Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 02 June 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sattai Maran[edit]

Blue Sattai Maran (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 fails to establish why it is notable. Director has only directed one low-key film. Best to redirect to Anti Indian. Monhiroe (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fluff coverage in non-RS, simply being a youtuber isn't notable. I can't find any mentions of this person in RS, the name is common it seems. I'd be ok with the redirect to the film as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The person who loves reading (talk) 20:46, 10 June 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 11:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Iravani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ahmad Iravani (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)

Doesn't seem to meet GNG (all of the coverage I can find is either trivial or from an organisation with which the subject is directly connected), and there's a possible BLP issue with having an article that makes the first hit for a relatively non-public figure's name a page with information about their criminal convictions, when that conviction doesn't seem particularly notable (only cited to primary sources). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article subject, Ahmad Iravani, doesn't seem to be significantly — to any extent at all — covered elsewhere other than within the organizations he's related to. From this, it's obvious the article doesn't meet WP:GNG. M85ße (talk) 11:13, 5 June 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! 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carretera Costera Riviera Mayo[edit]

Carretera Costera Riviera Mayo (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)

Maps do not confirm the existence of a direct road from Agiabampo [1] to Yavaros [2] and there are few Google hits for the title, the English title, or the former name Brecha de Sinaloa. There are combinations of Sonora state highways that will take you in between the two towns, but I think it is better to start over from scratch in creating those rather than trying to adapt this conceptual road that I cannot prove actually exists. Rschen7754 23:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did find a similarly named road on the map, but still not sure WP:V is met. SportingFlyer T·C 10:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's the same road as the article claims [3], it goes between the wrong towns. --Rschen7754 18:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article also mentions it goes to Las Bocas, though, so I wouldn't rely on the article to be correct in the slightest. SportingFlyer T·C 19:37, 9 June 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! 23:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamaana Thozhi (TV series)[edit]

Priyamaana Thozhi (TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:31, 3 June 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! 23:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanne Kalaimaane (TV series)[edit]

Kanne Kalaimaane (TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete The show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, please explain what you mean by "important updates". Until then, this is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Karnataka (talk) 23:18, 10 June 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! 23:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muthuzhagu[edit]

Muthuzhagu (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete The show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This hasn't explained how the show is notable for Wikipedia. I cannot find any source that shows how it is notable, and here is a summary of all the sources currently listed:
    • Source 1 is tabloid coverage which summarises and shows a link to the promo
    • Source 2 is routine promo that lists the characters and links to Instagram posts where its plot summary is based from
    • Source 3 is a self-published source whose expertise cannot be established
    • Source 4 is just routine coverage about the serial starting, with only two of 6 paragraphs talking about the series. It states in the last paragraph that information about the serial is unavailable
    • Source 5 is routine coverage about the serial starting
    This serial's coverage is only starting fluff, and its coverage only extends to routine coverage updates on actors. None of this meets WP:GNG Karnataka (talk) 15:09, 10 June 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. Sourcing has been identified with which to improve the article, which Danilo has shown willingness to do. Would suggest draftspace rather than under a redirect, but there is not a consensus to delete this article and where to improve is a matter of editorial decision. Star Mississippi 14:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Torpey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Erin Torpey (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 I said the last time I sent this article to AFD: “Fails WP:NACTOR. One notable role on One Life to Live, but nothing else of note afterward. Google search yields nothing substantive.” Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Pennsylvania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, as the nom said. UtherSRG (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – I requested this to be undeleted so I could some work on it and improve it over the next few weeks. I have redirected it for now so that I can do some work on it. However, it is really unfair that you have requested to delete it again as soon as it has been undeleted without giving it any chance to be improved. There are other sources other than on google which I will be adding. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article does fail WP:NACTOR before redirect, however it's unfair to DaniloDaysOfOurLives to nominate it for deletion after existing for just 12 hours after refund. Especially after a refund promising to improve the article, at least 2-3 days should be given before nominating it for deletion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad AFD, procedural close: in my opinion, the only acceptable result to come out of this AFD other than a procedural close would be a draftify or a keep. Give Danilo some time to do what he said he'd do. Maybe ask him to draftify it, but don't instantly take it to AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close DDOOL's efforts show that he's willing to redirect this article until he has time to work on it, which this process is preventing. The unredirect/update/re-redirect process has been used in other Wikipedia articles where one editor believes notability can be demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply/comment - Thank you so so so so much guys for the support and kindness - I really appreciate it! Yes, my intention is to source and improve the article more so it meets notability. I will be honest, I am very busy with work for the next week or so and thus 3 days would (unfortunately) not be enough. I am happy to draftify it or move it to a sandbox if needed, or to improve it day by day by a set deadline of 3 weeks or something. I did redirect it when it got nominated for a second deletion as I did not want it to be deleted so soon after it got undeleted, but it has since been unredirected. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what draftspace is pretty much made for, so I'd recommend that. :) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Kohl, Ron (1990-03-21). "Local Girl Sharing Stage With Kathleen Turner". News Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin Torpey of Hilltown is every bit your prototypical 9-year-old All-American girl. ... Starting last Wednesday, at the Eugene O'Neill Theater, Erin Torpey can be found in the Broadway production of Tennessee Williams' "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," alongside Charles Durning, Polly Holliday (TV's "Flo"), Daniel Hugh kelly (McCormick on TV's "Hardcastle and McCormick") and someone named Kathleen Turner. ... Her stage career professional started with "Annie" at Peddler's Village in Lahaska (under producer Richard Akins, a Pennridge-area native) when Torpey was all of 7."

    2. Havens, Candace (2002-12-07). "Soap Talk: Erin Torpey heads for Greener pastures". The News-Messenger. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Little girls grow up and sometimes move on to bigger and better things. The talented Erin Torpey (Jessica Buchanan) is leaving her comfy nest on "One Life to Live" to try something new."

    3. Michaels, Taylor (2003-08-10). "Where's Erin Torpey?". The Boston Globe. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin Torpey, the 22-year-old actress who took over the role of Jessica in 1990, left the part several weeks ago saying she needed a break and wants to go back to school. She also reportedly wants to explore career possibilities as a singer. While co-starring on "One Life to Live," she worked nights with Bernadette Peters and Martin Short in the 1993 Broadway musical "The Goodbye Girl" and has other musicals to her credit as well."

    4. Myers, Melissa (1997-02-23). "Celebrities join charity fund-raiser from the lively city of Des Moines". The Des Moines Register. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin Torpey, 16, bounces regularly from her Philadelphia-area home to New York City and the set of the ABC daytime drama "One Life to Live." For seven years she has been that show's Jessica Buchanan, filming scenes twice a week, sometimes working long hours. After filming. Torpey returns home and attends "regular school." Occasionally, she has business travel related to acting, say to California for Friday's Soap Opera Digest awards, for which she is a best young actress nominee for the second time in three years. ... In addition to her television career, Torpey has appeared in two Broadway shows ... Coincidentally, she doesn't like an audience enough to want to speak extemporaneously in front of one. Of her previous best young actress nomination by Soap Opera Digest fans, two years ago, she said ..."

    5. Gerner, John (1989-08-16). "Pennridge Girls Take Top Talent Show Honors". News Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Eight-year-old Erin Torpey, a third grader at M.M. Seylar Elementary School, won the first prize in the children's category with her lively rendition of the 1960's novelty classic, "Stupid Cupid." The blue-eyed Hilltown resident displayed a lot of poise during her singing of the bouncy hit tune."

    6. Goldfarb, Myra Yellin (1993-04-16). "Youngster just wanted to sing on Broadway". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin Torpey of Perkasie was only 8 when she landed her first Broadway role in 1990 as the smallest of the "no-neck monster" children in Tennessee Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof." ... So Erin, now 12, is back at the Marquis Theatre playing Cynthia, a know-it-all teen-ager who is the confidante of Bernadette Peters' daughter Lucy, in Neil Simon's "The Goodbye Girl." Erin is on stage only five to eight minutes a night. She spends her offstage time doing homework or watching the show from the wings."

    7. Novakovich, Lilana (2000-01-22). "Teen soap star really an old soul". North Bay Nugget. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin Torpey turns 19 on Feb. 14, but she's an old soul. Torpey joined One Life To Love as Jessica Buchanan at age 9, a year after she'd made her Broadway debut in Cat On A Hot Time Roof with Kathleen Turner and Charles Durning. ... How would she know about Turner? She was much too young for Body Heat. Torpey's next Broadway gig was the musical version of Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl co-starring Martin Short and Bernadette Peters. In fact, Torpey started out in showbiz as singer rather than actor."

    8. Reichardt, Nancy M. (2000-11-13). "Erin Torpey is a force to be reckoned with" (pages 1 and 2). The Citizens' Voice. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "It is one thing to have the courage of your convictions, but for that to be true of a teenager is incredible. At age 19, Erin Torpey is truly a force to be reckoned with. She is one year younger than Jessica Buchanan, the character she plays on "One Life to Live," and when she was 14 years old she found out that her 15-year-old alter ego was going to have premarital sex. This did not sit well with her. ... Torpey may play younger than her years, but she has the maturity of someone much older. She attributes this to her family values. She has been playing the role since she was 8 years old, and for many years she attended school in her hometown in Pennsylvania. After school, her mother took her to New York City every day she was on call. Three years ago, she moved to New York City all by herself — sort of."

    9. May, Rebecca (2000-05-17). "Nomination is just one sign of Torpey's maturity". The Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin Torpey is all grown up. Not only is the 19-year-old actress out of school and out of her parents' Pennsylvania home, but Torpey, who has played Jessica Buchanan on "One Life to Live" for more than 10 years, used her first front-burner story line to nab her first Daytime Emmy nomination for outstanding younger actress. And with age comes career expansion: Look for Torpey to showcase her singing talents in a upcoming "OLTL" episode."

    10. Bailey, Diane (1996-01-04). "Torpey kisses phone privileges goodbye". Red Deer Advocate. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Erin lives in a small town outside Philadelphia with her parents and older sister Shannon, 17. A ninth-grader, Erin attends regular school. She likes home economics and social studies but admits..."

    11. Siegel, Naomi (1991-07-03). "'Annie' Spreads Hope For A Bright Tomorrow". The Montclair Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The minute Erin Torpey as Annie sings "Tomorrow there'll be sun," we feel confident that the clouds are temporary. Optimism runs in this red-headed trouper's universe. ... Neither he nor young Ms. Torpey have mined the tender, vulnerable side of Annie's character, but have focused on her resiliency, determination and pluck. This Annie sings well and does not resort to the shrill crooning typical of several of her predecessors in the role."

    12. Francis, Naila (2008-09-04). "Erin Torpey has a second life to live". Bucks County Courier Times. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.

      The article notes: "Torpey, now 27 - and eager to chat, having just last year released her debut CD as a major step in transitioning to a career as a singer-songwriter. ... For Torpey, music is essential to that life. She released her first CD, the aptly titled "Part of the Plan," last December and will showcase tunes from the disc when she performs at Puck in Doylestown Friday, two days before hitting New York City's venerable Knitting Factory."

    13. Plutzik, Roberta (1991-06-28). "Grateful for New Tomorrows". The Record. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.

      The article notes: "Auditions of 300 girls here and in New York resulted in the casting of Erin Torpey, a veteran TV performer, in the lead role. She's adorable, and her singing has bite. ... Erin Torpey inhabits most of the scenes. She's got a strong voice for a 10-year-old; although it's not impeccable and fully formed, her vocal quavers supply a vulnerability in song that works just right. Since new interpretations of this part aren't really the point, she hunkers down, embraces the tradition, and serves it well. "

    14. Harrar, Sari (1991-06-23). "Enter Barking a Mutt's Shining Moment Opposite the Little Orphan". The Record. Archived from the original on 2023-06-04. Retrieved 2023-06-04.

      The article notes: "It must be noted that Erin, lest she be upstaged in print, is no slouch. The fifth-grader has been playing Jessica on the soap opera "One Life to Live" for a year now, and made her Broadway debut in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. " Commercial work includes a spot for Cabbage Patch Dolls."

    15. Benjamin, Ruth; Rosenblatt, Arthur (2006). Who Sang What on Broadway, 1866–1996. Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 747. ISBN 0-7864-1506-1. Retrieved 2023-06-04 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "9280. Erin Torpey (Feb. 14, 1981–) B: Doylestown, PA. The Goodbye Girl (Marquis, "Cynthia," Mar. 4, 1993): This Is as Good as It Gets; Who Would've Thought?/W: David Zippel, M: Marvin Hamlisch."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Erin Torpey to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:50, 4 June 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 14:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of the African Union[edit]

Languages of the African Union (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:OR, mostly WP:UNSOURCED, with @Walt Yoder's support. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't about the African Union, it is about the countries which comprise the African Union. It is a CFORK of Languages of Africa. But on that page, this page is described as a subpage which has nothing to do with the African Union, possibly titled as List of official languages of African countries. Beyond that, my thoughts are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The introduction is about AU language policy. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only cited sentence is "the AU declared 2006 the Year of African Languages". That's really meagre for a "language policy". Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence outside of the lead is The African Union has not legally defined specific working languages, though they do say that the working languages "shall be, if possible, African languages, Arabic, English, French and Portuguese." That is about it for content in the article about the African Union; it relies on that "African languages" phrase as a hook to continue at length as a WP:CFORK on the concept of African languages. There is already more relevant content at African Union#Languages than there is here. Walt Yoder (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify From what I see, the main problem is the "Languages of AU States" section. In this case the article can be left without one as a stub to be furtherly expanded properly. M85ße (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the African Union branding is ultimately pointless due to most (if not all) recognised countries in the continent are members. If renaming isn't a possible option, Keep. FusionSub (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So... what do you think should happen to the article instead? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per walt’s comments. This is already covered elsewhere and seems to be a content fork and WP:COATRACK without much of a rack. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a great description, WP:COATRACK! If I had known about this essay, I would have invoked it in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muscovite manorialism AfD. I struggled to explain what it was, but that's what it was; a coatrack to talk about Muscovite military history while ostensibly starting with Kievan Rus' agriculture. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two parts to this article. One part is language policies of the African Union. This policy part is shorter than the chapter in the parent article that does NOT need a SPINOFF. The other part is a list of languages spoken in member countries. That information is in the articles of the member countries. It is also discussed in overview in languages of Africa. There is absolutely no need to to WP:CFORK that. As for ATD: this article has been around since 2007. A redirect could make sense, just not sure where. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coatrack whose combination is not supported by RS (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 7 June 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 23:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya No.1[edit]

Vidhya No.1 (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:21, 3 June 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 23:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maari (TV series)[edit]

Maari (TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:19, 3 June 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 23:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thavamai Thavamirundhu (TV series)[edit]

Thavamai Thavamirundhu (TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:13, 3 June 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 00:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indira (2022 TV series)[edit]

Indira (2022 TV series) (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)

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:08, 3 June 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 23:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Santos (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Fábio Santos (footballer, born 1994) (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)

His main claim to fame is a 33 minute inconsequential cameo in a cup game over a decade ago. Since then, he has not played any further minutes at the professional level and coverage seems to be trivial at best. Record has an article that mentions him but it merely confirms that he is signing for Moncarapachense and that he used to play for Culatrense. Portugal Resident also mentions him trivially regarding the exact same transfer. Based on the above, he would fail WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 3 June 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 00:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten Saturday Night[edit]

Big Ten Saturday Night (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, only one non press release source. No evidence of long term notability, can be incorporated into College Football on NBC Sports. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 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 00:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sicher[edit]

Sicher (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:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 17:50, 3 June 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 00:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Shem[edit]

Kevin Shem (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 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 00:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Wanemut[edit]

Jacques Wanemut (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 3 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Heart (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird[edit]

Weird (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 easily fails WP:NOT, as wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's got just a dictionary definition and a list of things the word may refer too, which is entirely unnecessary. Alexcs114 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator: Seems to be a consensus to delete the definition and keep the disambiguation, which is fine by me. Hadn't realized this was a disambiguation page, my bad. Alexcs114 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 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 00:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Mack Major League All-Stars[edit]

Earl Mack Major League All-Stars (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)

Unlikely to satisfy WP:NTEAM / WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 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. (non-admin closure) Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finless Foods[edit]

Finless Foods (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)

Problems with WP NCORP: the coverage about Finless Foods seems to be mainly based on primary sources and company press releases rather than significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mentions and WP:MILL Also WP PROMO: The page reads more like a company profile or press release, rather than an encyclopedic entry. Edit.pdf (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources found above: the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the article itself might need some work for WP:NPOV. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources listed by Lindsay above which show SIGCOV from high-quality RS. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources listed by Lindsay. They clearly show that WP:GNG is met from reliable sources. The prose needs work for WP:NPOV, but that can be fixed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:04, 4 June 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. Star Mississippi 14:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquila Shoes[edit]

Aquila Shoes (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)

Only 2 articles link to this. Fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While article in its current state is certainly not perfect. A routine google search includes enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. I've added a couple of these articles as references in relevant locations. IceBergYYC (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage provided by The Australian article; and the sources pointed out by IceBergYYC
LibStar is repeatedly nominating articles with clear significant coverage and without properly evaluating sources. Jack4576 (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in the article meets WP:ORGCRIT. The CMO references has good signs but I am not sure of its reliability which doesn't matter at this point unless there are additional ORGCRIT references to be found. The article has interviews and routine announcements which cannot be used to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I appreciate the sources added by IceBergYYC, however I still don't think it meets WP:GNG, as the Australian source is quite short and mainly interview ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230519020643/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/cashedup-aquila-to-double-store-network/news-story/c108ef8832a4bd44bcb2660795354ab1 Keep per the sources linked by GeebaKhap. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the coverage is enough for mine, additional AFR sources exist such as this one which demonstrates in-depth coverage across multiple years. GeebaKhap (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeebaKhap: We need multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and you only have listed one. Do you have any other sources for the company? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in addition to the ones already in the article, see below from Proquest's archives. GeebaKhap (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boot's on the other foot for Nairn" (The Australian, 4 Apr 2016): "Former David Jones chief executive Iain Nairn will make good use of his retail connections after being named the new chairman of men's fashion brand Aquila, which is currently seeking up to $30 million from new investors to fuel a store rollout and growth strategy" (592 words)
  • "Craftsmanship keeps men looking good" (The Age, 9 Mar 2017, 486 words) - discusses plans for 60th anniversary.
There's also this in-depth profile of the company's founder from an Italian news site:[13] GeebaKhap (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeebaKhap: Thank you for the source finds. I think between the AFR sources, the ProQuest sources, and the Italian article, there's enough for WP:GNG. I'll change my vote. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:03, 3 June 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 Incel.

The discussion has completely run out of steam and left everyone exhausted, with a number of personal attacks being thrown around. I see a mixture of those wanting to keep, merge or delete the article - however, many of the rationales were refuted. This suggests a "no consensus" close, but I am reluctant to read that as a the consensus as it retains the full article, and there are a significant proportion of editors that explicitly didn't want that.

Therefore, I have to conclude that the appropriate compromise would be to merge, and I hope that's something that everyone, on all sides of the debate, can accept. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incels.is[edit]


Incels.is (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 there's sufficient notability for a standalone article about this site, which I think should probably be redirected to the primary topic at Incel. Most of the references mention the site (under one of its various TLDs — .is, .me, or .co), but are primarily focused on describing the incel subculture rather than specifics about this one website. Furthermore, most of the content here is already included at Incel. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge: superficially, there's significant news coverage of this site, but since it's essentially the same community and phenomenon as in the deleted subreddit, this coverage is better contextualised at incel, which it already is, according to nom. small jars tc 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with incel. I would hate to see all the effort that has been put into this article go to waste, so I encourage anyone involved in this topic area to salvage its content elsewhere—both at the main incel article, and anywhere else where it may prove valuable. Kurtis (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all in-depth and independent. Therefore, they are sufficient to prove the article does not violate WP:GNG. It is also to note that the creator of this AfD states that they are the creator of the incel article. I believe that this should be a factor in discussing this nomination. Finally, I am disclosing that I am the creator of this article, under a different dynamic IP. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though these are about "incels.is", but all but one of them turn out to be about the "incel" online community in general, which just happens to be centred on that site at present. Our incel article is already explicitly about the online community, so the independent notability of the site runs shallow. However, your third source is interesting: it provides a mathematical analysis of "incels.co" (the same site) as a website in its own right, in terms of the dynamics of content moderation and how the incel community’s expungement from reddit may have modified their views and behaviour on the new forum. If we had a couple more sources on this level, I would vote keep, but for now this source is better used within incel. small jars tc 21:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first source, the abstract states This paper presents a study of the (now suspended) online discussion forum Incels.me and its users, involuntary celibates or incels, a virtual community of isolated men without a sexual life, who see women as the cause of their problems and often use the forum for misogynistic hate speech and other forms of incitement.
I think this invalidates you saying all but one of the sources talk about the website and not the community.
Finally, for the second source, if you have access to the paper through your institution, the website is central to the study and its characteristics are described therein. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ad hominem on nom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment. I learned that the nominator is a site admin. I find it quite immature and petty for a site admin to nominate an article in which she has an editorial interest (in her page she says she created the incel article), all while completely bulldozing through the AfD etiquette and not citing a single example of policy (edit: *policy violation. Also, I forgot to mention more importantly that she did not declare her editorial COI, as creator and major contributor of the incel article, while making this nomination). 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a note to my nomination about creating the page, since you seem concerned that it might influence this discussion, but it's not clear to me what exactly would be improper about this in your eyes, or "immature" or "petty". If anything I would think my editorial interest in the topic would make me more keen to see additional articles about related subjects, not less. The idea of an "editorial COI" is bizarre, though — people routinely contribute to editing and discussing pages on the same topic area.
Regarding citing some "policy violation", the page doesn't meet the notability guideline — which I think I've made quite clear in my nomination statement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown above it meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, it does not fall into any category of WP:NOT. Hence, according to the notability guideline you gave, this gives the subject presumed notability. It is your burden of proof to show it does not have notability in spite of the significant, in-depth coverage.
The reason you have given "Most of the references mention the site (under one of its various TLDs — .is, .me, or .co), but are primarily focused on describing the incel subculture rather than specifics about this one website" goes against the examples of in-depth coverage of the website I have provided and which can be verified by other people in this discussion. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a courtroom, and there is not a "burden of proof" or some rule that articles that don't fall into any of the very specific examples at WP:NOT are somehow inherently notable.
I've stated that I don't believe the sources used at incels.is — a superset of the four you've listed here — establish sufficient notability for a standalone article. It's clear that you disagree. The purpose of this discussion is to gain input from others, who will also evaluate the sourcing in the article, on whether or not those sources are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Once consensus is established, the article will be kept or merged/redirected/deleted according to that consensus.
(edit conflict) Regarding your suggestion that the sources establish in-depth coverage, I disagree. The sources here often describe incels.is because it is a useful corpus to study when trying to study the incel phenomenon. But most of the sources here are describing the incel subculture and its members, rather than the website itself. Furthermore, while the first three sources are interesting, they are primary research papers and not as useful for establishing notability compared to secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not contributing to the discussion. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to completely discount those sources (unlike the policy suggests), there leaves multiple (at least two) other sources to appreciate, the third one I provided earlier and https://mashable.com/article/incels-me-domain-suspended-by-registry. So I believe WP:GNG is satisfied by a long shot. Also, it is disingenuous to edit your comment after my reply without marking it, which is why I restored the order of the messages. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit my messages. We had an edit conflict as you left a comment at the same time I was expanding on mine, as I noted in my edit summary ("ec"). I have stated my position on the article and its sources, and given that you now seem to be resorting to bludgeoning and attacking me personally I am going to end this conversation, as it's stopped being productive and threatens to drown out outside opinions on the article's suitability for inclusion as a standalone page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The volume of replies alone does not constitute the concept described in WP:BLUDGEONING, so I consider this a false accusation. You were the one stonewalling the conversation right until your second-to-last reply. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way: you've lumped several domain names into one topic, as they have all served the purpose of hosting the incel community. If we extend this to lump in one more place that has historically served this purpose, r/incels, we have the exact topic of a much better article that already exists. small jars tc 22:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By WP:COMBINE, the transitive property of the domain names is a routine calculation. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the subreddit and the site is also transitive, according to the majority of reliable sources. small jars tc 22:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One can verify that there are no sources saying the creators of the site were admins of the subreddit. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that they are treated as the same effective community by the majority of sources, not that those sources explicitly verify that there is continuity, i.e., the difference is not notable, whether or not the sameness is verified. small jars tc 22:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not reflected in the sources (see my earlier source analysis, which you can yourself verify). 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, saying disparaging things about probably one the most respected editors here is not helpful. See also WP:No personal attacks. She did cite stand-alone notability as the concern which is what AfD is meant to determine. You have stated your argument from a notability perspective so leave it others to consider. (Note I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft). S0091 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider a more neutral tone, however, I did wanted to state her failure to follow WP:AFDFORMAT by not stating her publicly-verifiable COI, as well as her making blanket statements about sourcing all while not mentioning any example. Both are disingenuous acts meanwhile the person herself most definitely makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia which I already appreciated looking at her user page and contributions earlier. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to familiarize yourself with WP:COI. I assume you are not actually intending to allege that I have some kind of personal or financial connection to incels.is, or (somehow) to the subculture as a whole. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that you have a COI as at least one website refers your main Wikipedia contribution as incels (source to this BLP statement: https://www.yahoo.com/now/molly-white-crypto-skeptics-122044537.html) and you are most known as a Wikipedia contributor and writer. Given that, I believe it is hard to make edits and requests around this topic anymore while not being mindful of your PR. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is frankly absurd, but WP:COIN is thataway if you want to actually pursue that argument. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't get into a COI over a topic area just by writing an article in that topic area. That would make every editor a COI editor. small jars tc 22:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I argued that it is a form of COI in my response above, but I think you can also appreciate this kind of nomination with the lay term pettiness. 130.156.160.91 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, it's not that you should consider a neutral tone towards another editor, you must do that. And no offense, there is no way in hell you are going to be able to prove GW has a COI with this topic because it does not exist. More importantly, following that line of thought will just distract from the goal of determining notability so just drop it. Let your !vote with sources stand on its on own. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it's a bit hard finding sources for this since lots of news articles avoid naming the forum (understandably), but there are at least two studies (the one above and this report I found, which doesn't mention the site by name but which is clearly alluding to it), plus at least one substantive new article (1). Combined with other, briefer mentions in news, I think thati it passes GNG. AryKun (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to a merge on further thought, since arguments further down about how this could be contextualized in a forums section in the main intel argument have convinced me. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping @GorillaWarfare, @Kurtis, @SmallJarsWithGreenLabels, and @TheInsatiableOne, incase any of you missed this. AryKun (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2c: I'm not terribly convinced by the introduction of a report that "clearly alludes to" the site, which seems iffy from a WP:OR perspective. This is another source that is describing incels and their online activity by looking at one of their largest forums, but is primarily focused on the subculture and individuals rather than the specific site — something that is made particularly clear by this source's decision not to even name the forum. As for the Mashable article, that is already used in this article. It is at least a source that is more about the website than about the incel phenomenon, but I don't think it's enough to confer notability without some other sources (preferably from more reliable sources, see WP:RSP#Mashable) like it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the site is not explicitly named in the source then the source is not usable. I removed at least a couple sources along with the related content when reviewing the draft because the site was not named, therefore failed WP:V (much less notability). S0091 (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep — Incel is a pretty long article, I don't see the harm in this being repurposed to a {{main}} for the subtopic of incel online communities more generally, including the subreddit it spawned from, but I don't feel strongly about whether the website itself (on its various domain names) is itself notable and have no real desire to read the handful of academic papers mentioned above in order to form a stronger opinion either way. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input... since it's unclear if the article should be kept or merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RELART which tells us to keep a related article if it is itself notable, and per WP:GNG of the sources about the website. Also, WP:NOMERGE. The main article is very large and has a scope problem. If anything, minding WP:OR, the sources in common should be used to talk about this website, but not the whole terrorist movement. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on your first edit. How did you find this discussion? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article is very large...
    Incel is medium length and incels.is is a stub.
    ...and has a scope problem.
    If it was about the term itself, incels.is would be out of scope, but the topic is the online subculture and its effects as described in the lede, and this is stuck to throughout the article. small jars tc 12:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page is start class (more than 150 words of prose; not a stub). The main article is 8500 words readable prose, which according to WP:SIZERULE can justify splitting based on size alone. Hencewhy I am suggesting following WP:NOTMERGE. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I admit I misjudged the length of incel (thought the reference section made up more of the text than it does), but incels.is is clearly a stub, and merging will increase the length of incel even less since about 60% of the content on incels.is is just contextualising information that's already included in the main article. So, if you're referring to the first <li> of NOTMERGE, it will not apply. small jars tc 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page is not a stub per WP:SIZERULE. The second reason behind WP:NOMERGE is content related. The sources are about the website and pass WP:WEBCRIT. Systematically generalizing this website to the whole notion of incel, as the main article does, is WP:SYNTH. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't get the prosesize extension to work, but the point remains that forum-specific content is skeletal. I'm not sure what you mean by Systematically generalizing this website to the whole notion of incel, but 1. the main article is not about the "notion of incel," but again, about a mainly online phenomenon, and 2. most sources covering incels.is are primarily about that phenomenon, so there is no OR involved in discussing incels.is in that context. Per all the sources on the article, you can't even begin to discuss incels.is without describing incels. This is about as obviously non-SYNTH as it gets. small jars tc 17:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sourced content about this website meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Per what is already sourced in the article, it supports the website's content, rules, history, demographics and relevance. Per WP:RELART, both articles can exist concurrently. There is definitely WP:OR generalization in the main article since per nomination it uses sources from here, yet I do not see the website mentioned anywhere except the Incel#See also section. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's mentioned repeatedly in the incel article, just not named explicitly (per the approach taken by multiple sources that mention the site, such as the CCDH study). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            @GorillaWarfare (or anyone) if the result is merge, then I am assuming the site would be named in the incel article. Is that correct? S0091 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            That's probably a separate discussion (which I imagine could be hashed out on the article talk page rather than AfD). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            This would certainly lead to weasel words and even more WP:OR generalization in the main article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Comment: I have just verified that all the sources about the website currently on this article mention the website by name. This seems to only pertain to the CCDH study mentioned above. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Hi IP, can you point to three that are about the site rather than it being used as an example to extrapolate information about the overall incel community? Mind you, I am the reviewer who accepted the draft and struggled with the crossover with main article. At the end of the day decided it was borderline and the community should decide so here we are. S0091 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To clarify, when I said above "per the approach taken by multiple sources that mention the site, such as the CCDH study" I was referring to sources used in Incel, not in Incels.is. Taking a quick look through the sources in the .is article right now, your claim is mostly accurate, with the exception of citation #8 (Scroll.in) and #17 (Salon), which are more auxiliary sources used for claims made about incels more broadly.
I'm not sure what you mean about weasel words and "OR generalization", though. Generalization is not OR, it's a part of writing encyclopedic content from a multitude of sources. WP:SYNTH would of course be inappropriate, but I don't see why that would be a certain outcome of not mentioning the site's URL. But again, this is probably something that should be sussed out after the decision is made on whether to keep this article or not, in order to avoid wasting time debating something that may become a moot point, and to avoid making this already long discussion even longer. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Media coverage:
  • [ref 1] The site is the largest incel forum, examples of posts, characteristics of site content. Talks about its administration.
  • [ref 23] Talks about the conflict between Jack Richard Peterson and the site. Talks about the nature of site content.
  • [ref 12] Article dedicated to the website. Site suspension as a result of content violations. Describes site content as "pedophilic, pro-rape" and as a successor to r/incels.
  • [ref 9] Article dedicated to a former member of the site. Characterizes the mixed forum response to that ex member leaving.
Scholarly coverage:
  • [ref 3] (Proceedings of the ACM on HCI) Explains the factors behind this site's moderation.
  • [ref 5] (Gender and Society) Overview of the website. Change in domain names. Website demographic stats. Site rules.
Note that I did not do an exhaustive source analysis but that is more than enough to justify the website's presumed notability. More sources (in this article and elsewhere like at Jack Richard Peterson or Incel) exist. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, when someone asks specifically for three, only given them three and make them the best three. I am not going through all of those so out of the ones you provided, which three are the best. You can just give the footnote numbers. S0091 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that to avoid a formal fallacy while disproving non-notability, a full source analysis is needed. But I am pretty confident of the sources I provided, you can check the first three for instance. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 & 5 put things in the context of the longer-term history of incels online. 23 & 9 are primarily about individual self-identified incels. As I've already said, 3 is the sort of thing the article needs, but it's not enough on its own. Refer to GW's reply to AK above for 12. Given the overlap in coverage and the need for context, I imagine the best possible article on incels.is would be almost identical to our already existing article on incel culture in general, with the addition of explicit reference to the current name of the site. By keeping we are just directing readers away from a more informative resource. small jars tc 23:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policy relevant to your concern can be read at WP:RELART and WP:NOMERGE. If WP:GNG is satisfied, we can keep overlapping articles. I have provided evidence of 3+ WP:RS talking about the website in depth (regardless if they also talk about incel or not). Fundamentally, those guidelines are there so that you have enough material to write an article with. In the sources I have given, there is more usable information pertaining to the site demographics, site history and style of content posted on there. Even then, this article is currently larger than stub level and stays on topic. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I imagine the best possible article on incels.is would be almost identical to our already existing article on incel culture in general". Once again, the sources do talk about the website in depth, since "no WP:OR was needed to extract their content" for the incels.is article. This is the definition at WP:WHATSIGCOV. This is why I was raising the concern of WP:OR at the original article. I would suggest to WP:GAR the incel article to solve this issue. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind raising your OR concerns about Incel at the talk page of that article? I'm interested in learning more about what your concerns are, but don't want to derail this conversation with a tangential one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In addition to WP:NOTMERGE, WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CONTENTSPLIT, I would suggest reading the essay at WP:OTHERCONTENT, in particular The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article. All in all, the argument given to merge seems to contradict policy and precedent, especially since there is stand-alone WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for the website. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick q: Are you the same editor as the IP above (130.156.160.91)? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and small jars. After reviewing (re-reviewing in some cases) many of the sources cited here along with the coverage in main article, Incels, I find there is only scant information covered in Incels.is that is not already comprehensively covered in the main article. Although I am not opposed to merging (or redirecting) there is not much to merge really other the than the name of the site. I also find IP 2001:48F8's arguments unconvincing and comes across as throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Ultimately, the only source that is explicitly about the site rather than the subculture or forums is Mashable which is not enough to meet GNG thus does not warrant a stand-alone article, at least at this time. S0091 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is based on the existence of sourced material not on the current state of the article. Ultimately, the only source that is explicitly about the site rather than the subculture or forums is Mashable which is not enough to meet GNG thus does not warrant a stand-alone article, at least at this time. That is a falsehood for the purpose of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, which the reviewer can verify in my or someone other's subsequent source analysis. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.
    You cannot expect me to dig you up three sources, all to proceed with a WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type argument. In fact, I am not throwing things at you, I am referring to policy, which is what is expected in an AFD.
    In the course of this relist I have yet to see an example of policy that is violated. Meanwhile, I and others have stated reasons to keep this article from both notability/SIGCOV and size perspectives. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of AfD is to determine if a stand-alone article is warranted which does often take digging up sources so the community can make an informed decision and I did ask for the three sources. You provided six or seven of which I considered in addition to other editor's comments about them. I happen to disagree with small jar about #3 as I think it is mostly about Reddit/online communities using a couple forums as examples and most of the relevant content is covered at Incels but they disagree about Mashable which I think is a source supporting notability, even if weak but either way the article does meet GNG.
    The only policy I think you have cited is WP:OR which you used incorrectly as GW and small jars pointed out. Most of the others are essays or information pages with some having less weight with the community than others and for some you are interpreting incorrectly. For example WP:OTHERCONTENT is an essay and one not cited often at least in AfDs because it has nothing to do with whether a stand-alone article should exist. WP:GNG, a guideline, states: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. This is even if an article meets GNG.
    I also want to clarify I never said you were throwing things at me, which would be at least uncivil if not a personal attack. You have committed neither but you are skewing into WP:BLUDGEONING territory so I will not comment further as it invites often unhelpful responses. The closer will assess the strength of the arguments so leaving it in their capable hands. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ONLYESSAY. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add on, essays reflect past consensus (or else they are edited away) and are particularly useful here to avoid this discussion from becoming WP:POINTY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the topic at hand. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as before, see WP:NOMERGE. Quoting directly, this article is a discrete subject and the incel article is too long, and both are notable. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps don't make three additional replies after a second editor raises WP:BLUDGEON concerns. Just my 2¢. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per above reasons to have the article kept. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient sourcing demonstrated by the IP contributor. The first source they give, https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00026.jak is specifically titled "Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum", so it's not about Incels in general, it is specifically about this forum. It is not a "primary research paper" in sense of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that's about a paper introducing a scientific concept; this paper is very much a secondary source, as it didn't make up the Incels.me forum. With the other sources listed, these suffice for individual notability. With due credit to the nominator, who is deservedly respected as mentioned above, the Incel article is quite large (and well written!), and can stand to have a few independent related articles like this one that have standalone notability. --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can access more than the title, the abstract of that source states that The aim of this study is to shed light on the group dynamics of the incel community, by applying mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyse how the users of the forum create in-group identity and how they construct major out-groups, particularly women, which makes it clear that they are studying the online community in general and that the forum is just their point of access for data. small jars tc 17:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is cherrypicking. The previous paragraph (which you conveniently cut off), as well as the whole article both mention the site in detail. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mentions the site in detail" is an oxymoron. The point that the coverage is ultimately about the online community instead of the particular forums used at the time particular sources were written seems to stand for this source. To argue for keeping, either the relevance of this point to deletion must be contested, or sufficient sources to which it does not apply must be found. I think the former argument would be more productive. Personally, it doesn’t seem useful to distinguish between the phenomenon and the place it happens in, when the notability of the place entirely derives from the phenomenon, but that intuition may well not be backed by policy. small jars tc 19:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the core point here - there is just no real RS on "Incel.is" as a standalone topic (WP:BASIC will show that). Much of the above is trying to "bend" other RS into being about the site, when it is really about topics related to Incels, and Incels online, but not "Incel.is". Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of a site, it must be in itself notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but the number of sources like this that do include incels.is right in the title makes this a weird case. I think it's obvious that separating this site from the context that makes it matter is unhelpful, but I can't find any specific policy to affirm that. We need something like WP:1E for non-BLP topics like this. small jars tc 20:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) thanks to the comments of some more experienced editors below, I now know where to find the thing I was looking for small jars tc 06:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources have been brought up which discuss:
    • the website's history
    • the website's content characteristics
    • the website's rules
    • the website's moderation style
    • the website's admins
    • interactions between the website and some of its prominent users (a spokesman and an ex moderator)
    • the website's popularity (it is the largest incel forum, among others like 4chan /r9k/, r/ForeverAlone, etc)
    2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of the abstract (which you left out) reads: This paper presents a study of the (now suspended) online discussion forum incels.me and its users, involuntary celibates or incels, [...] 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does it say "Incels.is". Aszx5000 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Relaying what another user mentioned before I found this discussion, this is covered by the essay WP:COMBINE. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .me and .is are two successive domains used by the same community with (apparently) the same operators. To be fair, the first part of that statement is true of r/incels and the things from before that as well. small jars tc 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can't really find any material standalone notability for this site (and not SIGCOV profile to give standalone notability); like the r\incel, should be merged into the main article (or a list of other incel sites). Aszx5000 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there is no such requirement as "standalone" notability, see WP:RELART. AfDs are about this article, not another one.
    Consensus holds that whataboutism WP:WHATABOUT is a really bad argument in AfDs. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misreading that. To have a Wikipedia article on a topic, it must have standalone notability. E.g. RS that proves that it is an inherently notable topic. There aren't such refs on this site. WP:RELART is about having two articles sharing a similar topic, but that issue doesn't apply (as yet) here; although perhaps a FORK is yet to come. "Incel.is" is just not (as yet) an inherently notable site. No proper RS is doing article on it as a site, no real SIGCOV. You should adhere to the acronyms you quote. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the 10+ sources mentioned earlier in the discussion by me and others. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None are about the site "Incel.is" as a standalone topic (WP:BASIC will show that). The above is trying to "bend" other RS into being about the site, when it is really about topics related to Incels, and Incels online, but not "Incel.is". Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of a site, it must be in itself notable. You need to find a standalone article about "Incel.is" (as a site), not the topic of Incels, or Incels on the internet, for "Incel.is" to be a Wikipedia article. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false. A source was brought up called "incels.me suspended by domain registrar". And if you ever check the others (most of which have the site in their title), they do provide significant coverage about the website. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Incel. If there is consensus to spinout an article on incel online communities (as opposed to... subculture?) it can be retargeted, but not being a redundant content fork just means we can't A10 it, it doesn't mean we must keep every article that anyone decides to spinout for any reason. Aszx5000, if you're looking for the criteria as applied to spinout pages specifically, that would be NOPAGE and not BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Alpha3031. I didn't quote NOPAGE as my understanding was that this was about the issue of whether "Incel.is" was a notable site (on its own), which I think was getting blurred into the broader topic area of Incel online communities (possibly a spin-out topic per your comments). I think your suggestion is a good one. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a question: may I ask why you say WP:NOPAGE applies here? To me, the bullet points of this essay are to be contradicted by the above discussion/sources etc. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, let me bring up the bullet points one by one:
    • Does incel provide additional context? No based on the WP:SIGCOV above. In fact, the articles (if you read them) generalize incels.is to incel, not the other way around.
    • Do related topics provide needed context? I would say no, since the sources (if you read them) are about the website (history, content, moderation).
    • Is this page a "permastub"? Definitely no based on the source analysis giving 10+ sources about this website.
    2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    not being a redundant content fork just means we can't A10 it, it doesn't mean we must keep every article that anyone decides to spinout for any reason Deletion discussions are based on the page (this website) meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. You are essentially arguing that this page isn't a content fork but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to both IP comments above, the core issue is that you haven't provided enough RS that cover the site "Incel.is" as a notable topic (i.e. some level of SIGCOV). There is a correlation to the length of an AfD and the amount of RS proving the topic is notable/SIGCOV. Here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectivism, complex topic, poor article, but drowning in RS specifically about the topic. In contrast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Berndtson, no real RS, and the cardinal sin of all (and ironically for which there is no acronym), the Wikipedia article is the main plank of their notability. Save yourself time by just showing at least one (we need 2-3) RS that cover "Incel.is" as a topic (not wider Incels). If there aren't any, then the article will keep coming back to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are WP:RS showing notability (and also provide material to further improve this article):
    Media coverage:
    • [ref 1] The site is the largest incel forum, examples of posts, characteristics of site content. Talks about its administration.
    • [ref 23] Talks about the conflict between Jack Richard Peterson and the site. Talks about the nature of site content.
    • [ref 12] Article dedicated to the website. Site suspension as a result of content violations. Describes site content as "pedophilic, pro-rape" and as a successor to r/incels.
    • [ref 9] Article dedicated to a former member of the site. Characterizes the mixed forum response to that ex member leaving.
    Scholarly coverage:
    • [ref 3] (Proceedings of the ACM on HCI) Explains the factors behind this site's moderation.
    • [ref 5] (Gender and Society) Overview of the website. Change in domain names. Website demographic stats. Site rules.
    Those sources provide WP:SIGCOV. They discuss:
    • the website's history
    • the website's content characteristics
    • the website's rules
    • the website's moderation style
    • the website's two admins
    • interactions between the website and some of its prominent users (a spokesman and an ex moderator)
    • the website's popularity (it is the largest incel forum, among others like 4chan /r9k/, r/ForeverAlone, etc) 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as always, WP:WHATABOUTISM and "AfD size comparisons" are particularly weak arguments in AfDs. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From your list above (which is the discussion we need here):
    • [ref 1]. Zero mention of "Incel.is"; passing mention of Incel.co
    • [ref 23]. Zero mention of "Incel.is"; passing mention of Incel.me
    • [ref 12]. Zero mention of "Incel.is"; more mention of Incel.me
    • [ref 9]. Zero mention of "Incel.is" or any other forum names
    • [ref 3]. Zero mention of "Incel.is" or any other forum names; not really an RS
    • [ref 5]. One passing mention of "Incel.is".
    If that is the best refs you have on the subject, then this unfortunately would not make "Incel.is" site notable for a standalone article, and it would be a delete. Are there other RS that you want to present on the subject of "Incel.is"? Aszx5000 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:COMBINE, in particular Recognising when two sources are on the same topic.
    More importantly, your source analysis is patently false. To show that let's take source 9, which you say has zero mention of .is. Quoting leading some incels.is members to wonder if the site - created in 2017 after Reddit [...]
    Please note that uncontestably misrepresenting sources in AfDs is viewed as WP:GAMING and is considered disruptive. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are back to the acronyms. Just show me RS that covers the "Incel.is" site at a topic (and has some level of SIGCOV), and we are done. Without that, no acronym will save this article long-term. Even if it survived this AfD, it will be back again (and again) given how weak the current RS is. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misrepresenting the sources and have shown no indication of having read them (by the lie you made above). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Replies are mixed. Some want to keep it, some want to delete it, so I'm relisting to hopefully get better consensus on this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cheers! // 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The issue remains that none of the RS presented are on the site "Incel.is" (they are on related topics of Incels or online Incels), and we have no - as yet - evidence that the site "Incel.is" is notable (i.e. no SIGCOV). It is an emotive topic, and there are walls of text on everything other than producing RS that show the "Incel.is" site has SIGCOV (Personal attack removed). Lets give it another week to see if such RS can be found that has SIGCOV on the site "Incel.is". Aszx5000 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Here are WP:RS showing notability (and also provide material to further improve this article):
    Media coverage:
    • [ref 1] The site is the largest incel forum, examples of posts, characteristics of site content. Talks about its administration.
    • [ref 23] Talks about the conflict between Jack Richard Peterson and the site. Talks about the nature of site content.
    • [ref 12] Article dedicated to the website. Site suspension as a result of content violations. Describes site content as "pedophilic, pro-rape" and as a successor to r/incels.
    • [ref 9] Article dedicated to a former member of the site. Characterizes the mixed forum response to that ex member leaving.
    Scholarly coverage:
    • [ref 3] (Proceedings of the ACM on HCI) Explains the factors behind this site's moderation.
    • [ref 5] (Gender and Society) Overview of the website. Change in domain names. Website demographic stats. Site rules.
    Those sources provide WP:SIGCOV since they discuss:
    • the website's history
    • the website's content characteristics
    • the website's rules
    • the website's moderation style
    • the website's two admins
    • interactions between the website and some of its prominent users (a spokesman and an ex moderator)
    • the website's popularity (it is the largest incel forum, among others like 4chan /r9k/, r/ForeverAlone, etc)
    The fact that they talk about incels.is can easily be verified:
    • by their title
    • by CTRL+Fing one of the site's names
    • by their abstract, if they are scholarly articles.
    • just by reading them
    2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To add, WP:SIGCOV does not need to be the main topic of the source material, quoting directly from the guideline's Wikipedia page.

    Yet the poster states The issue remains that none of the RS presented are on the site "Incel.is" (they are on related topics of Incels or online Incels) which contradicts the above. The sources are about the website itself regardless (see above), so this argument misrepresents both sources and policy. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And as already stated above:
    [ref 1]. Zero mention of "Incel.is"; passing mention of Incel.co
    [ref 23]. Zero mention of "Incel.is"; passing mention of Incel.me
    [ref 12]. Zero mention of "Incel.is"; more mention of Incel.me
    [ref 9]. Zero mention of "Incel.is" or any other forum names
    [ref 3]. Zero mention of "Incel.is" or any other forum names; not really an RS
    [ref 5]. One passing mention of "Incel.is".
    Are you reading these refs? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your source analysis is patently false. To show that let's take source 9, which you say has zero mention of .is. Quoting directly, leading some incels.is members to wonder if the site - created in 2017 after Reddit [...]. Furthermore, the whole source itself is about the website.
    Please note that uncontestably misrepresenting sources in AfDs is viewed as WP:GAMING and is considered disruptive. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add, I just saw that you are a new editor. I would encourage to take a look at the guideline WP:AFDDISCUSS. Roughly quoting, the goal of an AfD is to make a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and doing so in a civil manner.
    • You should take care to not violate all these points simultanously. In this discussion, you are telling people to stop using "acronyms" (ie. refering to policy), misrepresenting sources (saying X isn't there but in fact it is), and misrepresenting guidelines (WP:SIGCOV). Also from the above bad faith repeating of a falsehood, you are edging on WP:GASLIGHT.
    2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Er ... Aszx ... the nomination and the article are both very clear that all those are different names of the site. Second sentence of the nomination, right at the top here. You're basically saying that we shouldn't use any sources about Joe Biden that happen to call him Joseph. --GRuban (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They still correctly observe that all but one of the mentions to other domains are either passing or not there at all. small jars tc 01:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "not there at all"
    That is a falsehood which can be verified by anyone wishing to read the sources.
    "passing"
    They were enough to fully backup this article's content (ie. WP:WHATSIGCOV). The article is larger than stub level, per the size criteria essay and the article's Start class assessment. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please note that uncontestably misrepresenting sources in AfDs is WP:GAMING and is considered disruptive (eg. you claimed at least one source did not mention the forum yet this is patently false).
    There cannot be a discussion if a party lies about sources and the other about what's written on policy/guideline/essay pages. That is the common ground to any talk page discussion or AfD debate. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to keep things short: can you please keep the conduct accusations, if you have to, either on their talk pages or ANI? Was debating closing as no-con myself instead of participating but probably would have regretted it either way, don't see the point of the relist though. Anyway, re NOPAGE, was mostly pointing Aszx towards it but thought it was fairly clear its intent is that you put the smaller, more specific page inside the bigger one (obviously I was wrong re clear) but specific forum -> general fits first point and retarget/online communities fits second imo Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Addressing your first point, lying about factual detail in sources (is X present or not) and repeating those lies to bury the conversation when confronted with evidence is WP:GAMING. Likewise, purposeful ignoring of WP:OR practice (repeating .is =/= .me even after presented w/ WP:COMBINE) is also WP:GAMING and Wikilawyering as it argues the words of WP:OR against its intent.
    In light of how this conversation is going I would say it is pretty undue to refer to those as "conduct allegations". That is pretty much as concrete evidence as you can get.
    Now for the second part of your response, I would say a more precise essay to consider is WP:NOMERGE, as it talks about whether to merge or not to merge an article (which is the question here). I already have spoken about those points earlier. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To add, not pointing out that policy and sources are misrepresented would do injustice to this discussion. That's why I would say those (substantiated) conduct accusations are relevant to the discussion. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blocked sock and BLP violations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment: A few years ago, Diego asked me to write a Wikipedia article on the forum he founded (this forum), I declined. He even knew I disapproved of the forum as a whole. At the time, this forum wasn't even the third most popular incel forum. I don't see any reason to give these guys ego boosts and without naming them. They are essentially just people who seek infamy, bolstered by people reposting screens from their forum for Reddit karma. I can only find 3 non-academic sources which are primarily about this forum. Nonetheless, the incel article is bloated, and there should be a way to deal with that imho 2600:4040:4032:FF00:E0C6:5D5B:9497:7FC3 (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to let people know however that there is a mini industry of people now grifting off this forum (pro and against). It's not large, but they have motives to keep this site topical that are financial/career/status related, rather than encyclopedic related. So to cast that aside, I think it would make more sense for established Wikipedia veterans to peruse the sources rather than IPs. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:E0C6:5D5B:9497:7FC3 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has strong sources. Brettyboy93 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)— Brettyboy93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also a note that 'brettyboy' was one of incels.is' most active posters source, so it seems there are trolls involved in regging names. A reminder that this forum has no real issue with infamy, the owner keeps around negative articles saved about his forum, and brags about any negative media attention he receives as "winning", even at the seeming cost to his reputation and to the few innocent people seeking dating help getting wrapped up in their cult. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:B0CC:8503:D57C:8761 (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
xD dude Brettyboy93 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am abstaining from any sort of vote, but kindly suggest this be moved to a new article called r/incels (with ==incels.me== section), as this forum is just that with Xenforo, and there are a lot of sources on r/incels. Gorilla wants it all deleted, I think this article could be expanded, but no one so far has shown any interest to in this AFD 2600:4040:4032:FF00:B0CC:8503:D57C:8761 (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered, BBC made a doc which was half about this forum, explicitly named it as "incels.is" and everything. It aired on BBC1 and BBC3. It's called "Inside the Secret World of Incels". Obviously Wikipedia can't quote the IMDB page but I think watching and summarizing a BBC doc is reliable? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10733470/ Also, added a bit from Talia Lavin's book which has a chapter explicitly naming and dealing with the site, prolly cuz incel wiki called her a nazi 2600:4040:4032:FF00:F031:DC14:89B8:B33D (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back to propositions, as it stands the Jack Richard Peterson page is about the same size as the .is page currently. I encourage wikipedia users to evaluate every article about incels currently on Wikipedia, as cramming it all into a 40 page incel article makes no sense unless incel were to be trimmed down. Also having the Jack page but not a r/incels/incels.is page would be a weird look. Imho either both should go or stay, or be renamed, but having a Jack page but not an incels.is page was really weird for almost 3-4 years. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:F083:716F:5016:452B (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per the arguments made in nom and by small jars - the opening line of Incel is "An incel is a member of an online subculture [...]" (emphasis mine). We don't need to have a complete article on every website that serves a subculture - not to mention that the founders of the site say it thrives off of all the publicity it can get, because it advances their movement. That the article exists (likely made at the site owner's request) is a flagrant WP:SOAP violation. That the site is insufficiently notable (a position I agree with) has also been thoroughly discussed above. Also, a comment: this discussion has been thoroughly bludgeoned. Nearly half the text here is from what is transparently a single person, the self-admitted creator of the article from two different IPs, engaging in repeated gaming and personal attacks. PriusGod (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea for the record I didn't create the article but the New Jersey IP did. Nor am I an incels.me/is/co founder/operator/mod etc. Might make a Youtube video about this whole topic if ppl insinuate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4032:ff00:f083:716f:5016:452b (talk • contribs)

Diego had personally reached out to many people to whitewash and/or bolster his status years ago. I declined. Some people like Parallel Networks (an NGO created by former head of NYPD intelligence) accepted. At this point I don't think the presence of a Wikipedia article effects much one way or the other because everything is already out there now, in multiple newspapers of record. I do however share your skepticism that someone at least with status motives created the article, as users with odd editing histories like Trade and Kevinsanc were begging for this article in public wikipedia talk pages elsewhere. And the forum owner lamarcus seems to be amping up on advertizing for the forum again, on every level. Delete comments have some reasoning, but what do the "merge" votes mean? There used to be a section on incels.is in teh incel article, but Gorilla purposefully scattered that around in the article while retaining the gist of the sentences. In other words, she purposefully broke up anything concrete about the forum as an independent topic. And for reasons other than sock drama. What is the point of trusting someone with a merge who was previously hostile to a section in the article? If people want a merge, they should be explicit about what they want merged and how 2600:4040:4032:FF00:F083:716F:5016:452B (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was speaking about the other IP who wrote an entire extra article in this AfD discussion - presumably if Diego reached out to you, he'd reach out to others and eventually someone would do it. Merge, to me, means that there would be a subsection in the incel article that discusses the actual online communities that serve the subculture, that may potentially mention incels.is by name, but not necessarily. PriusGod (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think that incels.is' desire for infamy extends to being known for starting a 'suicide encouragement' forum in those words, which are the words 128.6.36.79, the incels.is article creator wrote. That extends into possible criminal liability for .is/SS owners or former owners. Think they just want to be known for misogyny and racism, which they've really never flinched from, even after the Epik hack and associated further articles 2600:4040:4032:FF00:71DF:80E:AA83:9535 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much way for me to rationalize .is behaviour. Some gangs want to be known for horrible things they do, other times they don't, who knows why. But I don't think 128.6.36.79 showed any bad behaviour or association with .is forum. The most is they may be associated with the grifting industry surrounding .is, which is why it makes sense for veteran Wikipedia users to familiarize themselves with the source material rather than random IP users. Previously, veterans didn't even want to read the source material, hence where we are now, so I'm sure there's some veteran out there who cares about this topic 2600:4040:4032:FF00:D27:8655:D0F7:3185 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway if this is deleted (ppl went on almost indiscriminate incel page deletion spree since 2014), should probably have a canned response ready for when peope come asking with the obvious question of why .is isn't considered notable. I wasn't the one to create the article, but certainly won't be the last to suggest its weird there's pages about incels.is spokespeople but not incels.is itself. True crime fandom people are obsessed with elevating this garbage dump forum, so would make sense to think it through instead of lazy reflexes and 30 paragraphs every 2 years. This topic has already been discussed like 3 times before over 5 years with no conclusion that could 'carry over' as it were because it was just a bunch of split second armchair opinions. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:F083:716F:5016:452B (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gorilla already published the names twice in incel, and there was already a BLP discussion on this which came out with consensus to keep and include names in various articles 2600:4040:4032:FF00:D27:8655:D0F7:3185 (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First off, those IPs don't show that
back to topic, there isn't going to be any great, new material in the (near) future, as it seems existing sources were exhausted. The only exception being academic articles. the question is if it deserves its own article or how to merge to the incel article if merge wins, given it was already broken up in the article2600:4040:4032:FF00:D27:8655:D0F7:3185 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are currently blocked by Bbb for Block evasion. See [14]. I agreed with you on what you said before though. To bring this conversation on track it would be useful for an uninvolved user to:
This would solve the issue of everything being buried in the conversation and help close the AfD. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::::No one wanted to read the sources for 5 years so why would people wanna do that now? All the votes against you are barely citing sources for a reason. Maybe you can drill down on that reason, I don't know what it is. Also I don't know why you, and the previous IP want a milquetoast article per your and their edits. This topic is about a forum which actively encourages crime and mass murder, and in public. So having a TV guide type milquetoast article is dumb. It should either go all out and match the negativity of the sources or not exist. There isn't room for a more positive article because no sources are positive. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:9900:F2CF:B698:BE28 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]

  • Delete or merge per GorillaWarfare and small jars, and per both WP:MERGEREASON #2 and especially #4. DFlhb (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why WP:NOMERGE would not apply here? The incel article warrants a split based on its size alone WP:SIZERULE. And both articles are discrete topics (subculture, website) with each meeting GNG. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quite a lot of changes are now being made to the page. I haven't looked through the new version of the article yet, but that would be worthwhile in case it dredges up anything relevant to notability. My vote remains the same on the assumption that previous, quite, um, dedicated, keep voters would have already brought up any game-changing sources. small jars tc 07:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article is more or less the incel overlap + Talia Lavin + note that Toby Young's Spectator article is deleted, and also presents .is as an independent topic. WP:MERGEREASON is predicated on, amonng other things, whether incel is too lengthy. If voters want more sources they'd have to dig out any one of the (many) academic articles which explicitly name or are on .me/.co/.is. I 'aint doin that work, nor do I know how Wikipedia treats academic sources. Altho not a vote, keeps are 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4, OwenBlacker, SapphireWilliams, and GRuban. If they wanna dig out sources they can. I don't like academia or what was the first version of the article 3BA4 wanted. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:3892:69F2:6957:EBDE (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if there are new sources brought up, those edits should be reverted since they were made by the above IP range, which was by Bbb23 for block evasion (also see Special:Contributions/2600:4040:4032:FF00:3892:69F2:6957:EBDE/45 for this range's prior disruption on the incel and Sanctioned Suicide articles). Also, all of his comments here should be stricked out per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I do not know the policy in detail but I believe some of his edits can be kept since he is a good faith contributor. Though from a quick look at it they seem to not uphold WP:MOS. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you have hatted PriusGod and Brettyboy93's !votes under "blocked sock and BLP violations". I'm not keeping up with the situation you're describing with the blocked IP range, so I'm not sure if this is intentional, but it seems like a mistake because I don't see anything particularly off about their !votes. small jars tc 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was sandwiched in unsourced WP:ASPERSIONS. I tried adding more hats but I couldn't get it right on my phone. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The range Special:Contributions/2600:4040:4032:FF00:3892:69F2:6957:EBDE/45 was already hatted by User:Freedom4U back in March in the Sanctioned Suicide and incel talk pages for block evasion. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstating my hatted !vote as it did not appear to have been removed from discussion for a legitimate reason 16:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Delete or merge per the arguments made in nom and by small jars - the opening line of Incel is "An incel is a member of an online subculture [...]" (emphasis mine). We don't need to have a complete article on every website that serves a subculture - not to mention that the founders of the site say it thrives off of all the publicity it can get, because it advances their movement. That the article exists (likely made at the site owner's request) is a flagrant WP:SOAP violation. That the site is insufficiently notable (a position I agree with) has also been thoroughly discussed above. Also, a comment: this discussion has been thoroughly bludgeoned. (Personal attack removed) PriusGod (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, by saying X person is Y other person without log-based evidence, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Second, you are misrepresenting WP:SOAP, since it deals with poorly sourced, puffery articles. The article is neither unsourced nor POV: in fact I heard here that it passed an AfC review, it was not just created out of nowhere.
    Even the page WP:AFD says Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not itself a reason for deletion. You are derailing this conversation from one about notability to one about ad hominems on the Keep !voters. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That the site is insufficiently notable (a position I agree with) has also been thoroughly discussed above
    You made your all your post to this AfD about ad hominems except this one WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE sentence. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently replying on talk to avoid a tangent forming. PriusGod (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*I change my vote to delete, B342 or whoever is gunning for a 'moderate' article instead of one which matches the negativity and content of the sources, and Wikpedia community is not interested in the sources enough required to keep it an independent article. Any valuable material can be merged, but its mostly overlap. 2600:4040:4032:FF00:61E7:D218:28EF:991F (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (blocked sock)[reply]


Comment: To bring this conversation back on topic, I wanted to ask the question why do the merge !voters here think a merge is necessary in spite of the length concerns brought up by User:OwenBlacker, User:GRuban and I. I have seen the points of WP:OVERLAP and WP:CONTEXT from WP:MERGEREASON brought up by User:DFlhb but I am not convinced by them. To explain:

  • Overlap cites "topics with the same name" (like Greenland island and country) or things like "flammable" and "non-flammable" as the chief examples. Here we have a website and a subculture (think bodybuilding and bodybuilding.com) so I believe the topics are not close enough to fall in that criteria. They are completely different things conceptually, a website and a subculture. The main article covers the concept which people identify as, popular use of the term, terrorist attacks (a good 75% of which predate the forum), and websites or gathering spaces like 4chan, Discord, subreddits and this. This article covers this website's history, rules, moderation, studies dedicated to it, interactions with three notable members (two of which have their own articles on Wikipedia). This is just too much extra stuff to cover in the already-large incel article. Theses and journal articles have been written about the site: having at least some of the info about this site disappear (and be less clearly navigable in the main article) would penalize the researchers in this subject area (or whoever else might require encyclopedic content about the incel subculture).
  • Context: if a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order to understand it. It then cites the example of a minor book character. If the "Background" section were to be removed, then article would still be well readable, since it is ultimately talks about a website and most of the info are this website's rules, suspensions from domains, rhetoric, which does not require any particular context to write about.

That is why I think there is no true WP:MERGEREASON. In turn, the criteria for WP:NOMERGE read:

Merging should be avoided if

  • The resulting article would be too long or clunky
  • The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles, or
  • The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting GNG, even if short

For point 1, I believe there is consensus for that, since multiple users excluding me have brought this up and the nominator is currently improving the main article to address that. For point 2, the sources brought up during this AfD give many avenues to expand upon (the two admins, the site's content, rules, history). The coverage isn't just one-off. Multiple journal articles were dedicated to the website, as stated in their abstracts (which is also pretty good evidence for notability, especially for a simple website). For point 3, the consensus on GNG was first acknowledged by the relister even before I came here. They wrote in their relist comment: For further input... since it's unclear if the article should be kept or merged. Aside from me and other non-established contributors (here), User:GRuban has appraised the sources as meeting GNG, and there hasn't really been a strong challenge to that (aside of WP:NOTNOTABLE assertions in the heat of the debate). The discussion focuses mostly on the need to merge, which I am trying to settle here. And finally for discrete subjects this article is even more discrete than the other as it talks simply about a website and not a subculture which spans all over the internet, has had violence attributed to it, has entered common vocabulary and the definition of which is pretty complex, at the very least beyond just being a single website created in 2018.2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other points to consider:
  • WP:WHENSPLIT suggests a split when one section is too large.
  • In his own article Jack Richard Peterson is only notable for being a user and spokesperson for the incels.is site.
2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR
The main article incel has WP:COATRACK tendencies and merging incels.is to it amounts to adding another coat. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New source released June 6th, which is about the site and mentions the site by name: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448231176777. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An omen that this AfD has been going on way too long. small jars tc 06:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the thing: IDK, the name of the site seems to be absent from the title and abstract, but appears as their source of data. Seems to be the standard model. small jars tc 06:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They say "of a popular website" in the abstract but name it thoroughly in the rest of the study and the figures. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The passage [...] produced by users of incels.is. We refer to this group specifically when we use the term “incel” throughout our analyses and discussion. is particularly relevant. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Analyses and discussion" does not include the abstract, so it can't be inferred that that's what they were talking about from the start. I think you would need the abstract to indicate that the article is, at least in part, directly concerned with the site for sigcov. (Unless the bits after the weird grey line are also the abstract?? I'm assuming that's just the introduction missing a heading) small jars tc 06:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic, but they managed to misspell it as "incel.is" twice! Papers need edit buttons. small jars tc 06:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph taken from near the conclusion:
Indeed, users on incels.is have already circulated a plan to address their potential deplatforming, while incels and other manosphere groups use deplatforming and censorship as “proof” that left-wing and feminist groups are targeting men by restricting free speech (Marwick and Lewis, 2017). As our results suggest that most men that contribute to incels.is arrive as misogynists, specific responses are necessary to disrupt such misogyny.
A sample of the article's data section:
The vast majority of participants on incels.is use misogynistic terms. We find that 81.2% of participants used at least one misogynistic term during the study period (see Table 1).
Other sentence talking about an offshoot of this site:
For instance, the incels.is wiki references many academic papers to advance misogynistic arguments.
Looking at it, there is SIGCOV, even with the technicality that the abstract says "a popular website". 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though the paper usually treats incels.is as more of a databank than an interesting subject in itself, you are right that it does touch on some more direct observations on the site. It's worth seeing what these claims are themselves cited to in order to search for more in-depth sources. Doing this with the last quote you gave, for example: it turns out to be sourced directly to https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill, which does not seem promising to me, but you might get better results from doing the same to some of their other claims. small jars tc 11:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This paper is already a secondary source. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point is that the things you bring up are not in-depth enough. They are brief summaries of things other sources said. I'm just suggesting checking those other sources in case they are RS that talk about those things in more detail. small jars tc 13:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth just means you are able to write an article about it without OR. The article may even be short since this is a discrete subject. That's clearly the case here, even with this only one source. It is not a "gotcha" term or an arbitrary moving goalpost. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might want to read WP:100W. There is much more than 100 words of coverage, even in this article alone. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, once again, this paper is a secondary source and coverage is measured by secondary sources, not "sources of secondary sources". If you find a newspaper article, you are not expected to "cite the source of the journalist instead". This is absurd and defeats the purpose of secondary sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not trying to debate what's counted as sigcov for the purpose of this article, as this has been done more than extensively above. Just trying to suggest a way that stronger material might be found. small jars tc 15:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this belongs better in the Talk page then, since you say the presence of SIGCOV is already settled. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per smalljars. Nythar (💬-🍀) 10:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nythar (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    This is becoming extremely disruptive, 2001:48f8:3004:fc4. On what basis do you think Nythar has been canvassed? You can't just go around tagging users as canvassed when they !vote against your preferred outcome. From what I can see, Nythar is an active editor who routinely contributes to deletion discussions, and if this is based on your absurd claim below that SmallJarsWithGreenLabels was canvassing when they merely mentioned this discussion at Talk:Incel, Nythar has never contributed to that article nor its talk page, so even if that was the case, there's really no basis to think they were aware of that discussion or watchlisting the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had this concern based on the del. reason being WP:PERX (where X is precisely the canvasser) and this !vote having occurred right after the canvassing done at Talk:Incels. Also, the contribution history indicates this user has "awoken" to post here (nevermind that I only read the first digit). So thats why I had this concern, genuinely.
    Anyways, WP:NOTAVOTE makes this a moot issue.
    To avoid this conversation from spiralling away again, I would like to redirect it towards WP:AFDDISCUSS. There are still unanswered questions directed to nom and merge voters about WP:COATRACK of incel and WP:NOTMERGE of incels.is. Also the sources already presented (and quoted) are pretty damning in giving standalone notability to the site. Yet there does not seem to be a complete response to that from merge voters, just picking apart some details. See above. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you are still calling the canvas notice "absurd", yet it fits three of the four sufficient conditions of WP:INAPPNOTE (biased, audience, transparency). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To add about the "transparency" bit which I hadn't discussed much earlier. The canvassing guidelines state:
    Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed. is characteristic of inappropriate notification. Here, the canvassing message was crafted within a talk post. It made sure to:
    • use tone to discredit IP editors in general, and levy incomplete conduct accusations (bludgeoning is rampant on both !voting sides here).
    • encourage a merge vote
    • link the AfD
    2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you can think this was canvassing, unless you really believe I conspired with GW to make an edit to incel that she would have plausible reason to revert, so that I would then be obliged to post a topic in line with BRD that would conveniently lead me to mention the arguments made in this AfD, which would frankly be insane when there are much easier ways people routinely get away with canvassing. small jars tc 22:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing is just linking to an AfD while presenting a biased point of view on a possible decision outcome in a biased location (which you have done), that's it. Tagging canvassing is not an accusation of bad faith, it is just part of the XfD (and wider discussion) etiquette. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the second paragraph: Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, so yes it is an accusation of bad faith. small jars tc 23:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reasonably say you had the intention to influence this discussion, based on what I presented above. I am just trying not to be rude.
    Also, I'm not accusing of anything beyond that, namely WP:POINT talk page posting: you and GorillaWarfare are just putting words in my mouth. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion (delete vote) has been cavassed at Talk:Incel. (diff: [15]). Also, I should point there is obviously WP:DUCK off-site canvassing for some keep !votes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48f8:3004:fc4:48ea:35ce:a536:b342 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look more closely at behavioral guidelines before accusing editors of going against them. The scattershot accusations you've been making are really starting to test the bounds of WP:CIVIL. Simply mentioning the existence of another discussion is not canvassing. Even if SmallJarsWithGreenLabels had posted an explicit invitation at Talk:Incel for people to come to this discussion it would probably not be canvassing, per WP:APPNOTE ("An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... The talk page of one or more directly related articles.") GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The passage that is considered canvassing is:
      If you can chew through the BLUD from some keep-voting IPs, I think that there is a general consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.is that the topic of this article is a culture and not "incels" as such, as stated in arguments made by myself user:PriusGod that incels.is belongs within the scope of this article, which have been affirmed by a few other contributors. Separately, I cannot find any direct verification of the definition given in the lede in the sources it is cited to.
      The expression "IP BLUD" is clearly biased (also clearly discriminates against logged out or new editors). The assertion "incels.is belongs within the scope of this article" quite clearly encourages a merge vote. Furthermore, it addressed to an audience that is in support of deleting this article (the nominator of this discussion). See this excerpt in WP:CANVAS:
      The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're suggesting that smalljars canvassed me, the person who nominated the article for deletion and has already expressed my opinion in this deletion discussion? Come on, let's be serious. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          It clearly violates the "Campaigning" section WP:INAPPNOTE. Also, it violates the "Partisan" section since it is addressed to an involved audience. It was not a friendly notice in form nor in content. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        First of all, I'm just going to call the accusation of CANVAS ridiculous and ignore it. To the second part of the complaint: I am strongly opposed to discrimination against IPs (which you can verify if you really want by reading my votes on the latest community wishlist). I've struck the previous wording at talk:incel and am sorry if my comment came across as insinuating of anything. My description was meant to be based concretely on the fact that all of the worst bludgeoning happens to have come from keep voting IPs so far. small jars tc 19:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        as stated in arguments made by myself user:PriusGod that incels.is belongs within the scope of this article, which have been affirmed by a few other contributors
        You are pushing to merge. The question here is merge versus no merge. That's obvious campaigning. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To help close the debate, here is a detailed source assessment for this site only. I have quoted specific passages that show standalone WP:SIGCOV. (update: I have rewritten the article with those new sources and removed extra material not about the site. The old version had unclear source names like ":3". Also the new sources now link clearly the founders and the different site URLs together).


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit Yes Yes per WP:VOX. Yes Site mentioned 14 times. Key passage about site: This kind of mass killer praise — referring to Lépine as a “saint” in one’s username — is part of the culture of incels.co. Yet in the immediate wake of another mass killing, advocacy for violence isn’t treated as a serious concern by the forum’s administrator. ✔ Yes
https://mashable.com/article/incels-me-domain-suspended-by-registry Yes Yes per WP:MASHABLE (non-sponsored article, obviously) Yes Source about site suspension. Key passage: On Tuesday, the .ME registry, which controls the entire .ME domain database, published a post explaining that they -- and not a domain registrar like GoDaddy -- had suspended the domain. The registry says the domain was suspended over anti-abuse policy infractions based on the promotion of acts of violence and hate speech on the website. Incels.me has been inaccessible since Oct. 15. [...] The domain registry says it was monitoring incels.me since May after being notified about the website’s possible connection to a domestic terror attack. ✔ Yes
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sympathy-for-the-incel Yes ? WP:DAILYBEAST. No consensus. Yes This particular site's ' rules and culture (does not allow femcels, which are part of the incel community). Key passage about site: On the incels.me forum, a stated list of rules for participation include guidelines that are stricter than most elite private clubs in America. No women allowed. No exception. Yes, this means that a forum dedicated to decrying success with women has as one of its primary rules a focus on enforced isolation. Other rules also brutally shut out any chance to provide advice or mentorship to other young men. A few months ago, when Peterson was using the forum, he suddenly found that he was banned from having certain privileges in the chatrooms. Even the incels, it seemed, were rejecting him. ? Unknown
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448231176777 Yes Yes Peer-reviewed article in a high-impact journal (New Media & Society). Yes Whole article about this site (url mentioned 39 times). Key passages about site:
  • Furthermore, we find that there is no statistically significant overall association between a user’s post frequency and their use of misogynistic terms, which suggests most users posting on incels.is do not become misogynistic on incels.is but arrive already endorsing misogyny.
  • The vast majority of participants on incels.is use misogynistic terms. We find that 81.2% of participants used at least one misogynistic term during the study period (see Table 1). In contrast, 67.7% of participants used neutral terms for women (e.g. “women”), meaning that some users exclusively refer to women using misogynistic terms.
  • For instance, the incels.is wiki references many academic papers to advance misogynistic arguments. While appearing scientific, incels frequently cite single studies, ignore counter claims, or cherry pick examples, such as citing a study produced by Vagisil to body shame women (Incels.wiki, 2022c).
 ✔ Yes
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3476057 Yes Yes Peer-reviewed article in a reputed journal (see Journal of the ACM) Yes About migration from r/incels to this site. Key passages talking precisely about this site:
  • one of the subreddits’ former core members, seargentincel, mentions that he had already discussed moving the community outside of Reddit with moderators. According to him, when the subreddit was banned, he created the standalone website incels.co, and former r/Incels members quickly organized the migration in Discord channels.
  • Our analysis suggests that community-level moderation measures significantly hamper activity and growth in the communities we study. For both communities, there was a substantial decrease in the number of newcomers, active users, and posts after the moderation measure. Yet, this tells only part of the story: we also find an increase in the relative activity for both communities: per user, substantially more daily posts occurred on the fringe websites (referring to both thedonald.win and incels.is)
✔ Yes
https://www.engadget.com/hitting-the-books-culture-warlords-talia-lavin-hachette-books-163023083.html Yes Yes WP:RS/P indicates Engadget as reliable. Yes Investigative journalism book with website as one of the subjects. Key passage about the particular site: Incels.co has the feeling of a barroom boast-off. The vibe is giddy but competitive—users intoxicated by the freedom of a space where they are free to express prejudice with as much violence as they wish. There’s a sense of one-upmanship that pervades the place, a desire to heighten the level of extremity of speech, graphic images rendered, racism expressed. It’s also a forum for the encouragement of despair. As in every incel space, the dual forces of despair and rage fight for space, but on this particular board, the atmosphere is heightened. One post was created by a user whose avatar was the face of Scott Beierle, the man who had shot two women and himself to death at a Tallahassee yoga studio. (talks about the difference between site and other incel communities) ✔ Yes
http://blog.nameshield.com/blog/2019/01/10/the-shutting-down-of-incels-me-the-involuntary-single-website Yes Yes Corporate blog of a cybersecurity company Yes Whole article is about this site's domain suspension as a result of terrorism connections (same topic as Mashable source) ✔ Yes
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2022.2129014 Yes Yes Peer-reviewed article in Terrorism and Political Violence Yes Paper's subject is incels.is. Mentions useful details about site itself, like linking the .co, .me, .is domains together:

An alternative to Reddit was created, incels.me. Incels.me was then suspended in 2018 due to violating the .me registry's anti-abuse policy and its successot, incels.co was refused renewal of their domain name. The most recent iteration of the site--which is essentially copied from other domains--is incels.is and it has successfully maintaoned much of its membership from previous sites. Incels.is' rules limit participation to those who identify as Incels or those who have swallowed the Black pill, meaning they may not identify as an Incel but ascribe to the ideology and are indistinguishable from other members.. It also talks about the site's discussion tags: [...] The third option, "rope," refers to giving up, either by ceasing all attempts at self-improvement and LDAR (lay down and rot) or through suicide. These strategies are common enough that they have their own separate discussion tags on incels.is.

✔ Yes
Supreme Gentlemen or Radicalized Killers: Analyzing the Radicalization Paths of Involuntary Celibate Killers and the Role of Online Incel Forums (Percich, 2021) Yes No declared conflict of interest in the thesis. ? Low-citation Masters thesis (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Though any conclusions made here are unreliable, I believe it is a reliable secondary source for basic info about this site. ? Contains info about particular rules on the site: incels.co has recently tightened its new user account account approvals as an individual now has to log in via their home WIFI (usage of public WIFI disqualifies you), asks whether the user is female or male, and to explain their situation. ? Unknown
http://rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/incel-civil-war-girlfriend-komesarj-1234724278 Yes Yes This article is filed in the "culture" section of Rolling Stone. Yet, WP:RS/P#Rolling Stone (culture) says there is consensus that Rolling Stone (culture) is reliable, albeit requiring attribution. Yes Article about an ex-moderator "Komesarj" departing due to having found a girlfriend and resulting backlash. Key passage:

On Tuesday, in a thread on the forum Incels.is that has since been deleted (it remains available through the Internet Archive), a moderator who goes by the name "Komesarj" announced his departure from the group. He explained that he has already taken several months off from the site to focus on self-improvement. [...] Yet many of the first responses were positive, congratulating Komesarj on "ascending." Soon enough, however, other incels were pestering him for more details, accusing him of "braghing" or rubbing his success in their faces, calling him a fake incel, and speculating that he'd made the whole story up.

✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my "keep" argument more concisely:
I think that saying: all sources about incels.is are actually about incel is as absurd as saying that all sources about patriots.win are actually about the alt-right. Not all alt-righters are members of that site, and not all of incels are members of incels.is. Yet both are currently the biggest sites dedicated to the alt-right and incels respectively. And both are predominantly online subcultures.
Currently, r/The_Donald's article (older, more notable name for patriots.win) is cross-linked at Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign. This means that precedent is in favor of keeping the site's standalone article, especially when it has SIGCOV and presumed notability (see my source assessment table).
In general, such merges are harmful to Wikipedia as it encourages turning related topics into one big WP:COATRACK article. The current incel article has only one passing mention of this site and is a coatrack of incel shootings, online incel communities, and the everyday incel term/insult. Reading it, I don't even know what "incel" means anymore (in fact this is currently a debate on its talk page). Merging this page too to the main article would make the article even more unclear to readers. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You somehow missed that your engadget source is in fact an excerpt from Culture Warlords: My Journey into the Dark Web of White Supremacy, which is not as much about incel.co as it is about extremist chatrooms in general, of which incels.co seems to have been the one example that happened to be excerpted by engadget among a multitude given in the book. small jars tc 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV,
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material
Your point contradicts the notability guideline. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your evaluation of the sources based on your inability even to accurately identify what they are or who they come from. small jars tc 03:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are just nitpicking a technicality in 1 out of 6 sources I brought forward to disprove(?) all the sources. It isn't even relevant. The book can be cited instead and this Engadget article then shows the book is a WP:RS. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have rewritten the article using the sources brought up during the AfD, adding extra coverage about incels.is and removing superfluous content not about this website. Of note: the new Zimmerman source explicitly links all the urls together. Aside from that, I have also WP:COMBINED other relevant info from the new sources. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a new report here:
https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/spitting-out-the-blackpill-evaluating-how-incels-present-themselves-in-their-own-words-on-the-incel-wiki/
talking about the incels.is wiki and incels.is by name. I have incorporated it the main article, along that of the related Gizmodo page. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have improved the article significantly to ~900 words readable prose only using sources which refer to "incels.is" or obvious synonyms like "incels.co" or "Lamarcus Small's incel forum". I think this should be enough to spin it off, since it is now 4 times bigger than the previous version. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 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 USL League Two teams. ✗plicit 00:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Strike Force[edit]

Miami Strike Force (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 for over a decade. Only found trivial mention of the subject or significant coverage of a law enforcement agency with the same name. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:51, 3 June 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! 06:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KTF Sports[edit]

KTF Sports (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)

Another contested draftification with zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches did not turn up enough other than routine sports coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof Froge1 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 3 June 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 00:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dan-Tyrell[edit]

Joseph Dan-Tyrell (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. Simione001 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dokya[edit]

Dokya (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 three-sentence article about a local bookseller created in 2006 without a single source.

I don't think this business is that big and notable, it is not mentioned in local reviews ([16], [17]) MartinPict (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After the changes to the page, I would like to withdraw the nomination. MartinPict (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Oldest and largest nationwide bookstore chain Thailand in the 1990s, whose fall has been the subject of many business case studies. The attempt at ascertaining their business footprint from present-day reviews is commendable, but misguided in this case as the subject is mainly of historical interest, as seen in this Bangkok Post article.[18] Thai sources are easily found enough.[19][20][21] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has been rewritten. MartinPict, please see if your position still stands. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul 012, now I have nothing against keeping the page. MartinPict (talk) 14:51, 8 June 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 00:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion under communism[edit]

Abortion under communism (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 page is may be culpable of wp:crosscat between Category:communism and Category:Abortion law. Wikipedia articles are not to be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", because WP:NOTCATALOG. (Previously, there was a wp:crosscat between Category:Abortion law and Category:Marxist feminism. This problem has been rectified.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatalSubjectivities (talk • contribs) 03:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. I'm interested in this discussion, but don't yet have a firm position. One question I have - you identify abortion law above, but the abortion under communism article contains more than current law, it also discusses the law of former states, and former laws of extant states. And it addresses the abortion positions of political parties. If this page were deleted, how would you suggest that material be handled? JArthur1984 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking.
    As you have rightfully noted, this page "addresses the abortion positions of political parties". These political parties have their own respective pages. Therefore, the material on this page can be transferred to their respective political parties' pages, hence need not be deleted, even if this page itself is deleted.
    Category:abortion law was not a category placed by me, but someone in the past. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, China, Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Russia, and Cuba. Skynxnex (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion was not listed in the log. So I have transcluded it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 19. Skynxnex (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I had not realized there were simultaneous deletion discussions for both Abortion under communism and Socialist perspectives on abortion. I am sympathetic to the desire to reduce duplication, but it seems to me the better approach would be to discuss how to merge these two articles, not to delete both of them. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A merger will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems, as stated above (and below). Hence, deletion of a resultant article may still be the sensible choice. Hence, there may be little need to merge, since merger will not eliminate the need for deletion FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Abortion was an important, even routine, form of birth control in the Soviet Union. It's even more important in contemporary Chinese history with hundreds of millions of forced abortions under the country's "One Child" policy. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note the current article does not do justice to abortion in those two countries. We should keep the article and expand those two sections.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant “delete”. This is embarrassing. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:10, 1 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! 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm not really a fan of the layout or the inclusion of parties that have never been in government - however with that proviso, I think that the topic is notable as an overview of Marxist policies in different countries. JMWt (talk)`
  • Keep with conditions - Maybe there is a need for a rewrite. A psolufmg.blogspot.com source; "Over the span of these 23 years, more than 2 million unwanted children, were born and at least 10,000 women died as a result" aftermath? context? I think that the whole article is surrounded by the issue of being too abstract. Also no mention of one-child policy. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 01:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it only discusses the rights, then it's "Abortion rights under communism", not "Abortion under communism". ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 01:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not and never has been a unified approach in communist countries. In the Soviet Union, for example, the laws changed greatly at different times. In this sense, the unification by political system looks a bit drawn. Khinkali (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems a useful article, though some more citations are needed. The article Socialist_perspectives_on_abortion also marked AfD should be merged into this. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

friendly note to those who support a merger of Socialist perspectives on abortion into Abortion under communism or the other way round Any merger in general will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems such as those which have been stated above. Hence, the resultant article is likely to still lack a reason to exist. As such, there may be little need to merge, since merger will not eliminate the need for deletion. But still, I am willing to listen to - and even accept - any rejections of my concerns. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one big WP:SYNTHbomb. "hey X is a communist country, and Y is a communist country, and they both have abortion-related laws, so let's put them together as though this is one big topic" is a form of WP:OR. Where are the sources which connect all of these to the central subject? Where are the sources about the subject broadly? I don't doubt there are some books about communism that mention abortion, but enough for a stand-alone list of countries? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:18, 10 June 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. The !vote count is close but keep arguments based on attention received in scholarly publications such that it meets WP:GNG directly refute the claims of a violation of WP:CROSSCAT, as meeting notability guidelines means that the subject is in fact encyclopedic. Arguments for deletion based on the state of the article or the idea that the article would only be valid if socialists had a unified view on abortion have no basis in policy. The suggestion to merge to Abortion under communism on the other hand, is perfectly valid from a policy standpoint: the question of whether the two topics are best presented together or separately has not been exhaustively discussed, but ultimately no editors were swayed for merge beyond the editor who proposed it. signed, Rosguill talk 03:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist perspectives on abortion[edit]

Socialist perspectives on abortion (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 page is may be culpable of wp:crosscat between Category:socialism and Category:Abortion. Wikipedia articles are not to be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", because WP:NOTCATALOG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FatalSubjectivities (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems a perfectly valid topic, well sourced and adequately discussed. We could perfectly have similar articles discussing Jewish, Christian, Muslim and humanist perspectives on abortion. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it is a long article, with many wp:refs. But being an article with many true statements does not mean that the article ought to exist.
    You are right to say that we could perfectly have articles on Christianity and abortion and Islam and abortion - in fact, as you see, these articles already exist. These articles' existence are justified. (Why? THe reason is that religious groups often focus on abortion, and even view views on abortion as highly important to their religions. Religious groups' views on abortion, generally, is integral to each of them. Hence these articles on Religion and abortion are Not guilty of wp:crossref.) However, it is very difficult to argue that 'socialist' groups' views on abortion is integral to each of their socialism. Therefore, Wikipedia's rejection of wp:crosscat safeguards wikipedia from having articles like 'Direct Democracy and abortion', or 'Realpolitik and abortion'. As such, there are grounds for this article to be deleted, regardless of how true the statements inside them are.
    You may be worrying, that the well sourced research will be utterly wasted if this page is deleted. You are right to oppose such wastage. However, the research and all the wp:refs will not have to be deleted even if this page is deleted. How so? The reason is that this page addresses the abortion positions of various governments. These governments have their own respective wikipedia pages. Therefore, the material on this page can be distributed to their respective governments' pages, hence need not be lost, even if this page itself is deleted. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting out your reasoning but I don’t agree with it. The right to abortion featured prominently in the political programme of Marxist parties in the early 20th century and in most instances the right to abortion was first established when communists took power. It is thus not at all very difficult to argue that 'socialist' groups' views on abortion is integral to each of their socialism. There is nothing in common between “Socialist perspectives on abortion” as a topic and the ones you suggest - “Realpolitik and abortion” or “Direct democracy and abortion” which I agree are non-topics. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your inputs, however, one may beg to differ on multiple points.
1. Yes, perhaps the right to abortion may have been featured prominently in some parties - but not others, as we may agree of the Russian government (between the October 1917 Revolution and 1920, and for a substantial portion of the earlier half of the 20th century), as this article itself states.
2. Furthermore, any purported correlation between "socialism" (a class of "economic and political theories or movements"[1] or a "social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources"[2]) and abortion-rights policy does not imply causation. We can agree that economic ideology may be, indeed, one cause of abortion-rights policy; nevertheless, we can also agree that there are many other historical causes. Socialist-leaning governments' abortion-rights policy is contingent on many factors, rather than a logically necessary result of socialism.
Therefore, as one reading this article itself would understand, "Socialist parties can have diverging perspectives regarding the importance" of "abortion", rather than a unified priority on the abortion debate (not to mention a unified upholding of one single answer to the debate) and in particular, a Marxist group "may deem abortion as a secondary issue"

Nevertheless, one may respond to the sentence before, "But this article, at its very core, is not about 'Socialism (itself, per se) and abortion', but about 'Perspectives on abortion by political groups, politicians, and historical figures who are socialist'. Therefore, although 'socialism' and 'abortion' do not have an integral, inherent, innate, essential and necessary connection, Wikipedia is still obliged to host this page." We may largely agree with this claim. But this is precisely why we may agree that this article's intersecting of Category:socialism and Category:Abortion is incidental and trivial, and therefore culpable, at the very heart, of wp:crosscat, which is a specific commission of Cataloguing.[3] FatalSubjectivities (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, some content is in the process of being cut and paste into different pages
/ FatalSubjectivities (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had not realized there were simultaneous deletion discussions for both Abortion under communism and Socialist perspectives on abortion. I am sympathetic to the desire to reduce duplication, but it seems to me the better approach would be to discuss how to merge these two articles, not to delete both of them. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We all can agree that reducing duplication is good. However, that is not the primary reason for the deletion discussion in the first place. The primary reason is that the Wikipedia ought not be made to hold pages with wp:crosscat, and that WP:NOTCATALOG. May I ask why do you suggest that the better approach would be to discuss how to merge these two articles? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The communist countries (as in the "Abortion under communism" article) arise in the Marxist tradition. Marxism is part of the broader intellectual tradition of socialism (a subset, sometimes referred to as "scientific socialism" in contrast to "utopian" socialism). There is necessarily conceptual overlap in the two articles as a result. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A merger will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems, as stated above. Hence, deletion of a resultant article may still be the sensible choice. Hence, there may be little need for a merger, since a merger will not eliminate the need for deletion. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Communism is a subset of socialism and abortion was a major feature in some communist countries. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion under communism -- I !voted to keep that article. However, with this article, if we subtract those communist countries from the more general pool of socialist countries, what's left is an unfocused grab bag of different non-marxist communist countries with no particular connection between socialism and their abortion policies. As the nominator, FatalSubjectivities, has noted, this remaining information can be merged into those countries' individual articles. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: after reviewing the individual articles on abortion in China and in Russia, I subsequently changed my !vote to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abortion under communism. The individual articles were just so much stronger. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
  2. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
  3. ^ Wikipedia does not accept

    Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y"

    — WP:NOTCATALOG
  • Delete. Other than political ideologies that incorporates eugenics or religious doctrines into themselves, most political ideologies don't have a fix stand on abortion. While there are many research papers into the history of abortion in Socialist countries, there does not seem to be much focus in making a connection between the Socialist ideology as a whole and the practice of abortion. Honestly this article look really out of place in the "Issues" part of the Abortion Template. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion and the related AFD could benefit from more consideration if one or both of the articles should be kept, merged or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - way too general a topic to have any practical hope of being a useful page without WP:OR or being a bad university essay or being incredibly biased. There are many different socialist political parties and even if one only considers the parties which have been in government they have a very wide variety of views on almost everything. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you do not like to read blunt opinions, stop right here. This is a lousy article. The quality is quite shocking. So much so that there is no need to research if the topic could be notable. The problem is beyond cleanup from which I do not shy away. Whether the topic could be notable or not, this article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale in this case is WP:TNT. There may of course be a root-cause story here that could invalidate the topic. However, since TNT applies, deeper diving is not strictly necessary. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of the delete voting seems to be based on the opinion that perspectives on abortion are not integral to socialism in the same way as they are to specific religions. Socialism doesn’t take a dogmatic view on abortion but free access to healthcare and family planning absolutely was one of the central planks of the socialist movement in Europe and the USA. The writings of activists such as Margaret Sanger, Alexandra Kollontai and Klara Zetkin make their positions on abortion clear. The KPD campaigned actively against Germany’s anti-abortion laws. It is not correct to suggest that the socialist movement didn’t have a coherent body of thought, sustained campaigns and extensive writing about abortion over many decades. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as you have rightfully understood, although "clear" positions on abortion existed in the socialism-aligned "movement" in Europe and the USA, "Socialism" itself, on the other hand, "doesn’t take a dogmatic view on abortion". FatalSubjectivities (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see why the lack of single-minded zealotry implies that the well-documented perspectives of the socialist movement aren’t a valid article subject. Mccapra (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its not really about validity, IMO. It is about the practicality of writing said article without bias. Which, in my view, is impossible due to the massive breadth of the subject JMWt (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this seems well researched and interesting. However often the citations needed verification and the text made to follow the citations better: I checked the sentence They also advised minority women to have abortions, as they wanted women to have a minimum of two children in a heterosexual white family and found that this specifically refers to a Czech policy on Roma pregnancies, while the sentence applies it indiscriminantly to "the socialist state." That is sloppy. So I think it is better to merge this page with Abortion_under_communism (which is also AfD but should be kept) which has essentially the same topic.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

friendly note to those who support a merger of Socialist perspectives on abortion into Abortion under communism or the other way round: Any merger in general will reduce duplication indeed, but will not solve other problems such as those which have been stated above. Hence, the resultant article is likely to still lack a reason to exist. As such, there may be little need to merge, since merger will not eliminate the need for deletion. But still, I am willing to listen to - and even accept - any rejections of my concerns. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my Additional clarification: User:Rhododendrites has pointed out on another page, the issue of WP:SYNTH may result in thinking something along the lines of, "A is a socialist country, and B is a socialist country, and C too, D too, etc ... and they all have laws about abortion (and yes, indeed, there are reliable sources documenting these laws in each of those countries), so Wikipedia servers are obliged to accede to our desire for these to be collected in an article, as though these are one big topic". This mentality unfortunately may also be culpable of WP:OR.

In sum, as said before, abortion and socialism are not adequately connected or related for Wikipedia to be obliged to host it. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that this article is useful and provides a good overview on socialist stances on abortion. I also think that Abortion under Communism should be merged into this article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the article, Abortion under communism. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per GoldenBootWizard276's decision. CastJared (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a single policy that can be used to justify deletion. The rationale of WP:Crosscat does not hold up as this does seem like a very specific topic that has seen research done on it as the sources indicate. While work is needed, I agree with others that this article is actually in fairly good shape. This shouldn't be merged with Abortion under communism as it's two different strands of a ideology. Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can agree that that is beside the point. wp:crosscat, primarily, is not about the details of the article, the details' trustworthiness, and the research that has backed the details. Crosscat is about the heart of the article (exemplified by its title). We may agree that the lack of wp:notability renders this article crosscat.

    One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list

    — Wikipedia:Notability § Stand-alone lists
    Hence, References that prop up the page's continued existence cannot be individual socialist-aligned countries' abortion policy, but rather, about socialism and abortion as a whole.
    Indeed, "this does seem like a very specific topic". However, that may be precisely the issue:

    Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list.

    — Wikipedia:Stand-alone Lists' Appropriate Topics

    Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

    — WP:NEXIST
    Therefore, we may accept the fact this page is indeed a crosscat. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to add; Since we have accepted that this article is not about "socialism" per se and abortion, this article is an eg of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
    FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aforementioned Crosscat argument is valid and strong. Besides that I would like to add that there arent any citations dedicated on the topic. It might not meet GNC, and the whole article reminds me original research- because the overall narrative is not to be found in any of the referenced works. Cinadon36 21:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The quality of this AfD isn't very good - the crosscat concerns don't imply when there are reliable secondary sources which discuss the issue - particularly academic ones like this article, and given it's an issue discussed by a specific political ideology, it's a perfectly valid article to have on the encyclopaedia. Notability is almost always only about whether it's covered by secondary sources, and then reconsider if NOT applies - but in this case it easily passes GNG, and I don't see any part of NOT which applies. Also, there are a couple !votes above that need to be reminded that deletion is not cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does this article pass:

    all of GNG

    all of NOT

    wp:scholarship for secondary sourcing - neither biased for or against socialism, neither for or against abortion-friendly legislation, to be wp:reliable - propping up the article's sustained existence? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty of comparative scholarly literature demonstrating the topic's notability. That's it. GNG is not a very high hurdle. I've never seen WP:SCHOLARSHIP quoted before at AfD, either. SportingFlyer T·C 13:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm afraid that's kind of begging the question rather than answering it.
    Also, the GNG page itself demands fulfilmnet of the WP:RS standards, of which wp:scholarship is a significant one. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's easy - scholarly sources such as [22] [23] [24] (et cetera) clearly mean the topic has been discussed by reliable secondary sources. The NOTs that have been thrown around are completely incorrect - NOTCATALOG doesn't fit at all. SportingFlyer T·C 17:29, 13 June 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. Keep holds both a numerical majority and a stronger guideline-based grounding in WP:LISTN. signed, Rosguill talk 03:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland[edit]

List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second longest article on Wikipedia, for the sole reason that it contains 1,452 instances of the phrase "Not Allocated". Clearly this has almost no relevant or encyclopedic content and meets criteria 4 and 14 of WP:DEL-REASON. WhichUserAmI 15:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'll note this is basically a copy-paste of the official database available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisro. That should be linked at Statutory rules and orders or elsewhere, but since none of these individual regulations are notable, I don't see a navigational or encyclopedic purpose here. There's a similar issue with List of Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland, 2023, etc., which duplicate https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr, and List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1985, etc., which duplicate https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi without additional additional content or encyclopedic value to pass WP:LISTPURP. While Code of Federal Regulations has articles (of questionable individual need) for each chapter as organized by topic and agency, these at least don't list every single regulation ever issued. Reywas92Talk 20:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG and LISTN easily and by a wide margin. Does not satisfy criteria 4 or 14 of WP:DEL-REASON. Some of the individual rules and orders are notable, and the rest can be redirected to a broader article that discusses them (and the coverage of them in independent sources). More importantly, Northern Ireland statutory rules and orders are notable as a group. The present content of the article is encyclopedic. The list satisfies LISTPURP because it is "a valuable information source" and it could be made more valuable by annotating it. It will serve a navigation purpose once it has been wikilinked. This is a clear case of WP:ATD. All that needs to happen here is to either create articles or redirects for the individual rules and orders, or to annotate the list with further information about the individual rules and orders, or both. The outright deletion of this list would have the effect of removing virtually all of Wikipedia's present (navigable) coverage of something approaching half the statutory law of Northern Ireland, and would completely disrupt this area of the project for many years to come. James500 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is not copied from the government website: The listed statutory rules and orders were published in print between 1922 and 1973, long before that website was created. We can produce a better list than the one on the government website, which includes no commentary and is incomplete with random missing items. There is no guarantee that the government website will always be available and will never fall victim to paywalls, budget cuts, or censorship, or that it will never be used to invade the privacy of its readers, or etc etc etc. I am under the impression that our policy is to link first to our own scans on Wikisource and the Wikimedia Commons, not to scans on a non-WMF site. James500 (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Lists_of_Statutory_Rules_of_Northern_Ireland, Category:Lists of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, and Category:Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom exist. Are there list of laws for other nations as well? This does seem like an encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 11:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Those are nothing but (less complete) pure overlaps of the same material as the article being nominated. This is not a valid keep reason. Those should really be bundled along with this nomination too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly, list all the list articles for each year for the acts. Lot of articles like this out there. Anything passed into law would get newspaper coverage and be in legal textbooks printed afterwards. Dream Focus 18:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for UK statutory instruments, there is commentary on them in publications such as Halsbury's Statutory Instruments, and in legal periodicals and annuals, amongst others. The coverage is even more extensive than for Northern Ireland. Since the statutory instruments constitute significantly more than the majority of the legislation in the country, you will probably find coverage in more or less every law book published in the UK since 1946, when they replaced SR & Os (which were essentially equivalent). James500 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly per Reywas. I don't think I agree with the DEL-REASON #4 in the nomination, but it doesn't really matter -- this is precisely the sort of bare listing that stuff like WP:NOTDATABASE is meant to keep out (or WP:IINFO or WP:NOTLINKFARM, take your pick). The above appeal that "All that needs to happen here is to either create articles or redirects for the individual rules and orders, or to annotate the list with further information about the individual rules and orders, or both. The outright deletion of this list would have the effect of removing virtually all of Wikipedia's present (navigable) coverage of something approaching half the statutory law of Northern Ireland, and would completely disrupt this area of the project for many years to come." doesn't really hold any water. If the individual statutes are notable, then write the articles first, and then if needed, a separate list article might be appropriate, but not until then. Also, contrary to the above assertion, no evidence has been presented that this meets any sort of notability threshold like LISTN. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect WP:NOTDATABASE is unambiguously factually inaccurate and seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what the word "database" means, of what WP:NOT says, and of how MediaWiki software works. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not a lyrics database (emphasis added). WP:NOT does not say that Wikipedia is not a database. The MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses is classified as a database. Therefore Wikipedia is a database, and there is no way you could accurately claim it is not a database. The redirect was created recently in 2021, and the shortcut seems to have been added without discussion as a purportedly minor edit (which it was not).
    The redirect WP:NOTDATABASE is causing confusion and meets criteria 2 of WP:R#DELETE. The redirect is an implausible misnomer for the policy to which it redirects. The redirect should be deleted. James500 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the fact that it violates WP:ATD, the above appeal that "if the individual statutes are notable, then write the articles first, and then if needed, a separate list article might be appropriate, but not until then" is based on a mistaken assumption. It would be practically impossible to write articles about the statutes without having a list of the statutes first. In fact, it would be practically impossible to write articles about any aspect of Northern Ireland law without having a list of the statutes first. Those of us actually editing in this area of the project know that such lists are necessary. James500 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it bluntly: bullshit. Having this list is not a prerequisite for writing articles about specific statutes in any way, shape, or form. And NOTDATABASE very much does apply here. It redirects to the whole section, and I'm generally pointing to both this and to other aspects of WP:NOT to paint a picture that this list falls under that overall umbrella. ATD does not mandate the keeping of this. You're engaging in some heavy wikilawyering here and arguing over the semantics of "database" instead of arguing why this article should be kept. There's no evidence of notability and it serves no navigational purpose, so it doesn't get a pass on those either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are using "NOTDATABASE" and the other shortcuts as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:ATD specifically says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". That is clearly the case here.
    As for LISTN, you can start with the coverage in the Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, the Digest of Northern Ireland Law, the Irish Law Times, and the Irish Jurist, amongst others. James500 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have suggested at the article's talk page that instead of deletion, the article could be disambiguated, split up to distincly separate time periods such as a List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland from 1930-1939, List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland from 1940-1949, etc. in order to reduce the amount of content presented in the one article. Suggested also was the removal of all instances of "Not Applicable", and the inclusion of a disclaimer which would notify the reader that any gaps in the sequential order of the list should be interpreted as not being applicable. This would also serve to reduce the amount of spam in the article and lower the size of the entire text by about 42,000 bytes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhichUserAmI (talk • contribs)
    • I have no problem with any of that. When it was created in 2006, this page was originally about 6kB long. Most of the new content was added in 2021. James500 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep per James500's decision. CastJared (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page after splitting into smaller articles. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep individual entries do not need to be notable in the list, and the list is a valuable addition of encyclopedic content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 13 June 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. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 14:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Jae Chong[edit]

Kobe Jae Chong (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)

Contested PROD. Non-professional player who has not received significant coverage. The best I can find is this, which is decent but in local media and not enough on its own. There is something similar in the Sun but that can't be used. GiantSnowman 12:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bizarre nomination... clearly notable footballer with ongoing career and many sources... why trying to delete all of User:Dietermueller76's articles... I found [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (3 pages long), [33], among many many more sources. Young player with ongoing career... Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 1 is non-RS; source 2 was mentioned in my nomination as being OK; source 3 is the Sun and cannot be used; source 4 is a blog; source 5 is OK; source 6 looks to be routine transfer?; source 7 is an interview; source 8 same as source 6; source 9 is routine transfer news. Overall still not enough in my view. GiantSnowman 16:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source 1 is not unreliable... how is source 2 somehow "unable to be used" - The Sun is reliable for non-gossip/speculation sports reporting... source 4 is a "blog" from a journalism graduate with 250000 hits and 20000 Twitter followers... source 6 routine is not "routine transfer news"... and source 7 has secondary coverage with the interview... On top of that, he is young and has an ongoing career... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun cannot be used - the other sources are not enough - his 'ongoing' career is in the seventh tier of English football! GiantSnowman 17:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the Sun is reliable for non-gossip/speculation sports reporting... My other points about the sources above still stand... He is young and has an ongoing career and most likely will progress higher and gain more coverage (as if the coverage he has already gotten somehow isn't enough)... and even for a "guy in the seventh tier of English football", he has gotten a lot of coverage already while playing there! Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THESUN says otherwise - and you have yet to explain how the sources are reliable. Your 'he will progress' is pure crystalballery. GiantSnowman 17:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman if you agree that sources 2 and 5 are okay, shouldn't that be enough to keep the article? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said 'ok', not 'perfect'. As I also stated above, "overall still not enough in my view". GiantSnowman 17:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source 1 is not unreliable... How, after all this time, are you still unable to recognize obvious SPS? JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 5 June 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 Kerberos (protocol). Star Mississippi 14:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket (IT security)[edit]

Ticket (IT security) (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)

Definitely nothing to do with Issue tracking systems mentioned in dePROD Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 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 00:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abijah Rivers[edit]

Abijah Rivers (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 think this article fails to meet GNG. The subject played a few games for the Cayman Islands national team. I can find no significant coverage, just passing mentions in match reports etc

A search of online resources, the Cayman Compass and Caymanian Times produces nothing of significance.

This article's PROD was removed without explanation by Ortizesp as part of a mass dePROD. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:43, 3 June 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elly Barnes[edit]

Elly Barnes (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 am recommending deletion of this page as it is out-dated and the sources are very old. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, if someone was once notable, they remain notable, and old sources can be just as reliable as new. This is an obviously notable person at multiple levels, as activist, author, educator. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It is still notable. Agreed with Elemimele. CastJared (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have made some quick updates to the article and added a variety of sources, and there appears to be sustained coverage that supports WP:BASIC notability as an educator and advocate. Beccaynr (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noting that the nominator created this article themself and has edited very little on other topics. Jules identifies as the chair of trustees of the charity founded by Barnes, so should probably not have created the article in the first place, but their request to delete the article now is strange. Notability is not temporary, so if someone was notable enough for an article (and note that the late-lamented and well-respected DGG moved it from draft to mainspace), then they are permanently notable. If the article needs to be updated, Jules should comment on the talk page with reliably-sourced suggestions for updates, possibly using {{edit-request}}. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educate & Celebrate where an article on the charity was deleted in 2021. Googling suggests that there does indeed appear to be quite a lot of controversy. The charity's website, perhaps unusually for a charity, does not have a "Who we are" page listing its CEO and trustees, perhaps quite reasonably on BLP grounds because it is in such a controversial area, so we do not know whether Barnes is still CEO. (Jules, or at least someone called Julie, is indeed chair of the trustees, verified at gov.uk.) PamD 09:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What proof do you have that the user is actually the person they claim to be and not an imposter? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None. I said that they "identify themself as ...". But my !vote is not based on their identity anyway. My comment on the oddness of the article creator requesting its deletion is valid. PamD 07:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I must've misread your comment GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of reliable sources and she was made an MBE. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:37, 9 June 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. Not a strong consensus, but no indication any input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monicha Nergaard[edit]

Monicha Nergaard (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, only local news coverage from outlets with low circulation, a national winner of a very tiny sport in her country, in that her country rarely sends any archer to the Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the subject is a four-time national championship gold medalist, and the article is better sourced than any other article about a Norwegian archer. Doremo (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A national gold medalist does not indicate notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 3 June 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 Qualifying industrial zone#Jordan. Target already contains much of the content. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying industrial zones in Jordan[edit]

Qualifying industrial zones in Jordan (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 nothing but a sub-sub-section of Qualifying industrial zone. The information has already been transferred to the main article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:50, 3 June 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 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Last of the Summer Wine home video releases[edit]

List of Last of the Summer Wine home video releases (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:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO, it's not the job of Wikipedia to provide a comprehensive list of every single home video release that can ever be purchased. Practically unsourced apart from the reference to Amazon Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE 1– “list with no context showing encyclopedic merit”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agbree with the nom and Drone. How is this encyclopedic material? This is just some information about release dates etc. Non-encyclopedic trivia at its worst. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The fact that most of these dates are unsourced makes it unreliable. CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 11 June 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 11:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quanergy[edit]

Quanergy (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:NCORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is more or less an advert. Also the company has gone bankrupt. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 08:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Majority of sources are company’s own press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has issues, but there is some coverage (Axios is the best single source I could find). I have removed a bunch of the promotional and unsourced content; no vote on whether the rump article should be deleted or not. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sources in the article are self-published, even Yahoo News (reprint of a press release) and FastCompany (it's a company profile, for Bloomberg there's consensus to treat those as self-published). One (non-established?) source in the article deals with the bankruptcy, and Axios, presented above, does too. If every source is about a company's failure, we shouldn't have an article. This company is also not worth mentioning at Lidar or elsewhere. DFlhb (talk) 04:24, 5 June 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 reviewed, sourcing is found to be insufficient. Star Mississippi 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Berndtson[edit]

Anna Berndtson (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)

Prodded as "Non-notable artist. Content supported only by primary sources and routine/promotional coverage." Prod was removed on the grounds that Chicago Reader is an RS, but the article subject is only mentioned in passing in one sentence. I maintain there is no independent sigcov in RSs to assert notability. Jdcooper (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Sweden. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of references available through Google News: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Anna+Berndtson%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of references available per Eastmains rationale. WP:GNG also applies.BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has references, footnotes, non-orphanability, and is a fine article about an interesting and notable personality. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Huh, maybe I'm missing something? all I can see is promotional (primary) sources from art websites, and articles from reliable sources which are only passing mentions of this artist. Google News search mentioned above is more or less the same, no significant coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried cleaning up this article and adding citations. I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed that SIGCOV is lacking on this person. All the RS in the world wouldn't make a subject notable if none of the sources are independent, secondary, and in-depth. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after scouring for any Swedish newspaper articles I could get my hands on I'm convinced it is possible to write something resembling a bio. I'm unfortunately also convinced that all the coverage consists of passing mentions. Apart from two notices in Gotland papers (50-60 words each) there's only one article where she is the actual subject of a news article, from last year in Sydsvenskan at a mere 240 words (not yet added to the wiki-bio). I'll refrain from voting, but unfortunately it looks bleak from where I'm standing. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I have to add that there might be more than that in German sources, the "Tall Blondes" are still going strong. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seem to be rather divergent perspectives about the article's sourcing; an analysis of sources would likely help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tried to get something to improve this but no joy. There is no article in an RS on her from anywhere that she visits (i.e. some media SIGCOV as a notable artist). She does get referred to but not so extensively that she would meet NBASIC. Feels like her WP BLP is the main plank in her notability, but should be the other way around. Not sure there is much else to do here. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did what I could, for clarity's sake I'm dropping a formal !vote. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis: much against my better judgement, I've given this a go. It seems the table can only accommodate ten sources, so I've picked out what seem to be the best or most useful. Most of those cited in Swedish with no link I have not been able to find at all, except the two from the Upsala Nya Tidning, both of which are paywalled: however, what I can see doesn't give me much hope that there's a lot waiting there.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:UndercoverClassicist
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Note 1: Svefi.net Yes No Seems to be just another business, which has also employed the subject No Just a trivial mention that she worked for them: not WP:SIGCOV. ✘ No
Note 2: Chicago Reader Yes Yes Possible debateable: sells itself as "Chicago's alternative nonprofit newsroom", but I think good enough as an RS if not as a HQRS. No A pretty trivial (one-sentence) mention of one of her performances. ✘ No
Note 3: Shaw 2014 Yes Yes Again, not a major newspaper, but I think good enough? No Again, a trivial mention of one of her artworks: not SIGCOV. ✘ No
Note 4: Upsala Nya Tidning Yes No Local news, which isn't great on its own for GNG ? Seems to be paywalled, but no sign of her in the headline or obvious subject matter: on balance of probabilities, I'm not optimistic that there's SIGCOV here. ✘ No
Note 5: Platform Arts Belfast No An advert for one of her shows. No Per the above, the source has a vested interest in the subject. Yes ✘ No
Note 6: "I love geniusproblematik" ? Not linked, and I can find no trace of this source. ? ? ? Unknown
Note 17: Vernissage Yes No An interview, so WP:PROMO. The page itself doesn't seem to be much above a blog. Yes ✘ No
Note 11: "Vårlig sockerchock" Yes Yes Again, not exactly a major academic source, but seems to be a vaguely respectable publication. No Trivial (one-sentence) mention of one of her artworks among many others by other people. ✘ No
Note 18: Bergman center No Advert for one of her shows. No As above: clear COI. Yes ✘ No
Note 18: Tagesspiegel Yes Yes No This one is probably the best source cited: it reviews in detail a festival in which she took part. However, for WP:NCREATIVE, we'd need multiple reviews of that festival, and I'm not convinced that a whole festival's programme really counts as a single "creative work", so this still isn't enough to show notability. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Overall, there seems to be a systematic pattern of using sources which only mention that she appeared, exhibited, or performed in a particular place, which do not provide WP:SIGCOV. The only sources which do give more than a trivial mention are quite clearly promotional, either advertising her work or straightforwardly connected with that purpose. A major problem is that most of the Swedish news sources don't appear easily tracked down; it might be that some of those would change the equation, but equally I currently have nothing to vouch that they actually exist. I don't think WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE are met here, unfortunately.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they are fairly recent, Swedish newspaper articles are typically accessible only in print or through a couple of archives, like the digital archive of the National Library of Sweden (accessible at the National Library or at a limited number of other Swedish universities – Lund University has one (1) computer with access, for example) or w:sv:Mediearkivet. Doing a source review without these accesses will be confusing – we can't link to the archived material and they won't be available online, so that you get no hits is unsurprising.
However, the user adding them Draken Bowser, has left a delete !vote above, ultimately finding their own attempts to save the article insufficient. /Julle (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPA-translated, but the real problem is that there's no assertion of notability in the lede and the content of the article does not suggest any such compelling claim. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete source analysis proves WP:BIO not met. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the source analysis provided. Thanks! The person who loves reading (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the source analysis by UndercoverClassicist, and my own efforts (earlier above), I can't see the refs for her to make GNG, and no new refs have been presented. As it stands, Wikipedia is the main plank in her notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Daily Sun[edit]

Puerto Rico Daily Sun (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)

Short-lived (2008-2011) defunct newspaper that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it lacks WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We don't base delete nominations on something being "defunct" nor "short-lived" -- which "short-lived" is in itself a questionable personal judgement not based on any of our WP policies. Instead we judge notability on coverage, and the newspaper been widely covered in books [34], the news [35], even scholarly and academia [36] and others [37]. So it doesn't lack Reliably Sources, plus with all those sources available meets Notability as well. Mercy11 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to provide more than just general Google Searches to satisfy RS. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources of this newspaper? A passing mention in DK Eyewitness Top 10 Travel Guide: Puerto Rico doesn't cut it, particularly as the 2015 edition claims that the newspaper was still operating when it had shut down 4 years previously. While the first page of your "news" search: [38] just brings up multiple stories by Michelle Kantrow Vasquez where her details mention that she worked for the Daily Sun. Your "scholarly and academia" is just the same Michelle Kantrow Vasquez bio as for news. The book Casa Pueblo: A Puerto Rican Model of Self-Governance, just mentions a couple of stories that the Daily Sun ran, not about the newspaper itself. Where in Que Ondee Sola and the Luis V. Gutiérrez Congressional Archives is the significant coverage of the paper? We already knew the paper existed briefly, but you haven't proven its notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The newspaper with the largest circulation in Puerto Rico dedicated an article on the occasion of the first anniversary of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun. Yarfpr (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "article" [39] published in 2009 is paywalled, so can't determine whether or not it is significant coverage. You also haven't shown that the paper still exists. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The paper's inauguration was covered by The Associated Press (Danica Coto. The Associated Press. "English Language Daily to Debut in Puerto Rico: Roughly 15,000 copies of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun will be printed on Wednesday and about 2,000 subscribers have already signed up." 22 October 2008. p.1.) available at NewsBank and seen here. Mercy11 (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I did a brief search on Google Scholar and turned up "Convergencia, emoción y crisis: los periodistas en Puerto Rico evalúan su campo en el siglo xxi" [Convergence, emotion and crisis: Journalists in Puerto Rico evaluate their field in the 21st Century] here which is not about the Daily Sun specifically but more of the state of journalism as a whole in the country. Among other things, the paper identifies the four most significant national newspapers printed in Puerto Rico, of which the Puerto Rico Daily Sun is identified as one of the four. An additional source, also not primarily about the newspaper, is a doctoral dissertation here about protests and the University of Puerto Rico Student Occupation of 2010, that mentions, "The news media I utilized in this research were derived from four major daily newspapers—El Nuevo Dia, El Vocero, Primera Hora, and Puerto Rico Daily Sun; and two weekly newspapers—Claridad and Caribbean Business Journal." Combined with the paywalled article posted by Yarfpr, I'd say there is evidence of notability. This isn't a newsletter cranked out by some special interests in their garage. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the subject "directly and in detail", the sources provided are just "trivial mention"s. The paper existed briefly, it published various stories, that doesn't make it notable. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Nonprofit journalism a new trend? Frances Robles, Miami Herald, 28 June 2009, page 3C. [40]. 2. Co-op-style daily newspaper debuts. Danica Coto, Associated Press, Miami Herald, 22 Oct 2008, page 3A. [41] RecycledPixels (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Miami Herald dedicated a news story to the paper, which I added to the Puerto Rico Daily Sun article here. Yarfpr (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOWBALL. Notability isn't based on how long something existed. User:Mztourist has been told this numerous times. Interestingly, however, if notability was based on length of existence, then the Puerto Rico Daily Sun would still be notable: the paper printed more issues in its 4 years than Time Magazine prints in a quarter of a century. It's naive to associate notability with length. Mercy11 (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mercy11 GNG states that notability is based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Criteria that still haven't been met here. As you seem very focussed on one aspect of my nomination: "Short-lived (2008-2011) defunct" simply provided the context of the newspaper, but obviously a newspaper that published for just over 3 years is unlikely to have the notability that for example a paper published for over 100 years and remains in existence enjoys. Your selective number of issues example is completely irrelevant as that is not a valid criteria for notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criteria that still haven't been met"?...Excuse me, but have you been to the article since you posted your AfD? If you haven't, a visit might be enlightening. It has been edited about 10 times by 3 editors and, in the process, the number of cites went up from 1 to 7. If you have, then I am not sure what world you are living in that you are even talking about 100-year old papers -- notability isn't measured by 100-year-old WaPo and NYT. Please get real; there isn't a single editor who as little as gave this nomination a "weak support". And, no, there isn't any aspect of this nomination that I can support either, even weakly. Mercy11 (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already made your position clear. You were the one inventing notability based on comparisons of issues published compared to Time magazine. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 9 June 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 02:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Faith Paul[edit]

Meenakshi Faith Paul (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 enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor do they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 3 June 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 02:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Wolfe (choreographer)[edit]

David Wolfe (choreographer) (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)

Other than the brief LA Times obit, I cannot find any other in-depth coverage of this dancer/choreographer. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 3 June 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! 05:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lark[edit]

Adam Lark (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, as all sources are not independent of the subject, or are authored by the subject. A WP:BEFORE search produced no suitable sources. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:12, 3 June 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! 05:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Veld Group[edit]

The Veld Group (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, as all sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV due to not being independent of the subject. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:02, 3 June 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! 05:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Math Squad[edit]

Monster Math Squad (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 sources (sources exist, but are vague). Article was pretty badly vandalized by an IP editor plugging their own YouTube channel. For my recent editing spree (a string of edits on 5/19/23 going into 5/20/23 UTC), I used this recording of the show's end credits by an unreputable YouTuber as my primary source. Previously, Mimi Webb was credited as a voice actress (her career didn't begin until 2020, 6 years [unverified] after the show ended), and Mitchel Musso was credited as having done the theme song (it was series creator Jeff Rosen). Namethatisnotinuse Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is able to get access and evaluate them, that would be appreciated. Jumpytoo Talk 19:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think you reached the right WP:Library user here. The Kidscreen PQ doesn't venture beyond abstract mode, while the Newspapers clipping is far more substantial and discusses the show's sales abroad in its early segment. Bonus points if we can find a couple of reviews or more... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:25, 3 June 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 Junior Bake Off. ✗plicit 02:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Bake Off (series 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Junior Bake Off (series 1) (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 the merger decision per AFD discussion on the seventh series, most likely the first series of Junior Bake Off shall follow as well. Regardless of its notability or non-notability, the season page spun-off or forked from the parent article more than three years ago may likely fail WP:SPINOFF. Parts (if not all) of the page should be merged. Other following spin-off/fork articles shall follow as well:

Junior Bake Off (series 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Junior Bake Off (series 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Junior Bake Off (series 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Junior Bake Off (series 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Junior Bake Off (series 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

George Ho (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With six at hand, would like more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Junior Bake Off per SWinxy. If there was a paragraph or two in each of the articles, I would likely argue for keep if the sourcing was there, however they are all almost entirely comprised of statistics. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 3 June 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 redirect. The history is all still there if there is anything more that needs merging. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna[edit]

Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna (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)

All references don't mention her once. Fails WP:NBIO Dylan | ✉ | ✓  02:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand the point you are making. Please clarify. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
There are duplicate articles with slightly different titles (basically but not quite an WP:A10), that had the same content before I cleaned them up. I figured this out by looking at the edit history of the creator of this article - this is a WikiEd production. I added my research to this discussion because I wasn't sure if I was going to immediately work on the other article, but still wanted to flag sources that support notability. I hope that helps clarify - the subject appears to be notable, but this is a duplicate article that should be deleted, possibly as a speedy delete redirected. Beccaynr (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC) - update comment Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaan (Final Fantasy)[edit]

Vaan (Final Fantasy) (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)

Just like other GA article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soma Cruz, despite being a GA, the sourcing standards have increased and the article clearly lacking WP:SIGCOV. It contains mostly about the game itself and were mostly passing mentions for Vaan (at reception section). Again, GA criteria have no bearing on notability. One source [46] appears to be talking Vaan but might be trivia. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Characters of Final Fantasy XII#Vaan. Basically all of his reception is pulled from reviews rather than talking directly about Vaan as a character. Due to the trivial coverage, he is best discussed as part of a group of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article presently has issues, but from minor searching, I've found some sources, including this: [47] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reception is not the only possible source of SIGCOV. Outlets reporting on development info is an indication that the outlet considers that information noteworthy. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews from developers are primary. They do not in fact count towards WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not inherently primary sources, I made this point to you in a previous AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nm I'm a moron - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that the sources cited only contain passing mentions about the character. If so, there would have been insufficient content to write a good article about this character, which is not the case here. Axem Titanium made a good point about development info, as did Cukie Gherkin about the nature of interviews. Haleth (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I think it now passes, barely. So, I decided to withdraw instead. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, please refrain from withdrawing if there is still dissent. See WP:SUPERVOTE in the "withdrawal supervote" section. As the page states, "it denies the result of a basis in the consensus of other involved editors." Withdrawals should be limited to WP:SNOW keep situations and when there is very clearly demonstrated evidence of notability that no one disagrees with. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striked, I feel now that the discussion should be continued to gather more info and possibly kore sources. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus & other comments - sufficient sources exist. SnowFire (talk) 02:49, 10 June 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! 05:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kaloros[edit]

Samuel Kaloros (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 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 01:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Harvest Ministries[edit]

Global Harvest Ministries (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:ORG notability NM 00:57, 3 June 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_June_3&oldid=1159631155"