for us here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. This reads a little bit to me like you leapfrogged over what I would consider to be necessary intermediary steps in this. Zionism as settler colonialism exists as an article and the sources seem straightforward. Zionism as racism does not. And yet, accusations that Zionism is racist abound in certain commentary (and, I'm sure, claims it is not racist/racialized are easily discovered as well). jps (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionism as racism" is about Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians. That has nothing to do with the topic of this article. If that needs making clear, we can add the word Jewish, so it becomes "Zionism and Jewish race and genetics". To my mind that is less elegant, but the title is much less important than the content. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you are talking about are arguments about ethnic markers (incidentally, there is an article that I think should exist[20]) within the context of Zionism that have parallels and antecedents in race science. While this is something that scholars have studied as demonstrated in your sources, I do not think we have strong indications from those sources that this is separate from the racism accusations involving Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians. In fact, it seems many of your sources argue there is a direct connection between these ideas. Why are you separating them? jps (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only connection with the Palestinians in this topic area is the historical beliefs amongst some early Zionists that Palestinians were also descended from ancient Israelites and thus the two peoples were "cousins", and modern day genetic science on Jewish origins which often compares Jewish genetic connections to those of Palestinians. But to your comments above, none of this has anything to do with "racism", which is primarily about discrimination and thus an entirely separate subject. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Racism is the primary if not the only motivation for the social construction of race. jps (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: that is not the case here, and it is not what the sources say. Zionism was founded as a positive ideology to lift Jews out of the oppression they faced in 19th century Europe, and the concepts of race (and later genetics) were used to bind them together and justify the ideology of a “return” to another land. It is this latter topic that this article is focused on.
Remember, Jews were not the original constructors of the concept of the Jewish race. The “Jewish race”, and almost all other races constructed in early modern European race science, were constructed with exactly the motivation you describe – racism against Jews and other “non-white” races.
The topic of this article, as the sources go through in detail, is about how Zionism took this theory, turned it on its head, and used it to justify that original wider ideology. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good news - some solid evidence to confirm the above: Mark H. Gelber, p.126 (full cite in article): It is fair to say that a racialist orientation was fundamental to German Cultural Zionism… In this context, it is essential to distinguish carefully between "racialism" and "racism." Invariably, German Cultural Zionism presented a view of racial difference and uniqueness within the framework of the equality of races and the common dignity of all humans to develop their own potentialities within racial groupings. Racialist formulations which tended toward racism and claims of racial superiority of one race over others were avoided as a rule within Cultural Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why the article is WP:SYNTH, first comes the opinion, and then search for keywords in Google scholar to try to support it (Good news!)(like applying a section about “German Cultural Zionism” to the entire movement) then slop it into the article; rinse, repeat.
After finding your keyword in Google Scholar, loudly accuse those criticizing the article of not having read every word in all the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the content not the contributor. I would be happy to share how I find sources with anyone who asks. The imaginative characterization above is inappropriate (“slop”, “rinse, repeat”, “loudly accuse” etc). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by user now topic-banned and resulting discussion
  • Delete, the sooner the better. This piece is the latest among a series of articles trying to delegitimize Israel, Zionism and undermine the connection of Jews to the Land of Israel, from the same author that brought us Mixed cities (DYK: .. that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing?) that for some reason discusses the phenomena in Israel only; Shrine of Husayn's Head (DYK: ... that the demolition of the Shrine of Husayn's Head (pictured), probably the most important Shi'a Muslim shrine in Israel, may have been related to efforts to transfer Palestinians out of the country?); and Ancient text corpora: (DYK: ... that all known writing in Ancient Hebrew totals just 300,000 words, versus 10 million in Akkadian (pictured), 6 million in Ancient Egyptian and 3 million in Sumerian?). I'd never want to cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors, but it is quite difficult to dismiss this as a coincidence. Just check out the DYK recommended for the article we're currently discussing: "... that the genetic origin of modern Jews is considered important within Zionism, as it seeks to provide a historical basis for the belief that descendants of biblical Jews have "returned"?" And while the article states that "The application of the Biblical concepts of Jews as the chosen people and "Promised Land" in Zionism requires the belief that modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites", it overlooks the fact that DNA research have shown that Jews from the majority of ethnic groups worldwide have a Middle Eastern ancestry derived from the Ancient Near East. It's also crucial to note that the idea of race in early Zionist thought was somewhat different. For instance, Ben Gurion acknowledged that Jews were not racially "pure" (i.e. modern Jews mainly descend from Israelites and ancient Jews, but have mixed with others to some extent throughout history) but continued to refer to the Jewish people and the fellahin of Palestine (later known as Palestinian villagers) as "races" (which, in his perspective, were related biologically and historically, with the fellahin maybe deriving from the ancient Jews as well). To sum up, this piece is a POV-Fork of Genetic studies on Jews that got its start after an edit by the author of this article on Zionism was reverted for utilizing a dubious source that referred to Zionism as colonialism without offering alternative viewpoints. It relies on WP:SYNTH and cherry-picked sources and quotes to construct an essay, not an article, that makes a connection between three topics that haven't been discussed extensively together in scholarship, seemingly in order to persuade readers that either Zionism is a racist ideology, or, that contemporary Jews have nothing to do with ancient Israel. Aside from the obvious synthesis and maybe also activist point-scoring (see WP:ACTIVISM#Basic ways to spot activists and then "Addition of well-sourced but biased material"), as well as the anti-Zionist view prevalent therein, it is starting to read lot like an antisemitic trope. The more articles like this are created, the more Wikipedia's credibility declines, and even worse: the sentiments portrayed in this article and similar ones, as well as the massive truth-bending, may actually inspire antisemitic hate speech, if not violence. It's our responsibility to put a stop to this phenomenon. We can start with deleting this piece. Tombah (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have violations of WP:NPA grounding an attack on Onceinawhile (who was overwhelmingly responsible for writing the Balfour Declaration and achieving its FA status). The above screed (with its exhausting refrain of something which, on numerous wiki pages, Tombah insists is the 'truth' .all jews descend from Isreaelites living 3000 years ago) is clearly targeting Onceinawhile and his bona fides. He is apparently an 'activist' (of course Tombah isn't. He has the truth in his pocket) who is using this article to 'delegitimize Israel'. In this discursive field, we all know, 'delegitimizing Israel' is coded language for antisemitism. Well done. This is just the handiwork of an antisemite working under cover. I don't know how editors can get away with these foul insinuations.
Since there is so much confusion here, I'll undertake to review and rewrite the article, expanding it substantially, referring each and every sentence in the resultant article, to a relevant reliable source on the topic of Zionism, race and genetics. Since it means making an orderly précis of some 2,500 pages (so far) it may take me a week. Then by all means, take the usual hammers at it, but they'd better be well-argued and not merely unfocused policy redflag waving.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed that all Jews descend from the Israelites. However, the majority of Jews do have lineage that can be traced to the Ancient Near East, with varying amounts of admixture (for AJs genetic studies show mixed Near Eastern and European ancestry); this is the general consensus in current research (which you still deny). And I don't think the questions I just raised violate WP:PNA; in fact, I think Onceinawhile is a competent and talented editor, and I didn't mean to belittle him. On the other side, you my friend, are already well known for personally attacking other editors, especially those who disagree with you, labelling them as "incompetent" and sometimes influenced by "Zionist education", always claiming that "their knowledge of the subject is limited" and disparaging their work (your most recent insult, I believe, was that my work was "a pastiche"). Tombah (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you kindly stop beating that drum meme everywhere on wikipedia. Numerous editors have told you, with a mass of critical literature showing the fallacy of that traditional assumption and its use in Zionist ideology, and you talk right past them. This is not about ancient Israel. This is about the way 19th century race theories (which were hostile to Jews) were in turn reformulated among Zionists to fashion a counter-argument against antisemitic intolerance by claiming Jews were not, as Reform Judaism held, a religion but the expression of a nation/race, and this fed into core modern examinations of Jewish origins in the later 20th century turn to genetics. We are not dealing with 'truths', but with the modern genealogy of an idea about that ancient belief. Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the article has a track record of producing Wikipedia pages backed by scholarly sourcing, none of which have been deleted, and that is somehow an argument for deletion? I must be missing something. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is easily met. The impetus for this article is a discussion at Talk:Zionism#Question that arose following the deletion of material by an editor asserting that the "overwhelming majority of reputable sources" provide proof of what had been stated as just a belief in the removed source: "that modern Jews are the primary descendants of biblical Jews and Israelites." After a lengthy debate about whether such proof exists, we arrive at this article, logically in my view. Its creation was announced during the aforesaid discussion, efforts made to locate sourcing and it transpires that these elements are discussed together in multiple scholarly sources. Accusations of SYNTH have no basis, no conclusions have been drawn by aggregating, linking or otherwise inappropriately conjoining material from otherwise independent sources. The rush to delete this article began almost immediately after creation and appears most unseemly, imo more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any reasoned analysis.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I don't think that it is a good idea to write articles to try to win talkpage debates. I guess there aren't any rules against it, per se, but it strikes me as a kind of motivation that can lead to less-than-ideal editorial practices. jps (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of a glass half full perspective. The alternative description is that a talk page discussion highlighted a topic whose coverage on Wikipedia represented a glaring omission. That's actually how the community is supposed to work. Editors discuss things and expand the encyclopedia to fill gaps. That's productive and constructive. If you had simply joined the page to brainstorm the name and scope, instead of launching this AfD, all of this community time spent on this discussion could have been spent actually making sense of the sources in a meaningful manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I don't think we should have a rule against this motivation because, hey, people can get good inspiration from anywhere. But I still think there are major dangers and easy-to-fall-into traps when taking this kind of approach. jps (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich. Reflecktor (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tombah, the article is a POV-Fork of Genetic Studies on Jews and functions as an attack page unacceptably targeting mainstream researchers by insinuating through synth, and claiming without attribution (in Wikipedia’s voice), that their work is ideological. The scope of this article is an attempt to synth together cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers (the original version of the article SYNTH’d the neologism “Jewish Scientific Racism”, which was not in any source) with 150 year old anachronisms about race that have no relation to contemporary research. There is no subject covered by this article title that is not already covered by Genetic Studies on Jews and Jewish peoplehood. (Contrary to this attack page, Jewish genetic research is not “Zionist”). The article would need to be TNTd and retitled to approach NPOV, and then would simply become a duplication of existing articles. Any neutral article has to actually discuss its subject, ie., it would need to dispassionately discuss studies on Jewish genetics, and the changing conceptions of Jewish peoplehood. Both of which are already covered. Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. 'cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers.' Have you examined the 'ethnicity' of most of the writers of these sources? Check it out. I have had to, now that you have raised this insidious NPA insinuation.They would appear to be overwhelming of Jewish background and therefore you are saying, Onceinawhile deviously cites Jewish researchers to attack Jewish researchers. Bejaysus. That's a new one.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The religion of the writers is not relevant to me, I’m not sure why it’s relevant to you. To repeat, since you manipulated what I wrote (similar to this article ironically)
“The scope of this article is an attempt to synth together cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers (the original version of the article SYNTH’d the neologism “Jewish Scientific Racism”, which was not in any source)”
For example, taking a quote from an article discussing the Jewish priestly gene, and misrepresenting the source to claim “the leading scientists into Jewish genetic roots, including the "priestly gene", have openly Zionist agendas.” which is not in the source. There is also taking statements explicitly describing studies from 70 years ago as if they were describing the modern field. The entire article is like that: cherry picked sources summarized incorrectly and synthd together to push a POV. Drsmoo (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, yall can not like this topic as much as you want to, but since it is manifestly reliably sourced material sourced to the best quality academic sources, its either going to be covered in a child article of Zionism or all of this material is going to be in the parent article. Not liking what the sources say has never been a valid argument for exclusion of content. Sorry. nableezy - 13:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There is barely lick of information about the interaction between genetics and political ideology at Genetic studies on Jews ... what are you reading? Zionism is not mentioned once in the body, only in the notes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have already established that there is a plethora of high quality sources for the subject: a scholarly, scientific and political topic which has developed over the past 120 years.
More broadly, proper coverage of this topic will benefit the integrity of our encyclopedia as a whole, since poor editorial understanding of this specific area continues to undermine important areas across a number of vital articles. See for example the high traffic articles Israelites, Jews and Who is a Jew?, all of which state in Wikipedia's voice that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. That might be true, and it is widely believed in popular consciousness, but it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars and makes our project look crude and unsophisticated. In my experience, the best way to minimize edit wars on contentious topics in the long term is to go a level deeper, to a more specific article topic, and build consensus around the scholarly underpinnings to a subject. A bit of effort from everyone now to build a perfectly neutral and well-sourced assessment of the topic (the article is just four days old), will improve editorial understanding and reduce disagreements much more widely across the project. Anyone who thinks deleting an article on such a foundational subject like this will stop edit wars (per AndyTheGrump’s comment) is holding the wrong end of the stick.
Just to show the consistency of my position on this, when this article was first created, another editor immediately created Origin of the Palestinians as a stated "response”.[21] Whilst tit-for-tat doesn’t make our project look good, I think both articles are important; I was the editor who removed the deletion prod notice on that new article. For exactly the same reason: a well-developed article covering a foundational subject in more detail will bring wider benefits to the topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all of which state in Wikipedia's voice that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. That might be true, and it is widely believed in popular consciousness, but it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars and makes our project look crude and unsophisticated. This reads a bit cryptic to me and, I hope you know, this kind of statement has in the past been something that has fed directly into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as British Israelism, for example. Can you perhaps expand or clarify what you mean by this? jps (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I do not understand your comment – please be more specific on what you do not agree with? Perhaps bring this to the article talk page if you want to dive deeper into the content debate – I doubt this line of discussion is going to help resolve the AfD. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with article content per se. I'm confused if you don't think it will help resolve the AfD why you made the statement in the first place. Here is what I read, and forgive me if you think that's not what you intended, that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites... is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars. jps (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understood it was, that while it might be commonly assumed that modern Jews do indeed "descend" from the ancient Israelites (or, more precisely, from the Judaeans) due to the obvious cultural and religious similarities of these societies, still there is a lack of enough genetic, geneological (I don't know if anyone has produced an authenticated family tree for example) or documentary (land deeds or other records) evidence that can be used by scholars to prove this connection beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Jews admittedly have a stronger claim than most to be the descendants of the Children of Israel, there are nevertheless other claimants, as you have alluded to. And some of these claimants are surely depending on similar flimsy genetic legacy ties (see the Pashtun theory for example). Havradim leaf a message 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder at the statement some of these claimants are surely depending on similar flimsy genetic legacy ties. What makes a genetic legacy tie not flimsy? A critique of all genetic legacy ties would require a new definition of "descend" -- in which case, fair. But I'm a little perplexed by use of the term "proof" as though the context of this discussion is a courtroom or something. I guess the question is simple: Are we really to believe that the "mainstream view amongst scholars" that "Jews descended from ancient Israelites" is doubted? Even ideas such as the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry or Shlomo Sand's appear to me to be at most minority views if not completely WP:FRINGE. Also, the existence of other claimants of descent from ancient Israelites are only relevant inasmuch as these claimants have played a zero-sum game with respect to the question (e.g. British Israelism). The Pashtuns may or may not descend from ancient Israelites, but their claim of such is not predicated on Jewish descent being incorrect. The question is not "who are all the people descended from the ancient Israelites?". The question is "are the Jews descended from the ancient Israelites?" jps (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question who are all the people descended from the ancient Israelites becomes an important one based on the premise of this article, and illustrates well why it should be kept. Because if the Zionist claim is based partly or mostly on genetics, then what is stopping any other group with a similar genetic argument to lay claim to lands they feel a connection with? What prevents an Englishman (or most of Britain?) who professes "Norman heritage" to lay claim to the northwest part of France and claim it for Britain? ... are the Jews descended from the ancient Israelites? The vast majority probably are, as are many of the Palestinians, but the question this article seeks to analyse is, how much of this descent idea was used to justify a Jewish nationalistic movement. Havradim leaf a message 03:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the focus of your last paragraph may have relevance to bear on article text, my concerns were over specific points made in this discussion. What do the discussants contend is "mainstream view among scholars" over the contention "Jews descended from the ancient Israelites"? You seem to be answering that the "vast majority probably are". But then what am I to make of the line that "it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars"? jps (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is between popular supposition and scholarly writ - the former requiring no substantiation and the latter being held to an altogether higher bar. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one (and now there are three different users responding to me in this discussion) has yet answered my straightforward question. What do you contend the "mainstream view among scholars" is over the contention "Jews descended from the ancient Israelites"? jps (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: the mainstream scholarly view is “we do not know”. Regarding the various alternate hypotheses which you rightly mention have not been accepted, they were not accepted because the evidence for them was not strong enough, not because there is another compelling theory of which science is close-to-certain on.
The sources and quotes in the article will show you that. A good example, which I now realize I have not yet added, is Fishberg, 1911, p.474, discussing two of the leading early Zionists - Max Nordau, Herzl’s cofounder, and Israel Zangwill, who left the ZO on becoming aware of the existance of the Palestinian population: "Meanwhile, it is important to inquire in detail into the fundamental problems of Zionism. The question of race has already been discussed, and we arrived at the conclusion that the alleged purity of the Jewish race is visionary and not substantiated by scientific observation. [Footnote: Max Nordau, an avowed disciple of Lombroso, knows that anthropological research has dissipated the notion of Jewish racial purity, but he places more confidence in the acute powers of observation of the street loafer who recognizes a Jew by his nose. "To be sure, the street loafer's diagnosis is not infallible, still it fails him only rarely. But then the scientific diagnosis is not always reliable. The acute eye of the street loafer," concludes Nordau, " is sufficient proof that the Jews are a race, or at least a variety, or, if you please, a sub-variety of mankind." (Le Siècle, 1899; Zionistische Schriften, p. 305). Zangwill asks, "Whoever heard of a religion that was limited to people of particular breed? Of divine truth that was only true for men of dark complexion?" (Jewish Chronicle, June 18th, 1909).]" The debate has evolved (into genetics) over the last century, but the same uncertainty remains.
As Havradim wrote elegantly above, this side conversation is a perfect illustration of the importance of this article. Science simply doesn’t know either way whether modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites – Wikipedia must be neutral and factual on the question, whilst recognizing that it is a belief held by a large number of people, who are entitled to that belief.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteKeep The article, as it exists, is effectively a product of WP:SYNTH. I am open to the possibility that a reliable body of literature on the topic might exist but so far it's not demonstrated by the article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO you mean that Israel's former leading geneticist and historian of genetics, Raphael Falk, whose work Israeli scholarship took up and developed vigorously over the last 2 decades in an abundance of academic studies, and which the page follows carefully, got it all wrong, and the judgement he expressed here, simply by being paraphrased, in a violation of WP:Synth?Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote per the statement provided by Nishidani I still think the article isn't necessari ly reflecting the body of work in its best light but we don't delete notable subjects that can be improved. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that willingness to reconsider on the evidence and arguments as they evolve here. Your last concern is shared by several editors, and is reasonable. The problem was and is, that the AfD was initiated far too quickly, before the outline/stub had scarcely got on its feet, within a few days. There was no time for the improvements, and the considerable expansion, the article requires. What one sees now is nothing like what the article will be if it survives deletion and editors are allowed - the more eyes the better - an opportunity to make adjustments and exploit to the full the dozens of strong secondary sources that discuss this topic.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to say that I added back the removed IP ivote, the striking out of it, and follow-up comments. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steve Quinn: WP:PIA which has the 500/30 rule for anything related to Palestine-Israel articles. To quote Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion. So the IP is short the 500 rule and can be reverted. This article also certainly has to do with Israel. PackMecEng (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I removed it again, please dont restore ARBPIA violations to this discussion. That would be PROXYING and is itself prohibited. nableezy - 18:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have EC protected this AfD so this does not happen again. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously impeccably sourced and notable article per WP:SPINOUT. The parent article wherein this needs to be discussed (Zionism) is at 213kB, way more than WP:SIZESPLIT's recommendation of 100 kB. I am not convinced by the SYNTH arguments, and especially not about such concerns as these from Tombah:[22] The more articles like this are created, the more Wikipedia's credibility declines, and even worse: the sentiments portrayed in this article and similar ones, as well as the massive truth-bending, may actually inspire antisemitic hate speech, if not violence. Wikipedia becomes more, not less credible with the inclusion of research-based content. As for the second point, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Havradim leaf a message 18:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Havradim: I think you're looking at the total page size, not the readable prose size, which I measured at about 65kB, but the point stands. To expand the parent any further would only take it further away from optimal size and be to its detriment. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I was wondering why my figure differed from yours. In any case, as you correctly pointed out, the present article in its entirety would only burden the parent if it were to be included there. Havradim leaf a message 20:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is a great improvement to the project being that there is not one, single article covering this multifaceted topic. Article is strictly adhering to NPOV, which does offend some, but it is well sourced and a great improvement to nothing. Nothing is true on wikipedia until it's verified by reliable sources, and reliable sources do verify this article to be notable enough for keep. This comes to mind Wikipedia:I just don't like it to some of those editors against this article on this page, given the reluctance to improve the article and specific wording even when offered, and instead choosing to remonstrate it from the sidelines. JJNito197 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see this as a notable topic, so much as two opposing notable topics. The page treats positive things like Jewish ethnic unity, and fringey racist things like antisemitic tropes, as being a single topic, but they aren't. Bogus and nasty pseudoscholarship that promotes antisemitism, and legitimate scholarship that rebuts antisemitism, linked together by their relationships to Zionism. Putting them together involves some WP:SYNTH, and creates a WP:COATRACK. But I could envision splitting the page into two pages, although we seem to already have pages that cover the subjects properly. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah! I myself noticed how, astonishingly, it's goingunder the world's radar that places like Yale University, Stanford University, Princeton University, Cambridge University, the University of Chicago, MIT, Oxford University and Rutgers not to speak of leading European publishers of academic scholarshiop such as Berghahn Books, Springer and Mohr Siebeck are getting away with sheer murder by churning out antisemitic monographs full of 'bogus and nasty pseudoscholarship' by tenured Jewish academics. Must be something connected with the Protocols of Zion, uh? Perhaps there's meat here for some article in Israel Hayom or Arutz Sheva to bring to public awareness the conspiracy afoot in the world's most prestigious ivory towers? Nishidani (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those crazy kids! As they say, career professors will be career professors. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a career professor who had tenure before I retired. And I don't much appreciate the badgering. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this, so I'll give you a serious answer. Your delete statement contrasts 'bogus scholarship' promoting antisemitism to legitimate scholarship rebutting antisemitism, and says the synth lies is mixing up the two with Zionism. A mere fragment of the very complex historical picture was sketched in an article no one has accused of synth or using bogus scholarship while examining the nexus. See here. That is just one small temporal focus on the historical theme which, with a much broader scholarship, is addressed in the article. The aut/aut judgment, (either something is philosemitic or antisemitic - and it is a logical contradiction in terms for a Zionist to engage in virulent racial attacks on 'the inner enemy' of Jews who diagree with the movement) above appears to ignore that complexity Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize and accept that the adoption of views that some would characterize as antisemitic has occurred by some proponents of Zionism, a documented fact that introduces a significant complexity into the issues discussed in this AfD. But there is also the use of race and genetics in pseudoscientific discourse for the purpose of promoting antisemitic and anti-Zionist agendas. And my reading of the page (at the time that I made my delete statement) indicated that the latter is part of what the page is about. On the other hand, the page is also about what I described as legitimate scholarship that looks into race and genetics as a way of supporting Zionism and rebutting antisemitism. I've seen an awful lot of text on this AfD page, but I have not seen (or at least have not been successful at picking it out of all the verbiage) a clear explanation of how secondary sources have treated the pseudoscientific discourse and the legitimate scholarship as being a single topic, as opposed to being two topics that editors have brought together by SYNTH. And it offends me that your (apparently unserious) reply to me sarcastically cited what I was trying to describe as legitimate scholarship as though I had said that it was the pseudoscientific antisemitism. It should be obvious that I'm not calling tenured Jewish academics at serious institutions antisemites, and to caricature my good-faith comment as some sort of laughable conspiracy theory a la the Protocols of Zion makes me uninterested in taking such a reply seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My flippant remark first remark, I now see, was taken as being personally offensive, and even if that was not my intention, I apologize for giving that impression. And I thank you for the courtesy of replying to my clarification. This is necessary also because my surprise at your initial remark owes much to the fact that I have a certain (small but sticking in memory) familiarity with your record and have respected the quality of your judgment. The AfD doesn't give, even in rebuttals, readers any close notion of what the academic literature is doing in this field. Those absorbed in these historical reconstructive studies are reduced to rebutting fairly short statements by eliciting snippets from an extensive body of serious work, and a page stopped in its tracks while making its first steps out of the cradle/stub gives editors who check it no idea of the topic's range as covered by legitimate scholarship which, precisely has taken up recently a neglected and difficult area of Zionist history - what is called variously the 'rancorous internal dialogue' (Sokolff and Glenn 2011 p.3.) or 'attacks on the internal enemy', much of its mirroring the old antisemitic stereotypes, which were long conducted among various factions in the Jewish communities. So I thought the distinction you drew odd. Antisemitism is always pseudoscientific by definition, and has had a vast literature devoted to it, which ignored however its subtle and insidious mirroring in defensive discourse by the primary victims of its xenophobia, Jews. The bibliography of 45 titles addresses, scientifically, the painful fact that such pseudoscience also inflected Zionist perceptions of who Jews were. When one of its most important figures, Ze'ev Jabotinsky states, '"A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-facial type are Jewish." (Jabotinsky|1961|pp=37-49), he like nmumerous other Zionists used 'mutatis mutandis' the standard race tropes of antisemites, only, and understandably in context, turning the negative connotations on their head. It is this considerable and overlooked paradox that Jewish and diaspora scholarship is now putting under the microscope, and what the article aspires to introduce to those unfamiliar with the cusp of this modern scholarship, which studies the heritage of this discourse from 1895 down to its variations in genetic identity debates in recent times. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Genetic studies on Jews of which this appears to be an unnecessary content fork, taking care to excise any SYNTH. I am ambivalent on the utility of a redirect, but I don't think it would be harmful. Otherwise delete upon completion of the merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: Merge to an article that's already bloated with 85kB of readable prose and in desperate need of paring down? As well as not to Zionism, which is the page's parent as it is currently structured? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is enough here as of right now, to justify a standalone article. And the SYNTH concerns strike me as legitimate. Given the size of the article, I don't think it's likely to add much to its parent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially since it seems that there is not a lot of consensus to introduce this topic there. Havradim leaf a message 03:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a good idea merge the article about the pseudoscience into the article about the science. That would confuse readers, be WP:UNDUE for the article about the science, and risks legitimizing the pseudoscience. That's why modern flat Earth beliefs is a separate article and not part of the article about Earth, why eugenics is a See Also in genetics, and not a section of it. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be a fair point. But if it is, then article should explicitly label the beliefs in question as a specie of pseudo-science. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a large part of the nigh 2500 pages of material in the bibliography and the distinction proposed, while obvious - 'race' is sheer and pernicious nonsense - turns out to be rather complex. Race was thought scientific, and Zionists, like everyone else at the turn of the 19th-20th-centuries, worked out much of their thinking in terms of 'race' in all of its fluid conceptualizations. While that 'racial' concept, esp. after 1946, died on its feet, there remained, all of the sources allow, a pseudoscientific overhang in Zionism's conceptual baggage after 1948. And what the scholarship in the last decades has been concerned with are the implications and complications that arise when Zionism struggles to reformulate its contemporary thinking in terms of this racial residue in its foundational history within the ambit of the emergent science of molecular genetics. Genetics, in short, is a matter of pure science but, in this discursive context, is entangled in the ideological premises of Zionist identity debates. So there is an overlap, one that in the history of ideas concerns the social and historical forces that inflect all thought, science included. As I see it, the best way to handle this - an approach already in the literature, - is to write out the historical genealogy of the ideas with their pseudoscientific roots, from their origin, and show how this heritage from the past still exercises a notable force in contemporary identity thinking and genetics. That would come under the larger sphere of the history of ideas and the sociology of knowledge. Nishidani (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Combining topics, even that are related/adjacent into a new topic that is not itself subject of major treatment in RS gives a WP:SYNTH problem; incidental intersections are better dealt with at the established topic pages per WP:NOPAGE. Bon courage (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
be so kind as to sample the sources in the bibliography where these 'related' topics are obviously the 'subject of major treatment in RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already did, and you're wrong - which I why I'm for deletion. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these are vague claims. All of the bandied assertions about WP:Synth I have read above so far simply state 'this in my opinion'. Opinions are terrible things unless they are buttressed by grounded evidence and solid logic. Or perhaps no one reads Plato these days and I am an old fogey for expecting cogency of argument. Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're very up-to-date in reversing the burden of evidence. If this (and 'this' seems to be a shifting concept in the above discussion) was a major coherent topic there'd be major sources directly on it that would settle matters, rather than stuff that can be remixed, diced and stretched to fit this apparently polyvalent concept. The lack of verified text, even in the very lede, speaks volumes. Basically this attempt is not encyclopedic (tertiary summary) but a species of OR/SYNTH. Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So I am correct in my inference that you have not troubled yourself to glance at, to cite just one example, the works of Raphael Falk who wrote extensively on Zionism, race theories and the enduring impact of such ideas on work on the genetics of Jews down to recent times.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falk and his views is a good topic for an article (as we have). But lot of people write lots of stuff mentioning things which they say are connected (primary research iow). It would be possible to have a polynomial explosion of articles if every such conjunction got an article, even though there's a impressive stack of academic "RS" one could argue supports it: Aluminium and Alzheimers! Germans and torture! Pope and Shakespeare! Johnson and Shakespeare! Jonson and Shakespeare! Verdi and Shakespeare!). Wikipedia articles are summaries of accepted knowledge on encyclopedic topics. What is being proposed is just at the wrong level: too original and clever by half. Wikipedia is dumber. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to delete. Not 100% sure yet as I haven't managed to follow the long discussion here but on the basis of reading the (rich, well researched and fascinating) article it strongly seems to me to be an original essay and not an encyclopedia article, and that would be difficult or impossible to turn it in to one. In general, "and" topics are not good Wikipedia articles, as the risk of SYNTH and POV-pushing is always high, plus we have so many adjacent articles, such as Jewish identity, Who is a Jew, Genetic studies on Jews, Muscular Judaism, Scientific racism... It is striking that almost every statement here, while sourced to a scholarly text, could be placed next to a statement saying almost the opposite thing equally sourced to a scholarly text, because these are not issues where there is clear scholarly consensus which could be paraphrased in our neutral voice but rather a contentious area where scholars put forward their arguments for debate, which is why it reads as an original essay. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For your benefit, Bob. The article is still a stub, but I assure you that the three topics are thoroughly discussed, together in an abundance of the sources listed. The outstanding historian of science and geneticist, R.Falk, wrote a whole book on the topic, which I don't expect editors to familiarize themselves with. But here is the gist of his argument.

‘All three ( Redcliffe Nathan Salaman, Shneor Zalman Bychowski and Fritz Shimon Bodenheimer) hoped to re-establish a Jewish entity within its ancient natural biological context in the name of universal human values. I suggest that this humanistic version of nationalism also allowed maintaining, especially among the practising Zionist writers, explicit racial and eugenic notions in spite of, and long after the inception of the ominous developments in Nazi Germany. These notions have persisted, though in a thinly disguised mode, in post-Second World War Israel. Above all, I suggest that the history of the relationship of Zionism and scientific biology, which has made an effort to single out Jews from non-Jews on the one hand, and to unite the distinct Jewish communities on the other hand, provides a problematic case of the utilisation of biological arguments as “evidence” for whatever social, economic, or political notion that has been put forward. During the hundred years since the establishment of political Zionism, the only logical and causative sequence that can be discerned is the one leading from the prejudices of the persons involved –Zionists and anti-Zionist alike-to whatever biological facts they choose to claim. And, in spite of the changing circumstances and contexts, the same old issues have been recycled again and again, where each side has utilised the evidence in its own way.Raphael Falk. Three Zionist Men of Science: Between Nature and Nurture, 2007 p.154.

All delete arguments are assuming either that this kind of material, in numerous books and articles, doesn't exist, or that, even if the above statement combines all three topics, it shouldn't be written up on wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that either is a fair summary of my argument. jps (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor mine. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, explain why that one (of many) quotes does not undermine the assertion that these three contiguous issues are not the object of extensive scholarship. In other words, respond directly to what the citation states, and show why it does not meet the gravamen of your objections. Opinions must reason in terms of facts. Just restating them without regard to factual evidence is meaningless. This is not Twitter or Facebook Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can pick out and interpret such text as being in line with the synthetic title of this article, but even then it's just incidental scholarly writing which might have a place elsewhere in the encyclopedia (attributed to Falk). There's no encyclopedic topic here however. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All delete arguments are assuming... Try changing "all" to "no" and you will have a fairer summary. I feel like you are still talking past people here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these responses are just confirmed reiterations of an unargued opinion.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three figures Falk discusses were incredibly peripheral to the Zionist movement. I doubt any of them would occupy space in any balanced history of Zionism. Nor is their Zionism sufficiently a defining feature of their lives and careers for it to even be mentioned in their Wikipedia biographies currently. Falk picks on them because they are interesting case studies of "men of science" who were influenced by Herzl, but it is not encyclopedic to hang an article on this subject on these minor figures. It also exemplifies the way the (current version of the) article completely neglects the large number of Zionists who never took a position on race and genetics or who actively opposed the idea that Jews constituted a race, giving the impression of a narrative Zionism-as-racism that distorts history. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'The three figures Falk discusses were incredibly peripheral to the Zionist movement'. That is an opinion, Bob, and one particularly odd given the adverb used to qualify its ostensible marginality ('incredibly'). When the article manages to get round to the role of Arthur Ruppin, and fleshens out the details of post-war ethnic planning, it will become evident that this concern is not marginal. Were it marginal, it would never have become the object of so much scholarly investigation in recent decades. using what wikipedia articles write as a sure index of relevance is patently silly. The article does not hang on 3 minor figures. In that specific paper, Falk illustrates his thesis by focusing on them, to thicken out points he made more broadly in his later book-length study, Zionism and the Biology of Jews, (2017), which again, no one appears to have read. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely include those like Israel Zangwill who opposed the idea of Jews as a race. That would be a valuable development. As to the fact that many said nothing on the topic, the article doesn't suggest otherwise, but we can be more explicit. On the latter point, the nuance is that - as many of the sources explain - anyone using the political term "return" is effectively talking about the Jewish people in this way, even if not explicitly the term race. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: This got me curious, so I wondered off to the pages for those three to see the mentions, and, finding little, set about searching for what mentions might be missing. I've just finished fleshing out the first, Redcliffe N. Salaman, and it turns out he was a lot more politically prominent that his page previously gave him credit for (there was nothing there). He was president of the English Zionist federation and more generally flew quite high in a number of Jewish society circles. If the other two are anything like this, than it would appear that Falk simply knows better than Wikipedia, which is eminently plausible. Anyway, just fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's my "opinion" that these three figures were peripheral to the movement. Maybe I'm wrong and Salaman was more central than I realised (thanks Iskandar for improving his article), but I've read a lot of accounts of the history of Zionism and he is certainly never a major character. My response here is to the comment concluding "gist of his argument" which I read as framing the quote about these three guys as definitive proof that there is a "thing" that this article is about, while to me it feels like an arcane topic.
I don't understand why "That is an opinion" is a counter-argument to what I said. The current article is an almost arbitrary threading together of "opinions" held by scholars, without proper acknowledgement that their positions are interpretations of history and not established facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I too have read long and widely in the topic of Zionism including several histories. And I find as often as not, that much of what I have learned from other reliable academic sources and articles on the movement is 'invisible' in the dominant mainstream works. That's one of the reasons I finally decided to write up Herzl's Mauschel. Plenty of scholarship on it, which however isn't picked up in numerous general books on the history of Zionism. For an analogy- I was forced to read many books on Catholic history when quite young, but only really got to know it by reading works on the topic written by lapsed or non-Catholic historians. I have several sources that note, furthermore, that this kind of sensitive topic has never been given, despite its importance, the attention it deserves until relatively recently. As anyone knows from the New Historians a mass of research emerged only after 40 years when certain taboos were loosened. Those outside the fold, over that period, contested the narrative, and many of their arguments suddenly reassumed importance. A lot of people yawned when Ari Shavit's book, meant to startle with the exposure of hidden truths,(My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel,) came out about the Lydda expulsions, Obviously the chap lived within a mental closet in which this kind of well-known story held no traction or was quietly brushed under the carpet. it surprised some Zionist readers, I guess, but no one outside the fold who is familiar with the history would have thought a secret had been exposed. I could name dozens of examples. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment encapsulates the nub of the problem. One or two Wikipedia editors think the mainstream history is wrong, and use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and set the record straight -- leaning on facts, but not following the weight given by the mainstream sources. In an article like Zionism, positions which are marginal in the mainstream literature are never going to get more attention than appropriate per due weight, so here's a spin-off article where they can be unfolded -- but it's on a topic that some scholars have of course written about but that most people wouldn't see as a topic requiring a Wikipedia article. This seems to me to be a form of original research. It would be a great journal article, but can never be a good Wikipedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bob, I read your comment above as – rightly – hanging primarily on our judgements of weight and marginality. I believe the topic has been clearly demonstrated to be highly significant in the literature. For example, the 2015 Oxford Bibliographies review of the major literature on Jewish genetics, states that: ...contemporary geneticists and their critics often consider similar questions and controversies such as those raised in pre-1980s studies based on blood groups, and even earlier biometric studies undertaken by 19th- and early-20th-century eugenicists and their critics. Zionist and anti-Zionist politics significantly inform historical and contemporary Jewish genetics literatures, at times explicitly and more often implicitly. In other words, they are stating explicitly that Zionism is a significant sub-topic of Jewish genetics and the prior related biometric (=race) science. I doubt we could find a better third party source to opine on this question of relative significance. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now been made curious as to the context in which Falk uses these three individuals as examples, I went and read that article. I don't see him particularly reference them for their prominence. He actually uses them as examples of individuals with disparate concepts of nationalism that were nevertheless drawn together under the same 'roof of Zionism' and the common thread of scientific biology. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: FYI just before you submitted your comment, the article was restructured and reorganized, taking into account some of the suggestions from editors throughout this discussion. I think it might address a number of your points – it is still not perfect of course, but gives an improved sense of what this article will be able to become when fully developed. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Levivich's and Nishdani's arguments are compelling, and the sources do seem to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. I have to agree that the article still doesn't look great, though. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's a lot of work to do, particularly because there are so many sources of exceptionally good quality dealing with a, to judge from the above, topic relatively unfamiliar to the broad reading public. The article as it stands errs by a very approximate arrangement of important points so the way forward will be to provide the exposition with the historical contexts of each idea. Ideas without context distort understanding - themes risk becoming memes in a rhetorical set of simplifications. To do this, will take at least some weeks, if in the meantime the promising stub we have is not detonated.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked at the titles of the 36 sources currently used in the article and not a single one mentions the three topics of this article togther (the closest is probably Falk's book). I don't see why this article needs to exist - any useful information can be added to other articles. Alaexis¿question? 12:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You stopped looking after the titles? nableezy - 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So please enlighten me, are there any book-length works dealing with this specific triad? Alaexis¿question? 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scroll up and read. And in the future, don't vote in an AfD when you haven't read any of the sources, you're wasting everyone else's time. Scanning the titles in the article isn't good enough (though it seems you missed the titles that mention Zionist eugenics and Zionists and the genomic Jew...). Hot takes aren't helpful at AFD. Levivich (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly are you pulling the requirement for book length works dealing with the topic for an article from? The requirement is significant coverage, and that includes scholarly works in journal articles or chapters or sections of books. And also, as the comment above me shows, even your title browsing skills are lacking. nableezy - 14:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you should be voting in a deletion discussion when you don't understand WP:SIGCOV. Significant coverage does not require a book length work, it requires non-trivial coverage. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It certainly does not need to be book length, AfD's have supported "keep" based on a few paragraphs spread over three newspaper articles. I would hope the closer ignores this !vote. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no book-length treatments, are there at least multiple scholarly articles on the connection between these three topics?
    For a compound topic, I think that it's important to have sources which deal with the connection between the three. Is there a connection between Wall Street, cocaine and risk taking? You bet but unless there are multiple scholarly sources which describe this together, I think it should stay a red link.
    I've looked at the sources in the article and the ones listed by Onceinawhile but I don't see why we need a separate article while we already have Genetic studies on Jews and Zionism#Ethnic_unity_and_descent_from_Biblical_Jews. Alaexis¿question? 13:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Alaexis: see Education sector responses to substance abuse and Substance abuse in ancient Rome for equivalents to the example you gave. And bear in mind that race and genetics are closely-connected topics, so this is A+[B1+B2], not A+B+C as in your example. Either way, this is simply how the sources cover the topic. You’ll see above some suggestions for an improved title, most of which are variations on replacing [race+genetics] with a single word.
    Re the existing parent articles here, at approx 2,000 words, the current version of this article would represent c.20% of Zionism, and about 15% of Genetic studies on Jews. And when this article is fully built out it should be double or triple its current size, based the information still in the sources currently in the bibliography. Even just 20% would fail WP:DUE on either of those articles, which are much wider topics. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And bear in mind that race and genetics are closely-connected topics, so this is A+[B1+B2] That is another contentious statement. Race is socially constructed, whereas genetics is not. At the interface of the discussion of race and genetics there is often a failure to acknowledge that genetics is clinal, a point that is right there in the lead of the page you linked to: patterns of human variation have been shown to be mostly clinal, with human genetic code being approximately 99.9% identical between individuals, and with no clear boundaries between groups. And this is one excellent reason why we should not have another page that purports to be about something AND race AND genetics. Because we don't want the encylopaedia to unintentionally propagate the misunderstanding that race is closely connected to genetics. There is a relationship, and that is as far as it goes. Acquaintances but not bedfellows. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We all have personal opinions, and we can turn anything into a humongous thread by expressing them and replying to everything everyone says. The point is, when a significant volume of academic literature deals with three topic together -Zionism, race and genetics - we just write up and paraphrase this topic. If contsted, we should make our points, and ensure the threads do not become unmanageable and intimidating to editors who might want to add their opinion, but find the threads too long to digest. Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we can turn anything into a humongous thread by expressing them and replying to everything everyone says, says the editor on his 25th reply in this thread, who feels the need to reply on every non-keep !vote. But does a significant body of academic literature conflate race and genetics? No! Look again. For instance, Falk (2017), much discussed above, argues that there is no scientific basis for Zionist eugenic claims, and that Jews are genetically just as diverse as any other population group. His argument is that the idea of a "Jewish race" is harmful and misleading. He avoids using the terms race and genetics together, and this is why he speaks of "The Biologization of Race" as a futile endeavour: No wonder that against such a background, when the Nazis came to power, they had to mobilize their best anthropologists to identify – in vain – Jews in order to discriminate against them. Of course, soon they had to fall back on more straightforward devices to label Jews, such as the Yellow Patch. (Falk, 2017:30}. He argues against a Zionist Lamarckian driven eugenics, and so the question he is considering is eugenics. As Levivich notes, the author is a geneticist, and he brings his expertise to bear, but in so doing, his thesis is that race is not discernible in biology, and that the idea of a Jewish race is, as I say, harmful and misleading. He has been criticised for ignoring other historical-cultural aspects, but that is not his focus. He says:

The questions “what is a race?” or “who is a Jew?” largely ignore the fact that (within the human species) any marriage circle can be viewed as a potential race. Considering that any female and male of a species may produce progeny with other members of that species, the patterns of marriages or sexual relationships for humans, in general, are resolved not so much by biological determinants, but rather by geographic or socio-cultural affinities and barriers. Today it is common among researchers in the humanities, the social sciences, and even the natural sciences to say that at least as far as humans are concerned, (biological) races do not exist. The biological races that were presumably discovered were in fact the illegitimate product of the classification system imposed on nature. Classification by races is a social construct. As a rule, the use of the term “race” for multiplicity, which is based on the typological mind-set, has been pushed aside in the scientific parlance and replaced by “population” in terms of statistics

(Falk, 2017:144) (emphasis mine). We should not allow the fact that he dismisses a concept of biological race through genetics and other means muddy the waters of an encyclopaedic article that purports to follow his thesis. He is discussing Zionist eugenics, and in so doing he brings genetics to bear. "race and genetics" do not go together in his thesis.
What then of the other sources? Similar can be said of these. People have come down hard on Alaexis, yet their point is not without merit. The sources presented do not characterise this as "race and genetics". They do talk about race, they do talk about genetics, but they do not put those words together, because that creates a confusion. We know it creates a confusion, because an editor said, a couple of copmments up, And bear in mind that race and genetics are closely-connected topics. I trust we see now that no, there is not a close connection between race and genetics, except inasmuch as it is in the mind of eugenicists and pseudoscientists. You have consistently mischaracterised this objection in this discussion, so the volume of information editors are being asked to consider is indeed large, but the discussion would go easier if there were less bludgeoning and more discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to less bludgeoning. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And less arguing about the correct title. We can have an RM after. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we don't want the encylopaedia to unintentionally propagate the misunderstanding that race is closely connected to genetics I really don't think anyone is intentionally trying to do that and I think it is kinda hard to get that impression from the reworked opening para. This is not another page about Race and genetics. It is about genetics and racial concepts in Zionist thought. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the thread above, where such points were amply answered. Numerous sources link and analyse all three topics. Genetic Studies of Jews concerns modern scientific studies etc-.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Levivich, Nishidani, et al. It is expected that !voters will bother to peruse the discussion, however long, than write facially incorrect stuff. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted, for the record, that this AfD we born out of an anonymous IP posting at WP:FTN, in breach of the ECP restrictions on internal project discussions for this WP:ARBPIA CT. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sirfurboy and AndyTheGrump. DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I checked the abstracts of several sources mentioned by the proponents of the article. This article's scope was not defined by those soures. For example, a paper cited as an example of a prime source [23] focuses on race and Zionism. When it discusses genetics, it highlights how genetic studies undermine racist ideas, "In the early thirties a shift took place in the scientific discourse on racial mixture. William Provine defines it as a shift 'from condemnation to agnosticism' (1973: 794). It was partly the result of scientific developments. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, geneticists began to acknowledge the fact that human heredity was more complex than they had thought. Why is "genetics" placed in the title and lead? Rjjiii (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rjjiii, that paper covers only the history of the first half of the 20th century. Other sources cover the wider period, and explain that whilst race science fell away, from the 1950s onwards, its use in politics was replaced by genetic science. See for example: Burton 2021, p. 11: "In contrast to the rest of the region, the history of genetic research on Jews in Israel has been relatively well studied. Historians and anthropologists have critically examined how the structuring assumptions of Jewish race science in early-twentieth-century Europe and North America, and their relationship to Zionist nationalism, reverberate within the genetic studies of Jewish populations by Israeli scientists from the 1950s to the present."; Baker 2017, p.105 “Like Zionism’s new Jew that emerged from nineteenth-century European race science, the genomic Jew, a product of “population genetics,” springs from the same milieu” and Ostrer 2012, p.33 “Often, race science and Zionism went hand-in-hand, and the identification of a Jewish race provided justification for an ancestral homeland… The issues that preoccupied the Jewish intellectual leaders of 1911 are the same ones that preoccupy the leaders of today. Who are the Jews, a religious group or a genetic isolate? Did they originate from Middle Eastern matriarchs and patriarchs? Fishberg lacked the tools for answering these questions. The genetic methods that would eventually provide answers were starting to develop in Fishberg's New York in the Columbia University laboratory of Thomas Hunt Morgan. The precision of these genetic tools continued to improve over the course of the twentieth century, and as they did, Fishberg's intellectual heirs sought to apply them to the issues of Jewish origins and identity.” Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These quotes seem to indicate that there are two related but very different topics - early 20th century race science (which was adopted by some key Zionists) and late 20th century genetics (which has had a minor role in debates relating to Israel’s legitimacy) - and that a couple of writers have noted a slight connection - or “reverberation” - between them. This is exactly why it feels like an original essay rather than a coherent Wikipedia article to many commenters here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Bobfrombrockley: you made the same "couple of writers" claim on the article talk page earlier today and I promised you a dozen. See below an example dozen scholars, in alphabetical order - all their articles making the connection are already detailed in the article:
    Onceinawhile (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this list is a little misleading. Many of those scholars are either writing about early 20th century race science or recent genetic debates, and connecting the two only briefly. For example, Egorova's piece is on the latter, and uses the word "Zionist" or "Zionism" three times, twice in a paragraph in the lit that briefly summarises the history and once in a paragraph that mentions 1950s Israeli scientists unconsciously internalising Zionist ideology. Hart, in contrast, focuses on 1880-1940 and only mentions genetics in quite passing ways, for instance in framing his 2011 book by saying that we now know, due to genetic research, that there is no such thing as race. Kandiyoti's book is a literary study of how conversos are represented, in which none of Zionism, race theory and genetics are core topics at all.
    In general, this list strengthens the view I am moving towards, that this article looks at two different topics and should either become the nucleus for two different articles or the two halves should each be folded into the relevant main articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Egorovga is highly synthetic, brief. She mentions all 3-using a word-count argument on Zionist to suggest its inadeuacy is far-fetched. All sources focus on different date spans, 1880-1914,1895-1930s, 1980s onwards etc, but no where in the world of scholarship do we consider that treatments of a theme in specific epoches invalidates the history of variation in thematic continuity. In short, this looks like hairsplitting. You simply can't thresh out themes that are intimately connected, except to maim exposition and understanding. It can't be done without denying our readership an overview. Works on this negelected triadic nexus are coming out so fast it's hard to keep up with them. I've reading this morning one just out, Marina B. Mogilner's Jews, Race, and the Politics of Difference: The Case of Vladimir Jabotinsky against the Russian Empire , Indiana University Press ISBN 978-0-253-06612-1 2023 where, like many of the scholars we cover dealing with the Germanic sphere of race and zionism, she notes a systematic turning of the eyes of scholarship from the topic until very recently. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reverberation / from the same milieu / same preoccupation Iskandar323 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You already said that in your !vote. The number and quality of sources indicate that is not an "original essay". If it "feels like" that then it must at least have something to do with your own constructive editing/debating of the article itself, while at the same time saying that you are "leaning delete", an apparent contradiction. Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, I'm shifting from leaning delete to leaning rename. I increasingly think there is a valuable article on Jewish or Zionist race science, focusing on the late 19th/early 20th century. The a+b+c title and shoe-horning in a tenuously related recent genetics debate makes it an inherently problematic article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as it currently exists is like a game of twister, trying to twist together different subjects into an original thesis (seemingly that genetic studies of Jews are tied to antiquated racial beliefs and run by ideologues). There is justification for an article on Biological Judaism, which is an actual widely discussed subject. We can then comfortably use more sources, and properly contextualize the impact of Zionism on the concept, and the impact of the concept on Judaism, while integrating genetic studies, lost tribe research missions, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should it be created, I promise not to contest it as a fork. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m referring to an RM for this article, which has a talk page discussing how it’s problematic that the first source in the lead relates broadly to Jews. Drsmoo (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If not deleted, then we can look at other titles. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think whatever you are thinking of above is a 'widely discussed subject' in those terms. A search for specific phrase "Biological Judaism" yields little, and of what little there is, most of it seems to lead back to an obscure 2003 article by Robert Pollack entitled The Fallacy of Biological Judaism. I imagine that specific word combo is rare because "biological [insert religion]" is a somewhat nonsensical word combo. And I equally assume you are also not thinking of "Biological Jew", which is a slightly more frequented term, but largely due to the intense discussion around one specific work, The Biological Jew by Eustace Mullins - an odius work by a man described with no ambiguity as "a one-man organization of hate". Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But, to be fair, "Biological Judaism" has 40 times as many hits as Zionism, race and genetics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really your takeaway? You are comparing what is being presented as an adjective-noun term with what is clearly a descriptive title. It is reasonable to query whether an adjective-noun as a standalone term has prior usage and in what context. Descriptive titles on Wikipedia, by contrast, often have no prior precedent. Or if you think the former is a descriptive title, then better a neutral descriptive title without explicitly negative connotations then those with potentially onerous baggage. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Judaism is a a religion, not a species with a biology. Catholics were severely warned against marrying out with people of other religions. Not for that would one speak of Biological Catholicism, except to make a Mick's eyebrows twitch with perplexity.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly that genetic studies of Jews are tied to antiquated racial beliefs and run by ideologues

Blustering caricature
It's hard to cope (only in terms of time) with all the systematic distortions about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR sprawling through this thread. Numerous sources state that (a) since 'racial science' for several decades from 1880 onwards was considered a legitimate field of enquiry (b) Jewish scientists like their peers everywhere contributed to the topic. (c) There was a notable discursive overlap between racist stereotyping prejudices, particularly among antisemites, and the ostensible outcome of what we know now to be a pseudo-science of races (d) Jewish scientists and thinkers took up the challenge to rid their discipline of the antisemitic hostilities intrinsic to much of the 'science' by creatively reworking the field to present a modified, alternative or variant number of models of a Jewish type/race in terms of that 'racial science.(On this there is a mastery survey, namely Veronika Lipphardt's, Biologie der Juden: Jüdische Wissenschaftler über »Rasse« und Vererbung 1900-1935, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008 ISBN 978-3-525-36100-9) (e) Concurrently, in Zionist circles, this tradition's ideas were drawn upon in order to provide a 'scientific' warrant for their proposal to extricate Jews from the European antisemitic world which oppressed their development (f) by asserting that, given a land of their own in Palestine, a 'new Jew' racially and culturally distinct, could be formed (called 'muscular Zionism' after Max Nordau's book, a term which borrowed on the older Christian notion of 'muscular Christianity'). (g) This would solve the 'Jewish Question' the antisemites complained of by ridding Europe of Jews /from a Zionist perspective i.e., 'giving good riddance to Europe and its Jew-hating tradition'and (h) restore the creativity, masculinity and, yes, racial purity that, in their view, was the presupposition for the ancient achievements of the biblical world of Israelites/Jews, but in a secular, technological version. (i) This tradition carried over into some important aspects of Zionist planning once Israel was established such as studies in blood typologies of different immigrant groups and eugenic concerns and (j) wagged its tail when the new science of genomics emerged, and molecular genetics began to focus on Jewish DNA to see whether (k) scientific evidence might, via shared DNA, allow one to trace back all major Jewish diaspora communities to founding fathers in the Middle East, a premise of the theory of 'return' and (l) confirm one of many viewpoints about who is a Jew, namely by demonstrating that, unlike most other nations, they were, beyond shared religion and culture, also somewhat uniquely, conjoined by an historical biological kinship.
This is what the topic promises to survey because these elements are all variously present in a mass of academic literature, thoroughly familiar to historians of Judaism and Jewish thought, though systematically ignored for several decades, until the 1980s, when the subject was picked up and soon snowballed into a major scholarly focus (see soon the section I will write on 'Understating the role of race in Zionism' which lists and summarizes authoritative statements by several major scholars of how and why this intricate, thematically crosswoven topic was ignored, neglected or suppressed)
Had editors exercised patience, and collaborated to improve the stub, rather than entangling it in a torture-chamber of ill-focused opinionizing on the abstract idea that appears to scandalize those unfamiliar with these recent studies (Zionism/race) we would already have had a much better article. As far as I can see, the only objection visible here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with its sororal handmaiden WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, both in the service of WP:CENSORSHIP. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Points a-j here are a series of theses or propositions (most of which I would agree with). They outline an excellent essay or journal article plan. But they don't outline an excellent Wikipedia article for a number of reasons. Each one of them (apart from a and maybe b) needs arguing for and could be contested with alternative theses. For example, Endelmann could be used to argue that Jewish racial science was short-lived and fundamentally discredited by Nazism, while Egorova could be used to argue that biological/genetic understandings of Jewishness have only limited political purchase today in contrast to other understandings. Most of the topics taken in on the journey from a to j are or should better covered in more general (Jewish identity) or more specific (muscular Judaism) WP articles. And in the journey from a to j there is a very sharp turn at step (i), where we leap from a series of closely connected topics to a radically different topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss all this at the article please, here we are concerned with GNG and deletion. Bob, etc can keep repeating ad nauseum that there is no article but it is clear that there is no agreement on whether that is the case and that good sourcing exists is just a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, Jewish identity, given the historical depth, the manifold cultural variations in regional reflexes over half the globe, and esp. the fact no one can agree on what constitutes it ('introduce two Jews and you will get three points of view' proverbially reflects this marvellous self-awareness of how complex identity is) is a massive topic only a fool would think could be summed up in an average wiki-length article.
I can't see the point you make of Endelmann and Egorova etc. Scholars have common ground, and disagree on much. Articles note the common ground and the different judgements made by other experts. So when we note that Engelmann states what you cite him for, we would also note several sources that tweak the finality of race science after Nazism. Just one of many in my notes,

Chaim Sheba,Sheba is a good example of what I noted above- that many doctors in post-war Israel had been trained in the German sphere, and quite a few never quite threw off some of the earlier premises of race science standard in curricula who became director general of the Health Ministry in 1950, argued, according to a 2005 report that “a high concentration of those ill in body and soul would jeopardize the future of Jewish community in Israel. To support his argument, he used examples from genetic theories which purported to show national gene pools weakened through a lack of genetic vigilance.” Sheba was influential in temporarily preventing Cochin Jews from immigrating. The communist newspaper Davar asserted that a community “with numerous sick, decadent, unrestrained elements will not withstand the social and security test.” Haaretz writer Arieh Gledblum claimed in 1950 that North African Jews’ “primitivism is unsurpassed…. They have little talent for comprehending anything intellectual” and “lack any roots in Judaism.”(Seth Frantzman, 'Israel’s Uncomfortable History of Racist Engineering,' The Forward 21 April 2014

We really must give the article breathing space to develop, without cutting in the bud every formulation added by niggling at its inadequacy. We haven't anything like the full picture before us. See below.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between scholarly articles and what we do on wikipedia, is that the one engages in original research, the other, if one subscribes to FA principles, simply gathers the best available modern sources on the topic, and, having mastered them, set forth what the books and articles say, avoiding inferences or original interpretations. I personally feel the difference strongly. Having published on race and nationalism esp., I make in my reading of sources all sorts of notes on (a) missed connections (b) partial coverage that fails to take into account relevant scholarship, etc.etc., and simply put the latter into my own files. Most of what I learn ends up, for this reason, improving my personal knowledge considerably, but not wikipedia's. But that is the rule. No synthesis, no personal research.
A second thing content editors like myself know, if that if you start a stub on anything that might be mininally controversial, it will be aborted: from the outset it will be tweaked, reverted, questioned in every word or every other sentence, esp. by editors who approach wikipedia with political interests or the 'politics of culture', and huge talk page arguments or AfD threads will ensue which totally jam up serene completion of the initial work. That's why I learnt, when taking on a very sensitive topic like Birkat HaMinim which languished for a decade as a pathetic and misleading stub, I wrote it over a month off-line. I knew that if I touched it substantially with an edit or two, then the usual heckling process of synth"! original research! POv-pushing! would let a fascinating subject miscarry. Not out of bad faith, no. But simply because the sensse of a sentence in a provisory lead, or first section under construction cannot be grasped unless you are aware of all of the subsequent details from the scholarship that will clarify them. Most of the criticisms here are of this kind, and that is why I outlined how I think, having read nearly all of the sources, sometimes twice, the article, if allowed to develop, would look like.
I put these finished articles up for comment, peer-editor scrutiny, they almost never encounter the wrestling pettifogging we observe here. They are examined, often by 600-800 eyes for a few days, and then left subsdtantially as they were written because they are neutral, finished, thorough, and therefore encyclopedic.
Over 99& of edits on wikipedia are housecleaning, forum or talk page kibitzing or polemics, reverts, minor corrections or tweaks or additions -absolutely necessary of course. Giving one's opinion is something we all enjoy, brief fixes and then moving on to other blips in the infinite flow of edits, doesn't ruin one's day by unrewarding mechanical overhauling. Only 0.76% of our 6,600,000 articles achieve FA status as default reference articles of guaranteed excellence and reliability for the global readership. That work is done by a small number of content editors mainly, it does not come of incremental adjustments over a decade+ of negotiation. Someone at some point has to take the whole article and its subject matter in hand and make it all cohere in consonance with our best working principles. What had happened here fits a predictable pattern, so I am not surprised. But people who decide its fate one way or another should examine what they want from wikipedia, endless stubs, split articlettes, mishmashes of accumulated edits made without an eye to the whole article. or encyclopedic work.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A closer is going to need to read all of this, and at this point there are over 20,000 words here. Just under 5,000 of these from Nishidani alone. This is an hour or more of reading! Please could we keep discussion focussed. This is not a place for a long meta discussion about how to write articles, nor for any other meta discussion. We are looking at whether there is an encyclopaedic subject here and what exactly it is, and thus whether it is already covered by other articles. That is all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and thus whether it is already covered by other articles Only one editor has alleged a fork, afaics. Here is another source for your interest, note the title:-
    Falk R. Zionism, race and eugenics. In: Cantor G., Swetlitz M., editors. Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 2006. pp. 137–162. (The book is in the article Biblio already) Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and like his other book, Falk's thesis in that book is that Zionism has been influenced by racist and eugenicist ideas. The book has been criticised for being too polemical, although the thesis is well argued. The interface with genetics lies in the eugenics. The argument from some Zionists apparently being that Palestinians are a "genetic threat". This is related to the Zionist eugenic hope discussed above. So it is a good source for something but it is not a good source for the page as it is. Is this a history of the strand of eugenic thinking amongst Zionism? If so, Zionist eugenics makes some sense, if and only if you can demonstrate that this subject is significant enough to spin it out of Zionism. Is it about the genetic realities? Then we have Jewish genetics. What that source is not about is some subject that conflates genetics with race in the head subject. For Falk, it is clear that genetics is the science that demolishes eugenic pretensions. Genetics is not the subject, it is the cure. We should be extremely careful about creating any new pages that have the words "race and genetics" together. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source is a chapter in a book not another book. As already stated, the article is not about race and genetics per se. It is about these two subjects in Zionist thought and for me, this has been successfully demonstrated and not just by Falk. Btw, which parts of Falk book is criticized as polemic and by who? Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which parts of Falk book is criticized as polemic and by who? I can't find the criticism about it being too polemical. It would have been a review of his book. I have struck the comment as it may be misremembered, and in any case is unimportant. Shlomo Sand referred to conceptual weaknesses, but also approves of much of the work. For instance in The Invention of the Jewish People, page 266. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree "race and genetics" is phrasing that should generally be avoided in any article titles (except the article about race and genetics, of course), this is an WP:RM argument, not an WP:AFD argument. However titled, there are WP:RSes (the geneticist Falk's works "Zionism and the Biology of Jews" and "Zionism, race, and eugenics", the "Zionist eugenics" article, the "Zionism...and the Genomic Jew" chapter, the chapter about Zionism in a book about Jewish doctors and race science, etc.) about the topic of Zionism and race/genetics/eugenics/genomics/race science-aka-scientific racism, or however one might describe it -- all of those terms have been used by the aforementioned RSes in various combinations, and they're all talking about the same thing. Some RSes cover the topic while covering a superset, e.g. a chapter about Zionism in a book about Jewish doctors and race science, whereas others cover a subset of the topic, e.g. the article that is specifically about Zionist eugenics. I would describe it as "Zionism and scientific racism" (which includes eugenics, which includes genetics or, more accurately, "pseudo-genetics"). What would save everybody time is if all the "delete" voters changed their votes to "keep" in recognition of the RSes supporting this topic, this AFD was WP:SNOW-closed, and then discussion about title and content can continue on the article talk page. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We are at the one week mark already, so it seems unrealistic that time would be saved by any attempt for a quick switch of !votes. Rather this will either be closed shortly or a closer will extend, hopefully with guidance as to what they want further discussion to focus on. For my own part, the reason I have !voted delete is because the whole subject as it stands has an element of synth. The lead of the article does this in the very first paragraph:

    In the late 19th century, a discourse emerged in Zionist thinking seeking to reframe conceptions of Jewishness in terms of racial identity and race science. In more recent times, genetic science generally and Jewish population genetics in particular have been used in support of or opposition to Zionist political goals, including claims of Jewish ethnic unity and descent linked to the biblical Land of Israel.

    It is that in more recent times that throws in the subject of genetic science and then changes the article from a discussion of the Zionist thinking to opposition of Zionist goals as well as a broader discussion of questions of descent.
    Despite a week at AfD, editors invested in this page have not yet taken on board that the subject as framed is SYNTH. That an RM would resolve my own primary objection here is a given, but my reason for not changing my !vote to a keep-and-rename is that the actual subject is still being skewed by the title, and what is required is a clear consensus as to what the subject is. If it is after Falk then the issue is something like Zionist eugenics - a title that altogether avoids WP:AND. But I don't want to dictate what the subject is. Another title may be better. What I would like to know from the invested parties is what exactly they want the article to be about, because simply keeping this article as it is will probably lead to a messy RM with competing titles and no clear consensus. If the article scope could be decided now, then the RM becomes a technicality. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean editors haven't taken on board your personal opinion and insistence that it is synth, despite the provision of voluminous sourcing around the subject to the contrary and general agreement that it might be the title that is more of a problem than the subject per se? This discussion has run its course and an AfD can't help determine title or scope - those are very much discussion for the talk page of the subject page itself. AfD is neither the right place nor mandated for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is a discussion, and if a body of editors remain unclear on the proposed scope of the article, that discussion has not run its course. If a recently created article has potential but does not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, then draftify is the appropriate alternate to deletion per WP:ATD-I. We can resolve the head issue now, and keep the article subject to RM, or else take it to draft and thrash out the issues on the draft. There is no sense in which I would agree that this article under this title is ready for mainspace. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you now think it should go to draft, because the title/scope issues are temporarily insurmountable, then you should be changing your vote to that. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD decides whether topics are notable, not whether "this article under this title is ready for mainspace". "AfD is not cleanup." This is a GNG-notable topic as demonstrated by all the sources cited/quoted in this discussion that cover this topic, as a whole, in depth.
    It's true, though, sadly the time has already been wasted, by editors arguing that a topic is not notable because they think the topic is presented in a non-NPOV way in the article. That's been pretty disruptive, particularly when it's so obvious that so many editors did not bother to review the sources before voting. Levivich (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of Zionism, race and genetics is not notable. Literally no one frames the topic that way. What is evident, however, is that there is a topic (maybe more than one) that is notable. If there is agreement on what that is and that the article should be about that, I would be happy to move my !vote to "keep on understanding of RM". BobFromBrockley indicates the same. That looks like the beginnings of a potential consensus. The decision for the invested editors now is really whether they want to come to a consensus view on that topic, or whether they prefer to hold on in the hope this gets closed as keep or no consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would switch my !vote from leaning delete (perhaps draftify rather than delete, which hadn't occurred to me as an option) to keep-and-rename if there were signs it was possible to get a consensus on a new title and sharp focus that avoided the intrinsic SYNTH issues with the current title/focus that I still don't think have been addressed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you still prefer not to read the score of sources which refer to the continuity of early Zionist ideas of race and modern genetic studies on Jews, and persist in asserting this is synth, well at least consult Kirsh, Nurit (December 2003). "Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology". Isis. 94 (4): 631–655. JSTOR 386385. which documents how the earlier Zionist ideas of race were absorbed into Israeli population genetics in the 1950s and abide there in the discipline as unconscious influences. There i9s zero synth in the topic title and the article. Please desist. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good for the middle bit and together with Falk, puts paid to the idea of separated subjects/synth. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where in that article it documents racial ideas being absorbed into genetics, and abiding there? Because the article describes how both are influenced by ideology, but explicitly documents their differences:
“But although both Israeli geneticists of the 1950s and 1960s and Zionist racial anthropologists of early twentieth-century Europe were anxious to prove that the Jews have a common biological origin and their uniqueness has been preserved, there are important differences between them."
"Racial anthropology was affected by ideological and political ideas and was also used to influence those ideas; in contrast, the relationship between population genetics and ideology was not reciprocal, since the influence of population genetics in Israel was insignificant. It did not arise in reaction to any previously published views and was not used as propaganda, or in any decision making process."
The closest I see to the connection you are claiming is this:
"The Israeli research publications never mention the eugenic and racial aspects of their research, nevertheless, they tried to use different terms and different criteria from those of German bioracial science and eugenics." "Footnote: Goldschmidt and her collaborators preferred to focus on pathological traits and refrained as much as possible from anthropomorphic measurements." Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Yes I should have written 'abided' for 'abide' in referring to Kirsh. The idea that Zionist racial thinking on Jewish 'biology' formed an ideological heritage persisting past the Holocaust into Israeli genetics from the 1950s through the 1960s is the focus of Kirsh's period-bound study. In Falk's more comprehensive overview the influence of Zionist biological theories about Jews is given as persisting, with endless variations, on Jewish and Israeli thinking for the whole of the 20th.century. Your objection changes nothing. Zionism, race and genetics is a coherent focus of many studies.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picking the bits we like out of the conclusion is a game that can be played by two:
"If Sheba stands at one end of a scale, Goldschmidt stands at the other, since the emphasis in her writing is on genetic issues rather than on historical and anthropological ones. Yet, as I have shown, there is evidence that she too had assimilated the Zionist narrative. Zionist ideas were so ubiquitous in Israeli society that they permeated the scientific work not only of Sheba, a Zionist activist in both the military and the political frameworks, but also of someone like Goldschmidt, whose identity and self-perception were determined primarily by her role as a scientist." Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not about picking bits, Nishidani said the article was about racial ideas being absorbed into genetic studies. But I’m not seeing that in the article, which is about how both are influenced by Zionism. I’m asking if someone could please cite the part(s) of the article that state racial ideas were absorbed into genetic studies. Drsmoo (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Take a deep breath and . . .The article is about Zionism, race and genetics. You and many others are not seeing this or that in the article because, as soon as the stub went up, it got hit with urgent calls for deletion, mostly by editors who haven't any acquaintance with the dozen sources originally there, let alone the 44 major books and studies on Zionism's early entanglement in racial science down to the 1930s, and the aftermath of that ideological tradition in early postwar Israel and the diaspora in the last three decades. A huge amount of investment in time and energy in sedulously replying to repetitive undocumented assertions of wp:synth for a week has hamstrung its completion. By my calculations, just handling the information in those 44 sources will create a 100kb article. It would only need a week or so to do that and quadruple the content. But with a death-sentence hanging over a legitimate topic like this by adventitious nagging and ball-and-chain pettifogging, one refrains from any major effort until someone decides either way. One doesn't fatten a skeleton being trundled over the cobblestones to Tyburn or, as one might say in Landsberg am Lech, Galgenweg. One just thinks of Mallarmé 's wonderful poem, Brise Marine, the first line and the 'adieu suprême des mouchoirs'. To share a 17 year old boy's amibitious but inept translation and give you the kind of feeling one has trying to breast the marathon-long hurdles of writing serious articles for wikipedia against the pressure of aimless chat.
The sheer fatigue of flesh! and books - I've read them all.
To bolt, flee, fly beyond and be amongs birds that call
In swooned fall and flight over unknown foam and skies!
Nothing! -not even gardens reflected in aged eyes
Can keep this brine-drenched heart from brooding without rest
Night after night! Nor the empty clarity, desert-white,
Of sheaved paper blankly protected by lamp-light,
And a youthful wife, suckling a child at her breast.
I’m off! Trim your masts as I, wayward schooner,
Unanchored from ink , sail forth towards exotic nature!
Boredom, desolate of hope, in pitiless grief,
Trusts again in a final farewell's hankerchief!
And perhaps the masts, inveigling storms to the deck,
Are those winds bend headlong into shipwreck
Lost, unmasted, unmastered - no bountyful isles in sight
Yet hark, o beating heart, to shanties this wintry night.</ br>
This AfD is a palmary example of wikipedia as a waste of time, esp. if the sceptical input has all of the omniscient thoughtlessness of chatbots.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing that in the article, which is about how both are influenced by Zionism Uh huh, this article is Zionism, race and genetics which is about how both are influenced by Zionism, right? Falk says that Zionist ideology persisted (Falk "especially among the practising Zionist writers, explicit racial and eugenic notions in spite of, and long after the inception of the ominous developments in Nazi Germany. These notions have persisted, though in a thinly disguised mode, in post-Second World War Israel.· and this latest source is saying similar, as you have just acknowledged. Trying to make the discussion about something else isn't going to help. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses the influence of Zionism on early racial studies, and the influence of Zionism on genetic studies, but I don’t see talk of an ideological heritage or one being absorbed into the other. Drsmoo (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to agree that racial science was not absorbed into eugenics and the latter not absorbed into genetics, happy to do that. Not sure what you mean by "ideological heritage", if you mean Zionism and its influence in those areas, we have just discussed two sources that affirm such an influence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing that some of the editors who have been commenting (and commenting, and commenting) in favor of keeping, are making the argument that those of us who have argued that there is SYNTH are doing so because we are too lazy to have read the sources. Thus, those who argue that there is no SYNTH are the keepers of The Truth, and can summarily (if lengthily) dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. More plausibly, there are editors who have carefully looked at the sourcing, and concluded that there is no SYNTH, and there are other editors who have carefully looked at the sourcing, and concluded that there is SYNTH. The person who closes the AfD will have to sort out how to balance those opposing arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
::On the talk page editors have repeatedly asked for a bulleted list of things those who make these claims consider unfactual or synth. Twice some were given, and duly answered, with tweaks to the text when the claim was considered to have some value. The third time, the answer to these requests was silence. The much larger number of people commenting here but not editing the article waived that option of allowing us to verify the claim. Lastly, those who have read the 2,000 pages of sources diligently don't have any truth to flourish. They do have some competence, compared to others who don't do so, in assessing what the scholarly literature is saying. Here as in the world there are only perspectives along side brute facts no one contests. All content editors ask is that brief repetitions of WP:Synth be documented by specific evidence for that conclusion (which then can be addressed at the article) not policy flagwaving in a ballot of numbers or head-counting.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:The Last Word. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


OT discussion about AE
TBH: I am actively considering drafting a WP:AE. Perhaps an omnibus cleaning of house would be in order. They could ban every participant at this AfD from WP:ARBPIA and delete the article per WP:TNT. I think we need to think outside the box. Whatever this was is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. jps (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't announce threats. One either makes them or holds one's tongue.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You fight your way, I'll fight mine. jps (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabari (2023 )[edit]

Sabari (2023 ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The awkward title says it all. The page was originally created as Sabari (2023 film) and moved to draftspace because it wasn't release. However, the director himself came and moved the page to articlespace. Unreleased film. DareshMohan (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - All I can find are more teasers and trailers type coverage. That is not substantial, and certainly not enough for a film that hasn't been released. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No release date or quality sources that aren't just unbylined PR, no article. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 11 July 2023 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Todd Ferrier[edit]

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

advert of a nonnotable "spiritual leader". No reliable independent sources. - Altenmann >talk 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Scotland. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about all I can find is this [24], could be the same person, they'd be about 30 yrs old. Sources in the article are primary. Nothing for GNG that I find. Oaktree b (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b the "Notes" are primary, but if you scroll down, there seem to be quite a few secondary references in the "References" section? Jahaza (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh ok. Since the rest are in off-line sources, I'm not going to !vote as I can't comment on the quality. I'll change it up above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I questioned both independence and relability For example "Professor Peter Atkins; Professor Derek J Oddy; Peter Lummel (28 November 2012). Food and the City in Europe since 1800: contains a short blurb sourced to Ferrier himself, i.e., hardly independent source. - Altenmann >talk 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In Atkins, Oddy, and Lummel I see 2 mentions in the index- one refers to Ferrier's book "On behalf of the Creatures" and the other mentions the Order of the Cross founded by JTF. Yadsalohcin (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for this source- as stated, there seems to be little biographical information about this man who had a role in the history of Christian vegetarianism, so this should be a significant help (words along the line of 'an early publication of his works summarised 8 lectures he delivered...') Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the sources are kinda fluffy, but a number of the books are (at least partially) accessible on Google Books/Wayback, and at a quick glance, appear to discuss Ferrier's role in the history Christian vegetarianism. The lede could use some work; I think the weird capitalization is making it come across as boosterism. Kalethan (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this- I have started on some clarifications to the lead para... Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is a person who founded an 'informal spiritual communion' which has survived over 100 years and who had a role in the history of Christian vegetarianism. Extra refs found and added above the pre-existing ones from Melton, Atkins, Grumett and Calvert(x2), which has allowed expansion of the (renamed) 'Biography' section. Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the additional relable sources references added to the article that now passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Dourwe[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Two official appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Complex/Rational 20:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abanga Abakar[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. One appearance for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madawa Macrada[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Two appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Lopez (Bahamian footballer)[edit]

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

Five official appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re'john Ene[edit]

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

One official appearance for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (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. Joyous! Noise! 16:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Québec[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Article only lists a single, primary source, so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interdimensional being[edit]

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

The article is mostly WP:OR with only two references: a ufology book, and a book about Buffy the Vampire Slayer which I have not otherwise attempted to verify. I have not attempted to assess notability as a literary trope or as a Spiritualist belief like that connection to the IH suggested in the Jeffrey J. Kripal source at the IH article. I brought this to AfD after a user raised a concern at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Single_top_for_interdimensional_hypothesis/being that the article is also too similar to Interdimensional hypothesis, which is the claim that UFOs are interdimensional phenomena. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Paranormal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I mean, it's a "thing" in literature. Using Buffy as a ref is, well, novel. Nothing I can find beyond DICDEF in sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The book is an academic analysis about Buffy the Vampire Slayer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    …so? That doesn't make it a good source. This is a literary trope at best. If you want to frame it as that, then no problem. But to try and portray it as a serious phenomenon, the old adage of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rings true. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b's comment was a bit misleading as worded, and it is unclear what you mean by "try and portray it as a serious phenomenon". The article does not seem to support, or even discuss, fringe theories related to its topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What we have is a dictionary definition (plus an example farm). Would a soft-redirect to wikt:interdimensional be reasonable? Walt Yoder (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there's a small chance this could be a notable concept, the current execution (contents, references) are very subpar. WP:TNT applies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add template at top {{lacking overview}}. Agree the article needs improvement and expansion from its current state. The topic fits in with other alleged beings that have articles at List of alleged extraterrestrial beings. 5Q5|✉ 12:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no notability, just several examples from fiction that have nothing in common. (Really, mice, beings from Flatland, and somwthing from Buffy all bundled together?) Artem.G (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to be just different meanings of the word "dimension" thrown together. Not even TV Tropes. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rathod Sravan[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no indication of importance. I would have put this for speedy but as it seems this is contentious (look at my talk page as well as that of Sachin96700, who removed the deletion tag from this page they created), I'll put it here for the community to discuss. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and Telangana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Um, this person was born somewhere, but the article doesn't confirm where. It's hard to review notability when it's about a writer from "somewhere". I found this [25], but without many details in the article to go on, I can't confirm if it's the same person. Delete for being unclear as to what exactly this person does in whatever corner of the world they're from, which I'm sure is lovely. Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different person. Shravan Rathod in your article is from Nadeem–Shravan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of notability (WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR or any other guideline) and the awards don't appear to be significant enough to pass via WP:ANYBIO. In fact, the closest thing to a 'claim to notability' is the fact that he completed some element of higher education, which millions of people do every year. Aside from that, this is a WP:BLP, which requires high quality sourcing for all claims made, and I'm not seeing that here at all or in my searches. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with Spiderone - fails GNG and NAUTHOR, doesn't appear to be the same person that Oaktree (above) found on their search, thiis guy would appear to be an Indian teacher and alive. The reference in the article is from a self published site anyone can add their bio to. - nothing of any significance found by me but something may be out there in some of the Indian lnaguages Josey Wales Parley 21:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I moved this article to Draft space, recommended that the draft creator submit it to WP:AFC and stated that if they moved it right to main space, it would be deleted. Minutes later, that's what they did. So, here we are. Ordinarily, I'd suggest draftification but it's clear that the article wouldn't stay in Draft space in order to be improved over time. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2023 (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. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Voit[edit]

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

No independent notability can be established for the subject of this paid PR article. Sources in the article itself are PR, non-independent, or are not actually about the subject of the article. The further attempt to establish notability based on the fact that the subject is a Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering falls down flat - there were 170 other people inducted at the same time as Voit. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - To the nominator: I do not know how you can tell if it is a Paid PR vs. COI (the subject could have easily created their own page). Hence, you should not post such arguments when nominating, without actually having evidence.Hkkingg (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- the subject has almost 5000 Google scholar citations and meets WP:NPROF.Hkkingg (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2023 (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 Turkvision Song Contest#Bala Turkvision Song Contest. As the merger has apparently been done, and this preserves attribution. Star Mississippi 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015[edit]

Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event, failed attempt at a new competition format with only a single occurance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Largely based on one source for majority of references, with additional primary sources, and a lot of information presented is also unverified. Parent article (Bala Turkvision Song Contest) was PRODded successfully for similar reasons, leaving limited options for redirection of this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grk1011: please see WP:PROMERGE for instructions on doing this sort of consolidation in the future. It is rare for us to need to delete anything to accomplish a merge. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: By "merge" I meant that I took the relevant sources from this article and wrote a more concise recap in the main article. Yes, I could have also just redirected this article to that section, but I think the spirit of this AfD was that a redirect is potentially unnecessary as well. Grk1011 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHEAP. Keeping also avoids time spent by editors in AfD, time that is better spent improving the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If material from the nominated article has been merged, wouldn't it be best to redirect to that target? Joyous! Noise! 17:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per Grk1011's explanation above, it was not necessarily a "merge" but more a case of a summary of the topic of this article being added to that article. I don't believe that a redirect is the best course of action for this article given that there is not necessarily a direct link between the two articles, and that deletion is a "cleaner" method of dealing this article which does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Turkvision Song Contest#Bala_Turkvision_Song_Contest. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Fallout (series)#Gameplay. Selective merge of the sourced and notable material Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power Armor (Fallout)[edit]

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

Power armor does meet a narrow reading of GNG. As in, multiple articles specifically talk about it, or an aspect of it. But, whether it needs it’s own article without the context of a wider topic is the real question. Again, while there may be GNG coverage here, we are not required to create an article like this, and it could be probably better if it is merged in the series article, or a universe of Fallout article. I think this is almost or maybe only belongs to the fandom (Not gonna argue someone here, especially with a turtle internet speed rn). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator keep Article is clearly a WP:GNG pass, the nominator acknowledges that, so why is it in AfD? Seems to be a WP:WEDONTNEEDIT situation. There are articles solely on power armor from VG247, Kotaku, and pages about in the independent published book Fallout: A Tale of Mutation. Power Armor is an iconic item in video gaming and The Digital Role-Playing Game and Technical Communication book explains how Power Armor is one of the most recognizable and highest branding value things in Bethesda's entire catalog. There's a solid argument for it being one of the most well-known armored suits in games besides Master Chief and Samus Aran. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of the sources are not what I would consider significant coverage. For example, this source is to do with the flaws of the Fallout Creation Club and monetizing mods. This source is to do with Fallout 76 issues; the helmet is not the significant part of the story, the mold is. The reception section is largely supported by only two sources. and there's no creation info about the Power Suit included. I'm not opposed to the concept of the article if work is done to show notability, but as it is, the article doesn't demonstrate it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm I am still thinking. Are those the best sources? Can you link the pages from relevant book (to GBooks or IA)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per WP:MERGEREASON. Between Fallout (series) and Powered exoskeleton#Fictional depictions existing, I'm having a hard time understanding why this was split out into its own stub article. There's also very little substance in the reception section. It's been tagged for cleanup since 2020, and for good reason, it's a bloated collection of long quotes and random musings about them of little consequence. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are describing WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Theoretically it could be an article that stands on its own, it's already fully notable, so that's what ultimately matters. If articles were never made because they need to be above a certain size, it creates a catch-22 (logic) where articles are never improved because they are never created in the first place. There needs to be a basis there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced of that. It's been three years and there's been zero improvement. There's virtually nothing of substance there currently, and two separate areas where what little substance can be discussed now. Merge it now, and draft up something later and hold a separate discussion about splitting back off if/when someone ever decides to write a legit article. This ain't it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I don't know why Greenish Pickle suggested it fulfilled GNG, it's supported exclusively by two sources, and when you cut down the text attributed to it, the Reception section is quite small. Otherwise, a lot of sources aren't actually to do with the Power Armor, but with the Power Armor as part of a greater subject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, for effect, I trimmed the Reception down to what I believe is actually reception, and cutting out unnecessary quotes and details: "Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku was initially "disgusted" by how quickly Fallout 4 gave players the Power Armor due to how the Power Suit had to be earned in early Fallout games and how powerful it is. However, she grew to appreciate it due to it being indispensable in certain situations, stating that it was an all new Fallout experience for her. Richard Stanton of VG247 was more critical of its wider availability in Fallout 4, feeling similar distaste, as he felt it should be reserved for players who work hard and earn it. He was also critical of its abundant use by enemies." If it is, indeed, the third-most-well-known power armor in gaming, it's not shown in the sources utilized. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say the visceral reaction of the critics as to its use actually demonstrates how well known it is. It's the equivalent of, say, a Halo game where you can play as a normal soldier, but are granted Master Chief's SPARTAN armor. There was something of a backlash despite the game wanting to show off the armor as a more major mechanic.
      But I can agree the article is underdeveloped. I'll try to improve it to pass the WP:HEY standard, since people have mentioned that "it being a legit article" would change their opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No offense, but it's been more then 2 years after you first created this article, and your attempt to invoke WP:HEY will likely not sway the majority of participants of this discussion, including myself (and I am sympathetic towards salvaging problematic articles), to go for a keep position. I am not seeing much solid sourcing (development or reception) that would enable us to build a proper standalone article at this time. Haleth (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What's here just doesn't support the article being separate. Most of the commentary is about the item as a gameplay element and even then not independently separate from the particular games. I'd love to see more Fallout spinout articles on wikipedia that matter, but this doesn't have legs to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Merge target should be Fallout (series)#Gameplay, which is fairely underdeveloped. Relevant gameplay concepts should be put there instead of being spun off into a separate article. OceanHok (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fullfills the minimum requirements of WP:GNG in my view, although improvements would of course be welcome. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fallout (series). A Universe of Fallout article would've worked better, but it doesn't exist at this time. The arguments made in a previous AfD, here, are quite persuasive: in that, we should consider whether it belongs better in a major section of a more comprehensive article about the Fallout universe, where it talks about the importance of Power Armor suits in that universe and its associated gameplay mechanics. Abstain. I believe dedicated coverage about the Fallout series' Power Armor should be on Wikipedia. However, I am not seeing much of a reason as to why it should have its own standalone article. Also note that we already have an underdeveloped section for Fictional Depictions in the Powered exoskeleton article. I personally don't believe that this article should be AfD'd, but some editors believe that a merge discussion would not have achieved an expedient outcome if it's an advertised merge discussion with no deadline. Haleth (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cukie Gherkin: @Sergecross73: @Haleth: @Kung Fu Man: @OceanHok: Courtesy ping now that the article has undergone expansion. I feel it may convince people who think the article was too short or pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, I have added a section and some primary sources discussing the design rationale of the Power Armor itself. I think this article still needs a lot of work, but now there are some sources that actually describe its specific context rather than its ingame appearance. There is good potential that the article's notability is founded on its cultural recognition as a central motif for the series of Fallout games, in the same manner as Pip-Boy. But the objections that most of these sources come from trivial or incidental things people have done with the Power Armor is also a concern too. Hope this helps. Vrxces (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can a material contributor to an article still express a view here without apprehended bias? If so, it's a Keep from me. Vrxces (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rules say you have to disclose any "vested interest" but can still participate and express your views. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm still formulating a proper response to the above ping, I will note I removed the Creation Club reference, as that matter was about whether or not Bethesda could released mini-dlc/"paid mods" of items that had also been previously released as mods in other forms for Fallout 4 by other authors, which involved the Hellfire Power Armor and Chinese Stealth Suit. The matter itself was not about power armor or even the Hellfire outright. The fact it involved a power armor was coincidence.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd entirely agree. The title is "Fallout 4’s Creation Club armor has free counterparts — and fans prefer them". The fact that the items being debated are Power Armors is relevant since Bethesda used them as a focus of their paid Creation Club efforts. It's not a coincidence that Bethesda featured them since Power Armors are highly sought after items due to their in-universe significance, making it more likely for players to buy them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with KFM, by virtue of the fact that the Power Armor is just an example of the problem with the Creation Club. Perhaps the most notable one, but the Power Armor wasn't the biggest problem with the Creation Club. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's not a coincidence that Bethesda featured them since Power Armors are highly sought after items due to their in-universe significance"--Speaking frankly Zx, this is original research...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This additional Eurogamer feature more outright states that "Fallout 4's Chinese Stealth Armour mod was at the centre of the controversy around Creation Club". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was established in my main comment. The Stealth Suit also isn't power armor in either incarnation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure it really moves the needle for me either way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The updated article doesn't make me want to change my position to keep right away, but some of the sourcing have merit. Even the nominator conceded that it meets the bare minimum of WP:GNG, so some of us may agree that it is an issue of content as opposed to notability. Haleth (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's about where I'm at. One could probably find a few Kotaku sources about the red shoes Sonic wears too, but that still doesn't mean it makes sense for me to spin it out to its own dedicated article. There's just little here, and multiple other places it could be covered. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, as Sonic's shoes are literally only worn by Sonic. Power armor is an item that is used across the ingame universe by both the player and NPCs alike, comprises an entire form of gameplay interaction when you put it on (at least in Fallout 4), and has story relevance as more than just "the shoes this character wears". Sonic's shoes can mostly not be separated from Sonic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're splitting hairs on a hypothetical - I don't think we need splits for Chaos Emeralds or Mario mushrooms either, despite them offering "gameplay mechanics across franchise entries and having story significance". Splits like this are more appropriate for fan wikias, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 17 July 2023 (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. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Two[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. It was, like any other small scandal, covered by some press coverage, but not nearly enough for it to be anything significant to have its own article. The article is basically all just copy-pasted from other sources, with potential copyright violations, and does not provide an in-depth analysis of what happened. It is also not written in accordance with most Wikipedia standards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of NEO, there are more than a few reliable/verifiable sources which refer to the term "FIFA Two". (Including The Times (UK), RTÉ, Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Wales Online.) So I don't think we can delete on the basis of the term being a neologism.
In terms of SIGCOV, there are more than a few reliable mainstream news sources which deal with the topic in some depth. (Irish Examiner, Belfast Telegraph, Irish Times, RTÉ, ESPN, etc.) So I'm not sure I could support deletion on SIGCOV basis.
In terms of LASTING, to counter any WP:NOTNEWS concerns, there appears to have been sustained coverage (after the fact) of the "FIFA rule change" that was precipitated by the events.
In terms of COPYVIO, I don't understand this argument. Not only could any content issues (like the questionable editorialsing in the "precedent" section) be fixed rather than the article deleted, a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector suggests that the only materially "copy/pasted" text is the two extracts from the FIFA rule book. Both of which are quoted text. That doesn't really fall within the scope of COPYVIO.
Personally I'm not seeing (or perhaps just not following) the argument for deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (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 Resurrection Band. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Your Life (album)[edit]

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

NN album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, United States of America, and Illinois. UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability of an album is not inherited from notability of the band, and this album is not independently notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm: I have no problem with Redirect as per others. I'll strike the delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Resurrection Band: Found one passing mention of the album and nothing else. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Resurrection Band. Not independently notable. Source linked from article says that it's of historical interest only, which isn't totally dispositive. I can imagine an album being of exceptional historical interest, but it's saying it's less important than the band's other work. Jahaza (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Resurrection Band. I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm the person who originated this page back when I didn't know what I was doing as a new editor, so I'm in agreement with deleting the page and redirecting. Very little third-party information exists about this album, and it's better included within a discussion of Rez Band's early work on the main band page.TARDIS (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Resurrection Band.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. I will be merging the page histories between the mainspace and draftspace versions. ✗plicit 14:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Threads accounts[edit]

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

Too early for this list to exist; we don't even know how long Threads will last. (For context, the app was released less than a week ago.) Also, there is presently only one source, and that is clearly unreliable. Possibly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOG as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Draftify: I agree. This is too soon. References just simply don't exist yet. Once a website like Socialblade, which is what pages like List of most-followed Twitter accounts use, adds Threads to its site, then we should create the "most-followed" page. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot that "Draftify" was an option. I will edit my comment to that instead. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I think it's likely that this topic will receive the coverage necessary, but it's not there right now and I want to avoid WP:CRYSTAL predictions about notability. Draftify until independent reliable coverage can be found (something better than MEAWW). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason why the page shouldn't exist. A reliable/independent source is from the app itself - considering those are the real time user numbers. (Jasp7676) 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The app itself isn't an independent source. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Threads isn't a major platform. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dratify: A bit too soon, and it's hard to tell if Threads is a major platform since it's only been out for a week (even though it's amassed over 100 million followers). I reckon that sources will turn up within a month if it has staying power, in which case this draft can exist to help out. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is already an existing draft at Draft:List of most-followed Threads App accounts so there is no need to draftify the current article. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: A draft already exists for this article, which is located here. This page should be redirected to that for now, and then moved back to mainspace at a later date if Threads turns out to be a major social platform. Deauthorized. (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - by deleting the already exisiting draft version (since that's not edited since submission was declined) and put this version in it's place instead. At this stage, we should consider this platform is currently unavailable in the EU, possibly that's why major celebrity names are not on the platform yet (such as Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, the top two followed people). I also agree with what Strugglehouse said about Socialblade. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Threads is brand-new, so this list shows what is popular in the present day and what has enduring popularity, because all of those followers had to have followed within the last 9 days. From looking at this list, we can see that Kim Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, and Shaquille O'Neal are still popular in the year 2023! 123957a (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as the commenter immediately above says, Threads is brand-new. A valid article can probably be created under this title in a year or two, which is the minimum timescale on which an encyclopedia should operate, but to create it now is simply crystal-balling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Jorquera[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP not currently showing evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC #5, given that only a database source is used. Spanish Wikipedia and my own WP:BEFORE does not show that any decent sources exist. Even a Chilean source search did not seem to yield anything decent about the Chilean goalkeeper of this name. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Andra[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP on a former footballer. A Chilean source search failed to provide any suitable sources for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best source that I can find is Soccerway, a database source which SPORTBASIC specifically says does not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 11 July 2023 (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 WP:SNOW keep. The overwhelming consensus is that this topic is notable enough for its own article. (non-admin closure) --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say more like WP:AVALANCHE keep. EEng 10:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbenheimer[edit]

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

Not sure why this article was created, this is just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year. Typically, such memes are not notable to justify standalone articles and are simply discussed in their respective film articles; I don't see a reason this should be any different. It is unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage, and even if it does, it is too early to tell at this stage, when neither film has even been released. With the current length of the article, it can easily be merged into Barbie (film) and Oppenheimer (film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and Internet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—as I have expressed on the talk page, this is not notable because it's a transient internet phenomenon that fails WP:20YT and which will be irrelevant come July 22. Culture journalists report on memes and internet fads all the time, but that doesn't make them all individually notable. I agree that this is best expressed in a sentence or two on the main articles of the two films, not in an independent article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Quick Snow Close to get rid of the huge tag on top of the page. This article is well sourced (The Guardian, New York Times, Evening Standard etc.), becoming better sourced by the day, is a bit of fun (haven't laughed so hard on Wikipedia as when preparing the opening image and its encyclopedic caption), and notable per topic, sources, and as a cultural phenomena. Let's close this down pretty quick, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you take any article of decent quality and cut-and-paste one of its sections, it would also make a well-sourced article. But the presence of sources doesn't necessarily demonstrate that a subject should have a standalone article; should we make articles for Cast of Oppenheimer (film), Marketing for Barbie (film), Production of Oppenheimer (film), etc. just because they would be well-sourced? No one is suggesting that this information isn't notable/noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia, but WP:N requires more than just being "notable" for there to be a standalone article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is textbook false equivalence, both ways. More sources ≠ important article ≠ less sources. However, the argument for more sources being good reason is founded in the fact that this article has more depth than could be contained in a footnote. I’m inclined to agree with that perspective. There is a lot of detail involved in this phenomenon that is worth reading about. Maybe it will die down, or maybe it will head recognition for phenomenon in the future. But either way, it is a cultural event of substance, and not one to rush to delete before it’s even happened. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: since this nomination many more quality sources have been added to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Randy Kryn. Article is sourced, and it's not the first article about a meme that would be irrelevant in (near?) future, so I don't even understand why it was proposed for deletion. Artem.G (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 — Culture IS history. If truly no one talks about it after the day of, then sure, they can delete the 10kb article if they must. But if it’s ever referenced in the future, even if in small settings, then we are doing a disservice to history to delete it. This event and phenomenon has meant something to millions—that’s important. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Randy Kryn's argument on how incredibly well sourced it is with perennially reliable sources. GNG easily met. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - well sourced article. Manasbose (talk | edits) Manasbose (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Saying that it is "unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage" is too WP:CRYSTAL for my taste and the rest of the argument reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As an aside, I think Marketing for Barbie (film) has solid potential. I may change my opinion a few months from now, but it is certainly a keep right now. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think for the time being, the phrase can be covered in sections at both the Barbie and Oppenheimer articles succinctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral — It is too soon to consider deleting or keeping this article. As mentioned previously, prudence suggests that waiting until the release of Barbie and Oppenheimer is the appropriate course of action. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Fails WP:10YT. Coining a cute term that describes what is essentially a routine blockbuster box-office rivalry does not somehow make it independently notable. Perfectly fine to mention in the two respective articles, where it can be boiled down to a single paragraph. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 17:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have IGN from the tech side and Variety and the Hollywood Reporter from the entertainment side as sources, rest are about as good as those. This is a keep. Might be a fad, but it's more than well-discussed, it's all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it’s evolved beyond just being a phenomena now that there’s analysis being made over it. It just makes more sense to me to maintain its separate article than to footnote it onto both films pages. WP:GNG is satisfied in my opinion. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly noteworthy per the current sources with plenty of room to expand in the coming months, and it doesn't really make sense to have this information at either film's article when it is equally about both. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To those who think this will soon be forgotten, the article draws an analogy to a similar case in 2008, or 15 years ago. So this too is likely to still be referred to years from now. LouScheffer (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The significant coverage received by this makes it more than just "just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year". Only a very small number of such topics are discussed at length in mainstream media to the point where they become notable. I'm inclined to believe this is one of them.
    PraiseVivec (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Such a cultural fad deserves to be disseminated for decades to come. The public response and critique of Oppenheimer and Barbie together blends into many already existing theories, yet does not correctly merge as a singular, or if onto the pages of the respective films would likely cause confusion.
    Researchers will require this information and it is without a doubt that the care and attention seen within this article will go missing if not preserved. 81.155.91.197 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article is well sourced and is important to understanding the current anticipation building up to the release of each film, the cultural attitudes towards each film, the current state of viral marketing in film production, and is also very well researched. Barbenheimer is a popular search term as of July 2023, and the article fills in the reader about it with great context incredibly well. Keep! --BakedintheHole (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well-sourced. Lots of decent coverage. Could use some tidying up or reformatting. Count3D (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feature, but at a minimum a RobertsRobert snow close seems fair. Once the films come out, many patterns of similarity and/or opposite plot flows will be noticed and reported on, inevitable when people are looking for them (an underreported force of nature). This is actually epic poetry in meme form. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Feature"? The second sentence sounds like a whole lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Also, any reason you've !voted twice? Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Throast. 'Feature' is a commentary not an !vote, as is the following sentence. My main point, as mentioned in the !vote higher on the page, is that this should be snowed in order to get the giant unsightly tag off the top of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Fails WP:20Y. NM 07:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay section linked promotes WP:CRYSTAL. How about a 50-year test, to pick a number out of a hat. Not a policy or guideline based merge reason. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced with significant coverage from different reputable media, and has sufficient content to be its own article. Skyshifter talk 13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ya fun-haters --Jtle515 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG. Arguments for merger seem nonsensical to me, why would we repeat a huge amount of the same information on two articles when this one is already good?★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is very notable across North America and the UK. There are several reputable secondary sources on the subject. Aside from being an internet meme, this is a very well-constructed article that meets all the requirements Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the Morbius meme, the Barbenheimer meme is showing a real positive impact on both films. Variety reported that at least 20,000 people are going to see BOTH films according to AMC. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge, it's "doomcrossing" again, Doom and animal crossing.
  • if this stays, i hope that link turns blue as well. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not comparing articles here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. The article is well sourced and will probably be notable for the next few weeks, though I worry about the article's shelf life and WP:10YT. Time shall tell, for now, my vote is keep. 〜 Askarion ✉ 18:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, maybe merge into Counterprogramming (film distribution) which is a much shorter article than this. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think counterprogramming is a more formal process than this, which feels more of a ground-up kind of occurance (meme culture vs. deliberate marketing), so this merge might be misleading. 137.132.26.98 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has proven to be active in the collective consciousness for over a year, as well as being reported by secondary sources consistently throughout that time. It is financially significant to both films and will likely stay relevant/be brought up for years to come, meeting WP:10YT. There is also merit in not unnecessarily loading both film pages with information included here. Jzahck (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Weak keep: Article is decently sourced but I have no problem if this was merged into the marketing or release section of each film -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 20:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I say keep it notable we have many sources Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's received more coverage than most of the similar counterprogramming examples. Snowman304|talk 22:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample RSs to demonstrate WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. This is an example of recentism and is ultimately an internet meme that has no long-term notability. We don't have an article about, say, Doom Eternal X Animal Crossing memes, which were a very similar phenomenon, because those stopped being relevant after the games released. The same can be said here, this meme will have no relevancy or notability after the movies release, much less in a few years or decades from now. See WP:20Y. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, WP:20Y is an essay and falls directly into opposition to WP:CRYSTAL. Per crystal, we don't know if the growing meme will be notable in five or 20 years, but it is notable now with enough acceptable sources to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree with claims of recentism and while the sources may be varied and strong, the phenonemon can be summarised into sections on either page or on a section on counterprogramming. --ayush (reach out) 03:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Recentism or not is impossible to say as of yet. If term continues to be used, keep as separate page; if not, merge later. Λυδαcιτγ 05:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Counterprogramming (film distribution): The phenomenon itself has had a significant impact on ticket sales & marketing for both films. However, it's likely that the trend will not have any long-term notability or relevance. I also think the information currently on the "Barbenheimer" page would be at home on the pages for their respective films and on the Counterprogramming page. BroIsAfraid (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC) BroIsAfraid[reply]
  • Keep. well sourced and clearly growing in notability day by day, i see no reason why one could object to this article other than just “not liking it.” Kdog5454 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable with significant coverage from RS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't delete it it's a great case study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.232.104 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the substantial debate here boils down to concerns about how to balance concerns about recentism with WP:CRYSTAL; some editors have also accepted that the content is notable but have suggested merging it into the pages about the films themselves. If the content is notable then it needs to be kept to its own page: Internet memes about another film prior to the film even been seen are undue information that would clog up the page. An article about the actual film Oppenheimer does not need to dwell extensively on the fact that many people found it amusing that it was released on the same day as Barbie. As for how to balance recentism against CRYSTAL, I would argue we should turn to WP:NEVENT for guidance, as it also concerns matters of potentially ephemeral note that capture the imagination of journalists. WP:NEVENT requires that a topic have WP:LASTING significance or wide geographical scope—this has both. It has been discussed by RS across national boundaries as a defining cultural moment in summer 2023 with potentially wider interest for film theorists and cultural historians. The rivalry between these films and the online reaction to it has become a significant matter in its own right and it merits a (sensible) Wikipedia article. —Kilopylae (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Barbenheimer article details significant cultural phenomena and well-documented marketing strategy, touching on various aspects of cinema, moviegoing, and internet subculture. As another user has stated, this is a case study worth noting. Please do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.104.126 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has enough coverage and the topic will be more relevant upon release of both of the films. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems be an overwhelming consensus that the article is well sourced and important beyond a simple internet fad. While it may eventually be a merge in the long term, deletion makes no sense now. We should wait and see whether a merge makes sense in 6 months-1 year from now. Glenn984 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced article which has relevance to the current state of cinema and internet culture. Vader13289 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don’t delete this page 82.14.215.136 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject has been covered in several reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much like the Russian Kyiv convoy it is a current event where the existence of the article helps a lot with research and deciding if it is notable. A merge or deletion might be the best decision but lets wait until say July 28, a week after the box office to see if this had a notable effect Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 22:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The earliest articles cited are from April (months before the films' release), and journalists continue to write about this phenomenon, indicating that its coverage is significant and sustained. With 28 sources as of this comment, we can anticipate several more once the films are released and the public demonstrates its cultural significance, or potentially lack thereof. A merger, especially one that reduces the article down to 1-2 sentences as previoulsy suggested, would inevitably omit important information. Immanuelle makes a solid argument with respect to the Russian Kyiv convoy—it could be merged into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but the convoy was a significant event in its own right. Unkeptsecrets (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And for THIS article, we get dozens and dozens of editors participating. Sigh. Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but Liz, the concept tis, poetry. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this AfD discussion has become a joke/meme. After four days of keeps, with minor merges sprinkled throughout, this could have been closed long ago. Now editors come to participate just for the lolz. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While I am a big fan of these kinds of articles for sharing with friends, making an individual page for every "2 opposing energy franchises released at the same day"-event seems a bit excessive, especially in the eyes of WP:20YT . Either put a part about Barbenheimer on the Barbie and Oppenheimer page, on the counterprogramming page. Idealy I would love to have a page which describes these opposing same day releases like animal crossing/Doom and Barbenheimer, but I could not find any reputable sources linking the 2 in my quick lunchbreak google.
    Speederzzz (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phenomenon has received plenty of coverage and is notable enough for Wikipedia. 195.50.217.133 (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Berlin Alexanderplatz to make Barberlin Alexanderheimerplatz. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barbenheimer" has been months in the making and has been the premiere internet discussion in the movie portion of the internet. Both films have stood their ground and refused to change the release date. I believe this article will give future readers a look into culture and internet memes in the year 2023, and thats why I support keeping this article up. Kennyboy1999 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Who are these people voting delete because it "fails" WP:20YT? This is no policy to be failed. As far as the sourcing goes, the subject passes GNG by a mile. References are covering Barbenheimer as a standalone notable topic with significant sourcing (noted above). Transient internet phenomenon also include PewDiePie vs T-Series or (hilariously) Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg. Didn't stop us from having articles on them. 2001:8F8:172B:41ED:C4D1:B798:B5D8:B146 (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While this is certainly contentious, it seems the most sensible course of action would be to keep the article up, at least for now. The number of sources suggests a good level of notability. Some have mentioned WP:20YT, but I'd suggest that those concerns could be solved by keeping the article up, and bringing this discussion up again in the event that it is no longer notable in the future. It's also worth noting that, as has been said above, seemingly frivolous internet phenomena do often have articles. -  callumpenguin (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I disagree with the concerns about recentism. This is a well-sourced article about two of the most notable movies of the year, and I honestly do think that 10 or 20 years from now, fans of the properties will continue to look back on the phenomenon with enough interest to warrant a standalone article. Jpcase (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as per Randy Kryn DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced with surprisingly significant coverage. ULPS (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It surprised me, but the scope and breadth of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that are definitively about the phenomenon meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have a big shelf and I think people will want to know what the heck Barbenheimer was all about decades in the future.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is well-sourced and I see no benefit from deleting it. While I will concede that it is not as important a cinema article as Citizen Kane or anything like that, it could be of interest in the future as a (Spontaneous? Coached along?) phenomenon that took place in the context of movie studios striving to get moviegoers back into theaters after Covid, competition with streaming, and being in the midst of the writers' strike and at the likely onset of the actors' strike. KConWiki (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Its a well-sourced article which details a notable event which has spawned discussions and memes alongside the potential impact the event will have on both films. KeyKing666 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So to summarize, so far we've got keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, merge or delete, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep, keep. EEng 01:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the (inaccurate) summary, but you and I both know this is not a poll. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, darn, you caught me with my pants down! I'm a liar, liar, pants on fire! You've pinpointed that my seriously-intended summary suggests the count is 500-to-1 when it's really just 100-to-1. Plus, you've pointed out something obvious which everyone already knows! Good thing you're here and have the courage to speak up! EEng 02:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must say, many of the arguments above seem to hinge on WP:ILIKEIT and WP: ITSINTERESTING. The closer should take note of this when evaluating the strength of each !vote's argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right: 30 of the 100 keep !votes didn't give policy-based arguments. So that only leave 70. EEng 02:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true that quite a lot of them do boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or "per above," it should also be noted that many of the !votes for keeping do make direct counterpoints to the arguments for deletion. As you noted, this is not a poll, so the proportion of quality to quantity for each position doesn't matter, only the sum of actual arguments. FranklinOfNull (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one am glad that so many editors are taking a stand against the hate-fuelled agendas that have become so common on deletion pages. This is beautiful! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree! This is an exciting moment in cinema history. 98.116.61.152 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a noteworthy thing in film that's more than just a meme of the week that's being noticed by tons of companies and Hollywood that became a huge staple for both films! - Dragonsblood23
  • Strong Delete - This is a short article about a minor internet meme that could easily be covered on the Barbie and Oppenheimer pages.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have visited this article twice just today looking for information about this curious cultural event. This is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I implore you not to delete it! 98.167.27.17 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced. Maybe no-one will care in a year's time, but notability is forever and it appears notable now. A merge doesn't work very well because you'd have to duplicate content across two articles: it's neater to have one separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like its official now. Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia but a site for ephemeral news (does anyone follow WP:NOTNEWS?) about the latest Internet fad. I give up. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a sad day for Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an internet fad that is impacting the box office grosses of BOTH films, even before they are officially released. This article goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS with lots of reliable sources covering Barbenheimer. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 13:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yoshiman6464: But does every fad and meme and marketing ploy deserve its own article? Why in heaven's name could this not fit in the Reception section of the main articles? 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus and Phil Bridger: I believe a new guideline is needed for articles dealing with culture. Back before the internet, insignificant fads like these were confined to known, named-and-shamed tabloids. Now, with the clickbait economy, all a culture journalist has to do is scroll through Twitter to find "the next big thing", and Hallelujah, every other journalist picks it up to cash on the clicks. It's a serious quality issue, as I see it. This sort of low-effort reporting should not count as significant coverage under Wikipedia's guidelines. Much like Wikipedia has protected itself using the WP:RSBREAKING guideline, this needs to be discussed further and hopefully implemented at some point. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is well sourced and even though it might not be a major event it is still big enough that there has to be some credible information about it. Besides just by looking at how many people argue that it should be kept we can see that it has obviously been utilised as a source. Some of you are boring and don’t like having fun smh. I can see a merge later down the road but give the people what they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.186.23 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed! This is an important cultural event for many. Not just film theorists and students but also cinephiles, possibly anthropologists, and meme lovers. Keep it up! Lavenderlavanda (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment was moved from the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer With this many keep !votes, I understand it may be tempting to claim there is "overwhelming consensus" for a certain outcome. But in addition to my earlier comment about ILIKEIT and ITSINTERESTING, it is important to note that many people are also coming here because they find this funny — "this" as in both the article and the nomination itself. See WP:ITSFUNNY, but this goes beyond that. Some people aren't even taking this nomination seriously, especially comments calling this "poetry", "beautiful", an "important cultural event", etc. The strongest argument of the opposing side, which is the abundance of reliable sources, does not automatically mean that a topic should have its own standalone article rather than a section on an existing one; plenty of topics on Wikipedia arguably meet GNG but live on a parent article rather than its own. A close resulting in "keep" will likely encourage editors to start mass-creating articles about every Internet meme and fad that grabs the attention from the press. I urge the closer make their decision thoughtfully, carefully consider the strength of each side's arguments, and compose a closing statement rather than merely stating the outcome. <end of rant> InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The overwhelming consensus comes from the overwhelming sources presented on the page, with more sources becoming available daily. That some editors also like it has nothing to do with the "keep" consensus obviously reached here, those comments are asides to the sources and policy discussion. The page meets each and every Wikipedia criteria for a stand-alone article and no, not every internet fad or meme will now receive an article (Internet fads and memes have been around for a long time and few have passed the bar. This one has). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Each and every Wikipedia criteria [sic] for a stand-alone article? Really? What about WP:SUSTAINED? How can you know this topic will receive sustained coverage when the subjects of the article haven't even been released? As Internet fads are normally seen as trivial topics that should not receive standalone articles, a higher bar is demanded of them before standalone articles are warranted. Barbenheimer doesn't meet that threshold, and even if it does, it's too early to tell. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sustained is WP:CRYSTAL, nobody knows if it will be sustained. TooSoon is an essay, and really shouldn't be used in the initial nomination text, as occurs above, because that might confuse some commenting editors who are made to believe it's a policy or guideline. Other essays, like 20YR, are also too often used in this manner. Hopefully closers know their policy-guideline-essay-opinion ranks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you keep on pointing out what is an essay and what is a PAG. Yes, we are aware essays are non-binding and PAGs are given more weight than essays — but that doesn't mean essays don't give good advice. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of this article is not either film. The subject is the odd internet phenomenon that was a reaction to the scheduling of those films. That that phenomenon was "released" has been made clear by the coverage that it has been getting in reliable sources for months, which is not prediction of how people will see their release, but a documenting of what has already happened. (WP:BEFORE specifically calls for those submitting an AfD to read the article's talk page and its history; perhaps we need to add that one should read the actual article.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    InfiniteNexus suggests that, A close resulting in "keep" will likely encourage editors to start mass-creating articles about every Internet meme and fad that grabs the attention from the press. Phil Bridger made a similar comment. Forgive me, but this seems remarkably naïve. Barbenheimer is far from being the first Internet meme/fad that grabbed attention from the press that is covered on Wikipedia, and it won't be the last. We've encountered this question before and the policy that's relevant is WP:GNG. Lots of other fads have articles and Wikipedia survives. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge relevant material to respective articles. A dumb, ephemeral meme that has no lasting significance or notability after each film is done its theatrical run. Zaathras (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not the place for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. to run a promotional campaign on. Even if they dress it up as forced meme.
    Hoheolo (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If one of the main editors working on the page is an employee or agent of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. then that should be focused on, discussed and called out at ANI, and they should fork over some of their pay to the Foundation for punishment/contribution/refreshments. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warner Bros. isn't editing the article themselves (as far as we know). We're the ones helping them market their movie by letting this article exist and helping them spread the meme. But again, Wikipedia isn't Know Your Meme or Fandom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither 'article perhaps useful to company' nor 'WP is not KYM/Fandom' are arguments; they are mere observations. If you cannot differentiate between observations and arguments, you also won't be able to recognize and properly weigh counterarguments, which essentially makes engaging in a discussion with you pointless. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:8D07:6443:4FA5:AB8B (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Despite the crystal ball statements of those inappropriately invoking WP:20YT as policy, we do not know what the future brings, for this or any article.... there may be none of us left in 20 years time. What we do know at this juncture is that this has coverage that has sustained for months. We know that some things which should have been forgotten in a moment have lasting use as a cultural reference, whether it's that time that Geraldo found some empty bottles or when Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli strapped on some water skis and passed over a shark. The creation of this amalgamation depicting the breadth of American commercial cinema, with its relatively high purchase in the current imagination and coverage in sources of significance, may indeed be used in discussion of film for a long time to come... or it may evaporate by October. At the very least, at this moment the article is drawing attention, it is growing and accumulating resources that are best gained in a central place even if later on we decide that its content must be divided among the pages for the individual films and the year-in-cinema article. So even if Wikipedia in its theoretical finished state would not have this article (and it is too early to tell with any certainty), it is advantageous to have this article now while work continues. The things that can be shown now, like notability, have been shown; the lasting value we can tell with time. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant credible coverage warrants creation. It's not just "Warner Bros" PR it's a legit domination over the culture. The One I Left (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many articles based on internet trends, phenomena and fads. See List of internet phenomena. Barbenheimer is covered by many reliable sources, so creation can be justified. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frankly, the article should be part of a broader article about cross promotion/same dates of major movie drops, but since that doesn't exist, I think it's better to keep it for now. Trying to merge it with either of the two articles would lead to redundant clutter in both.
    Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Discussed in multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage, as attested to by the article. Looking over the article, this phenomenon has had dedicated features from New York Times (twice), Associated Press, Time to name just a small handful. The subject cannot be merged into either film's article because it deals with both. FWIW, non-trivial coverage dates back to April, so it's had three months of significant coverage already ahead of the premiere. It sufficiently meets GNG in that it has significant coverage in reliable, independent third party sources that discuss this topic as its own phenomenon distinct from the marketing and production of either film. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, please see WP:GNG. 185.53.198.46 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To note more: this is notable. It *is* different from most internet phenomenas because this has cultural impact that has been sourced. 185.53.198.46 (talk) 09:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note There are additional comments/!votes erroneously posted on the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the good reasons stated above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think there are valid WP:RECENT, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTALBALL, but the reliable sources that I've come across browsing the web before even coming to this discussion as cited previously by numerous contributors more than satisfy our notability guidelines. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just archived Talk:Barbenheimer#Contested deletion, recommending editors to make their comments here. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the day may come when this article should be merged into Counterprogramming (film distribution), but it is not this day. This is a well-sourced article about a new phenomenon -- marketing the watching of two movies together in the cinema, as compared to counterprogramming which encourages watching the smaller film if the bigger film isn't interesting to you -- and time will tell if this sort of marketing will become a recurring event or a one-off. If the former, then this article will be the right place to talk about it, and if the latter, then we can merge it into another article as an example of a somewhat unique form of counterprogramming. But for now I don't see any reason to assume it's going to be one or the other. Gaurav (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by self-referential argument: The argument for notability is enhanced by the sheer number of editors who come here to argue whether or not it is notable. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will dissent from a few of InfiniteNexus' claims in this thread, because I think they need to be individually addressed. Barbenheimer is a special situation compared to other internet phenomena; not because of its popularity, but because it is the combination of two different subjects that are themselves notable. This makes it unique on Wikipedia, because what would otherwise be a section of an article now has its own article entirely. I would almost compare it to something like Morbius, with the contrast being that Morbius' standalone commentary can be kept to its article. Given that this article is focused on the event of them releasing the same day, that does not seem practical here. It is true, as Infinite mentions above, that sources merely *existing* is not enough of a justification to keep an article, especially when they may fit well under a section. However, when there are over 35 sources, a significant portion of which are from trade news organizations, I certainly think the individual notability is beyond covered. In that same respect, I disagree with the claim that the article's current length would make it reasonable to merge into the Barbie and Oppenheimer film articles. Adding this content to either article would greatly increase their individual lengths with information that is not particularly relevant to either article's subject, but more to the event itself of having both movies release on the same day; the sources themselves are primarily about this event to take place on July 21, 2023. Where would the redirect even point to when the subject is this notable on its own? Rman41 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic has received wide enough coverage—both on social media and reliable sources—to warrant an article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Noyan[edit]

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

Made one appearances for Assyriska FF in the 2005 Allsvenskan. A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2023 (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. BLP1E applies Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senad Hadzic[edit]

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

A Bosnian man walked to Mecca to perform Hajj. That is the only claim to notability in this article, which fails WP:GNG and I'm invoking WP:1E right here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and consider a move if a better article name is found (Hajj from Bosnia on foot isn't great but might work) (or merge if a target is found). This event seems to meet GNG [27][28][29]. The event itself seems to have crossed the WP:PERSISTENCE threshold with publications ranging from when it occurred to 2014 and 2019 above. Now, if the event meets GNG, we should not delete. Please note that the guideline WP:1E is not meant for removing information from Wikipedia outright, but rather to decide if the individual, or event, or both merit an article. From WP:1E - When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both... In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself... In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.. So keeping under the current name is preferable to deleting. Moving avoids more potential BLP issues as well, so I lean toward that. —siroχo 10:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would read WP:1E in conjunction with WP:PSEUDO which, helpfully, covers this particular case, "If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." By the way, it is worth noting this is NOT an unusual event by any means - lots of people have walked from somewhere distant to Mecca for Hajj... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That! WP:BLP1E! That's the guideline I was looking for! Cheers! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. It's a pretty clear one, too. A smattering of public interest story articles in major publications and then nothing else. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This may indeed be BLP1E, but the event does seem notable by GNG (see my above comment), so move seems like a good alternative to deletion. (I'd be supportive of a merge if a reasonable target exists as well.) —siroχo 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Single event, low profile individual, event was not significant. Easily passes BLP1E, which trumps GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm not familiar enough with the event itself. The coverage seems to demonstrate that the event was considered notable. But per BLP1E, I will change my !vote from a keep or move to a move or merge. —siroχo 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heya, siro. On notability, if you see the links I share above, a lot of people walk to Hajj from various places over long distances... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back to Sorrento (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Future film that has had no updates in over a decade, no evidence the film ever entered production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 08:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of JAG characters#Rear Admiral Albert Jethro "A.J." Chegwidden, USN, Retired (JAGC). (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Chegwidden[edit]

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

Article primarily uses primary sources, and a quick Google search doesn't give many sources that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 08:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. It's SNOWING Star Mississippi 02:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Itchy[edit]

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

Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Itchy" should be a redirect to Itch because its a common term for feeling of itch. Vitaium (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This page is a perfectly reasonable Disambiguation page, and this AFD has no chance of success. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Solid disambig page. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, getting to WP:SNOW at this point. BD2412 T 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly good disambiguation page. SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep @Vitaium: if you think this word should be made into a redirect you should start a move discussion instead.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedly Keep:User:Vitaium I don't think that the article is incorrect.The article is the perfect one to be in Wikipedia so i think this might be your mistake please check it on. MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Rodriguez (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

A standard PR article making no realistic claim of notability, written by an editor with a declared Conflict of Interest. There is no independent information anywhere about the subject of this article outside of press releases. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIC Allahabad[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conton family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

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

The family itself is not notable. In this article, only one of the family members is associated with some reliable sources. Sources about notable people that mention their family do not show that the family itself is notable. The existence of the article implies some original research or synthesis. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I only know what this article tells me, and it's not much. Maybe they are notable somehow, but neither the article nor the sources listed make the case.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Khanna[edit]

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

No significant coverage in sources. I had PRODed this not realizing the article had been deleted before as a PROD in 2012, and then recreated in 2013. Jay 💬 07:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 July 2023 (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. Joyous! Noise! 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parental abuse by children[edit]

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

The article doesn't give off an encyclopedic tone, as it seems like it is trying to convince you parental abuse by children is a major problem instead of just giving the facts. It also contains a lot of original research with no third-party sources added on the introduction. People in the talk page also seem to agree with me on this decision. DJskywrd (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems like there are sufficient high quality references to show notability. I can see that there are issues requiring clean-up but I'm not seeing sufficient to require WP:TNT. JMWt (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean on it could just use a clean-up, but even if we do this article is always going to seem like an essay report instead of a topic in an encyclopedia. Now I could be wrong and other people might see how this could be a topic, and I would love to see the visions other people have for this article to make it better. But so far I don't know how this could look like an encyclopedia topic. DJskywrd (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that argument rarely works at AfD. If there are academic papers which directly reference the topic, it is notable. Whilst I understand your frustration, I don't really agree that it is impossible to write a fair article on this topic. JMWt (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cull - remove all sections or sentences without citations or substantiating links to articles.Rick Jelliffe (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems like a controversial article and I'd like to hear from more editors before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Definitely has the sources to be notable. Child-to-parent Violence has over 300 scholar hits. A move to Child-to-parent violence should be considered as well as a significant restructure, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (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. Low weighting IP votes as all the random votes are anti while the balance of argument favours keep including the best source analysis. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Daigle-Orians[edit]

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

This article had lots of puffery in it, which I've worked to remove. However, it seems the major thing this person is known for is their book and a social media account. They've received some passing mentions for both of these, but there has not been consistent secondary sources about them. For instance, many of the citations are only passing mentions with little in-depth content. Ultimately, it does not appear that this person currently meets the standards for WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR, so this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One book with sparse reviews isn't going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR. But I think the Geeks Out, Philly Gay News, Hartford Courant, and Good Morning America references count as SIGCOV towards WP:GNG. Some of these are interviews but I'm not one of these believers in the theory that choosing to format a story as an interview rather than as prose somehow magically causes it to fail to count; they are independently-published stories that in these instances include in-depth information about the subject. The last two are for their Ace Dad column but the others (and the book reviews) are not, so I don't think there's an issue with WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought some of those were very much a passing mention that would not move towards Wikipedia:GNG. There seems like there's a lot of puffery with this article even now, which is why I put it in the AfD queue. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough WP:SIGCOV as pointed out above by User:David Eppstein and User:Oaktree b. They were also quoted in this Cosmopolitan article about asexuality and apparently they were also nominated in the British LGBT awards 2023. Raladic (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that isn't a significant award. It's not something widely recognized, so it won't be something that can contribute to the guidelines under Wikipedia:GNG in this case. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well known in England and it does have its own Wikipedia article British LGBT Awards, so it is notable and can contribute to the WP:ANYBIO per the guidelines. Raladic (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This is such a week article and doesn't meet the guidelines for significant coverage or notability. Seriously, how did this article -- with all of the puffery -- get approved for Wiki? 2600:1009:B06B:ACE6:0:4E:C4DE:D401 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC) — 2600:1009:B06B:ACE6:0:4E:C4DE:D401 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I've heard of this person because I live in Central Ohio, but I'd def agree that this is a delete, since they don't actually meet significant or notable criterions. They've done some stuff (like authoring a book). But all of this is under the WP:Mill, as someone else noted; it's not notable. For the WP:AUTHOR guideline, they also fail. Like I said, they wrote a book, but it's DEFINITELY not something that achieves the level of notability under that. In short, this should totally be deleted from Wikipedia. 75.118.97.206 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — 75.118.97.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, likely a pass at AUTHOR, reviews in Publisher's Weekly [33], a brief discussion in WaPo [34], and buzzsfeed, which is less RS [35], I think we have more than enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The source discussions support the delete arguments. Some of the keep arguments are assertive and carry little weight. Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaelin Williams[edit]

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

Two appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Bahamas, and Georgia (U.S. state). JTtheOG (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete included source is not independent, only other thing I can find is another not independent piece from the same local outlet [36] —siroχo 06:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That source is independent, it's not affiliated to the University but instead to a region. See their about page here.@Siroxo:--Ortizesp (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. For this particular article, of about 22 paragraphs, 8 paragraphs are mostly direct quotes from the subject or family, and at least 5 more have words attributed to one of them. While such interviews doesn't automatically rule out an article, this one seems heavily dependent on the interviews, and thus not intellectually independent. It's not a dig at the paper, author or subject. It's just that the bulk of the content comes from the mouth of the subject and family, so we can't treat it as independent. —siroχo 20:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 2 independent sources that pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no evidence of sustained significant coverage across multiple IRS sources. The two sources from The Brunswick News are not independent of each other, and the georgiasoccer.com source is not independent of Williams and not intellectually independent of the first TBN article, which it plagiarizes. The TBN articles are routine interview-heavy "local kid spotlighted" small-town stories. JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is patently false, the two Brunswick News Stories are independent and have nothing to do with each other, covering different facets of the athletes life. The Georgia Soccer article is independents of Jaelin (show me where he has played for a Georgia Soccer team), and is similar but not plagarism of the Brunswick News article. Ortizesp (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two TBN articles are literally written by the same person. They do not count as separate sources. Jaelin played club soccer in Georgia, according to the first sentence of that source: Jaelin Williams, who played club soccer for Coastal Outreach Soccer and Brunswick High School 2016 graduate. COS is a youth member affiliate. And yes it's plagiarized:
    GS:

    Jaelin Williams, who played club soccer for Coastal Outreach Soccer and Brunswick High School 2016 graduate, has been named to the Bahamas men’s national soccer team for the inaugural tournament of the Concacaf Nations League, which encompasses 41 nations and protectorates in North America, Central America and the Caribbean.

    TBN:

    Williams, a 2016 Brunswick High School graduate, has been named to the Bahamas men’s national soccer team for the inaugural tournament of the Concacaf Nations League, which encompasses 41 nations and protectorates in North America, Central America and the Caribbean.

    Plus, as a clear derivative of the TBN source, it is not intellectually independent either. JoelleJay (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added another article about him, so he now has four articles which are solely dedicated to him from independent sources. For people claiming the Georgia Soccer link is non-independent, please show us how so we all can see.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of that article is repeating what Williams said or felt or otherwise sharing his perspective (primary, not independent), with what remains being essentially the same info we have from the other sources. That gives us three local articles talking about his call-up to the Bahamas team, and another local source providing routine local-interest coverage of COS (the author has written dozens of pieces discussing minor events hosted by the org). These are utterly mundane small-town news stories. JoelleJay (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This is marginal, but I don't think the sourcing is quite there to support an article - there are a couple decent feature articles, but they're "local athlete does interesting thing," not the type of article you would expect to see about an international football player. I think you could make a keep argument as well, though, but considering there's nothing else on the rest of his career besides "local college player plays international game," which I don't think is quite enough for GNG, I don't support keeping this. SportingFlyer T·C 13:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortsizep and KatoKungLee. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoelleJay; the coverage is not in-depth (mostly quote-heavy and questionably independent/reliable sources) and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2023 (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. Joyous! Noise! 16:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military reserve[edit]

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

This article is the same subject as Military reserve force. Some references were recently added to this article, but no reference distinguishes between Military reserve and Military reserve force. Crashed greek (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military reserve force seems to cover the topic of a force that can be mobilized if needed but is not part of a countries standing force, such as Army Reserve (United Kingdom) and Republic of Korea Reserve Forces. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above and per Ljleppan. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One does not need to go beyond looking at the first sentences of both articles to see that they are, indeed, distinct concepts. The distinction corresponds to the difference between the two first definitions in DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, which is the very first reference in Military reserve:
    • Military reserve (this article) refers to Portion of a body of troops that is kept to the rear, or withheld from action at the beginning of an engagement, in order to be available for a decisive movemen, i.e. human beings currently working as active duty soldiers who just have been tasked with a mission of "wait around, until we know what you should do". This use of "reserve" is on tactical and strategic level, and is the antonym of a "committed force".
    • Military reserve force (the other article) refers to Members of the Military Services who are not in active service but who are subject to call to active duty. In the US, these are members of the "Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States", i.e. the Army National Guard of the United States; the Army Reserve; the Naval Reserve; etc. In Finland, these are members of the general public who have completed their conscription and have transitioned back to civilian life, but can be called back to active duty in case of a national emergency. This use of "reserve" is on a defence political level, and is the antonym of an "active force".
This distinction is so basic, that very few texts beyond dictionaries etc. would bother actually typing it out. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in case you wanted sources to demonstrate that "reserve" (using the tactical/strategic/operational definition) is a notable concept, here's a bunch of stuff I had quickly accessible:
Ljleppan (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Ljleppan (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a subject that is distinct from Military reserve force and it is notable in its own right. It appears that the misunderstanding exhibited in the deletion rationale is in itself the perfect reason that this article is necessary. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ljleppan (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two concepts have similar names, but are distinct. Both are extremely important elements of military strategy and military force structures. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree for the same reasons as Nick-D above. TheNavigatrr (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mc bess[edit]

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

After fifteen years it's time to discuss this COI creation lacking any secondary sources: the subject is simply not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2023 (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 Blue Glacier (Antarctica). Joyous! Noise! 15:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Hill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar and google books for the location provides no results that seem relevant, although such searches do provide a number of unrelated results.

The article also includes a extended biography of the person the ridge is named after, copied from GNIS, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Ridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar and google books for the location provides no results that seem relevant, although such searches do provide a number of unrelated results.

The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreson Peak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar and google books for the location provides no results.

The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2023 (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 New Boy. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aswan Reid[edit]

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

Premature creation of an article for a child actor making their acting debut in a recently-released film. The actor's media coverage is the recent reviews of the film.

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER > "Such a person may be considered notable if: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Lapadite (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, weak redirect to The New Boy. Forgot that was an option. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one movie role which they've received some good reviews on their performance, but that puts this as WP:BLP1E. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect would be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is disappointing that it's been listed for a AfD debate given it will only be recreated once he's been in one more movie because then he'll meet WP:ENTERTAINER and given he's been in one movie in which he's received good reviews and caste beside Cate Blanchett I think we can safely assume he will be in more. AlanStalk 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. We normally don't make articles on currently non-notable subjects just because they could become notable in the future after getting more work in their field. Unless a person is already notable, it's not imperative or necessarily beneficial to create an article the moment they debut in a project. Existing coverage of the child actor is pretty much exclusive to reviews of his performance in the film, and, expectedly, any events the actor attends in promotion of the film. Relevant information (reviews, awards, events) can be presented in the film article, as it pertains to the film, the reason the debut actor is getting coverage. Not only does WP:BLP1E apply at the present time, but notability also isn't inheritable by virtue of the subject's association with a notable entity, and WP:NRV states: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". As with any new artist, the more proper approach is to wait until they have more roles/projects and review the media coverage to see if there is sufficient information beyond routine coverage to warrant a bio article. Lapadite (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree AlanS, that is far from a safe assumption. Thorton often uses non actors who get good reviews and award nominations who don't go on to any sort of acting career. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (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 know "No consensus" is an outcome that pleases no one but I really don't see a consensus here and the Deletes are Weak Deletes. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barbosa[edit]

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

WP:N JazzyRightdoer (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 03:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. The nominator might take a moment to provide a more compelling justification for deletion than WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not giving a thorough explanation on the reasons for deletion. I believe this article should be deleted for Notability reasons, as all sources that I could find referencing the person, Chris Barbosa, made a passing mention of him and did not expand further. The actual page has few references, and one reference mentions Chris once and has no other mention of him. JazzyRightdoer (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:BIO. I don't see significant coverage anywhere. APK whisper in my ear 04:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Editors should justify why an article needs to be deleted. That means writing more than four letters of explanation. In my opinion, the absence of an explanation should default towards not deleting. CT55555(talk) 04:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is this directed towards? Both delete votes have included reasoning. APK whisper in my ear 04:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm guessing the nom, as the reason is 4 characters long. If that's the case, I do agree, in that evidence of a WP:BEFORE is very welcome in these discussions. —siroχo 04:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, duh. I didn't even notice it. My apologies. APK whisper in my ear 05:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is directed towards the nominator. To emphasize: "WP:N" is too brief for us to understand why they propose the delete the article. I realise that most experienced editors can sensibly extrapolate that might mean "My WP:BEFORE searches have indicated that the subject of this article does not satisfy notability criteria" but even that is a bit light. I would like to read how it fails to meet criteria. About two weeks ago @Liz encouraged the nominator to give us a bit of detail about why it should be deleted. I see they have not done so. I think that procedurally editors ought to say why an article should be deleted and if they don't do so, we should not busy ourselves trying to assess things in order to rebut such a vague statement. CT55555(talk) 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator, JazzyRightdoer is a new editor. I left a note at their talk page explaining the situation and asking them to rejoin our conversation.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the nominator has explained why they think we should delete this article, I looked into it. I see the subject of the article passes (in my opinion) WP:CREATIVE for their role in producing a volume of notable work (detailed above by another keep voter). Their work is so notable that two pieces of work have their own wikipedia articles, seems like a classic notability by CREATIVE to me. Justification to delete reminds me of many similar arguments made by editors who don't appreciate that writing about their work is how creative professionals are noted. CT55555(talk) 00:57, 18 July 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Rana Praja[edit]

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

Fail in WP:ACTOR nd due to reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as one of the Keeps is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems to qualify on notability and sourcing. - Indefensible (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2023 (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. A discussion on whether to split is one that can be handled editorially. A further consensus on removing content appears unlikely Star Mississippi 16:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of autobiographies[edit]

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

Article had an attempted PROD in 2007 ("Listcruft - we have categories for this."), which still seems accurate. I contend that "autobiographies" is much too broad a topic to meet WP:LISTN. The current article says it will list "notable" autobiographies (presumably an attempt to narrow the WP:LISTCRITERIA) but most of the listed books do not have their own articles. Even if we restricted ourselves to notable autobiographies, many hundreds of titles would merit inclusion, creating an unwieldy collection of items which are not actually discussed as a set. (People write about, e.g., German wartime autobiographies, but not all autobiographies.) "Autobiographies" should be a category, not a list-- and indeed, it is. (Note that even the category breaks things down more granularly into autobiographies by nation, LGBTQ autobiographies, etc.) It might be justifiable to spin this out into some sub-lists, e.g., sports autobiographies, or autobiographies by heads of state, though even then I'm not sure appropriate sourcing would exist for the set. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split into about a dozen other lists based on topical notability. Individual kinds of autobiographies are notable, not all biographies ever. After splitting the original page should become a list of lists. And yes I openly hate “navigational” lists (i.e. internal non-disambiguating link farms) but most readers seem surprisingly clueless about the existence of categories based on pageview statistics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split There are too many things on this list that shouldn't be. Category:Autobiographies shows plenty of notable autobiographies could be listed, however those should be sorted into sub-categories as a larger number already are. There are over a thousand in Category:American autobiographies divided into subcategories there as well. Lists are far more useful than categories since you can find information easier, for example if you can search for the writer's name instead of just the name of their biography. Dream Focus 03:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that the current list shows notable people who have an autobiography, but anyone can publish one, doesn't make it noteworthy. Many of them probably have book reviews that can be found and articles written about them if anyone cared to bother. If the person is famous in recent decades, they have coverage for their books such as Michel J Fox for his autobiography Lucky Man [40]. Dream Focus 03:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Discussion about split should be on talk page. NavjotSR (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to do this proposed "split"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the nom, I have no interest in organizing a split, since it would take actual research to go out and find sources justifying any particular sub-list. I was only speculating that there might be WP:LISTN notability for some better-defined subset of these, but honestly, on reflection, I'm not convinced that preserving this material would even help with those new lists. To write a list of sports autobiographies, for example, one would want to go out and find some books/articles about "sports autobiographies"; after that, typing up the books in the sources is the easy part. I nominated because I think a clean delete is the way to go.
Also, I want to observe that the one keep !vote here has not provided a notability rationale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unmaintainable in this form and not really salvageable even in pieces. I don't think this is a notability issue -- it would be awfully hard to argue that "autobiographies" have not been the subject of extensive scholarship as a group or set -- but more of a WP:DOAL point 6 problem: Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. DOAL isn't really framed in deletion terms (and point 6, added in 2014, seems like it should maybe be moved to WP:NOT somewhere?), but I think deletion is the logical upshot here.
    To the extent that it might be possible to have a great comprehensive list(s) of bluelinked autobiographies with value-added information for each title, this existing scattershot list isn't really moving us in that direction, so I would consider this a reasonable use of TNT. Finally, splitting this out into List of aerospace autobiographies etc. as possibly suggested above would likely raise some WP:LISTN problems. (But if anyone's volunteering to give that a shot, I'd be all for putting the deletion on ice to avoid attribution problems.) Splitting into national lists, as also suggested above, would likely require starting over from category membership anyway, so I don't really see a WP:PRESERVE angle here. -- Visviva (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full agreement with Visviva. -- asilvering (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard Liz asked if anyone was going to offer to do the proposed split. Are you making that offer? -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am recommending keeping the article as is, not splitting. List of autobiographies is not long enough where it has to be split. Once it gets too long, per Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article it can be split alphabetically by author's surname. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page, while passing general notability guidelines quite well, is so desperately in need of long-term organizational restructuring that a clear and decisive direction isn't obvious - and besides, the utilization of page categories, split lists and/or functional inserted identifiers suggest that deeming the notability of a book versus the individual(s) who wrote it is rather unrealistic to manage. Additionally, in and of itself, a split may not allow the verifiability of existing autobiographies to qualify for notability down the road; as it stands, however, the page is difficult to maintain, and it would be hard to justify the existence of certain sub-lists, overlapping genre lists and/or a list of categorical compilations of lists. In other words, even creating splitted lists can present problems for the development of satisfactory coverage concerning the inclusion of future autobiographies... and a split may not be as worthwhile as creating a Category:AutobiographyAuthors category, which I suggest as an alternative solution. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy Water Park[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:GNG, I'm seeing a lack of SIGCOV. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs (she/her) 00:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Although I am lt-0, I believe I may have found more secondary coverage in https://m.diena.lt/naujienos/vilnius/nusikaltimai-ir-nelaimes/gausios-ugniagesiu-pajegos-leke-prie-vilniuje-esancio-vandens-parko-apdege-pastato-siena-1094705, https://www.15min.lt/verslas/naujiena/bendroves/apsilankyma-vandens-parke-pavadino-tragedija-po-nuviliancios-patirties-ir-chloruoto-vandens-sudirgo-oda-663-2017338 and https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/energetika/vandens-parkas-balansuoja-ties-isgyvenimo-riba-ir-laukia-pagalbos-trumpina-darbo-laika-perziuri-kainas-91183571 from what Google Translate can tell me. Also we might need to keep this per WP:ITSACASTLE. I am thinking about perhaps withdrawing this nomination, but I will try to reach out to Wikiproject Lithuania and Wikiproject Amusement Parks about this to get a couple of other opinions before doing so (or not). — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 00:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Tough to research from my perspective, as I'm not seeing any reliable sites in English. If you filter Google results by "News", I'm only getting 19 results without one reliable source among them. Judging from the aspect of the facility, it is comparable to a Great Wolf Resorts location. We have an article on that company but not on individual locations. While it may be possible to find a burst of news around the time of opening, it is important to be able to show sustained coverage over time. Indoor water parks (and most water parks for that matter) are becoming a dime a dozen that are probably best covered within a wider article topic, such as the companies that build/operate them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Yeah. I noticed some coverage in Lithuanian but not much in English..... Maybe it fails GNG after all. Honestly, this needs more discussion before deciding to keep or delete. I'm just unsure about this article, AFAIK. It has secondary coverage, but not much in English. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 01:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Respublik (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respublik: Re-read my statement carefully. I didn't say they had to be in English. I was saying that from my perspective, not having English sources makes it hard for me to verify. That doesn't mean it CAN'T be verified. My search on Google News failed to provide any reliable hits. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My response was to the nominator's comment, not yours @GoneIn60. Respublik (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Respublik: Yeah, I know sources do not have to be available in English, but I was just pointing out the lack of SIGCOV in English sources. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely clear if the article should be kept or not…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Prodraxis' 30 June comments about notability. I checked some of the links and they led to articles that appeared to have substantial coverage. (They were completely devoted to this water park but written in Lithuanian, which I do not understand)
On the other hand, there's no corresponding article on the Lithuanian Wikipedia (lt.wikipedia). It's a very active project with over 100,000 articles. What would be the equivalent article, lt:Vichy Vandens Parkas, has been deleted 3 times. I figure they'd have an article if this place is a big deal in Vilnius.
Lithuanian admin Homo ergaster deleted the article there. @Homo ergaster also edits here on en.wikipedia -- maybe they have some insights.
Finally, I have to give kudos to the nominator, @Prodraxis, for having an open mind and being willing to reverse himself. Also for doing good research in a very unfamiliar language. Too often, AfDs become a test of wills. It's refreshing to find someone who cares so much about article quality and doing the right thing.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words :) IMO, I’m always willing to find alternatives to deletion if possible; Wikipedia is supposed to be a vast database of knowledge, and deletion kinda detracts from that. Also, for future reference, my pronouns are she/her. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 11:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Sorry about the pronouns. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; sometimes its hard to tell what pronouns someone uses on the Internet. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 14:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Things aren't any clearer than at the first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean keep. Likely meets WP:GNG, but the current content is simply a list of rides/attractions. There is a good degree of coverage of the park in the Delfi newspaper, but none of it is reflected here. For example, multiple articles about people getting hurt[43][44] and the park being fined for safety violations[45]. More recently, the park was struggling post-pandemic[46]. Public-service broadcaster has also covered their post-pandemic struggles[47][48] and the earlier safety issues[49][50]. Not that the article should replace a list of rides with a list of problems at the park (there is coverage of its opening[51], special events[52], and economic impact[53], but there's a lot more that should be in the article. (All these articles are in Lithuanian, but Google Translate does a passable job with them.) Regarding the lt-wiki deletions, it looks like the reason was the articles were too commercial/advertisements, so the issue was quality not notablity. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've kinda changed my mind about this AfD now - I think per WP:ITSACASTLE and per the WP:SIGCOV found in Lithuanian sources it might be a better idea to keep this after all. My initial nomination was hasty; there was SIGCOV, I just didn't find it yet. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No troubles. It was a reasonable AfD for the content if not the notability. Per WP:HEY, I've reworked the article to provide more (sourced) background. It's still a stub and I didn't get to adding info about its current situation post-COVID, but it's not the sort of promotional piece that was there before you raised the question. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Seems like we've found our way to GNG-land. And I must say, everyone seems awfully civil in here; did I accidentally fall into bizarro AFD? (Since this doesn't seem to have been addressed, I'll mention that the three deletions on LT appear to have been due to advertising/promotional content, which doesn't suggest any particular editorial judgment on the notability of the attraction.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep GNG is meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2023 (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. When discounting SPAs and conflicted editors, consensus is that there isn't enough to merit an article at this time. Star Mississippi 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Lo Surdo[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets any of the criteria in the guidelines about notability for musicians. This article has been subject to a staggering amount of promotional editing by single-purpose accounts and IP editors both here and on other wikis (example). Once the promotion is removed, I'm afraid there's really not much left except "This guy is a guitarist and some national offshoot of a respected magazine says he's the fastest in the world" ... and I can't find much else that doesn't feed off that, besides trivial tour coverage. Nothing in the international Rolling Stone, nothing (let alone anything significant) in Guitar Player, etc.) The article needs some TNT, at the least. Graham87 16:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just not seeing enough to meet the referenced criteria. No significant international coverage, album charting, etc.Intothatdarkness 19:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having international coverage isn't important; having national coverage is (otherwise we would delete numerous British by-election articles that get barely passing mentions elsewhere) and being mentioned multiple times in Rolling Stone seems to indicate the article can be further improved. We don't require sources to be in English. The version I passed at AfC seems to be okay as a basic, well-sourced biography. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes we don't require sources in English, but extraordinary claims (like the one that underpins this article) require extraordinary evidence and I'm just not finding any in the usual places. I'd also expect to find more in-depth sources in English if he was as world-renowned as the article says he is, just because English is such a widely used language around the world and there are many high-quality music publications in English. Also Rolling Stone Brazil isn't quite the same thing as Rolling Stone ... and he's Italian, not Brazilian. Graham87 16:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To put it another way: If this was an article about, say, an Italian singer whose work was ranked highly in only the Italian charts, I'd have no problem with the page's existence and I'd expect most of the good sources about the subject to be in Italian. But that's not what we have in this case, and something just seems ... off here, with all the highly promotional references that seem to be in a feedback loop. The logs for this page on the Italian Wikipedia are telling. I think I've probably said enough now. Graham87 16:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      hello, i fixed the page cleaning up and fixing some stuff.
      i removed the description from el mercurio as living legend, fixed the music history book news in career, so now the page looks more neutral 91.80.1.71 (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing AFC just means it passed AFC (which is no dig at them...they do important work). It doesn't automatically mean the sources are good or fully sufficient. I remain concerned by both the apparent promotional editing and the haphazard sourcing. And if "fastest guitarist ever" is a thing, we'd have articles on every guitarist Mike Varney ever signed (since he routinely made the same claim about them). Intothatdarkness 12:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, that's why in the article it's written "Rolling Stone described him as the fastest guitarist in the history of music". it's a description from Rolling Stone Brasil, only this so. it's totally fine. The article claims that RS Brasil described him like this. I suggest to add Brasil in the context of the phrase. Johnmarrys (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also just fixed the Sanremo Award with the wikilink and the source from RS Brazil Johnmarrys (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one don't entirely trust the Rolling Stone Brazil article, based largely on the Google translation (but I can read a bit of Portuguese via my limited Italian). It doesn't have a byline, it mostly expresses his own point of view, and there's nothing there to make me think it's independent enough of the subject to really count here. Again I question whether there has been a conflict of interest involved in the creation and editing of this Wikipedia article and even the Rolling Stone Brazill article. (Adendum: even the international version of Rolling Stone magazine is not always beyond reproach on Wikipedia; see its various entries on the perennial sources page). Graham87 15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That and given the people he's purported to have played with (Vai, Loomis, and others) I would expect to see far more coverage. Blabbermouth and other outlets at least. So I remain skeptical about real notability. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough stuff for a Wikipedia page. Big coverage on Rolling Stone Brasil. Coverage also on Los Tiempos, El Mercurio (Ecuador), DBC News, The Free Press Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmarrys (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) — Johnmarrys (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep now the page looks better. before it was a lot of evident spam but i cleaned up and improved the page. The page only needed some work.91.80.1.71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.1.71 (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Fastest guitarist" is certainly a notable accolade, and he appears to have the coverage. 129 notes per second seems extremely hard to believe though, even though his speed is insane. Here he is as a kid with Steve Vai [54], he seems to have been regarded as a sort of child prodigy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed re the speed ... I've looked into this a bit and Guinness World Records no longer accepts applications like that. The latest such record I can find is about 41 notes per minute in 2012 but the record-breaker doesn't appear to have an article here (not that that's an appropriate argument). We can agree to disagree about the coverage though. Graham87 17:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      40 notes per second it says. Yeah that seems about right as what is possible as an extreme, 129 notes seems impossible to me speaking as an accomplished guitarist myself, it would mean each note would be executed faster than 0.01 of a second which is obvious utter nonsense. He is a freakishly fast though, he certainly has something really extraordinary with speed. He appears to have been awarded at a major Italian music ceremony for this though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I just did a test with a Jim Dunlop 0.38 pick (the thinnest), I would say I can do roughly 27 notes (with three sweeps with 9 notes) and 20 notes a second with fast chromatic legato. A second is nothing, 129 notes I just don't think that is physically possible!! Even 40 is pretty insane. It would be a notable accolade, if it was certified by Guinness, which it hasn't been though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow! It says 40 notes per second for the old record, but 620 beats per minute for the new one; that works out to 2,480 notes in a minute (at four semiquavers per beat), giving about 41-and-a-third notes per second, give or take. The Rolling Stone Brazil source said that just about any distinct noise was counted as a note so ... I dunno. I'm as useful at playing a guitar as a goldfish so I'll defer to your expertise here. Graham87 18:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)  [reply]
      Yup, that's very dubious. The fastest jazz tunes are typically around 340 beats per minute, it's the guitar equivalent of racing a Lamborghini at top speed, the tank will run out quickly! This is 330 bpm for instance. We're talking nearly twice that speed. Sorry to go off on a tangent from commenting on the notability and sources, but it's relevant and quite interesting given that his claim to notability is how fast he can play. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually "noises that have a kind of beat" is the full Google translation of the relevant passage and that seems about right to me per Wiktionary and what little I know about Romance languages. Graham87 06:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems to have enough coverage to be included on Wikipedia.Enrico Manni (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Enrico Manni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Note: This account created the Portuguese and Spanish versions of the article, the only versions that currently exist besides the English article. Many of their enwiki edits have been disruption in the article namespace and on AFD's, for which I have blocked them, along with an attempt to create an article about Sigal Music Museum (which they also created on eswiki). I'll take this to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Graham87 06:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If The source is correct regarding the Sanremo Music Awards, and if the majority of the sources are truly independent, that is good. However it looks like the sources are only ostensibly independent. He claims that he is "Included... in Music History Book 'Rock Memories 2'" and he is on the cover of this obscure book and was interviewed by the author. 129 notes per minute is obviously fake, though. That is audio rate: about 1 octave below middle C! Chamaemelum (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I never thought of the 129 hz comparison. This relatively new account (who says they're a returned editor) just recently had a dispute with me at Talk:Irregardless, however ... not sure how much bearing it has on this discussion. Graham87 06:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do these for fun, and didn't realize the possibility of a mini-conflict of interest because you nominated it (I wouldn't have commented), but no grudges are harbored. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    Delete due to the sheer extent of the dishonest articles online. 19 monthly listeners on Spotify. I know it looks notable at first glance but look into this further and you'll see what I mean. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing some researches now I found that this is the link of the book https://www.mondadoristore.it/Rock-memories-2-Bagliori-Maurizio-Baiata/eai978886623491/ and in the details on the Mondadori site as genre of the book is also written "music history". Johnmarrys (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It really depends on what it says in the book. Btw, if you really care about "music history", go for it. But I'm letting you know that you may not have the right understanding of the nuance of this phrase in English. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about music history, I just shared here the link of the book where it's claimed to be featured, that's all. Cheers Johnmarrys (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note i already voted for keep the page but as i suggested to Graham i would keep the page for now and see how it evolves with the time since new references from notable sites have been added in the past months.
    for now it has enough significant coverage for keep it.i will answer your opinions if necessary. thank you and good luck everyone. god bless Enrico Manni (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found some new independent sources that shows the verifiability of the claims.
Checking out online and adding on wikipedia Johnmarrys (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but while the most promising source you added does verify the award he received from the Sanremo Music Awards], apart from that it just parrots most of the already-known claims about him (e.g. being the fastest guitarist in the world, his alleged ability to play 129 notes in a second) without question or deeper analysis ... and throws in some more speculation about how great he'll be in the future. This is a less extreme version of the Jacob Barnett saga, where the media/some lower-quality specialist sites just parrot claims that simply don't stand up to proper scrutiny. Graham87 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is why in my opinion, the best thing to do, as already done, remove the 129 notes per second on Wikipedia (done) and leave Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 described him the fastest guitarist in history because this is true. RS 🇧🇷 described him like this Johnmarrys (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t have to write on his page that he is the fastest guitarist in history but as it’s already on the page, write and keep that rolling stone 🇧🇷 described him like this. This doesn’t mean he is fastest. It’s a claim from Rolling stone 🇧🇷.
It means “For Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 he is the fastest guitarist in history” that’s all Johnmarrys (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And being awarded by the Sanremo music is a very notable thing Johnmarrys (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Rolling Stone Brazil is not the same thing as Rolling Stone at all. I have my own ideas about what to do with this article if this AFD doesn't result in a deletion, but I'll keep them to myself until (or unless) that eventuates. Also, he is perfectly capable of speaking English (see after a minute or so), which makes the lack of good English references about him even more suspicious. Charitably it's a case of WP:TOOSOON ... Graham87 16:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone Brazil is featured on the page of Rolling Stone in the international editions and i am sorry to tell you but Rolling Stone is the most notable music magazine in the world along with Billboard (magazine).
You are having your own ideas and it’s ok but you can’t say that Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 didn’t described him as the fastest guitarist in history because this is a fact and not an idea because they described him like this.Johnmarrys (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling stone 🇧🇷 is an international edition of Rolling Stone which is the most important music magazine in the world and i am not agree when you say that it’s not notable enough and that their sources are dubious because every Rolling stone is notable including Italian rolling stone, France rolling stone etc. Johnmarrys (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Rolling Stone' is used unqualified with no further context, it usually refers to the American magazine, as it does on the Portuguese Wikipedia, for example. Saying that an article was published in the American magazine when it was only published in a national edition is lazy at best and blatantly dishonest at worst, trading on the good name of an internationally renowned publication. So no you can't say he was described that way in Rolling Stone magazine because he wasn't; that was only the case for one article in Rolling Stone Brasil. It's just like The Guardian is not the same as Guardian Australia (though in this case they're published by the same people). Graham87 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok man and i understand your point of view but Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 is notable and today i also showed an added the verification source of the Sanremo Music Awards which is a notable thing and he was awarded at this notable event as the fastest so now the page can be keeped on wikipedia without problems.
and he received a good coverage on Rolling Stone 🇧🇷. 6 articles.
your ideas on the fastest guitarist thing are yours and it’s ok but on Wikipedia it’s written that he is described like this, NOT that he is the fastest, so the page can be keeped on wikipedia. Johnmarrys (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnmarrys I recommend writing "Rolling Stone Brazil" instead of "Rolling Stone" followed by the Brazilian flag to avoid confusion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Ok thanks for saying. I will from now on Johnmarrys (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth this edit was exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when making my above comment about what I'd do with the article if it were kept. Graham87 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bink here. I should point out that a bunch of the cited sources don't contribute to notability. Some of the news pieces cite Rolling Stone Brasil, putting them into a lesser position behind the original magazine article, which in any case is bent on promoting its own concert rather than writing objectively. Other sources are interviews which don't count toward notability. The biggest problem is the claim to have won at San Remo in 2020, which cannot be verified in sources dedicated to listing San Remo winners. In any case, solo instrumentalists do not compete unless they sing, and Lo Surdo's tune "Destiny" on the San Remo compilation of 2020 is uninspired instrumental rock, tiresome to hear, appealing perhaps to a very limited audience of shred-heads. This biography gives off the sense of an extensive public relations effort aimed at putting Lo Surdo's name in as many publications as possible. I don't think this guy rises yet to the level of notability. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet it says he was awarded, NOT that he won the song contest because he is an instrumental player.
please take more attention reading Johnmarrys (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says he was awarded as the fastest guitarist so naturally he didn’t won the song contest. It’s an award for his guitar skills Johnmarrys (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insult. I don't see any sources dedicated to listing awards at San Remo describing Lo Surdo as having won an award at San Remo in 2020. Only sources crowing about Lo Surdo's amazing speed say that. His song "Destiny" appears on the 2020 compilation, but that by itself is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I hadn't thought of the Sanremo angle before. It seems that, despite its confusing name, the Sanremo Music Awards are completely unrelated to the more well-known festival (see its Italian site) and again piggy-back on its good name for publicity. I became more suspicious when discovering that none of the artists featured in the 2020 Sanremo Music Awards compilation were mentioned at the extensive article on itwiki about the 2020 Sanremo Festival. (Also, the site that hosts the Sanremo Music Awards, Altervista, had a name that confused me for a bit as a screen reader user because of AltaVista ... and its Wikipedia article just happened to be deleted by Ritchie333, who accepted the articles for creation submission for the Davide Lo Surdo page). Graham87 02:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the above information about the music awards may be important, as that was a reason I didn't say delete right away. [Note: this edit mistakenly used to say "delete".] Chamaemelum (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete these claims about being the "fastest guitarist in history" are not to be taken literally, and should not be presented that way in the article. Beyond that: there are a lot of vague claims, but not enough specific ones to demonstrate that he is notable. And many of the references are not intellectually independent of the Rolling Stone Brasil article. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Rolling Stone coverage the keep votes are leaning on is a brief text summary for a video interview. It's not independent coverage, and it has no byline. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really not sure what to make of this one - there's a bunch of coverage but when you look at the articles which might pass GNG, it's almost a BLP1E. I agree the Rolling Stone Brasil article which this heavily relies on isn't SIGCOV. My overall feeling says it's probably just TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 11 July 2023 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June Pursell[edit]

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

I can't find any actual discussions of her and her work, nor any evidence for the repeated claims that her "voice captivated audiences and earned her a place among the prominent singers of her time.". The other claim, that she "made notable appearances in two films", is not supported by the (unreliable) source IMDb, which gives one uncredited(!) role as a vocalist, and one role as a "singer on the stage". Looking for better sources give ultr-short entries like here or purely passing mentions. She may be notable (though I haven't found the evidence for this), but then this should be based on reliable sources and accurately reflect these sources, not some unreliable sources and some claims not even supported by those. Fram (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:SINGER (5) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable); (6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles; as demonstrated by these sources: [55] and [56] Dolovis (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source lists no albums, just singles. And she isn't an ensemble, and isn't a member of two or more notable ensembles either it seems. So none of your arguments seem to apply here. Fram (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Earl Burtnett and Jack Denny orchestras are the ensembles referenced; and 78 RPM records are not singles. 78s were the only record format availble before the LP album was invented. Dolovis (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Records with one 3 minute song on a side are singles, not albums. Fram (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Fram - Please see the updated sources. There was a lot of coverage on her through various newspapers.com newspapers. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Numerous RS have been added since the nom. APK whisper in my ear 03:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to meet on notability and sourcing requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Discography of American Historical Recordings. UC Santa Barbara Library has a 1925-1932 database of her recordings. According to that, she recorded with American band leaders Jack Denny, Earl Burtnett and Roy Fox. I've added it under External links. Also, I added the Authority control template at the bottom, which should generate usual international links for her works. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (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. This is a procedural close as I gather from the discussion that the Draft version of this article has been merged into this version. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maaveeran (2023 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maaveeran (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maaveeran (2023 film)

This is an unreleased film, and has already been draftified by AFD once, and is still an unreleased film. Unreleased films are only notable if production has been notable, and this article says nothing about production. Review of the references shows that none of them are secondary sources, and they are all advance publicity.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Says that the trailer has been viewed. No No Sometimes No
2 ottplay.com Announcement of the trailer No No ? No
3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Discussion of change in date of release No Yes Sometimes No
4 ottplay.com Interview about the dubbing No Yes ? No
5 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Interview with the actor who plays the villain No Yes Sometimes No

There is already a draft, which has more sources than this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't believe this article is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is scheduled to be released in 2 days. Is it worth deleting today when it will just be recreated? Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a draft, and we should move that to the mainspace once this is deleted. Had I known Yethin Nanba would hastily create this article, I would've moved the draft sooner. But I decided to wait until the film's release per WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the merge was already done. Think Kailash is asking for a history merge. Deleting the article after the film has been released makes no sense. DareshMohan (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2023 (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. after substantial work has been done on the article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ecker[edit]

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

As usual with pages on minor athletes recreated after G5, there are no biographical references. All sources are directories or passing mentions. A career spanning two entire years! Finished 43rd in Rio! But DNQ for the final. Come on. This is absolutely classic WP:NOTDIR material. A wedding announcement years after retirement from a career that barely got started is not WP:SIGCOV. Creator is banned for serial re-creation of a related article. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A senior career spanning 5 years, from stuff that's in the article but hey ;) (I am hoping that emoji indicates a correction given in a happy spirit. Will double check GNG and equivalent sport guidelines and see if she passes. If not, still worth the effort :) ) Red Fiona (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a career that barely got started - the article says she was national champion fourteen times, and it did at the time you AfD'd. Did you miss that while you were glorying over her not qualifying for the Olympic final? Anyway, keep per WP:NSPORTS, meets gymnastics #2. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif, that is not a valid !vote rationale when SPORTCRIT has not been demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is in light of the sources which are better than you pretend. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No biographical sources, no significant coverage, no article. This is a living individual. We should not drop our standards so that we can become a directory of every person who ever wore their country's colours, regardless of how many sockpuppets of banned accounts are utterly determined to make it so. Either that or go and amend WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIR to introduce carveouts for participants in sporting events. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you for your patience while found articles to help the article meet WP:SIGCOV. I think it does now. There are 3 articles that are mostly about her, in deeper detail than just a passing mention, from independent reliable sources. Those three are: 1) Reference 5, an Austrian Gymnastics Federation retrospective of her career, 2) reference 9, a "International Gymnast" journal article about her return from injury, and 3) Der Standard (one of the Austrian papers of record; along with Die Presse) reporting on her Olympic performance. Along with those, there are also 2 or 3 articles which are either mostly about her and her performances (Ref 7, sport.de report on her retirement, ref 10, Der Standard reporting on the Austrian Gymnastic Championships, and ref 11, Austrian Gymnastics Federation about her wedding, which I grant Guy doesn't rate). Reference 6 is mostly about her coach, but her coach talks about Ecker and her training. The other references are results reporting or general sports database references. I think there are at least 3 in-depth, reliable references which, I think, means the article meets SIGCOV. Red Fiona (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redfiona99, the Austrian Gymnastics Federation is not an independent source and cannot contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Sources added by Redfiona99 satisfy WP:GNG. Nice work. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Striking my previous comment; please see my updated comment below. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Refs 1 (Rio 2016), 2 (2015worldgymnastics.com), 3 (Rio 2016), 5 (Austrian Gymnastics Federation), 8 (gymnastics.sport), and 11 (Austrian Gymnastics Federation) are not independent/secondary and do not contribute to notability (per NSPORT, sports organizations are not independent of the athletes they oversee) Red XN. Ref 4 (Der Standard #1, reprint of S24) is a routine tournament writeup that is almost entirely quotes from her from a press release Red XN. Ref 6 (Kurier #1) is a Q&A interview with her coach with no independent commentary on her; quotes are never secondary, and quotes from an affiliate are never independent Red XN. Ref 7 (sport.de) is a trivial retirement press release Red XN. Ref 10 (Der Standard #2) is another wholly routine results announcement Red XN. Even if Ref 9 (International Gymnast) was SIGCOV (I can't access it; can anyone here?), the subject still would not pass GNG as multiple pieces of SIGCOV are required and SUSTAINED would need to be demonstrated. Sports sources must be demonstrably non-routine, and nothing here even remotely approaches that. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs 4, 7, 9, and 10 are all appropriate secondary SIGCOV. You may think that a write-up in a newspaper of note doesn't count because, seemingly, competitions are routine and therefore coverage of the results is trivial, but that's your opinion that goes beyond the demands of sourcing requirements. Please don't try to pass off such an opinion as policy again. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Material that is routine, such as coverage of sports event results, is not encyclopedic per NOTNEWS. Ref 4 is routine results entirely derived from a press release from the Austrian Olympic Committee, so also not independent. Ref 7 is literally a two-sentence retirement announcement that is, predictably, actually from the sports PR newswire and not independent reporting anyway. Ref 10 is more utterly routine tournament results and is ultimately sourced to the ÖFT via GYMmedia. Ref 9 does look decent, but again, one ref does not suffice for NSPORT/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How dare news outlets get their tournament result information from the official tournament results. Listen to yourself. Kingsif (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Derivatives of press releases are not intellectually independent, and coverage of press releases is defined as routine by NOTNEWS. The news outlets aren't writing their own commentary on the results, they are republishing the press releases that were given to them, with info occasionally reordered. That is not sufficient for GNG, and there is longstanding consensus that standard transactional reports are routine. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, your constant reference to "routine tournament results" sounds ridiculous, but we get it – you don't like sports, you don't like sports bios on Wikipedia, and you will go out of your way to WP:BLUDGEON any discussion if it doesn't go your way. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is basic disagreement over whether or not sources satisfy SIGCOV (according to Wikipedia guidelines).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is a definite keep as it easily satisfies both WP:NGYMNAST and WP:GNG. WP:GYMNAST suggests that Significant coverage is likely to exist for artistic gymnasts if they meet any of the criteria below: Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition, and in this case Lisa Ecker has not just one, but seven individual medals at elite international competitions, in addition to her 14 national championship titles. Arguably the top Austrian artistic gymnast in recent history, Ecker also has significant coverage in independent reliable sources which satisfies WP:GNG – more higher quality references than any of her peers on Wikipedia and WP:SUSTAINED since 2012, when she won her first international medal (silver), the Austrian national title, and Austrian "Gymnast of the Year", through her retirement in 2017 following her 43rd place finish in the individual all-around at the 2016 Summer Olympics, as the only Austrian gymnast to qualify and only the second time Austria was represented in artistic gymnastics at the Olympics after a 48-year hiatus. While there are many articles to choose from which are now cited in the article, my top three are:
  • Crumlish, John (July–August 2013). "Lisa Ecker: From torn to reborn". International Gymnast. 55 (6): 31. ISSN 0891-6616 – via EBSCOHost. (In-depth feature article accessible via Wikipedia Library, and in English. Article focuses on Ecker's recovery from an ACL injury after the 2011 world championships in Tokyo, her strong performance in 2012 (per above), and her 19th place finish at the 2013 European Championship in Moscow, the best all-around finish by an Austrian woman in 50 years.)
  • Stelzel-Pröll, Claudia (1 May 2016). "Mit Riesensprüngen in Richtung Rio". Kurier (in German). Austria. (Feature article in a major Austrian newspaper that positions Ecker as "Austria's best artistic gymnast". Yes, it includes direct quotes from Ecker, but it also includes factual information that was gathered and checked by Stelzel-Pröll and her editors.)
  • "Linzerin Ecker mit souveräner Vorstellung zum Olympia-Ticket". Der Standard (in German). Austria. Austria Presse Agentur. 18 April 2016. (Article focusing on Ecker's performance in the qualification round for the 2016 Summer Olympics, as well as an assessment of the significance of her achievement. The source for the article, published in a major daily newspaper, is APA, the national news agency of Austria.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the info on Ecker in the latter two sources is routine results recaps for sportspeople. NOTNEWS specifies that coverage of press releases is considered routine, and the Der Standard article is little more than a refactored version of this press release from the ÖFT. The only facts added by Der Standard that are about Ecker are that she is 23 and from Linz. The rest of the novel material is not about Ecker at all. The Kurier piece does have some non-quote material, but a closer look shows it is primarily just summaries of a succeeding quote rather than actual commentary by the author. This article just isn't enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been greatly improved and appears to pass GNG per Cielquiparle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now a clear pass of GNG based on sources added to the article, which go beyond routine or trivial mentions. Frank Anchor 17:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the sources added to the article recently. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dean (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is all I could find [57] and it's barely a mention, unsure if it's even the same person. Sources used in the article are not RS. Delete for lack of notability, no sources.Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SINGER. APK whisper in my ear 03:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Paul Kagame#Marriage and children. I should note that the previous AFD closed as Keep so there's a possibility that this article will be recreated. But as far as this discussion goes, I see a consensus to Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Kagame[edit]

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

Not notable, other than as the daughter of a politician. Notability isn't inherited, most refs are either about accompanying her father or getting married. Nswix (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is no consensus for a page move in this discussion. The nominator should start a discussion about a possible rename on the article talk page and not do a page move unilaterally (or removed sourced content) given the support that exists for this article as it is. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons[edit]

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can understand talking about LGBT representation due to reliable coverage (hence why the top paragraph has instead been moved to the main The Simpsons page under "influence and legacy", but as a list of characters this is a colossal failure.

I want to reiterate so I don’t have to say this again: I am not against noting lgbt characters in The Simpsons, but a list is redundant at best and fancruft at worst, and the only notable section, the lede, has already been copied to a more fitting page.

  • I am open to a compromise: rework this page to be something other than a list format and rename it accordingly (such as "LGBT representation in The Simpsons"), because it's obvious that the list format clearly does not work for this page. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This grouping is notable as already cited in the list, and note that per WP:NLIST Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. —siroχo 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of of the non-notable characters are one-offs or gag characters, like "Comic Book Gay" as a parody of Comic Book Guy. Additionally, the contents that are independently notable already have pages at Patty and Selma, Waylon Smithers, and Kang and Kodos, making the majority of sources on this page more fitting for those pages instead, and also making this page very redundant. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally fine for standalone lists as long as they roughly meet WP:NLIST —siroχo 07:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated above, the list is quite notable. Besides the news refs, the fact this topic was covered in a peer-reviewed academic journal is noteworthy. APK whisper in my ear 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact that there are lgbt characters or the actual characters themselves are notable? Because, as I mentioned earlier, I had already copied the lede of the article to the influences and legacy section of the show’s page, which sufficiently covers the fact that there are lgbt characters. The peer-reviewed academic journal can also simply be covered on the show’s page, not deserving of being split off in its own article that is otherwise filled with fancruft. I should’t have to reiterate this; the coverage of lgbt representation is fine, but the actual list of characters is not notable in any way because most of these characters are one-offs or have their own pages which can talk about their sexuality. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The nominator removed the lede and has removed links to the page from The Simpsons and Template:The Simpsons. @Unnamed anon: it seems you're very passionate about this, but can you please wait until this AFD has concluded before scrubbing the content? Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 06:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't actually remove it fully, as you can see in the top of this afd, I added the lede to the show’s page. I additionally copied the text and sources from the lgbt characters page to the pages for Patty (and Selma), Smithers, and the Aliens, but I have not removed the text from the page they were originally on yet like I did with the lede per your suggestion. I'm frustrated because both of the "keep" reasons have been faulty; both assumed I don't think the representation isn't notable, but it is, hence why the info was moved. The problem is the page being a list at all; part of it redundant due to its subjects having their own pages, and most of the rest consisting of one-offs. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I say you thought representation isn't notable. I referred to the list itself. Let's just wait and see what others think about the page. Take care. APK whisper in my ear 07:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd to delete the lede, as every Wikipedia page should have a lede, and it's okay for content to be duplicated between two Wikipedia pages. Enervation (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic of LGBT representation in the Simpsons is notable as the subject of many sources. The list of minor characters seems fine as well if they are included in reliable sources. Enervation (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enervation: Here's the giant problem about the minor characters: they are barely talked about in said "reliable" sources, which themselves are mostly lists themselves, furthering the redundancy of this article. For example, this source is simply just another list, and it is the only source of the 7 out of 16 (nearly half!) of the minor character entries on the wikipedia list. One source shouldn't compose of almost half of the sources in a section, how that would be considered acceptable in this disaster of a page is baffling. This source for the first minor character is mostly about an entirely separate character, and is also just another list. Other sources, such as this and this, are simple episode reviews that barely mention the character who uses it as a source. The sourcing on this article is just terrible, and, aside from parts of it that belong on other pages, completely unsalvageable. The topic of LGBT representation in the Simpsons is notable, sure, but belongs on the show’s page, not its own. At the very least, I am open to a compromise: rework it into no longer being a list and (such as "LGBT representation in The Simpsons"), because the list format just does not work for this page, at all. Unnamed anon (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move I think it should be converted into an article called LGBT representation in The Simpsons. Just having a list like this seems... random, but the overall topic is standalone notable. Making it into an article would hopefully fix the redundancy issue noted in the AfD. I should also note that LGBT representation in American adult animation, its ostensible companion/parent article, was boldly merged without any sort of consensus which may have caused some of the confusion shown here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Unnamed anon: If you agree with this, perhaps it is best to withdraw the AfD entirely, and start a move discussion instead. I think it's clear per WP:SNOW that outright deletion is not going to ever succeed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: I agree with starting a move discussion (and have started it), but I'm not withdrawing this AfD unless it's not allowed to have both running concurrently. I still firmly believe that the contents of this article that are actually notable could comfortably fit onto the show's page and the pages for the three characters with articles. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They can keep running at the same time, but frankly I don't see a path forward for the AfD. It's almost certainly going to be a SNOW close. I was suggesting due to that, but if you want it to keep going, it will. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zx above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73: Move as well or just keep? Because as a list there was so much poorly sourced bloat I had to remove, and the article would at least be salvageable and not redundant if it was moved to LGBT representation in The Simpsons written in a prose format instead. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine either way. Whatever garners a stronger consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move per nom and ZX. It is indeed a notable topic. For WP:NLIST, it probably stretches a little, which is why under a different name it would work better. However, even minor/guest characters for any show can have the impact necessary for outside their show. I believe there is an Emmy category for guest appearances. Conyo14 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, as others have pointed out, but a move might be in order.★Trekker (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Politics in The Simpsons#LGBT_issues. Possibly split into its own prose (not list) article afterward (per move suggestions above). There is something notable here, but it should not be covered in the listicle of trivia format. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons stated already. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Derilien[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (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. Arguments to keep around GNG struggle with the level of verifiable detail in the sources vs opinion. Then someone points out that NCORP applies which requires higher sourcing standards than GNG. I checked for a policy WP:RESTAURANTS which while failed was clearly intended to be a subset of CORP- confirming NCORP in play. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cityfields[edit]

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

This restaurant only opened this year, I think April. I think it is a case of TOOSOON with 2 reviews from Melbourne newspapers. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Australia. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree with Libstar. Those sources offer no indication that this restaurant is notable at the present time or in the future. They'll also need to demonstrate that it's notable outside of the city in which it exists, and they do not. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The review in The Age meets WP:PRODUCTREV and WP:SIRS. I'm unable to view the other review. I've changed to Keep based on Eastmain's additions. —siroχo 00:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? From what I see, it's not SIGCOV. It reads mostly like an advertisement and doesn't contain enough in-depth information such as a moderately thorough review of the restaurant's history, a neutral account of its cultural impact, and other sorts of significant coverage. Most of the article reads like this: "To say the new Social Quarter at Chadstone Shopping Centre is overwhelming is both an understatement", "the restaurant that most symbolises that objective is Cityfields, a venue that matches Chadstone and the Social Quarter in terms of scale, opulence and ambition." From my view, the only acceptable part of the article is the two sentences about the co-owner, Adam Wright-Smith. Even so, it's not really significant. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if I am able to see more of the article than you were, but it goes much deeper than that. It hits all the points of a "significant review" Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. It describes broad context of the restaurant and restaurateur, the location and setting, a general sense of the menu and bar, it describes a specific meal in-depth over several paragraphs far too much o quote here but a sample I didn’t manage one of the giant steaks, but I did try the 250-gram scotch fillet ($54), which came with very good, crispy shoestring fries, was cooked and salted perfectly and which I’d order again in a heartbeat. I wouldn’t order the pepper sauce that I chose to accompany it, however: a touch too sweet with way too few actual peppercorns.. It even has a sense of comparison to standards (eg It’s rare for a vaguely steak-focused restaurant to put this much effort and creativity into its vegetarian main, but this dish showcases Martin’s handle on classic technique as well as his desire to go above and beyond.). It criticizes some of the unique gimmicks as well In press around Cityfields’ opening, much was made of a very fancy machine called a “sling shaker”... Its main function is that it can make a ton of cocktails at once, which is nice, but I’m not sure if the bar has figured out what to do when you only need one and not 12. We ordered their takes on the gin fizz ($22) and the sling ($22), and both were silly and fun when they arrived, but they took about 30 minutes (and no, the bar wasn’t busy; perhaps that was the problem). —siroχo 02:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo: I understand the point you're making. But what I'm looking for in the sources is significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Information like food prices, the reviewer's taste, the reviewer's emotional experience, their liking of the restaurant, aren't suitable for Wikipedia articles. E.g., "I didn’t manage one of the giant steaks, but I did try the 250-gram scotch fillet ($54)", "Its main function is that it can make a ton of cocktails at once, which is nice", "We ordered their takes on the gin fizz ($22) and the sling ($22), and both were silly and fun when they arrived" <-- these aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. So, my view is simple: if a source is full of information that can hardly be used for a Wikipedia article, how is its coverage "in-depth" and "significant"? To me, it is trivial. And I am specifically referring to WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, WP:PRODUCTREV states "the reviews must be published outside of purely local ... interest publications", and then links to WP:AUD, which states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". None of the sources are national or regional. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your dedication to the quality of encyclopedia. I agree that prices (with few exceptions), unattributed opinions, or attributed opinions that give undue weight don't belong in the encyclopedia. I do think that the guidelines suggest that a review that includes such information can be used to establish notability and provide verifiability. I also do understand what you're saying about circulation/interest of publications. As a non-Austratlian, The Age, is decidedly a publication with global interest. Ultimately, all of these guidelines and policies are basically meant to uphold the five pillars. I'm not fundamentally worried about the inclusion of an article about this restaurant risking that. —siroχo 04:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Age, is decidedly a publication with global interest." No, not really. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added more references. I think that notability is now demonstrated. The text that sounds like advertising consists of direct quotes from reviews, and so is perfectly acceptable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long one or two fulfill WP:RS then this might survive. Then again most are news articles so unless you're talking about Mets Field in Flushing, Queens this might get the boot. NYC Guru (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this restaurant certainly has a gorgeous interior, it is fairly new and there are only a handful of references that discuss it. This might be notable for a travel magazine or a food magazine (like this[58]), but does not pass WP:GNG for Wikipedia. Knox490 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I believe the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. While reviews can certainly be encyclopedic the article needs more than just that and a description of the interior. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am remembering one more policy called Wikipedia:Basic.Okoslavia (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC is a guideline for biographies, not companies/organizations/restaurants. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added. Although a borderline case but meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this passes WP:NCORP with WP:AUD-appropriate coverage. Routine local reviews covering the local news of a restaurant opening doesn't justify an article and it should be more established than a couple months first. A summary of which local newspaper food critic liked or disliked which dish isn't really encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 16:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. None of the sources provided are about him, but rather about NPR. PK650 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2023 (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 Biz Markie. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Hall (model)[edit]

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

No claim of notability outside of who she was married to. I can find no significant modeling work and sources that mention her are just trivial coverage relating to her husband's death and her suing someone. Mbinebri (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_11&oldid=1166048688"