Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

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 move to draft‎. Consensus was to let the article be improved in draftspace, rather than deleting it (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 16:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Østby family[edit]

Østby family (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)

There's nothing in this article that indicates notability and I cannot find any mentions whatsoever on this family at all using a WP:BEFORE search. I cannot even verify if this exists. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  01:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the single reference used and the "literature"?—Alalch E. 01:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost every single one is completely unrelated, one literally being a danish-norwegian dictionary. In hindsight, I should've marked it for speedy deletion as the creator said that it doesn't exist on their talk page. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  02:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the single reference used? That reference being "Vigerust, Tore H. (1998). Adelsnytt: 52." As seen in Special:PermanentLink/1179123970 (can be seen in the References section). —Alalch E. 03:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 46.15.68.181 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page history is fairly preposterous. To be clear, an Østby family does probably not warrant an encyclopedic article. The article used to be about the Rosensverd noble family. Geschichte (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte: Yes, very. There was some discussion of this page's history in this Deletion review.
    The origins of this article trace to the Norwegian article Rosensverd.
    I think that this comment could be helpful:

    I would like to add that names such as 'Rosensverd' (a name based on the family's coat of arms) are contemporary names invented by historians for the purpose of easier identification of noble families that, when they lived back in the middle ages, didn't have any official family name. And historians today generally prefer the formula 'name of main residence/farm' + ætta (clan, family), i.e., Østbyætta (Østby family), and when the family's farm is unknown or ambiguous, they use the formula 'ancestor's name' + ætt, e.g., Torbergætta (Torberg's clan) or Sigurd Aslaksons ætt (Sigurd Aslakson's clan).
    — User:Brox Sox

    There have been disruptive attempts to remove coverage of this supposed or real noble family from Wikipedia in the past (disruptive in the sense of doing the wrong things to accomplish the goal), but I don't know what they were motivated by. —Alalch E. 15:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Prince GABRIEL of ROSENSVERD of The North Sea Empire T2020 Jubileum Standard Arms.jpg

Keep: Unfortunately, the article has been ravaged for one and a half year by a person presenting himself as Prince of Rosensverd, on Wikipedia known by the username Norges Adelstand and several IP addresses, including User:46.15.68.181 above. His disruptive behaviour, including his foul and yelling messages to other Wikimedia contributors, led to his User:89.8.149.65 being blocked for three months in June 2022.

To retell it concisely: First, the 'Prince' added a lot of fantastic (but erroneous or unsourced) claims about being royal princes as of 2023; the Wikipedia article even contained his self-assumed personal coat of arms in his 'capacity' as 'Prince GABRIEL of ROSENSVERD of The North Sea Empire' (see image). Also, for those who are unfamiliar with it, the said coat of arms is an outright copy of the coat of arms of Norway.

Then, when I removed all these claims in addition to changing the title from Rosensverd (a family name not used by the family when they were alive but constructed and attributed by 20th-century genealogists), the 'Prince's' response was to remove all mentionings of the name, arms, and members of the Rosensverd family—because he didn't want the name Rosensverd, which is his legal last name by deed poll, to be presented in a way that did not fit his personal agenda (so this is, by the way, an obvious COI case).

As far as I can tell, the Østby (Rosensverd) family has been extinct in the male line since the 18th century. It is possible that the person above is a cognatic descendant, that is, through female ancestors, but that does not make him noble—and much less a prince, a title never granted to the Østby family or any other noble families in Norway. His agenda is, nonetheless, to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting the idea that he is a prince.

My attempts to provide the article with brief but well-sourced information from my extensive library on the nobility in Denmark and Norway have stranded as I experienced and/or had reason to anticipate that the 'Prince' very soon would remove the newly added contents altogether or even, as he did in one case, illegitimately have the article speedy deleted, a case where I had to spend much time on having the article restored.

Thus, the situation is that the 'Prince,' without anyone stopping him, consistently has removed relevant information from reliable third-party sources from the article, with the result that the Østby (Rosensverd) family seems non-notable. When they, in fact, are a major medieval noble family.

I could fix the article in a couple of hours. But I hesitate to do so, because I know that the article will continue to be vandalised by the COI Prince. Nevertheless, my suggetion is that I improve the article tonight in order to establish the family's notability per the Wikipedia guidelines, hence 'Keep.' Brox Sox (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I see that I'll need a little bit more time to improve the article substantially. Thus, I recommend that the current article be transferred to my user space as a draft, or a similar solution. I do not recommend 'Delete,' because the revision history should be preserved, considering that the upcoming article most likely will pass the WP:AFCR review. Brox Sox (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought that this article had been to AFD before but it was tagged for speedy deletion and then there was a deletion review. For more information about the tangled history of this article as it got moved around the project, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 10.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reliisting to see if there are any objections to this article being userfied and moved to User:Brox Sox's User space.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: if the Østbys are a notable "Norwegian noble family", how come neither of the two Norwegian Wikipedias have an article for them? Any chance this is all a hoax?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete /draftify as an appropriate ATD in light of subsequent comments and replies/ and Brox Sox can get this refunded if and when they're going to work on it, in order to prove the subject's notability, as they've said. I was unable to determine that the subject is real or notable after an attempt to do so myself.—Alalch E. 03:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Combined response to User:A. B. and User:Alalch E.: In fact, the family have an article on Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosensverd I don't know why there's no interwiki. As to notability, I (who didn't create this AfD) am not sure whether the family really are worthy of inclusion on English Wikipedia. I'm in favour of this being decided by the AfC review, not least because I need to make a full literature review before I may conclude when it comes to notability.
Some historical context: The Rosensverds were among the numerous local, well-off families who were 'mass ennobled' in the late 15th and early 16th centuries by the Dano-German kings of Norway, most of whom—including the Rosensverds—never gained any national importance. They're certainly not a hoax, however. Regarding the name, there were originally two presumably related families, known as the Østby family (known since the 15th century) and Handingmann (known since the 16th century).
The Østby family became extinct in the male line in the 17th or 18th century. They never used the name Rosensverd. 20th-century historians, however, dubbed them Rosensverd, because their coat of arms displayed a sword and two roses, but 21th-century historians have largely abandoned this custom of retrospectively attributing 'canting arms' names to 'nameless' medieval and early modern families like the Østbys based on their coat of arms. Brox Sox (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like the article to be draftified and you intend to start/resume work on it immediately I am not opposed to draftification. —Alalch E. 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it will be immediately, but absolutely within a few weeks. I do have some relevant books in my library, but I might have to visit the National Library for additional sources. Best, Brox Sox (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not see the notability of Rosensverd at all. The Norwegian article is bad, essentially the same as the one we have here, except for not having the fake name Østby in it. Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested to see what Brox Sox will come up with in draftspace. —Alalch E. 12:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to add, once again, that I haven't created the article, thus, there's no prestige for me in keeping it. In fact, as stated above, I'm not sure whether the Østby family are notable for English Wikipedia (indeed, they are notable for Norwegian Bokmål Wikipedia, notwithstanding that the self-proclaimed Prince of Rosensverd has ravaged that article, too, something that needs to be mitigated once I'm done here).
First and foremost, I've studied their letters patent of 1458, which only survives as a copy from 1580. It says that on the recommendation of their paternal cousin Gudbrand Rolfsson, a canon of St. Mary's Church, Oslo, the brothers Sjøfar and Nils Sigurdssons were ennobled, given a coat of arms, and expected to be the king's 'servants and men at hand' (thienner oc handgenger mendt). The Prince of Rosensverd has manipulated the word thienner, modern-day tjener (servant), to be thane and handgenger mendt, modern-day håndgangne menn, to be 'hird member'. By the way, here's the last version of the article before I entered the field: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%98stby_family&oldid=1072359733
After that, I tried to see whether individual members of the family had done something great or held high offices. But they haven't. I find a parish priest, a couple of lawspeakers. The rest, although being noble, were farmers by occupation. Some of them owned considerable (yet not tremendous) amounts of land, though. Third, the family's alleged stake in the Sudreim claim (a claim to the Norwegian throne), or for that sake any links to former royal houses of Norway, is unproved. By the way, 'Østby family' is not a 'fake name' as User:Geschichte claims above; it's used by reputable historians in third-party-published journals such as Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift. Brox Sox (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we can already conclude that this is a non-notable subject then, no? —Alalch E. 13:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe or maybe not. What I meant to say is that the Østby family have an utterly boring and ordinary history—but boring does not equal non-notable. I've seen that English Wikipedia has heaps of articles on, be it, Russian noble families, with Artamonov (Russian nobility) being one example. This family is not more notable than the Østby family. And not to mention German noble families, such as Aachen (German nobility): 'owners of the Reigerding country estate', 'two family members (...) were part of the Royal Prussian Army'. Yawn! Definitely not more notable than the Østby family. So, that's why I have reached the conclusion that whilst the article in its current state should be unpublished because of poor quality, the Østby family might still be notable per Wikipedia's own guidelines, and this will be established when the draft is submitted for AfC review. Thus, unpublish the article, for God's sake, but keep the contents, including the revision history, in the draftspace. That's at least my thought. I don't really have any strong opinions here. Brox Sox (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. —Alalch E. 14:06, 29 October 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 article repurposed to cover related notable topic‎. signed, Rosguill talk 02:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On The Flip Side – Original Cast Album[edit]

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

Non notable album. Search shows no sources to show notability. The only reference included is to an AllMusic page, which would be fine except there is no reviews for the album. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • (updated) Keep or Draftify. Any studio album by Rick Nelson is almost certainly going to be notable. We can probably cover both album and musical in a single page per WP:NOPAGE, so I'm going to lump the coverage I can currently find together. Here's an interesting note that the musical has been screened in a notable museum [1]. Here's some coverage [2]. Here's a paragraph of coverage [3]. This points us at reviews in Variety, and coverage in Ricky Nelson: Idols for a Generation [4]. —siroχo 08:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to On the Flip Side and repurpose as an article on the television musical which easily passes WP:SIGCOV. The album content can remain in a subsection of that article. Reference works with entries on this musical include Joan Baxter (2020). "On the Flip Side". Television Musicals: Plots, Critiques, Casts and Credits for 222 Shows Written for and Presented on Television, 1944-1996. McFarland & Company. ISBN 9781476641898. and "On the Flip Side". Television Specials: 5,336 Entertainment Programs, 1936-2012, 2d Ed. McFarland & Company. p. 286. ISBN 9780786474448. There is also coverage in Robin Platts (2003). Burt Bacharach & Hal David: What the World Needs Now. Collector's Guide Publishing. p. 51-52. ISBN 9781896522777. and T. Mike Childs (2014). "O'Conner, Carlos". The Rocklopedia Fakebandica. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 156. ISBN 9781466873018. There is quite a lot of coverage of the album and television program in multiple places in Serene Dominic (2003). Burt Bacharach: Song By Song. Schirmer Trade Books. ISBN 9780857122599. and there are many articles covering the work in newspapers.com in the month of December 1966. There is a review of the cast album in "Special Merit Picks: On the Flip Side". Billboard: 31. December 31, 1966. The article can be improved in main space. No need for draftifying.4meter4 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Does this plan sound preferable over moving to draft? I am willing to lend a hand. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. —siroχo 02:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if someone actually adds some refs. Otherwise draftify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I moved the article per the comments above, retooled the article as a stub on the television musical, and added sources. The sources have more which could be used to expand the article, including a critical commentary section and plot synopsis in the book by Baxter and an entry about the main character from the musical in the book by Childs. There's also analysis of the individual songs in the musical in the book by Serene Dominic. An in-depth article could be written with the cited sources if anyone cares to take it on. @Ssilvers were you intending your above comment as a keep vote? You may wish to clarify your opinion in a formal vote if so. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has adequate referencing to discern notability now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:23, 24 October 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. WP:WITHDRAWN (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Institute for Economic Research[edit]

American Institute for Economic Research (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 mentioned it on the talk page of target during an earlier discussion, but I'm proposing a redirect to Great Barrington Declaration#Sponsor as a WP:CONRED. All the secondary sourcing I could find basically discuss the organisation exclusively in relation to GBD, and despite ample opportunity to add independent sources, their interns have failed to do so and the article was almost exclusively based on misused WP:ABOUTSELF (per 1, and obviously 5) up until JzG's first pass in October 2020, and second pass in February 2021. Now, the 2019 intern probably wasn't paid (unpaid?) enough to care about the orange {{Primary sources}} tag that was on the article since 2013, but I think that's still reasonable, if weak, additional evidence that no such sources exist except in relation to the target. And up until that point it probably should have been WP:DELREASON4'ed in addition to 8. Out of curiosity (though it wouldn't affect WP:NORG), I did also do a quick check on the influence of its economic work. With a sample size of one, the response I got was negative. If the Mirowski opinion is sufficiently noteworthy, I guess it could be copied over to the target. Perhaps mention the Atlas Network as well. Otherwise, I think most of the relevant content is already there. Overall, I'm only bringing this here for consensus since I feel this should be dealt with with prejudice. Please leave your thoughts! Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawing due to plausible argument for impact. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, I'll withdraw. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:48, 28 October 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 Michel Vaillant. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaillante[edit]

Vaillante (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 fictional company that does not appear to have notability separate from the comic series it appears in. (My BEFORE is not helping, although perhaps some sources exist in French?) The article is just mostly a plot summary with a mostly unreferenced trivia list of toys/merchandise/etc. that again seems related to the comic series (which is about a fictional race driver associated with this fictional company). Due to the poor referencing state (just one footnote), I don't think there is much to merge - a redirect however is fine (WP:CHEAP). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the issue isn't whether this is fictional. The issue is whether this is notable, as a topic with reliable coverage in independent reliable sources. It isn't. We can't write a reliable article without verifiable information. Doesn't meet WP:OR / WP:V / WP:N / etc. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In case anyone cares, the trivia about events in which some cars were pained with Vaillante colors and such is better referenced at pl:Vaillante - some of that could be translated and added to the article about the comic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Michel Vaillant per nom. The actual fictional company itself does not appear to have the kind of significant coverage that would support or justify a separate article, rather than just being covered as part of the piece of fiction it came from. The fact that there have been some real cars produced as a homage to the fictional cars is an interesting bit of trivia that can possibly be covered in the comic series' article, but does not actually impart any kind of notability to the actual fictional company. A redirect to the main article on the comic, where the fictional company that appears in it is already discussed, would be the best course of action here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michel Vaillant as AtD per above.  // Timothy :: talk  10:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michel Vaillant, fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 15:29, 26 October 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 Doctor Who supporting characters#with the Sixth Doctor. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Smythe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Evelyn Smythe (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 minor spin-off Companion from Doctor Who. While generally notable in universe, I can't find many sources displaying outside notability in a BEFORE. She's listed at the Companions article, so a redirect there could work as an ATD. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unsure whether this article should be blanked (as in creating a regular Redirect) or fully Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 21 October 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 retarget and merge as Amiga Chip Set‎. This is a more complex action than typical AfDs, but all of this can be done without requiring administrator action. This result was decided after consulting Agnes, Denise and Paula. :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amiga Enhanced Chip Set[edit]

Amiga Enhanced Chip Set (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 searched and found https://www.homecomputermuseum.nl/en/collectie/commodore/amiga-600/ but that alone is not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Original Chip Set and (at least) Amiga Advanced Graphics Architecture to Amiga chipsets. ECS is definitely notable for powering a whole generation of Amiga computers: A3000, A2000C, A500 (late models), A500+, A600, CDTV. --Zac67 (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on Amiga computers and/or the company history. I could only found two articles from reliable sources on the ECS (this one and this one), and both reference it in the context of a mini-console. If more sources pop up, the article could possibly stay, but right now, there is no indication that the ECS is independently notable.Cortador (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at books about the history of Commodore: Jimmy Maher's The Future Was Here (2012) only has a couple of sentences on ECS; Brian Bagnall's Commodore: The Final Years (2019) has about half a page about ECS in the chapter about the Amiga 3000. There is also discussion of the new chipset's capabilities (not necessarily named ECS yet) in contemporary reviews of the A3000 - e.g. in Byte. So there is some coverage out there. However, ECS is a relatively small enhancement to OCS, and I'd agree that covering it in the OCS article might be clearer. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should not be a problem to find enough coverage from the early to mid 1990s in various third-party books about Amiga hardware and computer magazines (I will post some once I get home). Real question here is not notability of the article subject, but general organisation of articles about Amiga hardware (one article for all chipset generations? or stand-alone articles for every Amiga chipset?). Pavlor (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are several different Merge targets proposed and some of the Comments sound like Keep arguments so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two books from my personal library:
  • Jörg Schimanski, Amiga Hardware ... auf einen Schlag (in German), Media Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 1996, pp. 65-75 (as individual chips OCS+ECS)
  • Vlastimil Král, Deluxe Paint v. 4.5 AGA (in Czech), Amiga Info, 1994??, pp. 17-21 (chapter about ECS graphics capabilities - the book is about a paint package)
Judging by the first entry, merging ECS with OCS makes sense. Next, I will look into various Amiga magazines for reviews of A3000/500+/600, where some info about ECS may be found. Pavlor (talk) 05:13, 25 October 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) ––FormalDude (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veho Tech[edit]

Veho Tech (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've been considering a PROD, but given the article in The Information (which I did see is already in the article after my BEFORE) looks like a prima facie "maybe to yes", I've decided that it's sufficiently "potentially controversial" to merit AFD. However, none of the other sources are sufficient to be the second in the multiple required to meet SIRS. Most of them, both inside and out of the article, are the routine reprints of funding and expansion announcements that exist for almost any company that bothers issuing press releases.

It's worth noting there are two articles cited (WSJ, The Technology That’s Helping Companies Thrive Amid the Supply-Chain Chaos; Bloomberg, Couriers Snatch Toehold in Biggest Shake-Up of FedEx Era) plus BusinessInsider's Gig labor could have challenged FedEx and UPS. Now it's making them stronger. mentioning the company in relation to the broader market, however they do not appear to address the company itself in sufficient detail to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be enough coverage to write an encyclopedic article per our current criteria.

I do see potential for this to be redirected to Last mile (transportation)#Last mile technology platforms, or a similar article on the intersection of gig economy and that market (the latter of which not yet written, of course, but does appear possilikely to likely a notable topic), so that first redirect would be my proposal for now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I appreciate the WP:BOLDNESS for the nominator to begin what may be a controversial nomination with understandable rationales citing guidelines, as well as provide ideas on what to do if the article cannot be kept. With said that, there is a reason this is contestable: the suggestion that a lot of the sources, like the TechCrunch and Denver Business Journal ones, are simply routine announcements that are not independent sources. I am sorry, but [9] and [10] absolutely go above and beyond simply announcing funding, and they ARE independent sources, as they are written by authors not affiliated with the company for reliable sources with no connection to it. Articles like the examples I provide are way more than mentioning a fundraiser, summarizing Veho's place in the market and plans for the future. That is significant coverage. A merge into an article about the Gig economy would not be out of the question, however.User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 21 October 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. Looks like there's not going to be any agreement on this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Spikes[edit]

Stacy Spikes (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine the references above each in turn against the WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV and then we will examine the references in the first two blocks as there is only 11 refs there:
  • Comment The first three references are PR as he is launching a new a company.
Ref 1 [28] That is interview done by Mariah Espada. It is significant but not independent. and interviews can't be used to establish notabilty.
Ref 2 [29] This an interview.
Ref 3 [30] That is PR and not independent.
Ref 4 [31] This is a press-release and is non-rs.
Ref 5 [32] Book review. Potentially notable on that, but it not really a review
Ref 6 [33] No mention
Ref 7 [34] No mention
Ref 8 [35] No mention
Ref 9 [36] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [37] Passing mention
Ref 11 [38] Contributor. Non-RS
Ref 12 [39] This is an interview.
Ref 13 [40] Business Insider is junk. It is an interview. It says it in the article.
Ref 14 Can't see it. GDPR
Ref 15 [41] This a PR for his new company. More interviews.

Looking at this, 4 interviews, 5 passing mentions, 1 press-release, 2 PR entries, 2 non-rs and a book review which is pretty poor. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them. Essentially there inteviews in the context of moviepass and PR for his new company. On these he doesn't meet one of the criteria of WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles were linked primarily to provide additional context, as Underworld's significance is not evident when solely reading Spike's article, and some information lacks proper referencing. I'm adopting a holistic and comprehensive approach, integrating "interviews" and articles like Ref 3 and Ref 4 (which I wouldn't outright dismiss as press releases) with other indicators. These include:
  1. Spikes' significant role in founding and relaunching a notable company (which has been extensively covered in reliable sources and described as "influential", "disruptive", "revolutionary").
  2. His contributions to notable works and his executive roles.
  3. His establishment of a renowned film festival (which has seen attendances of 30,000+ and has been covered extensively in publications such as Variety and The New York Times, which has described the festival as "the biggest competitive black film festival in the United States").
  4. His recognition through a "Made in NY" award, which "celebrates excellence in New York City's creative community and recognize the achievements of individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to the City's entertainment and digital media industries" and has been awarded to the likes of Spike Lee, Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Nas, Seth Meyers, Robert DeNiro, Patina Miller, Caroline Hirsch, Aziz Ansari, and Steve Buscemi.
Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability suggests that a variety of interviews with supplementary material and analysis from reputable publications like Time, The New Yorker, and Inc. can be viewed as evidence of notability. Although this is an essay and not a guideline, it aligns with WP:BIO, which emphasizes notability as determined by independent parties who publish substantial works focused on the subject. In the case of Spikes, the Time article, for instance, goes beyond a raw, unedited interview and offers some degree of supplementary material and interpretation and analysis by Eliana Dockterman. Why wouldn't it be considered a piece of secondary, independent coverage?
In my opinion, these elements collectively construct a compelling case for his notability. Mooonswimmer 19:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 is PR not a press-release.. [42]. None of the these references above at independent. None of them thate not passing mentions or don't mention him. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I read press release for both. Can you address the holistic approach to Spikes' notability? In your opinion, none of what I listed is significant? The fact that independent journalists writing for Time, The New Yorker, Inc. considered him notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon him, the fact that he was the founder of a very influential and notable company, the fact that he established a renowned festival, the fact that he has contributed to notable works, the fact that he was been the recipient of a distinguished reward for making significant contributions to New York City's entertainment and digital media industry. None of it contributes to notability? Mooonswimmer 21:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Lets the first two blocks of the article, the first 11 references:
Ref 1 [43] This a profile. Profiles are generally written by the person themselves and are considered WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 2 [44] This is a good WP:SECONDARY ref but really about Moviepass and it downfall.
Ref 3 [45] This is the interview. Same ref as above.
Ref 4 is Ref 1
Ref 5 [46] Another interview style article. It is not independent.
Ref 6 [47] Passing mention.
Ref 7 [48] It is non-rs.
Ref 8 [49] Copied from the website, via press-release.
Ref 9 [50] All copied from the book. It is WP:PRIMARY. It is PR.
Ref 10 [51] Another interview. Not indepedent.
Ref 11 [52] That is banruptcy notice. It is non-rs. WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 12 [53] This is PR to introduce reader to the product. It is not independent either.

These references like the references are above are entirely unsuitable to pass WP:V for a WP:BLP article. WP:BIO has three criteria and this article fails all of them. WP:BLP states: "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". These are not one high quality source. They are typical of a businessmen who has the money to spend on PR, press-releases along with business style interviews that are primary. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of them. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I'm following and agreeing with most of what you say above. But I take issue with the unsubstantiated statement "This a profile. Profiles are generally written by the person themselves and are considered WP:PRIMARY." Profiles are sometimes written by historians, profiles are often written by journalists, profiles are sometimes written by subject matter experts. In these (and other) cases profiles absolutely can be secondary, independent, reliable sources. Thanks. — Jacona (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jacona: How goes it? In this context they will likely have been written by himself. About four to five years ago there was a document doing the rounds, that looked at profiles amongst other things of that type, Since they are so heavily used now by everybody really, and due to the quick turn around of content, they looked at them and why they exploded in use. The outcome for me, was that often the person involved would be requested to send a wee short bio to give the reader to something to chew on. The clear takeaway was they were primary, because the organisational entity doesn't necessarily know that much about the person, so they request a profile. It is an industry wide pattern. There may be case that historians, journalists and subject matter experts create them as well, and that something that needs taken cognizance of, but not in this context. If it a businessman article, I wouldn't trust in the fact it wasn't written by themselves or the PR agency. The are primary here. scope_creepTalk 20:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Time article has significant content prior to the interview. The New Yorker article is definitely an RS. I think it's a bit weak, as so many of the sources are about his company rather than him, but those two articles give bio information so they are at least in part about him. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I don't think I can add much to the analysis based on the BASIC criteria. "Often interviewed due to their (co-)founding of MoviePass" is not really something we can used to establish notability. I think Moonswimer does point towards some of the additional criteria (though really, they are not making that at all clear with the seeming to go for quantity of references instead) so we should probably take a look at that as a "holistic approach", so to speak. I see two possible avenues through those criteria we may want to evaluate against, WP:ANYBIO #2 and WP:PRODUCER (any, but most likely #3 or #4). In evaluating against the former (widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field) in the absence of an independent RS specifically saying so, I imagine we would need to evaluate the enduring notability of the founded company, MoviePass. Merely being described as "innovative", "disruptive" or "revolutionary" does not seem sufficent, as it does happen to quite a substantial number of companies that ultimately do not make a long term impact. For WP:PRODUCER, I do not see significant evidence for significant or well-known work or collective body of work. While the subject is credited as (co-?)producer on a number of films, it does not appear those films are particularly well known. Finally, the point of the film festival. I don't believe the "Made in NY Award" is regarded as a well-known and significant award or honor, but I admit I could be wrong: I can't find much about it. It is also not entirely clear if the fact that it is renowned is explicitly stated in secondary (and independent of course) sources, Gothamist does say it's "one of" the longest running, but that does not appear sufficient to create a claim under any of the additional criteria. I would say the best option open to us for now is to redirect to MoviePass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going for "quantity of references" to establish notability. Most of the references I linked to were simply to back up my claims and provide extra context, especially regarding the signifiance of the company, the festival, and the award. For references contributing to notability, I'd consider: 1, 2, 3, 4
    MoviePass has already been extensively covered and many articles delve into the company's lasting influence on the movie business (How MoviePass Has Changed Ticket Buying, Even If MoviePass Dies, It Changed Moviegoing for Good, The rise and fall of MoviePass: how 'Netflix for cinemas' fell apart, Graham: MoviePass, on its last legs, made a big impact, MoviePass: The 'Get Big Fast' Strategy).
    Regarding the award, It was created and is presented by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment and is a category at the Gotham Awards (which has been described as "the traditional kickoff to awards season"). The award honors "individuals and organizations that have made what are deemed significant contributions to the city’s entertainment and digital-media industries." There is a decent amount of coverage on it. In this article by the The Hollywood Reporter, it is described as "prestigious". The festival itself (described as "the largest international competitive specialized fest of its kind" and "the largest film confab devoted to minority fare") has also received plenty of coverage in publications such as Variety, Deadline, and The New York Times. Mooonswimmer 13:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't rely on the award to prove notability. If doesn't have an article and is handed out more than once a year, so I don't see it as particularly prestiguous. It loooks more like a trade award. The references presented arent sufficient to satisfy WP:THREE which is considered best practice to prove notability at afd.. I've not see three genuine secondary sources proving she is notable. I'm not particularly confident that the Time article is a decent secondary source. scope_creepTalk 14:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned above, the Time article is published by an independent, reliable source and focuses solely on Spikes, going beyond a raw, unedited interview, and offering some degree of supplementary material and interpretation and analysis by Eliana Dockterman. Why wouldn't it count?
Regarding the award, the fact that it doesn't have an article doesn't make it non-notable (same goes for the festival he created). I am familiar with both and will be creating articles for them whenever I have the time. I personally see the award as quite significant, definitely not to the level of other accolades, but enough to be considered a notable award. It celebrates individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to New York City's entertainment and digital media industries. New York City is an international entertainment and digital media hub. It was created by the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment. It's a category at the Gotham Awards. Its recipients are mostly highly-regarded individuals and organizations in entertainment. Reliable sources report on the recipients of the award annually. It has been described as "prestigious" by The Hollywood Reporter. To me, that's a significant, well-known award.
And again, holistic approach. So far, I've been considering multiple aspects of Spikes and his career (company, works, festival, awards, coverage) all together. Some are weaker than others but collectively they construct a compelling case, aligning with our guidelines, showcasing Spikes as a notable figure in the entertainment industry. If we are to take a more formulaic and stringent approach, I've presented what I believe are ample sources and I've argued for the enduring notability of the company he founded. Mooonswimmer 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, what has been considered well-known and significant have been awards like the Emmys, Oscars, Nobels, that kind of thing. It's a somewhat higher standard than notable by significant coverage as provided by the GNG, considerably so. I'm still dubious on the part of the enduring historical record part. Which sources would you consider the best three, if you do intend on making an argument based on BASIC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see you did include 4 specific sources, I'll see if I can go through them in a bit more detail later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, It is very inappropriate to misgender someone, as you have done with Stacy Spikes. I'm hoping this was a slip, and not a deliberate disparagement attacking his manliness. If it's a slip, it causes me to question whether you did sufficient investigation before nominating this article for deletion. — Jacona (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt it was a "deliberate disparagement attacking his manliness". Note that User:Scope creep used "he" and "his" pronouns in reference to Spikes above. Mooonswimmer 16:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mooonswimmer, thanks, I was concerned. Mistakes happen, I know I’ve made a few! — Jacona (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ and move to Post Office Appropriation Act of 1916. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Space Basis Act[edit]

Space Basis Act (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)

Incomprehensible - perhaps they mean a volume basis? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Post Office Appropriation Act of 1916 (or 1917). Not incomprehensible. Satisfies GNG. This enactment (which is really a section of an Act) is not normally cited by its popular titles such as "Railway Mail Pay Act" and "Space Basis Act", but is often cited by its long title, its date (28 July 1916), its chapter number (it is part of chapter 261), each of the pages of the US Statutes at Large on which it appears (39 Stat 425 to 431) and/or each of the sections of the US Code where it is codified (at least partly, and possibly entirely, in certain sections of Title 39 of the United States Code, as far as I can see, particularly at sections 524 to 568 [54]): [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]. (So for example, you would search for "39 Stat 425", "39 Stat 426" and so on to 431; and you would search for "39 USC 524", "39 USC 525" and so on to 568; and you would run searches like this). However, this enactment is actually section 5 of the Act sometimes called the Post Office [Department] Appropriation Act [of 1916 or 1917] (passed in 1916 and relating to the fiscal year 1917) printed at 39 Stat 412 to 431, rather than a separate Act. It would be easier to write an article on the whole Act, which has more coverage and is actually an entire Act, rather than an individual section. (It also happens, amongst other things, to be the Act that created airmail in the USA: [63] [64] [65] [66] and (via the provision called the Space Basis Act) settled the long existing controversy about the payment of mails: [67] [68]). James500 (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow you certainly know this subject - go for it Chidgk1 (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per James500. Also mentioned in the 1916 Annual Report of the Long Island Rail Road. BD2412 T 00:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move per @James500's great work above. As Chidgk1 put it, "Wow you certainly know this subject"! Can you add some of this to the article or the talk page?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per James500. S5A-0043Talk 00:57, 24 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Astar Deviluke[edit]

Nana Astar Deviluke (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)

Side character from anime, most of the article is plot summary + appearance (including information on her "three sizes"...); reception is limited to a few sentences based on passing mentions in anime reviews. WP:GNG fail (nod to WP:SIGCOV in particular), I fear. The best WP:ATD I can think of is to redirect this WP:FANCRUFT to List of To Love Ru characters. Wikipedia =/= Fandom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Comment: I think the reception section has enough detail in this to warrant an article. But in case consensus goes the other way, I would like to add that if we delete this article we should delete Momo's as well, since the two are almost always mentioned in tandem. Maybe we could merge them into a single article? Just a thought. The other To Love Ru girls should be looked at as well as it seems they all have their own articles apart from Mea and Nemesis. Bensci54 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bensci54 Red link. Do you mean Momo Belia Deviluke? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my mistake. It's been fixed. Bensci54 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 21 October 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! 23:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanim Alsheikh[edit]

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

Not notable. As mentioned in the previous AfD, the citation numbers here are not enough to satisfy C1 of WP:NPROF, and Dean of a College of Medicine (not the entire university!) does not correspond to a named chair as required by C5. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The situation has not changed since the last AfD, which apparently reached the correct outcome through some pseudo-Gettier situation.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 28 October 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! 23:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Luke Bennecke[edit]

J. Luke Bennecke (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 does not establish notability. Possible self-promotion by author? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles. The book won Feathered Quill awards but I'm not sure they're sufficient to qualify for notability as an author; here's more info about Feather Quill: [70][71]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Daro for another article by the same editor.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and few RS citations or recognition. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only one source, with no sigcov and the feathered quill award doesn't exactly seem prestigious enough to satisfy any alternative criteria. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and his only award is not notability-lending. Appears to wear many hats, but isn't notable in any of them. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; poorly executed UPE, if they are notable WP:TNT but I don't think they are anyway. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only one source provided, and certainly promotional. HarukaAmaranth 春香 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and few RS citations or recognition.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:19, 27 October 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! 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Daro[edit]

Andy Daro (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 to establish notability. Possible attempt at self-promotion. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable and likely written for money by BheekAam along with other articles. As for the tone, most people would blush if they had a Wikipedia article about them that promotional.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Luke Bennecke - another article by the same author.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources in article fail to prove notability (no sigcov/not independent), and a google search shows nothing that would meet WP:NBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and Wikipedia is not a CV. Kierzek (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable subject. Very little coverage exists. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage found for this individual, does appear PROMO. Gsearch is largely social media or legal filings. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional bio that fails all notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smells like poorly executed WP:UPE to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete like do I have a choice? This article is certainly promotional, large parts of the article are unsourced, and very little coverage is included. HarukaAmaranth 春香 19:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking like snowball. Promotional and the organization you "started" is not even mentioned in the Compass article --VVikingTalkEdits 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AVALANCHE. —siroχo 16:15, 27 October 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 Nominator Withdrawal‎. I agree with the points presented in the !votes. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 16:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Woos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Officer Woos (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NENT. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources amongst others.

Yeku, James (2022). "Vitality and Instagram Comedy in a State of Pandemic". Cultural Netizenship: Social Media, Popular Culture, and Performance in Nigeria. Indiana University Press. pp. 203, 204, 207. ISBN 9780253060501.
Matthew M. Heaton; Toyin Falola, eds. (2022). The Oxford Handbook of Nigerian History. Oxford University Press. p. 508. ISBN 9780190050092.
"Skit maker, Officer Woos: Biography, Education, Skits, Girlfriend, and Net Worth". NewswireNGR. 19 August 2022.

Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 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 03:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundoora Secondary College[edit]

Bundoora Secondary College (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 General notability guideline PrinceofPunjab (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 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. Star Mississippi 00:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurang Jani[edit]

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

No claim to notability, sources given are passing mentions in the context of being invited experts, no in-depth coverage from third-party source on a coursory BEFORE. Also reads like a resume. Sohom (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, India, and Gujarat. Sohom (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not seeing anything that would pass WP:PROF; there's a single moderately cited paper (68) but it's heavily coauthored and HIV is a fairly high-citation field; nothing else I could see with more than a few citations in GS. Leaning Delete unless anyone has anything better. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:46, 21 October 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 00:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blunt[edit]

The Blunt (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, press releases and listings are not sufficient for notability. Sohom (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not only that ... it has publication in some reliable source that is accepted by Wikipedia guidelines, term and conditions for eg -

https://www.freepressjournal.in/indore/indore-local-actors-have-a-chance-tomake-it-big-on-world-stage

The company has collaborated with multiple brands the most famous of them is Zee5 with which it has 5 upcoming web series planned. It has 900K+ people watching its series across platforms, leaving an footprint with 150M+ impressions and a 60M+ views on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. i didn't mention it because it may sound promotional and can go against the guidelines of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Syed Sadique Hussain To refute your points:
- There are 14 listings of this company with at least 1 significant reliable coverage about the company - Listings do not show notability. Additionally, the "reliable" article that you linked, is borderline hagiographical and links to the companies youtube and instagram at the bottom of the article, asking the reader to "click play". I have serious doubts on the neutrality and relaibility of the article.
- In Dainik Bhaskar - "Webseries Faltu Engineers made by the youth of Indore, told the struggle after college.pdf" (PDF). Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). Retrieved 26 August 2023. That is a udrop link to a image as a pdf, which is hard to read for anyone who is not as well versed with the Hindi script. I would suggest linking to the web article instead from henceforth. That aside this seems like coverage for the webseries, and not the company itself. Also, even if the webseries/product is notable, the company might not be, for example, Among Us is notable, Innersloth is not.
- "Indores The Blunt web series Faltu Engineers will be released on Zee 5.pdf" (PDF). Rajeev Times (in Hindi). Retrieved 26 August 2023. - This is a press release and confers no notability.
- "Indore: Local actors have a chance to make it big on world stage". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 26 August 2023. - This is a press release as well
- The company has collaborated with multiple brands the most famous of them is Zee5 with which it has 5 upcoming web series planned. It has 900K+ people watching its series across platforms, leaving an footprint with 150M+ impressions and a 60M+ views on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. - Again this does not prove that the company is notable, and is most definitely promotional. -- Sohom (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta Yes, i agree with you that having many listing does'nt mean that it can show notability but reliable source in news article does right ...but don't you think a news article talk about the subject in detail and here the publisher is doing the same thing. Apart, from that maybe the reason why they added the Instagram and YouTube link is added because...the company doesn't have any website for reason i don't know why.. but it does have good amount of influence and is considered quite notable in the area of the OTT platform of India specifically since their target audience is original.
Secondly, the reason why i used udrop links for the news is because old news website links are not accessible since, it is showing error. although i tried to find the archive but i was not able to it a common issue faced by every editor....it's better to have a link that is live rather than dead link. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to save deadlinks and prevent linkrot, Internet Archive is the way to go.
Wrt to the singular article by the free press journal, as I said previously, I gravely doubt it's reliability and neutrality on the topic. (Especially when their site links to this slide deck where they lay out the amount of money that a person must shell out to get a paid article). Sohom (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your review, simple listings and the things given here don't help notability for Wikipedia, we need articles about the company, not just something that mentions them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No sources found for this media enterprise. I can only find things about being blunt, or about this term used as a slang for marijuana. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only found promo materials, fails GNG or NCORP, no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:59, 28 October 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 00:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdas Kathiababa[edit]

Ramdas Kathiababa (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 not convinced that this person is notable. I searched on Google books for independent sources and found Childhood Days, A Memoir, by Satyajit Ray (2000), but it only mentions Ramdas Kathiababa in passing.

The sources in the article were for an earlier version of the article. They are:

  • Vedanta-Parijata-Saurabha Of Nimbarka And Vedanta-Kaustubha Of Srinivasa (Commentaries On The Brahma-Sutras), by Roma Bose, 1940. This is a three volume work that comments on the Brahma Sutras. No page number is given. I have not checked it. It is likely that it only mentions Ramdas Kathiababa is passing (if at all).
  • Siddhayogi Ramdas Kathiababa Kon Kon Aloukik Shaktir Adhikari Chhilen, Saptahik Bartaman Patrika (Bengali). 23 July 2011.
  • A Short Biography of His Holiness Shree 108 Swamy Ramdas Kathia Baba, written in Bengali by his disciple Swamy Santadas, English translation by Sri Amalendu Roy, self published, 1998. Available from exoticindiaart.com. Self-published books are not considered to be reliable sources unless written by acknowledged experts.

Bengali Wikipedia does not cite the above sources. Instead it cites the following webpage: Sri Sri 108 Swami Ramdas Kathiababaji Maharaj spiritualdarshan.in I am not convinced that this is a reliable source, except for the purpose of saying what some people believe, for example: "Sri Ramdas Kathia Babaji Maharaj’s life is full of countless divine incidents ... Sri Ramdasji lived for around 120-125 years." -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate spinning a zero input relist, but with the language issues I feel like closing this as N/C is unhelpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:36, 21 October 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Corkman[edit]

The Corkman (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 non-trivial mentions of it; website now redirects to the Irish Independent's Cork section. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Comment- if you search the corkman on google it shows this with the name "Cork News Today | The Corkman Newspaper", they have expanded to have news from multiple cities & that is why the section is labeled Cork. also here are the newspaper archives: Here & Here. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notwithstanding the issues with identifying WP:SIGCOV of a newspaper title (as newspapers rarely cover each other and when they cover themselves, it raises WP:IS issues), it seems to me that this newspaper does have notability - independent of the newspaper group of which it forms part. As part of my own WP:BEFORE, I have found examples of coverage - and added much of it to the article. While its not exactly a slam dunk, where things are marginal (and in particular for a topic like this) I would err on the side of a "keep"... Guliolopez (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks notable, rich history and milestones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assirian cat (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reference below the article provided notability. -Lemonaka‎ 14:15, 29 October 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 04:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453[edit]

Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | gedits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though the text looks largely (but not totally) OK, the absence of any sources means one cannot rely on the article at all. Strongly suggest that it is rewritten with reliable citations. Belle Fast (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is unquestionably notable. TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup. ResonantDistortion 09:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The topic is notable and I don't think the referencing is to the point of WP:TNT. — Knightoftheswords 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) -- Except in BLP cases, a lack of sources is not grounds for deletion. There is in fact in the article a list of books, presumably used in writing the article. The present title is not wholly satisfactory, as it only covers the final part of the war, not the whole 100 years, but "Lancastrian War" would not be an appropriate title, as it is a term I have never heard of. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article can be improved and deletion is unnecessary. Rager7 (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As noted by others, the issue relating to sources is not grounds for deletion. Dunarc (talk) 21:00, 22 October 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 00:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1969 Houston Baptist Huskies baseball team[edit]

1969 Houston Baptist Huskies baseball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable baseball season. Run of the mill NAIA team. There's a lot of sources, but they're virtually all game logs. Prod contested, and the way the explanation reads it seems like a pet project, which is admirable but should perhaps be on the college's own site, not here. As an aside, " By your logic, numerous other articles of baseball seasons that resulted in zero playoffs or postseason conference tournaments should also be deleted." Yes, yes they should, we are overrun with borderline-notability season articles, and that's for Division I let alone NAIA. Wizardman 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fair points. However, I am going to take a "libertarian" approach to this and say that there should be as many pages of these subjects as possible with self-governance. I believe there should be pages for all three levels of the NCAA as well as the NAIA. Under my proposition, there would still be some rules for qualification:
  • You must follow the same formatting protocol as a standard NCAA baseball season page, albeit it does not have to be quite as elaborate as, let's say, the 2023 LSU Tigers baseball team page. You would not be required to list each players height, weight, or where they attended high school.
  • No more than five missing dates in the game log (historical teams, pre-1980s). All games must still be listed in order.
  • All final game scores must be present.
  • All rosters must be filled-out with the first/last names and position(s).
  • For historical team pages, there must be a reasonable amount of sources outside of the school's athletic website. They must be reputable and formatted correctly.
  • The page must have proper grammar and formatting.
Theoretically, your team could go 1-40 and still qualify for a page, but an 0-41 team is more than likely to qualify for an article under the current format because they were winless, which is far less common in college baseball compared to football. The reason why I believe there should be an unlimited amount of baseball season pages (akin to how college football is treated on this site) is because creators will have more liberty to elaborate on a team's season. Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:ROTM for a minor sports team. Not a notable subject and a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. there should be an unlimited amount of baseball season pages (akin to how college football is treated on this site) This is a fundamental misconception. We do not have season articles on ordinary NAIA football teams. Typically, the college football project limits NAIA-level season articles to national champions (see Template:NAIA football national champion navbox) or teams with perfect seasons (see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/The Perfect Season). With a 15-16 record, the 1969 HBU team does not come close to meeting either of these criteria. With respect to a pure GNG analysis, I am unable to read the vast majority of the sources which require a subscription to genealogy.com; I'll admit it's an impressive and surprising number of citations but without being able to review them I can't accurately assess whether they constitute WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Routine game stories and normal database pages from BEFORE nothing with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 28 October 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, however, with a caveat. There is consensus that Nakba denial is a topic which has been discussed in independent, reliable sources. There is no outcome here where the content is deleted, and to be clear this is a keep, and not a no-consensus defaulting to keep. However, what there isn't is a strong consensus that this should be covered on its own, rather than within broader Nakba, 1948 or other topics so I encourage that discussion to continue editorially. Relisting this, where there has been so much discussion and where there is no outcome of deleting the material is not a good use of editor time or resources. Further note., I have read this x3 and edit conflicted x 2 and do not see a way of closing this in another manner so explicitly waiving the right to a pre DRV consult if editors find that the next step. ‎. Star Mississippi 00:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba denial [edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nakba denial  (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:POVFORK of Nakba which fundamentally assumes one POV. The way it is phrased and approached excludes any Israeli or other interpretation of history or justifications. Also the existing article would have to be WP:TNTd (not to be insensitive, that is simply the relevant essay on article deletion) even if the topic is valid due to extreme bias and statements of opinions as facts, as well as quotations which are virtually never attributed. (this only attributed after I pointed it out and all these other issues here). The topic also turns up very few google search results for either "nakba denial" (4960) or "nakba denialism" (869). —DIYeditor (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Courtesy ping to all involved at WP:NPOV/N Ad Orientem, David Fuchs, Levivich, Iskandar323, Marokwitz, Chris troutman, Loksmythe, JM2023, Arsenic99, טבעת-זרם, SparklyNights, Nableezy, Yr Enw, Selfstudier. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess it was only a matter of time before someone tried to delete this page. This is obviously a notable topic which is widely covered in reliable sources, as should be obvious to anybody who has actually read the article. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not really addressing the grounds for this AfD though. It's "obvious" because nobody disagrees that it's a notable topic. Notability isn't always the reason for deletion. In this case, the grounds for deletion is POVFORK, and POVFORKs are usually notable (or else they wouldn't be forks of other articles, which are on notable topics). Levivich (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DIYeditor, judging by comments like these (1, 2), it seems like you have a personal vendetta against Iskandar, which may cloud your judgement a little bit. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was the single most egregious abuse of Wikipedia for POV advocacy that I have seen. Also the worst written article I have ever seen despite the ample citations of POV sources. It stated obvious opinions as facts and used quotes without any attribution (that's not even a thing that one does). See the links I gave. I'm surprised it took this long for it to be nominated, maybe nobody wants to touch topics like this due to world events. This article was terrible, whether or not the topic is legitimate, which is arguable I guess. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen nor heard of Iskandar before. I am not impressed though, that's true. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd echo the sentiments that this keep !vote has not addressed the policy reason for deletion, which is that this constitutes a POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: This was created via community decision. UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which speedy keep criteria is that, and what community decision? Where? Levivich (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a deletion/keep argument but feel free to link the discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misinterpretted Courcelles protection. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DIYeditor. I urged at NPOVN that this content be merged into Nakba. We may as well just delete this per TNT. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect /after many subsequent comments and after I've worked on the article and someone cited WP:HEY I find it only appropriate at this time to switch my !vote to keep without prejudice to later merger/ to Nakba#Nakba denial per WP:PAGEDECIDE and incorporate content from here into there by copying from the history undearneath the redirect on a consensus basis, given that such decisions are made on Talk:Nakba. This subtopic can be covered better as part of the integrated article about Nakba. The Nakba article only has 13KB of readable prose!—Alalch E. 13:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    About this being a POV-fork, it should be noted that we say Nakba was a real thing in wikivoice in Nakba (The Nakba ... was the destruction of the Palestinian society and homeland in 1948, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian Arabs. ...), and that it had four components: displacement; dispossession and erasure; statelessness and denationalization; and fracturing of society -- with by far the most important component, and the precondition for the other three occurring, being displacement, which is covered separately in the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, and about which we say: In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Mandatory Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias during the 1948 Palestine war. So we already talk about "Zionist culpability" in own voice in existing articles, so having a separate article which is again premised on the same, and talks about how some deny the same, is logically not a 1/1 POV fork. Doesn't fit the definition perfectly. —Alalch E. 13:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no guarantee that the Nakba article doesn't also have POV issues. I don't really have the interest to look more at these articles. I wouldn't be surprised to see things like this or any other variation on loaded phrasing. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just commenting on the soundness of the POV fork allegation. A non-WP:NPOV article (for example, one that excludes relevant opposing viewpoints) is not the same thing as a POV fork. A POV fork needs to mirror an existing article while exlusively basing itself on a different point of view, and in this case, there is no existing article about the discourse around the Nakba, there's only a short section within Nakba, so this is at worst a non-NPOV daughter article.—Alalch E. 14:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying. I perhaps wrongly assumed from what other people had said that the main article was balanced and NPOV. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not really convinced by this argument. From WP:POVFORK:

    However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. For example, if an editor has tried to include in an existing article about aviation a theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, but the consensus of editors has rejected the attempt as complete nonsense, that fact does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound upon the rejected idea.

    I think that is the territory we are in. But regardless of the terminology, the real question is whether an article under this title can ever be a neutral presentation. You don't seem to be disagreeing that this one cannot be. Is that correct? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to add to my comment. I think the "parent" article is arguably 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, Nakba might be due for a merge/delete nomination as well, considering its apparently small size it may also be a POV fork just to present a discussion of the term from the term's point of view when it is more of a footnote on the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight article. That is deeper down this rabbit hole than I wanted to go and I will leave that for someone else to look into. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I wonder if someone wants to add Zionist/Israeli/other points of view on the history, is that going to be called off topic since the sources wouldn't use the loaded term "Nakba denial" to give their view of events? Only these POV sources are valid for the article, and their views will be stated as consensus facts rather than opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're 100% correct; any such addition would inherently violate Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy, specifically the WP:SYNTH section, as the sources discussing the contrary viewpoint do not use the terminology 'Nakba Denial.' It could be rightly argued that since those viewpoints don't discuss 'Nakba Denial,' including them under that title would constitute original synthesis. This makes a balanced discussion unattainable under such a framing. Marokwitz (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we say that Nakba as presented in Nakba is what happened, a set of historical events, and historical trends (that's really what we say when you examine the article carefully), and then say that some deny that that is what happened, we would present their denial in the form of claims they make which constitute the denial, similar to Armenian genocide denial#Examination of claims. So Zionist/Israeli/other (denialist) points of view could certainly be added or expanded on, but they would only be presented as instances of the denial. In own voice. If they were to be presented as instances of a discourse that runs parallel to the discourse of Nakba, in which Nakba is not recognized as what happened, and in respect of which Wikipedia seems agnostic as to whether it it did or did not, while at the same time having an entire article about how the Nakba happened, that would mean that we have an inconsistency in the encyclopedia, and then THAT would be a POV fork. —Alalch E. 14:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trying to keep things very logical here, everyone please understand that I'm not talking about a genocide here, but about how do we treat a "denial of x" discourse as a discrete topic. —Alalch E. 15:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The terms 'Nakba' and 'Israeli Independence' represent two competing narratives of the same historical events surrounding the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Each term encapsulates deeply held beliefs and interpretations that are important to different communities. 'Nakba'—Arabic for 'catastrophe'—is the lens through which many Palestinians view the mass displacement and loss that accompanied the 1948 war. Conversely, 'Israeli Independence' symbolizes a monumental achievement for the Jewish people, marking the establishment of a sovereign state after centuries of persecution.
Labeling the Israeli perspective as "Nakba Denial" unequivocally violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. This term is not merely descriptive; it's prescriptive, dictating how the narrative should be interpreted rather than offering a balanced viewpoint. By embedding an accusation within the label itself, the discourse is preemptively skewed, stifling any potential for nuanced discussion.
Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. Once such a term is introduced into an encyclopedic context, it doesn't merely tilt the balance; it obliterates it. Readers are not presented with a spectrum of perspectives to form their own conclusions; instead, they are led down a pre-defined path that reaffirms existing biases. Marokwitz (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source please for "The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. There's an overwhelming amount of pure opinion on this discussion, set against the actual sources present on the page. In addition, the possibility of POV issues is not, in of itself, a reason for deletion; it is a reason for correction and balance. If you agree that the content represents one POV (I don't agree) then you are proposing deleting one POV that is not as far as I am aware present anywhere on this encyclopedia, which is both WP:CENSORSHIP, and something that would increase imbalance across the platform by deleting a valid POV (on the basis of your assumptions). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Iskandar323, please state why does there need to a be a standalone article when Nakba is 13KB in readable prose. —Alalch E. 15:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOTMERGE, Merging should be avoided if:
  1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky",
  2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles, or
  3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.
Points 2 and 3 seem to apply here. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and short articles are not inherently bad. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: I mentioned this in the WP:NPOVN discussion, but this article is already 15kB of readable prose, and frankly, I have barely scratched the surface of the sourcing available on this. The Nakba page is perhaps artificially short because of the ongoing lack of conclusion over whether the Nakba page and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight pages should be separate topics or one. The Nakba page is currently acting as a parent page for a whole host of wider topics, with brief summaries of each. As it stands, if this page were merged to Nakba, it would immediately overwhelm the existing content, suddenly making up more than half of it - totally warping it, or making it "clunky" in the language of WP:NOTMERGE. If, conceivably, and at a later date, Nakba and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight were merged, their collective length would be around 60kB, and if this content on Nakba denial was added to that, we would be looking at a 75kB body of content, and this material would be a prime candidate for a split again. It's obviously a little confusing that the Nakba page is currently just 13kB, but it's something of a function of a broader content question that remains unresolved. As it stands, this page and its content does not fit particularly well with either page. The theme here is essentially one of historiography and is a function of the broader historiography around 1948, Israel and Palestine. If there was a truly natural parent for this article, it might be an article on the broader historiography of the conflict, but such a parent does not currently exist. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, I'll think about that. —Alalch E. 16:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. is this specific to the Nakba or does apply to other events such as the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide? M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There seems to be a clear obstruction of neutrality here and the delegitimization of the Israeli narrative. The points @Marokwitz has raised are well worth reading in this respect and therefore I shall not repeat them. Furthermore, as pointed out there has been a very recent discussion in regards to the 1948 Palestinian exodus on the Israel page, following which one may assume concern in connection of this page's recent creation.
My most immediate concern is the way this article may potentially influence the readers since it shows heavy bias as well as having been published during a time in which in respect to the Israel-Hamas 2023 War there is a confrontation.
I believe Wikipedia ought to have high quality unbiased and neutral articles that do not presume to promote a certain narrative or delegitimize another and therefore I support the deletion of this article.
Thank you for your time Homerethegreat (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and to extend this line of thought, would like to draw a parallel with two hypothetical articles: "God Denial" and "Atheism." The article titled "God Denial" would inherently frame the subject from a theistic standpoint, taking as a given that belief in God is the norm and that denial is a deviation from this norm. This framing immediately undermines the neutrality of the article, making balanced discussion challenging.
Similarly, an article on "Nakba Denial" presupposes that the mainstream narrative of the Nakba as a tragedy is the universally accepted truth, thereby stigmatizing other competing perspectives, such as Israel's independence, as forms of denial. Just as "God Denial" would be less neutral than an article simply titled "Atheism," an article on "Nakba Denial" is less neutral than the already existing 1948 Palestinian Exodus#Palestinian and Israeli narratives, or something similarly non-judgmental. Marokwitz (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How then do you explain Armenian genocide denial (FA-class). (disclaimer: not talking about a genocide here, I'm talking about any "denial of x" article whereby denial is itself the topic) —Alalch E. 15:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a crime documented in a large body of evidence and affirmed by the vast majority of scholars" ? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the problem, as you've already hinted at in your above comment about revising Nakba, is with that article because the language used in that article to describe Nakba does not indicate that Nakba is any less real than the language used to describe the Armenian genocide in the article about that. But, for example 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Palestinian narrative describes Nakba as a narrative. I believe that we might already have an inconsistency at the level of the relationship between 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Nakba. Needs very careful analysis across multiple articles to make sure things are in order and to put them in order. —Alalch E. 15:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Palestinian and Israeli narratives for the sake of good order. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there's seems to be a lot of extreme confusion over what the valid reasons for deleting a page are, WP:DEL-REASON is the relevant policy. Neutrality, balance, and the assertion (here incidentally unevidenced) that content does not adhere to WP:NPOV, is not a reason for deletion, and never has been. It's a reason for adding a POV tag and fixing the perceived problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:DEL-REASON:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following...

(my emphasis), and

5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate).

POVFORKS are content forks per WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the responses based solely on (perceived) issues on neutrality. (To not even touch on the point that no one has actually shown that the content is not neutral with respect to the sources, per WP:NPOV.) With regards to the WP:POVFORK premise in the OP's statement, I don't see how anyone can possibly construe "Nakba denial" as a POVFORK of Nakba ... like how? It's just a related (arguably child) topic. Nakba denial isn't a "POV" on the Nakba, it's a phenomena that is examined in the historiography about the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria are not mentioned even once in the article. So are omitted most other Arab-side "contributors" to the disadvantages of war. And war has only disadvantages. Such a one-sided article proves ill-intentioned terminology, and does not comply with Wikipedia's standards. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an article about a war! Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria are not obviously relevant to the topic. Again, it's unclear what policy-based reason for deletion is being provided here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Iskandar323, what? Jordan, Egypt, etc., aren't relevant to Nakba? Look, if I take the time to go look up Nakba in four or five academic encyclopedias right now, are they going to say, in their own voice, that Zionists are culpable for Nakba? Or are they going to say that the causes of Nakba are disputed? Will they mention Jordan, Egypt, etc.? I think the answer is obviously that they'll say the causes of Nakba are disputed and different scholars apportion blame differently among Israel, Arab states, and other factors. If you don't believe that's what they'll say, then I'll go look it up... Levivich (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of the page isn't the Nakba. I don't know what literature your are looking at currently, but it has not been made clear to me from the sources that I have read that any of these countries are prominently involved in either the historiography of Israel or Palestine, or any related themes. There also seems to be some real confusion by what is meant by "denial" here, i.e. denial of what. Some editors seem to have ceased on the notion, baselessly, that Nakba denial is some sort of weaponized polemic aimed at in term denying the Israeli war of independence. How even? This is frankly bizarre. It has nothing to do with that, but instead the persistent narratives that deny the nature of the 1948 expulsion, which, incidentally, has "expulsion" in the title at 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight because it has been agreed by RFC that this is appropriate, i.e. there was at the very least a partial expulsion by Zionist forces. The "denial" here is of that of the expulsion, of the destruction of villages, of the erasure of Palestinian culture, of the notion that the existing people of Palestine had any indigenous rights, a.k.a. "There was no such thing as Palestinians". I'm not sure what "denying the war of independence" means or even looks like. You can't deny a war. The denial here is about the impact and effects of some of what transpired from it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying Egypt and Jordan aren't prominently involved in the history of Israel and Palestine? I must be misunderstanding. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say history, I said historiography. This is an article the denial of certain aspects of history, largely an expulsion event. The page is written based on historiographical sources discussing this phenomenon of denial in the representation of history and related historiography. As of yet, I have not encountered any historiographical sources making specific mention of Egypt and Jordan in relation to Nakba denial, I imagine because these countries would tend to be more on the not denying side of things and so this particular denial is not a prominent phenomenon in their histories and not a particularly relevant subject in related historiography. But the discussion of this particular denial might exist in the historiography of other countries. I do not know. I have not read all the literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Nakba denial is not the denial of the Nakba -- it's not the denial of the expulsion event, it's not the denial that the expulsion event happened. Nakba denial is the denial of Zionist culpability for Nakba -- well, that's according to the article, which is borrowing that phrasing from one source. I'd say Nakba denial is the denial that the Nakba constituted ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestinians by Zionists/Israel.
    Anyway, the view that Nakba was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israelis is, itself, a minority viewpoint, even today, or at least just one viewpoint among multiple viewpoints. The other viewpoint(s) is that the Nakba either (1) wasn't ethnic cleansing, it was something else ("population transfer"), or (2) wasn't caused by Zionists alone or primarily -- that Arab states, for example, like Egypt and Jordan, are also responsible.
    So that's what Egypt and Jordan have to do with Nakba and Nakba denial. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed that first sentence from the lead and summarized that source in the body, after reading the whole article, see Special:Diff/1181224095 and the subsequent edits. It was not great to take a fragment of the abstract of that one source that actually deals with a highly particular and multi-part definition of "Nakba denialism", and use it as the definition of the subject in the first sentence.—Alalch E. 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are legitimate concerns for the article's talk page, but doesn't affect whether or not "Nakba Denial" is a standalone topic meriting an article. WP:NOTCLEANUP. VR talk 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but where to? Definitely looks like a POVFORK, but I'm not so sure that Nakba itself isn't a POVFORK of 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. So that is definitely an open-ended question that in order of priority probably needs dealing with conclusively first. In literature, those two topics are often treated interchangeably, though the term Nakba is also broader. Here, the current two-page setup is an uneasy attempt to balance the competing scopes. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to the section 'Palestinian and Israeli narratives' under 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Marokwitz (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm..., in face of such an amount of reliable sources dealing with the concept of Nakba Denial, why should we avoid having a stand alone page? Btw, Nakba is not simply referring to a single event, rather it stands for a sequence of events even continued up to know, as the sources portray. The current paragraph in Nakba is explaining it as such: "The foundational events of the Nakba took place during and shortly after the 1948 Palestine war, including 78% of Mandatory Palestine being declared as Israel, the expulsion and flight of 700,000 Palestinians, the related depopulation and destruction of over 500 Palestinian villages by Zionist militias and later the Israeli army." --Mhhossein talk 15:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not seen a denial of the deportation of Arab residents during the war in 1948. And I don't think I've seen anyone deny that an Arab population fled because of IDF forces.
The debate between the two sides (Israel and the Palestinians) is who is to blame for the "Nakba". Was this done in a deliberate action on the part of the Israelis, or did it happen following the start of the war in 1948 by the Arabs themselves...
In any case, as I said at the beginning, I have not seen anyone denying the flight/expulsion of the Arab population in 1948, therefore no one denies the so-called "Nakba". It all depends on the point of view.
Maybe we can simply combine this content in a paragraph in Nakba. Eladkarmel (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.es/books?id=Lx6uEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA50 Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't open it. Can send the relevant text? Eladkarmel (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Moreover, as Josh Ruebner (2022), writing for the Middle East Institute, has noted: 'Nakba denial simultaneously serves as a mechanism to bolster Israel’s denial of Palestinian refugee rights, to whitewash Israel's dispossession of Palestinians, to obfuscate Israel's eliminationist origins, and to encloak Israel's establishment in an ahistorical, virtuous narrative'. Burying the truth further serves the settler colonial aspirations of Zionism in that it helps to ensure that the thorny issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees is avoided altogether."
from "Transitional (in)Justice and Enforcing the Peace on Palestine". Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As actually examined on page, the denial was most prevalent in its most basic form (in the sense of the denial of events themselves) up until the late 1980s. The situation changed with the works of the News Historians. When you say you "have not seen the denial", what do you mean? From personal experience? If you have actually opened all of the free-to-access sources that this page has been based on, you surely would, by now, have seen it explained. Nur Masalha actually separately produced an entire book called "The Politics of Denial", as reviewed here. In the second paragraph, it discusses the chapter devoted to "the struggle against denial of the 1948 nakba in Israel", so this is a tertiary review source confirming the topic as an area of discussion in secondary literature. It goes on to note how a later chapter examines "the way denial of the 1948 ethnic cleansing has ben perpetuated by the peace efforts since 1967". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page can be deleted because there just isn't a real and active denial-industry about it and the page is being used for political accusation and emotional reasons in an effort to vilify and offer a new counter-narrative to the Israeli Independence War. It even uses the same term as the "Holocaust" (catastrophe or cataclysm) by using the Arabic "Nakba" (cataclysm or catastrophe). I don't think any Israelis or other people have ever really denied the fact that people moved away, fled the war, or were suffering due to a war's usual destruction of property and territorial land take-over. No one denies humans suffer in wars. But making articles about it for vilification-purposes and counter-narratives seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV neutrality.
— talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is of course no small irony in denying the existing of a denial, even when it has already been laid out for you in the form of a summarized page linked to a plethora of scholarly sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laid out by Palestinian Authority sources as well as other sources citing said Palestinian sources. An encyclopedia is designed to give us a shared understanding of history that never strays from the truth. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" An encyclopedia is designed to give us a shared understanding of history that never strays from the truth." this one is not... This one is about what is verifiable, not what is true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that was true, it’s a POV issue that should be addressed on the talk page before deletion is discussed Yr Enw (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources and WP:GNG are clear. The delete votes are mostly essays about not liking the topic itself, not about whether the topic is notable and well sourced. Many of the delete votes appear to have low edit counts or are relatively new, which is concerning in the current external environment. For those opposing the title, I suggest they comment about the article Temple denial at the same time.
Looking at Ngrams for both "Nakba denial" and "Temple denial" is worthwhile – Temple denial doesn’t even feature, whereas Nabka denial is an established term with three decades of history. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reasons for deletion being proposed here are becoming an almost unnavigable hodge-podge of mis-applied policy and guidelines. The OP statement cites WP:POVFORK, but it has not been explained how the articles even is a supposed POVFORK of Nakba - this is just an unsupported claim. Nakba denial isn't a "POV" on the Nakba; it is a separate, related topic: that of a phenomena born out in the historical narratives of the Nakba, as identified in the historiographical sources referenced on the page. If, for the sake of argument, one was to entertain that this is a POVFORK of something, it's unclear what that other POV is supposed to be ... what would be the topic's "POV" counterpart? The notion that there is no denial? So the denial of the denial? Such a viewpoint may exist I suppose, but I haven't encountered any reference to it in the literature that I have read yet, and so I couldn't possibly weight it, and the OP hasn't provided any relevant literature demonstrating that such an alternate POV exists. Other editors are citing WP:NPOV as a deletion reason, despite no editor having demonstrated any POV issue either in the misrepresentation of existing sources or the demonstration of the absent viewpoints, but this also misses the point, since neutrality and balance are not reasons for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Of the potentially valid reasons, only content fork has been latched onto, and the basis for this remains wholly unexplained. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly POV attack article. Very little in the article seems to be about actual denial but rather about different views and interpretations of what happened. The very term "Nakba denial" seems to be deliberately chosen to echo "Holocaust denial" in a highly dubious manner. As several users already pointed out, the whole idea of the term, and of the article, is to smear people with a different point of view. We should of course present the Palestinian view, prominently, and we already do in the Nakba article. This article adds very little beyond showing the existence of some WP:FRINGE academics using the term. Jeppiz (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight (preferred), or delete per the OP and POVFORK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't Nakba be a more logical redirect target? AryKun (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nakba has potential POV issues of its own. I actually think a credible argument could be made that it is an unnecessary fork from the other article and probably should be merged into it. But I really don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole at the moment. To my mind the obvious parent article is 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (preferred) or Redirect to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. As Jeppiz this is a hopelessly POV attack article. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the delete arguments are really weak here; they basically seem to boil down to "this page doesn't incorporate the viewpoint that Nakba denialism could be right", which is... an argument. Topic's clearly notable and the page doesn't seem so tilted towards one POV that it couldn't be improved. AryKun (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how many of the people here would support adding the Turkish POV to the Ottoman genocide articles, just because those articles also intrinsically deny one side of the debate or whatever. AryKun (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge to Nakba. I was the editor who added the notability tag, my concerns were satisfied by the identification of significant coverage on the talk page by Iskandar323. A stand alone article is probably better but there is room to merge this into Nakba if that would address some of the (rather weak) concerns about NPOV and POVFORK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DIYeditor. More evidence of article creator Iskandar323's pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Loksmythe (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a problem with another editor raise it with them on their talkpage and not throw random unsupported assertions around in an inappropriate forum. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly because it would overwhelm the parent article. The delete rationales range from personal attacks to unsubstantiated claims that don’t engage with the fact that serious sources discuss this topic at length. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities to be confronted with uncomfortable topics but that isn’t Wikipedias concern. nableezy - 02:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea of "Nakba denial" is clearly attested to, per the article's many sources. It is a notable idea, particularly given the criminalization of Nakba denial by the Palestinian Authority. Wikipedia is not censored. The arguments for deletion amount to "I just don't like it". The notion that an article about an idea is inherently "POV" is specious. POV concerns can be addressed by editing the article and by including dissenting perspectives. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not at all an accurate representation of the delete arguments. The Keep arguments basically amount to: The Palestinian sources said it exists and other sources say that the Palestinian sources say it exists, therefore it is a thing. All the citations are basically the law passed by Abbas to criminalize its denial. Any country's leader can create a victimhood narrative about a war from a long time ago, and wordsmith that into a "word" or brand name and then any academic denying it can be collectively labeled as part of some "denialism" industry. A few citations that cite other citations from a party involved in the conflict is not a reason to create an encyclopedic entry on something so clearly controversial and newly created. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Nableezy and others. This little article has obvious potential for further development, given the large number of sources available. It should not be strangled in its infancy. --NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article passes WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. There is enough in both scope and size to be distinct from Nakba. starship.paint (RUN) 09:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article and topic is not a POV fork - it is a topic distinct from Nakba. The article passes our notability guide with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A merge with Nakba or some other target article would not be appropriate because it would minimize and perhaps bury the research or overwhelm the target article. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above pro-deletion reasonings. There are very clearly massive POV, bias, and significant viewpoint coverage problems with this article. A POV fork. It's coming at an especially bad time considering ongoing events. JM2023 (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone above actually given a single valid reason that this is a POV fork? Where is the bias? Can someone point it out? Everybody above seems to be arguing that we can't have this page because it vilifies the Israeli War of Independence; does the existence of Late Ottoman genocides vilify the existence of Turkish War of Independence? This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that's based more on the emotion generated by the recent terrorist attack than anything else. AryKun (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Levivich's comment from the noticeboard the best:

Here's why I think it's a POVFORK, or it is not NPOV (and Nakba has the same problems): / 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says "The exodus was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba." and "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." / Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says "The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators." / Nakba denial, and Nakba#Nakba denial say, in Wikivoice, that Zionism is "culpable" for Nakba, and that disagreeing with this is Nakba denial. / I think the Nakba denial article is taking one viewpoint (that denying Zionist culpability for Nakba is something akin to genocide denial, called "Nakba denial") and is stating it in wikivoice as if it's fact or the undisputed mainstream view, and in doing so, it contradicts other Wikipedia articles.

Personally I noticed that while the article for Nakba has a whole section for Israeli and other contradicting viewpoints, the Nakba Denial article did not last time I checked. DIYeditor has also on the noticeboard noted multiple areas where wikivoice is used for opinions. Another good comment was made by Marokwitz who stated:

Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. Once such a term is introduced into an encyclopedic context, it doesn't merely tilt the balance; it obliterates it. Readers are not presented with a spectrum of perspectives to form their own conclusions; instead, they are led down a pre-defined path that reaffirms existing biases.

JM2023 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and also, just to address separately, your comment This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that's based more on the emotion generated by the recent terrorist attack than anything else. reads as a failure to WP:AGF with editors concerned about this POV fork by alleging emotional and personal motivations. JM2023 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JM2023: It's coming at an especially bad time considering ongoing events.
What do you mean by this? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing we need are POV forks like this in a contentious topic in which a major war is ongoing. Number one, it compromises Wikipedia's value as a verified and unbiased tertiary source in the topic, and number two, it diverts resources from the central high-traffic war articles. JM2023 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
number two, it diverts resources from the central high-traffic war articles. Eh, what? Seriously? Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why do you ask? If there is something that I am unaware of, feel free to bring it to my attention. JM2023 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason for deletion? Point to the policy, please. (or the stuff about an ongoing war, for that matter). Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The two reasons I just gave to Trillettrollet were for my comment that It's coming at an especially bad time considering ongoing events.. Feel free to scroll back up to my original comment, and also consider looking at my response to AryKun's response to it. Policies are being pointed to.
Also I don't understand this part (or the stuff about an ongoing war, for that matter) there is an ongoing war, it's probably the number one most trafficked article on the encyclopedia right now. JM2023 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Why does that constitute a reason for deletion? Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By my count this is the third time in 10 minutes that I have pointed out that it's not an argument for deletion, it's an addendum discouraging creation of such articles in the first place. My arguments for deletion are in my original comment and in my reply to AryKun. JM2023 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also curious, its an extraordinary argument and I would like to see you provide extraordinary support of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see you provide support for why it is such an extraordinary argument to state that it's a bad time for POV forks because discussions like this one divert resources. I fail to see what is extraordinary about that.
For the record, that is not my argument for deletion; it is my aside comment to urge people not to create POV forks in the first place. My argument is in my original !vote, which referred to all of the above pro-deletion arguments; see also my response to AryKun's response to me, which goes into a few specifics. JM2023 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did we establish timing in guideline or policy? I'd also like the guideline or policy link for diverting resources to hot button issues, that is the most bizarre deletion rationale I've ever come across. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I just stated in the comment that you have just replied to: that is not my argument for deletion; it is my aside comment to urge people not to create POV forks in the first place. I don't see why there needs to be a guideline or policy for me to complain about people creating POV forks which divert resources. JM2023 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just complaining and not being constructive don't push "publish changes" this is not the place for that and you waste the time of everyone who has to read your complaining. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's inappropriate or unconstructive to discourage creation of POV forks on a discussion about deleting a POV fork. If people heed the comment then there is less POV forking in this topic in the future, and therefore less contentious deletion discussions like this one.
It was one sentence appended to the end of my deletion !vote. I don't see how I wasted anyone's time with writing that, but I do see that a lot of time was wasted in 3 different users criticizing, sometimes repetitively, that one sentence; I wouldn't say it's my fault people wasted their time with it. JM2023 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, blame others rather than take responsibility for yourself. When you're in the position of arguing that three different unconnected users are wrong and you're right maybe you aren't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such inflammatory comments. I recommend that you keep your WP:COOL here.
And please do not misrepresent things like this (not saying it's intentional on your part though). I don't see how "three different unconnected users are wrong" when all I did was explain to the first one what I meant by the comment when asked (and that was the end of it -- the editor did not say I am in the wrong), explained to the second one that it was not a deletion argument (twice when they didn't get it the first time, and that again was the end of it -- the editor did not say I am in the wrong), and explained to you as well that it wasn't a deletion argument (again, twice, because you ignored it the first time) and then refuted the idea that any of the other editor's replies (and according to you, time-wasting) were my fault. You are the only person telling me I'm wrong. So I fail to see how I am in the wrong to tell you that I am not wasting your time, you are wasting your time -- As I said, It was one sentence appended to the end of my deletion !vote. I didn't force you or anyone else to waste your time by criticizing it. I do not see your reason for so intensely critiquing such a minor appended sentence if you're so concerned about time-wasting. JM2023 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you're wrong; your argument seems to just be 1. TNT, which I don't think applies here since the article doesn't seem irreparably POV to me and 2. the very idea of "Nakba denial" presupposes the Nakba so we can't have this article, which is ridiculous, since I'm pretty sure there's no reasonable person who would argue that the Nakba (the displacement and effective erasure of a majority of Palestinian Arabs in 1948) did not occur. (just a quote for this: "There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba." from here.) AryKun (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue. I am talking about the person telling me I'm wrong to have written a one-sentence remark discouraging creation of POV forks. You were not included in that area because you didn't talk about the line.
My problem with the article is that it framed (when nominated at least) the Palestinian displacement as being entirely the fault of "Zionists" and "settler colonialists" and had no significant viewpoints of criticism or dissent included; it directly contradicted multiple other articles which stated that the cause and facts were of great controversy among academics. I see no reason why we should have a "Nakba denial" article including criticism of much of the Nakba narrative from significant viewpoints, instead of the opposite. The solution is either one article combining both perspectives so that there is no pro-Palestinian POV fork, or to just combine this article into a controversy section in the Nakba article, or to just get rid of it entirely. JM2023 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool as a cucumber, you're writing paragraphs. There's no need to get so worked up, nobody else is. You made extraordinary claims, you've gotten pretty strong pushback on them... You've provided almost no evidence to support them. You can either retract the claims or provide evidence, thats what's expected of any editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing paragraphs is not an indication of lack of WP:COOL, if anything it indicates I'm willing to engage carefully to dispassionately explain why someone is wrong. It takes more words to refute something than to claim it. What is an indication of lack of WP:COOL is the following:
Inflammatory remarks: If you're just complaining and not being constructive don't push "publish changes" this is not the place for that and you waste the time of everyone who has to read your complaining. when all I did was state that creating a POV fork was especially unwanted in the current context.
More inflammatory remarks: Oh I see, blame others rather than take responsibility for yourself. when all I did was state that I have no responsibility for what others do with their own time.
Misrepresentation: When you're in the position of arguing that three different unconnected users are wrong when I didn't argue that.
More misrepresentation: that is the most bizarre deletion rationale I've ever come across. after I told you it's not a deletion rationale.
We can get hints from the way others write what their level of cool is, and respond with dispassionate warnings like I did; or we can claim that writing "paragraphs" explaining ourselves indicates a lack of "coolness".
Again, you have not stated what these claims are. What exactly is so extraordinary about anything that I've said? Which claims do I need to provide evidence for or retract? You are not being clear at all, I don't know what you want me to do.
Once again I think it's time you took a break from this discussion, stopped with the uncalled for remarks and tone, and thought about whether or not you are in the right, what it is you want, and whether or not it is so important. JM2023 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have only made 9 edits in this discussion to your 21, but if you feel I'm bludgeoning then fair enough. See you later alligator, no hard feelings (the Arab-Israeli conflict is without a doubt one of the most challenging topic areas to edit in, anyone who even tries should be commended). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it was 19 comments (now 20 including this one): 12/19 from responding to four different responses from four other editors under this deletion !vote (making up all but 7 of my comments); 5/7 remaining were a single comment inquiring about feedback services and further responses to its respondents; the remaining 2/2 were in a discussion under one other person's !vote. I do not feel I'm bludgeoning, and I've said nothing of you bludgeoning or your number of comments. That's all. JM2023 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit comments after they've been responded to as you did here [72]. See WP:TALK#REVISE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this guideline. It seems the guideline is intended to prevent robbing additional replies of context (which my minor contextual additions have not done as you did not address my comment in your own reply), and the only problem would be that I did not properly indicate that the minor contextual additions are in fact additions. as you know, I am a relatively new user. JM2023 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the pro-deletion are arguments seem to be anecdotal, basically saying, "well, I've never heard someone say that so it doesn't exist." Even though the sources are right here? Iskander seems to be the only one using policies to support his arguments outside of pretty subjective claims of pov. I learned a lot from this article; I had no ideas there were laws against Nakba denial. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that's an accurate description of deletion arguments. Anyone can scroll up and read them for themselves, or go to the noticeboard and read the arguments there. JM2023 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read them, though. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying you didn't read them, I'm saying you didn't accurately describe them. JM2023 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Variations of this argument represent the core of a number of arguments around when it was said it's ironic to deny the existing of a denial. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ironic to deny the existence of a denial, it would be contradictory to deny the existence of any denial of anything though. And besides, the arguments are about how denying one side's story of an event should not be labelled as a denial of facts and have no significant criticism or dissent section. When the article was nominated it said something along the lines of blaming zionists and "settler colonialists" for everything that happened to the Palestinians, contradicting other articles on the Palestinian displacement which stated that there was immense controversy even among historians. JM2023 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nakba. Its debated if its really a a form of denial or more of a minimization/critique of the claimed severity of the event. The main Nakba article is not overly long and neither is this one, there is no real reason to have a spin-off article in this case. And yes, as others have pointed out, there has been a massive POV push on Wikipedia with pro-Palestine articles, many of them use weasel words and undue weight to paint as negative view as possible of their "enemies".★Trekker (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a boogyman and WP:OTHERSTUFF argument with the claim that there is a "massive POV push" out there. What about this article? How about editing out whatever Wikipedia:Weasel words? Or fixing the WP:UNDUE? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, as others have pointed out, there has been a massive POV push on Wikipedia with pro-Palestine articles, many of them use weasel words and undue weight to paint as negative view as possible of their "enemies" Even if this were true, what has it to do with the deletion nomination? Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think Trekker makes a really valid point. Nakba is already just a different lived perspective of the Israeli War of Independence. At the very most, this article could be kept as a section of the Nakba article, but I can't think of something warranting it a full, separated article. The only good reason I even believe that the Nakba and the WoI have separate articles is because of how long a fully merged article between the 2 would be. EytanMelech (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there some kind of feedback service someone can use to get additional uninvolved editors to comment? JM2023 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already in it (and this one has been to a noticeboard in addition). Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a feedback service like the one that gets sent to random users' talk pages. I.e., I am in one from Yapperbot. JM2023 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the editors (myself included) appear to be uninvolved... Do we actually have a problem there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JM2023: that is called WP:CANVASSING. This AfD was already pseudo-canvassed at ANI. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Given the existence of feedback services in the first place, and the specific language used in the policy, I don't think notification done without the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is canvassing. JM2023 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said additional. It seems rather deadlocked at the moment. I am also an uninvolved editor (well, starting on the noticeboard and being pinged here). I have seen feedback service uses for random RfCs, I thought it could be a somewhat standard procedure for things like this. JM2023 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing unusual about a deadlock. We should not try to tip the balance of what should be an organic discovery of the AfD. There was the unusual pinging of multiple editors above and then the two noticeboards calling editors: it seems like a tainted AfD already as a result. Lightburst (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least five of the delete votes are from people pinged from the rather negative WP:NPOVN discussion - a balance of favourability that the filer was almost certainly aware of. These are not the kind of actions that behoove frank and honest discussion, but rather trying to achieve a certain result. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair, the people pinged from the noticeboard were presumably uninvolved editors given that they responded to a noticeboard; that uninvolvement doesn't change just because the venue has been changed, does it? JM2023 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Record This page has been deleted twice previously. Deletion log for Nakbal denial -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One of those deletions for is for "Israeli–Palestinian history denial"; quoting from the nominator there "It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article...grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate." The other deletion is from 2006. AryKun (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a widely accepted historical fact by historians across the spectrum that Palestinians did exist as a nation before modern Israel and that all the Arabs in what is now Israel and its occupied territories were "Palestinians" and not Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese? I'm actually not very familiar with this topic. This article as it exists relies heavily on this premise, and ties it closely to Nakba denial. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually not very familiar with this topic. An awful lot of comments here and now at ANI if that is the case. Maybe read up a bit and then comment? Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that matter? Were Israelis a nation before the Zionist movement emerged in 1880s? No, but it doesn't mean we can now evict all the Israelis from the Middle East and deny that this would constitute ethnic cleansing. AryKun (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the other one is an involved admin unilaterally deleting a page. Huh. nableezy - 19:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Nakba is an important subject, but I do not see that we need a separate article on its denial. Merge back to main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterkingiron: You say merge back, but it was never split from that article - I just want to clarify that in case there is some sort of confusion here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's been WP:HEYed enough since I commented at NPOVN; it now provides attribution for statements that were previously in Wikivoice, and I think that significantly reduces the NPOV problems. The topic, "Nakba denial," meets WP:GNG. The title of Chapter 11 of the 2006 book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, probably one of the most significant works in the field of Nakba studies, is "Nakba Denial and the 'Peace Process'." 2013's Co-Memory and Melancholia also provides WP:SIGCOV of Nakba denial; the title of a section of Chapter 1 (the introduction) is "Racial state and Nakba denial." This section is like 10 pages long, and it's just summarizing a portion of the book, which the author describes as, "I outline the layers of denial the story of the Nakba encountered." "Nakba Denialism" is in the title of this 2022 paper and "Nakba Denial" is the title of a section of this other 2022 paper, among other sources. There is enough material to summarize specifically on Nakba denial that it would overwhelm Nakba if it were merged. This is destined to be a stand-alone page for WP:PAGESIZE reasons. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough and I respect your opinion. Do you feel that the topic of this article allows for the insertion of Israeli/Zionist views on the foundation of Irseal and its justifications even if not explicitly phrased in terms of "Nakba denial"? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, it depends on whether the sources about Nakba denial cover Israeli/Zionist views, although I'd imagine they do--it's really more a question of which views, exactly. But the sources talk about "Zionist myths" that are part of Nakba denial. Generally, I follow my algorithm. Levivich (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, for clarification, by extension, since the Nakba denial sources cover Israeli and Zionist views, explanations of those views are explicitly included in the topic of the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to explain WP:OR, you can start by reading that page, and if you have further questions ask on the talk page or at the OR noticeboard for specific issues. nableezy - 21:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's prohibited to introduce opposing points of view it speaks to the possible POV fork nature of this and the "God denial" vs. "atheism" equivalency here. I think this is a "God denial" type article. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The explanations that are in the Nakba denial sources. Levivich (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is significant opposition to the Nakba denial narrative then it needs to be put into the article as a significant viewpoint, and that will allow the article to become more NPOV if it is kept. JM2023 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a real topic with sources. Deletion is not cleanup. NPOV issues can be addressed on article talk. Andre🚐 20:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is as much of a legitimate topic as genocide denial, and the sources seem decent to me. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per, counterintuitively, Ad Orientem, whose "For the record" remark could only have been made to convince folks to vote to delete even though I can't believe anyone like that exists. Is there a consensus-sized number of people leaning to vote keep but could be convinced otherwise by that page, particularly its reprehensible first entry (contributed 17+ years ago by a still-active admin, no less)? It's been a long time since this article seriously ruffled any feathers; let's not pretend we don't know why it's become so contentious right now. City of Silver 02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clear that one part up, this page was created recently, and I assume not based on anything currently in the news. I cant say why Ad Orientem mentioned the deletion log, except maybe to say that it might qualify for G4 speedy delete, but that is clearly not the case given the prior deletion was the result of deleting a redirect to another article and the first one was not the result of a discussion. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 02:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nableezy: I can't push this much further without running afoul of WP:AGF. I'll just say that I really don't think AO is foolish enough to even suggest that this should be speedily deleted and I certainly would not have said what I said if I could think of any other reason to link that log. City of Silver 02:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is customary in deletion discussions to post links to previous AfDs and relevant logs. I was asked on my talk page about the previous deletion by another editor. When I checked I was rather surprised to discover that the previous AfD had not been linked at the top, so I simply posted the FTR note. Really, people need to just dial down the temperature a bit. Good grief. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete: phenomomen that doesn't really exist, article highly lacks of NPOV which is a red flag that the purpose of the article is mainly to depict a certain narrative rather than to inform readers. dov (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
    Nakba denial denial, nice. The sources in the article clearly show that the subject of the article exists, so you have to come up with a better reason than that. Also, where are the NPOV violations? You can't just hand wave those into existence, you have to substantiate these allegations (also noting that AfD is not for article cleanup, so POV is also not a valid rationale for deletion). AryKun (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice indeed ... really the stuff that proves the very knowledge gap that this page is in turn filling. I believe the NPOV that we are dealing with in this case is an abridged "Not-my-POV". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not supposed to be POV period, that fact you are saying it is a POV is concerning. "Not-my-POV", wikipedia is not supposed to be written from any POV. Recommend you to read WP:AFG, WP:EQ and ad hominem. dov (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
    Please read WP:NPOV. nableezy - 09:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Psychological projection. dov (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
    Done, your turn now. nableezy - 16:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    its not that its "not-my-pov", its that is not a neutral POV. it ignored all significant viewpoints except the pro-Palestinian one and didn't attribute them and framed all other viewpoints as "denial" in Wikivoice. JM2023 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fix for an article lacking significant views is to add them, not to delete others. nableezy - 16:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More about using Wikivoice to represent your personal opinion, and being agressive towards editors because of their vote. This rude and non respectful behavior is not accepted in Wikipedia. dov (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
    This talk of personal opinions is a bit rich coming from the editor who stated that the subject is a "phenomomen that doesn't really exist" - basically in total detachment from the reality of the sources that clearly exist ... What are we supposed to infer from this? Because it feels a lot like the actual sources simply don't interest you. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a large number of academic and popular sources covering this topic in-depth and at-length. I've added a few more sources to the article and there are many more that are not in the article. This is a patently notable topic - not much else to be said. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets GNG and NPOV problems have been largely dealt with in editing subsequent to nomination. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Nakba denial question per NPOV. This seems to be a relatively new, disputed term -- unlike Holocaust denial. Some of the sources which promote the term are clearly pushing an agenda (the Palestinian Authority, this historian, and a book titled Time for Reparations, for example). However, the term has received in-depth discussion, and the length of our articles on the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and the Nakba mean a separate article is justified in my view. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, obvious WP:POVFORK and clear violation of WP:NPOV policy, plus deleted twice already. WCMemail 14:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's correct the record: despite what AO wrote above, it's not true that this page was deleted twice already, it was deleted once in 2006 (and AFAICT, not after discussion, but unilaterally by one admin, on the grounds of "original research, WP:POINT, neologism, defamatory nonsense" -- can't see the page, so maybe it had OR, was pointy, and defamatory, but Google scholar and ngrams disproves that it was a neologism in 2006, having been covered in English-language scholarship since at least 1998). The page that was deleted in 2011 was a different page, and the grounds for deletion and discussion noted that it combined Nakba denial with other topics that should instead be separate. AFAICT, this is the first deletion discussion about Nakba denial in the history of Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion log clearly shows it has been deleted twice already. AO gave a link which can be checked, so trying to argue it hasn't doesn't wash. The reasons for deletion in both cases being depressingly familiar to the reasons for deleting it now. So no, this is the second not the first deletion discussion and the article was recently recreated. WP:TNT is the appropriate response. WCMemail 15:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what the 2011 deletion discussion shows. Anyway, editors can read it and make up their own mind. Levivich (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to see what bearing the deletion of some alternate version of the page 17 years ago has on the page that exists today. Not a single currently cited source dates back to 2006. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes people can read and make up their own minds, I urge them to do so. You don't serve your case well by badgering anyone who comments. WCMemail 15:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not true that I'm badgering anyone who comments. Just you, and Iskandar a little bit above. Levivich (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's also not true that I'm badgering anyone who comments. Just you" Please stop. WCMemail 15:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has never been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. Full stop. nableezy - 15:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Further, if this had been created in 2011 not as a topic-chimera (it's not such an atrocious article content-wise, just very unfortunate wrt scope [everyone can see it on archive.org]) but an article with a validly formulated subject it's highly possible verging on likely that it would have been kept back then. —Alalch E. 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[73], [74] WCMemail 16:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There something those links tell us as it is not immediately obvious to me what a link showing there is no internet archive copy of a page with this name is supposed to mean? nableezy - 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20100530173448/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_history_denial —Alalch E. 20:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, so [75] it was deleted. Exactly as I pointed out. Thank you. WCMemail 09:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol no, Israeli-Palestinian history denial was deleted. Nakba denial was a redirect so that was also deleted. A Nakba denial article however was not. nableezy - 09:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFLMFAO I am constantly amazed by the semantic gymnastics people will go to to "disprove" a point. Fuck it, you can have the last word. WCMemail 09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not semantics; as I already posted above, the nominator at that deletion discussion specifically said "It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article...grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate". Most of the delete votes there were on the basis of the article being a hodgepodge of vaguely related issues, which this article is definitely not. AryKun (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are technically correct - the best kind of correct Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but I just don't consider a page with a different title, scope, and content, to be the same page under any possible meaning of the word "same." Levivich (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody proves that they are unable or unwilling to change their mind in the face of evidence that contradicts their previously held beliefs, trying to get them to do so is a waste of both your time and theirs. The useful thing to do is to demonstrate that they are factually wrong so that a closer can properly weigh their view when closing. I think thats been done at this point tbh. nableezy - 16:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its me but I would be quite happy allowing the closer to make up their on minds based on the evidence rather than giving them detailed instructions on what they're supposed to think. If you think you're morally and intellectually superior, you do you. Always instructive when people insist on the WP:LASTWORD and yes I get WP:IRONY. WCMemail 07:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable topic that passes GNG with flying colours. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Levivich. How could this article be a WP:POVFORK when it is about a related but different topic that is already given its own small section in the article Nakba? And once again, POV issues are not a reason to delete and any argument based on this should be given no weight just like the ones that claim that a content is "dangerous", "harmful", "does not deal with a topic sensitively", and "is not truth because original research indicates that it is not". --StellarHalo (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe some people have also said that there may be a problem at Nakba for that reason. However I think it's better to have content like this at Nakba and attributed as counter-criticism of criticism of the Nakba narrative in order to maintain NPOV and have all significant viewpoints presented. the problem with this Nakba Denial article was that it framed denial in Wikivoice of a "Zionist settler colonialist" cause of Palestinian displacement to be something horribly wrong despite other articles stating that there is indeed significant historiographical controversy. The fact that it gets its own article yet there is no "Criticism of the Nakba" article or something is what the problem is; it can thereby frame a POV that should at most be attributed without Wikivoice in a section in the Nakhba article as an apparent NPOV while contradicting other articles. JM2023 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and notable topic.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I wasn't initially convinced but it appears that the term is used (to defend or to criticize it) in several RS: Israeli (ToI), Western (Guardian), and Arab (The New Arab). So sourced and notable. Looks good to me. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is notable and the article is large enough to be differentiated from Nakba. Skitash (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is well sourced and is widely covered.Haskko (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge) - There is a potential content fork here, and per WP:DEL-REASON, content forks may be deleted (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). Very many of the keep !votes have simply asserted notability, but the nomination was based on this being a POVFORK, for which notability may be assumed but is not the relevant consideration, so these have not grappled with the policy reason for delete. The important questions are threefold: (1) is this title incapable of being an encyclopaedic treatment because it is incapable of being NPOV? (2) is this a fork of existing content, duplicating that content, and (3) is it a valid spinoff of another article? First and most importantly, I have concluded that, following some improvements, an encyclopaedic treatment is possible here, per WP:HEY, Levivich and A455bcd9, and the sources above. It is not, therefore a POVFORK. Secondly, although there was some small duplication of content, the article looks more like a spin out than a duplication (POV or otherwise). Thirdly, is it a valid spin off? Levivich argues that merge back into Nakba would overwhelm that article, but we need not merge it all back in, and article size arguments are not convincing. I would be content with a merge, but have come down on the side of keep per A455bcd9. It seems to me that the sub-topic is significant enough in its own right to merit the fuller treatment it can be given in a spinoff. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other users - it is a widely covered concept in academic writing and also gets enough media attention. Distinct from the event itself. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The OP's arguments are mostly focusing on content issues which, if assumed applicable, can be resolved by editing the page. Moreover, this is clearly a notable topic covered by a wide range of reliable sources. I just looked into google books and found three scholarly sources within a couple of minutes: [76], [77] and [78]. Also, I oppose merging this notable title into the already overwhelmed main topic, i.e., Nakba. The latter is more than 60kb and merger is not welcomed per WP:SIZERULE. --Mhhossein talk 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is still a notable topic in its own right, regardless of it being considered controversial, contentious or coming from a very obvious POV. That, on it's own, is not grounds for deletion in my eyes, and any major POV issues can probably be dealt with via the regular editing process. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's extensively attested to in RS, and that's good enough for me. Riposte97 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nakba denial is not really a thing. The 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight are real, as are the debates around that. Often supporters of Israel put an accent on the flight, and discount the expulsion. Supporters of the Palestinian people often the other way around. It's a debate and in the extreme historical revisionism. Centered on the expulsion and flight, i.e the root article. Nakba is already subjective: how the Palestinians experienced these events and carry (these) on since. Still worthy of an article. The idea behind Nakba denial is an effort at Holocaust relativization through false equivalency. It can be and is already mentioned in the Nakba article that isn't very long. The substential debate and narratives are already mentioned under 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Palestinian and Israeli narratives. gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not it is "really a thing" is not directly pertinent to whether it is a notable topic. The point is that there is a discourse around its existence, and some people (including plenty of scholars) think it is a thing. "The idea behind Nakba denial is an effort at Holocaust relativization through false equivalency." - ironically, that very sentence contains the inherent assumption that the topic exists ... and sounds like something that needs sourcing and adding to the page., Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nakba denial is definately a neologism used in some literature. My position right above. Hence I did not say that any mention should be eradicated entirely from Wikipedia. It does not make it, however, "really a thing". It refers to a debate on the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight that is already covered there. This Holocaust-relativistic concept artificially moves a debate that we already carry to the wrong location, under Nakba, where it does not belong. Nakba Day belongs under Nakba and sits fine there. The problem is that of information organization. Specifically what, if anything, needs to be rehashed or revisited yet another time and how do we not confuse the reader by erraneously framing a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An impressive denial. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read more carefully, you would have noted that I do not deny anything, but for engaging in denial of any sort. Au contraire! I only want us to govern information correctly, in the interest of the users of Wikipedia. Remains impressive and I will take that as a compliment then. The stuff people throw at each other in these debates can be very depressing! Excactly why I often stay away from such debates. People make very unpleasant comments towards each other, even if everything one says is NPOV. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sincere and not a rhetorical question: If someone types "Nakba denial" in the search bar, on what page should they land on to be presented with (approximately) what content? —Alalch E. 16:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I type it, I get a pop up for the page. Isn't that what we want? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I searched concerning the issue, and the mentioned topic is clearly notable, and is found in many/sufficient related sources; therefore it is better to keep it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:23, 28 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizboy[edit]

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

Nothing from my WP:BEFORE; only pseudo-notable thing about it is that it was Nickelodeon's most viewed premiere in a while 2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 21 October 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 ThunderCats characters. Daniel (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mumm-Ra[edit]

Mumm-Ra (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)

Plot summary with tiny reception based on low quality sources (listices with passing mention). My BEFORE failed to find anything, although I could not access the paywalled article here. I doubt it has much useful content, but it would be nice if someone could comment on it. For ATD I recommend redirect to the List of ThunderCats characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 21 October 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 El Tri (band) as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 23:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otra Tocada Mas[edit]

Otra Tocada Mas (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 has no sources CocaPopsRather (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's part of the discography of a very notable band, isn't that enough? And if in fact isn't, couldn't be merge with other minor albums? Zidane tribal (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability of the performer(s) has nothing to do with that of their recordings. This is not a vote. dxneo (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NALBUM and WP:SIGCOV. Alternatively redirect to El Tri (band) per WP:ATD. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no significant coverage. Rather than trouncing the nominator, commenters should do a good faith search for sources before chastising someone for not doing due diligence. I could locate no reviews in RS and there weren't even passing mentions of the album. Nothing in google books, newspapers.com, entertainment magazines like Billboard or Variety, or even in standard e-zines or music websites where one would usually find a review. It appears to be an entirely non-notable work by a notable band.4meter4 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:05, 21 October 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 13:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Teichman[edit]

Tom Teichman (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)

Sole quality source is the Evening Standard. Nothing else located on a search, same as the talk page message left by the person who tagged this for notability earlier this year. Single source is not enough to retain the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject seems to meet WP:BASIC. In addition to what's in the article including Evening Standard, there's decent of coverage in FT including this[79], which has both an interview and secondary coverage . Lots of other short mentions of the subject in FT. If no consensus to keep, redirect to Simba Sleep which makes mention of the subject. —siroχo 03:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not even close to WP:N. I have to wonder how this got created in the first place, it must have fallen through cracks.
Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album)[edit]

Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page was previously deleted in 2020 for having no importance and later PRODed by user Amkgp in 2020 for the same reason before user Atlantic306 removed it for being “independently notable as the album charted on a national chart”.

I went back to look at this article as I was rewriting and splitting the main pages to determine if they should stay, and after looking I couldn’t find much (or any) reliable sources for the albums and most singles. The redirect for this page was reverted by Atlantic306 again for the same reasoning as before. I reasoned that even though it did chart high, there still wasn’t much reliable sourcing to make it pass WP:GNG and just because it charted high did not make it notable when it’s the only thing that I could find.

The only things I could really find was an announcement for this and another album being remastered (which only has a bit of text before giving the track list), the Oricon/Billboard chartings in the article, and articles that only mention it as part of writing of the whole career of the band (like the OtaQuest reference in the article). reppoptalk 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would like to put my vote to redirect to Carlos Toshiki & Omega Tribe, as I had did prior to being reverted. reppoptalk 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM#2 by charting at #2 on the Oricon Albums Chart. —siroχo 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Person who contested prod is correct. Charting establishes notability. Notability can be established by either GNG or specific criteria; meeting both is not required. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful it additional sources could be brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to band article. Chart positions definitely contribute to a band's notability, and I get pissed whenever an AFD commenter pulls the "Chart positions do not contribute to notability" comment when a song or album has like 10 of them. However, there is only one chart position. We still have to write a full article at the end of the day, and a chart position alone just does not give you enough. In all fairness, contemporaneous coverage about Japanese music in the 1980s is REALLY tough to find if your only source to everything was on the Internet and (probably) if you lived in the Western world. However, if what is on the article is all we have, the band article can easily summarize it. Additionaly, you could just list the Oricon peak in the discography section. The amount of content you could write is just too little to make an article on its own. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or redirect to band article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. We have WP:SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, with respect, nominating for deletion a second place charting, 20th most sold album of the year just to make a point about SNGs vs. GNG debate is a gigantic wastle of time. If we were talking about a 2010s American album that ranked 40th in the gospel airplay chart maybe the nominator would have had a point, but for a Japanese band of the 1980s it is perfectly perfectly understandable why sourcing is difficult to find, but almost certainly exists. Cavarrone 07:59, 24 October 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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arghavan Salles[edit]

Arghavan Salles (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)

Self promotional page, non-notable person Bumblebumbum (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, Iran, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Profiles by American Womens Medical Association and Stanford, and the Time article (not specifically about her, but significant) should establish notability. She has an admirable publication record and has written for general media (e.g. the USA Today editorial). All of these are already cited in the article. Yes, the article tends toward the promotional and there are too many citations to social media, but these issues can be cleaned up without deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many valid references establish notability. Also of note: the nominator has no contributions other than this AfD. See Bumblebumbum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch re: the nominator. Something seemed fishy about this nomination and a likely SPA fits the bill. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Her leadership as a Director for the American Womens Medical Association board is at the national level, she has significant coverage in many secondary news sources (across many years), many publications, and her visibility and importance regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has been broadly covered. Agree with above that the nomination seems a little targeted and unsure why the user no longer exists on Wikipedia. Microglia145 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: my strong first instinct was to vote Keep, but I'm not sure I can see what notability guideline the subject meets. Seems to be a way off WP:NACADEMIC (perhaps WP:TOOSOON?) and I don't see enough secondary sources to pass WP:GNG: the Time and USA Today profiles mentioned above were written by her, the Stanford profile is specifically alumni coverage, which doesn't really clear the bar, and I don't really see much in the way of sources that give WP:SIGCOV and can be called completely independent of her. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak delete. SPA aside, the article as it stands relies too much on non-independent sources, comes across as somewhat promotional, and sports a CV to boot. But I don't want to overcorrect. While GNG is hard to put together, and ACADEMIC seems unmet, WP:BASIC may still be met if we use [80] and [81] as a foundation. If we had any further independent sources with SIGCOV, I could be convinced to keep. —siroχo 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. I think NYT from below gets us to WP:BASIC, tho article still needs some work. —siroχo 09:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the two news stories listed by User:Siroxo, I added items from Proquest in which she talks about the US response to COVID and the founding of 500 Women in Medicine, a 2019 news article that talked about her work on gender bias [82], and a 2021 NYTimes article about medical careers and fertility that includes a section on her [83]. Collectively this sums up to WP:BASIC, though the excessive Twitter references should be trimmed out. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entire article reads as a vanity article, and a CV. As far as CVs go, it is mildly impressive, but nothing out of the ordinary in medicine. Her top claim to notability - being one of the many current directors of AMWA, is certainly not enough. (Furthermore, there are 17 other members of the current board, and she is not on the executive committee, simply a board member: https://www.amwa-doc.org/about-amwa/leadership/). Additionally, while every academic physician's job is to publish, the subject does not come close to meeting criteria for WP:NACADEMIC either. 192.104.139.5 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that Salles meets WP:NACADEMIC; She meets our criteria for WP:BASIC because she has received coverage in multiple, published secondary sources that are independent of each other and her. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are still split between keeping and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is evidently using this account just for AFD. They have no contributions other than this AfD which is suspicious. That aside, the article has some sources online. --Tumbuka Arch★★★ 11:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I noted above, tidying up was needed. Rather than leaving this to another editor, I removed the statements sourced to Twitter. I also removed any statements that I could not verify. DaffodilOcean (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator conflict-of-interest aside, I'm not seeing anything here to meet academic notability nor significant coverage. The list of personal publications is nothing special. Furthermore, the external coverage subject has received is not on a high level either. The article as it stands discusses subject's own education and personal interests, which are adequately sourced, rather than doing anything to establish their actual significance. Also, as stated above, many of these sources were contributed to by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.197.242 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 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 Ronny J. The only argument against a merger is that there isn't a primary target; but the title of this article is so specific that the redirect target is almost irrelevant; and there's no reason the content can't be merged to multiple places. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song)[edit]

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song) (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 meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. PROD removed without explanation. Deauthorized. (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Deauthorized. (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ronny J as WP:ATD. —siroχo 08:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ronny J: All I could find was this and I don't know what this is, a shame such big names did not make the news. dxneo (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to XXXTentacion, as all I could find with a GNews search were news pieces simply announcing the song's release. In the few years after his death, songs recorded by him were still being released and having a good chart run, but if this is any indication, that seems to have run dried. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus for redirecting has been established, however, it is unclear which article it should be redirected to…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneYoris, looking at recent recording by Ronny J, they are released by the labels Listen Up Forever Record and Create Music Group Inc, same as the this song here. I think it's only fair if it is redirected to Ronny J. dxneo (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either to Ronny J or XXXTentacion---Tumbuka Arch★★★ 12:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tumbuka Arch, per what reasons? dxneo (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo there are very less sources mentioning or discussing this. Apart from this site which you have already pointed, it's all I could find too. I don't see much of the other reliable sites covering it. While the individuals may be legends or whatsoever, however, on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources to support a subject to be a standalone article.--Tumbuka Arch★★★ 00:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tumbuka Arch, at this point I believe the article has already drowned so my question is actually on WP:AtD, why merging rather than redirecting? dxneo (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for practical reasons. There is no primary redirect target as either Ronny J or XXXTentacion could be the target. There is therefore a valid navigational need to keep the article. The content's verifiable to cited sources so I don't see that keeping a short article is detrimental in anyway to the encyclopedia even if the references don't rise to the level of significant coverage that we require per GNG. A disambiguation page could be created in place of an article as an alternative; although I think the current version of the article would better service wikipedia's readers. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4, not having a target to redirect to is not a valid reason to an article that does not pass the mininum requirements listed under WP:NMUSIC. At this point a fair redirect target is Ronny J as this single was released through his now record label(s). dxneo (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@dxneo Actually it is entirely valid per our policies at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and more specifically WP:NOPRIMARY. Notability policy does not trump disambiguation policy or our policy language in relation to redirects; nor does it supersede our policies on content forks. Navigation needs are a valid reason to keep an article; although it may mean adapting the article into a disambiguation page. But as I stated above, WP:COMMONSENSE in this case makes an article page more useful than a dab page in this case. Otherwise we create a DAB page which links to both primary targets, and then merge the content into both articles and create an redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. To my mind keeping the article is an easier and prefereble solution. We have WP:IAR as a policy for a reason; particularly when practical solutions are better than strictly following policy language.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, creating a DAB which links both primary targets seems like a good way to go. Thank you. dxneo (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you are thanking me... A disambiguation page is a workable solution, but as I stated I prefer keeping the article as opposed to creating a dab page and merging identical content into two separate article per our policy on content forks.4meter4 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also opposed to keeping the article, sooner or later someone is going to tag it for deletion once again. dxneo (talk) 21:05, 24 October 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 Link 80. Star Mississippi 23:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember How It Used to Be[edit]

Remember How It Used to Be (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 was unable to find any reliable sources providing any coverage to this album in an regular search and using the WP:Album search engine, contested BLAR, asking for a redirect to Link 80 Justiyaya 08:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Link 80: I found these two brief punk zine reviews, but I'm pretty sure neither would be considered reliable. Given I found nothing else, I don't see notabtility for this release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:55, 21 October 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. After two relists, editors remain divided on whether coverage quite meets GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Pesina[edit]

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

Non-notable motion capture actor for a video game. Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about these sources. The Encyclopedia of Bohemian and Czech Americans is from a publish your own book company (authorhouse.com) so I'm not sure that it qualifies as a reliable source. I admittedly have no idea if superjumpmagazine.com is a reliable source for WP. The SMH mentions Pesina as one of the lead developers of Mortal Combat, so that may be a valid source, though he's mentioned only in one paragraph of the article. There may be a case for WP notability, but I'm not yet convinced. I am however, open to being convinced. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Lightburst. I note that the first ref given above is an entry in a specialist encyclopedia which on its own indicates notability. Per WP:5P1, we should include all content found in specialized encyclopedias.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P1 does not say that appearing in a specialist encyclopedia grants WP notability. It says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" which is not the same as saying those automatically indicate notability or that all content from those sources must be included in WP. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Lightburst Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Only the Sydney Herald is a reliable source and I wouldn't count that as significant coverage, he is mentioned in passing. Like previously said AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, not an acceptable source per WP:RSSELF. Super Jump Magazine is another self-published source, and is another passing mention of the person. --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mika1h: How about a newspaper article? Statesman Journal. Or an article? Or another article? Or the Phoenix News Times interview with his brother discussing Carlos. Taken together don't all of these sources add up to Basic? Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's 3 passing mentions in reliable sources (Sydney, Statesman, Phoenix), not enough to pass in my book. --Mika1h (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that interviews, especially with his brother, do not generally count as significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:28, 21 October 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 Moved to Draft by creating editor‎. This is a procedural speedy close based upon the originator's move of the article to Draft during the process. That was one of the likely outcomes, so this discussion has become unnecessary (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusif Meizongo Jnr[edit]

Yusif Meizongo Jnr (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)

Disputed draftification. Since it is likely that the subject has notability I recommend Draftify as the outcome of this discussion. The references consist of interviews with the subject, some with commentary, and gossip column-like material, coupled with apparent churnalism. Not ready for mainspace. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ghana. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't cite a single source that would meet the GNG standard, as they're all churnalism, press releases, and/or non-RS. I could also live with draftification if the creator agrees not to publish again past AfC, but only as long as there's some confidence that appropriate sources can be found (and I must say I had a quick look and found none, so not very optimistic). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Disputed draftification indeed. my rationale is exactly nominator's rationale. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no serious independent coverage in WP:RS.-KH-1 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 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. Star Mississippi 13:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garett Nolan[edit]

Garett Nolan (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)

Notability has been challenged. No new sources have been added since article was tagged two years ago. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Khel[edit]

Yusuf Khel (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)

PROD'd (not by me) with the following rationale: "Unsourced and one single colonial era source was added that I removed and there is no enough sources for the topic to add. It showed that the topic of the article is non notable topic. Good faith"

De-PROD'd with the following edit summary: "This user is only targeting Pashtun related pages"

Coming upon this from the orphaned article category, I have no stake in that dispute and no idea whether that is accurate. I can say that I concur with the PROD rationale; I also found no non-Raj era sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  1. The person who proposed the article’s deletion has, in fact, “targeted” a number of poorly sourced articles about Pashtun tribes. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
  2. For more information on the person who removed the PROD tag, see:
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft - I think the fairest thing to do here is to draftify. I see whispers in sources that it is a verifiable thing, but these tend to be mentions. It may well be a thing discussed in depth in Pashtun sources. I can't find them and unless someone else offers them, I'm not sure any of the rest of us are in a position to assess them. JMWt (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not be draftifying articles that are over five years old. We also cannot simply assume that in-depth sourcing exists - we don't need the actual sources, but we need proof of their existence. Otherwise we would be forced to keep anything with potential for non-English sourcing, no matter how little actual indication there is of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no refs found for Yusuf Khel as a tribe or caste. Multiple passing mentions for villages with this name in Afghanistan and Pakistan: [86], [87], [88], [89]
We could potentially edit this stub into a geographic stub with the same name but that seems a potentially confusing thing to do during an AfD - better to first delete this and then start one or two new stubs later if desired
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:26, 21 October 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 03:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese fashion as social resistance[edit]

Japanese fashion as social resistance (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 topic may be notable, but what we have here is a WP:TNTable WP:ORish mess, possibly an old educational assignment. Half of is unreferenced, half of it is/was referenced to low quality souces (blogs), most of the other sources are low quality (one academic book is cited without a page number, NYT is invoked for a mostly irrelevant claim) it still sports an essay style "conclusion" section. Worse, there are obviously "fake" references, for example the first paragraph of the "Analysis of Ganguro as Resistance" is referenced to Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage in Japan site, which aside from not being reliable doesn't even mention anything related to Ganguro or resistance. The concept of social resistance is not defined nor do we have an article on this; and the article doesn't mention this word outside the lead and two headings and two sentences in one of those. I don't think there is anything salvageable here to even suggest a merge (to Japanese street fashion, which already covers almost all that is here). If someone wants to work on this, they should start by adding a sociological analysis to that article, and then split it off. It's time to put this editing experiment out of everyone's misery. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Social science, and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I found a couple of scholarly pieces that might count as RS: [90] and [91]. Those actually use the term "social resistance" at least once. But as it stands this is a term paper, not an encyclopedia article, and it's packed with WP:SYNTH drawn from low-quality sources. Someone must care enough about this topic to write a decent article, but this isn't it and won't be until it's bombed and rebuilt. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator, I think anything sporting fake references is worthy of TNT. Bensci54 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: we already have articles on lolita fashion and Ganguro, both much better cited (and written) than this article. Further, the article is based on 2 premises: that Lolita and Ganguro both involve "social resistance" (not proven), and that scholars have grouped the two fashions together for their social resistance (doesn't seem to be true, so the conjunction is WP:OR). Since it is unlikely there's anything in this essay that can be merged to either target, we should delete it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR. Dekimasuよ! 01:33, 23 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilja Tavaststjerna[edit]

Hilja Tavaststjerna (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)

Generally, subject doesn’t pass WP:GNG, more specifically, doesn’t pass WP:NWRITER, sources fails verification, nothing to show notability. Cursory search returned nothing useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #1 (literaturbanken.se) is literally a single sentence.
  • Ref #2 (libris.kb.se) is just a search result listing
  • Ref #3 (libris.kb.se) is some kind of a database entry, consisting of name, DOB/DOD and a 4-word description
  • Ref #4 (yksityiskoulut.fi) is a passing mention, listing her in a list of rectors. I'm also unclear what makes this a reliable source.
  • Ref #5 (libris.kb.se) is a barebones library database entry about a book
  • Ref #6 (litteraturbanken.se) is an extremely brief description of a play
Absolutely none of these is useful in the least for demonstrating the subject meets either GNG or NAUTHOR. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. Seems to have been widely covered for her work in a school. We can probably combine sources for WP:BASIC here. For example, [92][93][94][95][96][97] —siroχo 08:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These all look like extremely passing mentions, what meaningful thing is there to say about the subject based on these? Ljleppan (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo:I learned and enjoyed your careful and intelligent look. I definitely agree with you, we can at least look into this:WP:BASIC for this subject. —Patricia (Talk) 11:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I tried hard but I couldn't find enough that I could understand. There are some book previews as Siroxo found but unless someone can translate them, they're effectively useless. I can't figure out how to copy and paste them into a translation app. These refs may meet technically meet the notability guidelines but not the spirit if they're unusable to writers on this Wikipedia. @Siroxo, @Ljleppan and @Patricia Mannerheim, if any of you can translate or figure a way to paste this material into a translator, I am open to revisiting my "delete" - ping me.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can read Finnish natively, and know some basic Swedish, and as far as I can see and the book previews by Siroxo all are extremely passing mentions.
  • #1 is looks to be just a mention of "We [the Parliament of Finland] gave Hilja Tavaststjerna a loan of 1500 marks for building a kindergarden".
  • #2 describes how someone else (unclear who, but not Hilja) worked as a teacher in Hilja's school.
  • #3 is a passing mention of how the senate grants Hilja's school 2000 marks because the times were bad.
  • #4 is just the same text as #1.
  • #5 is a passing mention, basically "In 1900, the small girls' school founded by Hilja Tavaststjerna in 1879 came under the management of Helena Forsman, and the curriculum was changed so that..." and then continues talking about what that other person did.
  • #6 talks about how Mary Gallen-Kallela (the topic of the book) studied in a school ran by Hilja for five years, hearing her tell fairy tales and getting to use a microscope. Again, very brief.
I don't see how any this is useful for GNG purposes. Ljleppan (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ljleppan, thanks. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:32, 21 October 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 00:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Bigelow[edit]

Kit Bigelow (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)

Impressive resume, but not finding coverage that would establish GNG here. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Scattered mentions in media [98], [99] but there are no substantial coverages of her. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 21 October 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 Survivor: The Australian Outback. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Wesson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tina Wesson (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)

Maybe a few others who appeared in more than one Survivor season are notable. However, some certain others may have been redirected to their winning seasons.

I have doubts about this person's notability other than for winning only Survivor: The Australian Outback, despite appearing in two other seasons that she lost... and The Price Is Right once... and writing an book (if not an autobiography)... and multiple third-party sources naming her the Australian Outback winner. I even doubt that bringing her daughter along makes her notable either.

If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, how about WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE then? Preferably, the article should be redirected to The Australian Outback one, but I don't mind it being alternatively redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article Won the most-watched season of Survivor and in general reality TV history, she's also one of its earliest winners. She plays again in Blood vs Water and gets to the top 4. There is no reason to delete after being in TWO finales of the biggest reality show of all time, bfr. Thecheeseistalking99 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Survivor: The Australian Outback, fails WP:ENTERTAINER: "significant roles in multiple notable productions", in this case two roles is not enough to satisfy the criteria. Also fails WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Verma (politician)[edit]

Madhu Verma (politician) (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)

He doesn't meet the rules from WP:NPOL because he hasn't worked at the state or provincial level in government. Also, he hasn't won an election for the 2023 Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election yet because it is scheduled to be held on 17 November 2023. This page is only appropriate if he wins that election. Charlie (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail WP:NPOL to me and it looks like the article may have been created because they're running for office again. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He had hold the executive positions of chairman and director in Indore Development Authority. He was also in the advisory committee of Narmada Valley Devlopment Authority. Jatin S. Sharma (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a lot more than just two hits of run of the mill campaign coverage to make an unelected candidate "notable because GNG" in lieu of having to win an NPOL-passing office. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but nothing else here constitutes a valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a candidacy. Obviously no prejudice against recreation next month if he wins, but nothing here is already enough as of now. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 24 October 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)‎ Lightburst (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Mahoney[edit]

Brendan Mahoney (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)

My WP:BEFORE did not reveal evidence of notability. The person does not have WP:SIGCOV and does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @BeanieFan11: these can be added to the article: his notability is derived from something other than his position as directorof player personnel. I will withdraw. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 21 October 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. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal (Indian magazine)[edit]

Royal (Indian magazine) (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, interviewing notable figures doesn't make any organisation notable until it get WP:SIGCOV. This article is without sources since long and I didn't found any coverage during WP:BEFORE. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 00:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Fashion, and India. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 00:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apparently fails GNG; I was also unable to find coverage of any sort in reliable sources. Article was created by two SPAs and has seen little activity since. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not that notable--Tumbuka Arch★★★ 12:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is it, that this article only just got nominated for deletion right when I started making edits related to it, can someone explain that to me? Is that a double standard? Also, the publication has interviewed big name real estate developers. Is that notable? Pladero (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Pladero, interviewing notable figures doesn't make it notable. It needs to pass WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. And there is no double standard issue with you. The reviewer, whenever they review any article and find that the article is not following notability guidelines, will add the deletion tag, especially when there are no citations available. This is a review process and is not personal to any editor. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 07:17, 23 October 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_October_21&oldid=1182887590"