Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29 December 01 >

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 no consensus. Gnangarra's argument seven days ago remains unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Subiaco footballers who have also played in the VFL/AFL[edit]

List of Subiaco footballers who have also played in the VFL/AFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this is an interesting list, it appears to entirely be original research. No citations are cited. I also can't find anything like this list in a reliable secondary source online. Print versions of this don't seem to be likely either. Since this violates WP:NOR and WP:NLIST, I propose it be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral yet to be convinced I did find https://www.wafl.com.au/honour/players-drafted which would provide a cite for many of the names this includes both AFL & AFLW players. A less reliable source https://ozfooty.net/lions/3477-every-subiaco-produced-vfl-afl-player though it looks relatively comprehensive. There are regular media sources on a year by year basis, and each of players are notable and where they came from is a defining characteristic for both the player and club. There is no single reliable list for everyone thats a problem. The will be book sources about the history of Subiaco Football Club that will again carry segments of the list depending on the publication time. Its a non-static list with additions every year. I'd put one refinement in that should only be for players who started their AFL/VFL career via Subiaco, not players who came to subi after playing in AFL/VFL. Finding sources will really depend on how you frame the search give the information is also in WAFL records and media reports. Gnangarra 08:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They list about 70 people who have done that.That does seem like a lot of people. Wp9097 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:LISTN as no reliable secondary sources have been uncovered that describe this grouping. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep split into years as multiple reliable sourcing for the article is available on a year by year basis like this. According to notability guidelines everyone that list is notable for being drafted to the highest level professional league in Australia. Clubs get paid a fee when the player is drafted, when play their first game, at various milestone games(10,50,100) so its a significant factor for WAFL clubs and the league[1]. Gnangarra 03:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Konrad Grallert von Cebrów. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Grallert[edit]

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

This Prussian watchmaker and jeweler, despite allegedly having shops as far as Vienna, seems to fail GNG, at least from what I can find online. There's nothing on Google Scholar or JSTOR, and on Google Books there's just 2 hits from contemporary Prussian newspapers: one is a bankruptcy announcement and the other one I can't quite figure out, but is certainly no significant coverage either. Unsourced since 2006 and juging by the creator's username, this article may have been the result of a genealogy hobby project. Lennart97 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Konrad Grallert von Cebrów. I can't find any evidence that Joachim Grallert was notable in his own right, so redirecting to the son's article, where he's mentioned, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. I agree with Lennart97 that no further content needs to be merged since the current article is entirely unsourced (and no other sources have been identified). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect,He is not notable for his business or being the father of a WW1 General, redirect to Konrad Grallert von Cebrów is more reasonable. Alex-h (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the band and redirect the album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Null Device[edit]

Null Device (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 band and non-notable album. Both fail WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Different Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Agree on the album; however, I would like to think the band article could be improved if given time (also, find it awkward to have two articles in one AfD) -- t_kiehne (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tkiehne The directions for having more than one article in an AfD is at WP:AFD. It's nothing unusual. As for the band article being given time, it has been 16 years since the band article was created. SL93 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete band and album - Searching can be tough because their name is also a computing term, but a search in conjunction with member names or album titles reveals nothing significant and reliable. The band has only ever been discussed in friendly intro interviews and local blog sites from Madison, WI like those already used in the article. (Here's another: [2]) And since they are non-notable, so is the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment - If the band's article is deleted, remove the hatnote about them at the top of Null device (the computing term's article). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Null Device, Redirect A Million Different Moments to the band's article: Barely found anything about the album. As for the band, the sources in the article seem reliable and so is the one indicated above. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the band and their music: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Though the article needs some clean-up by trimming down unnecessary parts and updating it, it's good enough to pass WP:BAND. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: for the same reasons as cited above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musée de la Culture Diola[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews, I tried a plain google search and the only source I could find is a Lonely Planet travel guide listing [9] LibStar (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – one reason for the difficulty of finding information on this museum is that it is know by a variety of names, for example, Musée de la Tradition Diola (e.g., see "Mlomp Musée de la Tradition Diola". Lonely Planet.), Diola Museum (e.g., see "Visit of the Diola Museum". Vaolo.), etc. I added some information/references with a wider search. I think more could be found with further wider search. Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST, and WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards keep, but other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tathra Sea Eagles[edit]

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

Amateur village rugby team from Tathra, New South Wales (Population 1500). As 12% of Australian population are males aged 12-35, this means there are about 180 people to choose from. They play against other village and local town teams in the area, and the article states that they are not always in the top division of the local league, so very much an ameteur village team Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re population: Note that the immediate population of the "village" is not the population available. The villages also draw from surrounding "rural" districts. But agreed, the population is still small. However, the demographic base for a sporting club does not determine notability either way. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to an article History of Rugby League in Southeast New South Wales. There is more than sufficient reference material to ssupport such an article. For example, this alone would support a couple of due weight paragraphs for the Tathra Sea Eaglse in such an article. There are also articles such as Group 16 Rugby League, which might be an alternative merge and redirect target, but not as ideal because the "Group 16" has not always existed. (See for example Narooma Devils for other historic competition groupings.) Note that while these small clubs are very unlikely to ever be notable in their own right, they are definitely notable in aggregation and are likely search terms for people interested in either rugby league or the social fabric of the area. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bold third relist because we can't merge and redirect to a non-existent article. What do others think about keep, delete, or other alternatives to deletion that exist. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but a weak keep it is. There's a decent amount of info on the club and I've added an extra line and reference to the article for what it's worth. I'm unsure on whether there's a guideline for rugby team notability in the same way there is for football clubs? JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of notability guideline for rugby league teams, WP:ORG applies. It fails to get significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rec footy[edit]

Rec footy (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)

An article from 2006 with no references. How has this existed for so long? This article suggests that Rec Footy is just a variation on the rules of Australian Football, so it would make sense to merge into that article. The recently added sources do not seem to do much for notability, since they mostly are not secondary sources, and therefore are useful for establishing notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something that only existed over 10 years ago isn't that easy to find good refs, but there is a bit there now. The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - surely the standard is whether this subject has had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In this case, it appears not to have had all that much coverage at all. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per added sources. /Julle (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - apart from the Herald Sun article (which I have no access to), the remainder of the sources do not appear to be secondary sources and cannot be used to establish that this subject is notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But question is this is the right project.- dashiellx (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an odd case, because I would imagine that to most people the term "rec footy" would just be a casual term for a recreational league or something similar. Clearly the title needs to be changed. Perhaps to something like "Recreational football (sport)" or "Recreational football (code)" (kind of like Swedish football (code)). If the article is kept, it definitely needs to be moved. Jay eyem (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move as suggested by @Jay eyem:. --dashiellx (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Catholic Church[edit]

Celtic Catholic Church (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 cannot find any RS on this alleged group. All I managed to find is a supposed official a website I added, and another supposed official website I found by looking at the article history; as well as a mention with no explanation on encyclopedia.com with no way to know if it refers to this groups specifically or to another as the title has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page has had no RS added to it in its 18 years of existence.
Per WP:NCHURCH, the article should therefore be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete considering searches by nom, fails WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fails notability, no RS, Alex-h (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence this is notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even those who agreed to keep seemed to agree that the article is not in appropriate shape and may even confuse two different people with the same name, and as we are dealing with a BLP, that tips the scales toward deletion. This is without prejudice toward creation of articles about notable events which may have involved either individual, provided that they are written in accordance with BLP and care is taken to ensure that material about one is not mixed up with the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Johnson (prisoner)[edit]

Lamar Johnson (prisoner) (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 and other issues. This is a page about the person who is not notable. Even if the event (trial or some other process) was notable, this living person is not notable to the level required for the encyclopedia. A few articles about his conviction do not make him notable. There are numerous other examples setting a standard when a person who was on trial becomes notable. This person is not. Compare with Kyle Rittenhouse, for example. Even a few days after half of the world watched the trial and knew about him, it was decided that Rittenhouse was not notable enough for Wikipedia to have a page about a person. Topjur01 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I add a comment: This page started as a hoax. It stated "Lamar Johnson, the first person that was released from prison for a wrongful conviction in Maryland under the new Conviction Integrity Unit research." which was false. This person was not released from prison. Later the page was remodeled but still no Notability standard reached. Topjur01 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:hoax, there are two Lamar Johnsons who had been imprisoned for murders they claimed they didn't commit and had newspaper articles written about them. One in St. Louis in 1994, who is still in prison and has the article written about him, and one in Baltimore in 2004, who was exonerated in 2017 under the Conviction Integrity Program. Presumably the article started about the Maryland man and transformed somehow into the St. Louis one in the news in 2021. Rusalkii (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since this article is clearly a mess, it combines content about two people, the person is not notable, his case appeared in media a few times but not more than hundreds of other court cases so it is not reallu enclyclopedia-level notable, can we send it to sandbox and authors submit it when it is properly written and sourced? Or what other options do we have? Topjur01 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as it stands is clearly about the St. Louis Johnson still in prison. I can't see anything at all about the Baltimore Johnson on the page. I've cleaned up some of the POV and made sure key claims were cited. Rusalkii (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would create a new page for the St. Louis Johnson and revert this page back to the last version clearly about Baltimore Johnson (this, I believe). Both seem notable to me, since most murder trials do not receive nearly this much attention usually. Baltimore Johnson is more borderline and may deserve his own AfD once its actually about him and not St. Louis Johnson. Rusalkii (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The murder of Marcus Boyd, the trial, and legal proceedings after the conviction might be notable. But the subject is not notable as the person. He does not appear in media about other events except for the ones related to the murder or legal proceedings surrounding the murder and conviction. Just like with other persons who do not get encyclopedia entries as persons but appear in encyclopedia entries about events, I believe in this case Wikipedia could have an entry about the event, not the person. Topjur01 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji–Spain relations[edit]

Fiji–Spain relations (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. Most of this article is sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Most of the relations described occur between European Union not Spain. Level of annual trade is very low at less than €2million. No embassies, agreements, nor state visits. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Foreign policy or diplomacy. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirect as an WP:ATD? Or deletion per nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. No reliable independent sources to be found on this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nominator's rationale appears to be correct but I'm happy for someone to provide evidence to the contrary. The above suggested redirects do not seem to be useful so I would prefer deletion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Vallance[edit]

Ross Vallance (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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT; being national amateur champion and having competed, as an amateur, in professional-level events is not enough for notability, nor is the very limited coverage of this player in media outside snooker database websites. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Hasanová[edit]

Michaela Hasanová (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:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. No WTA Tour main draw or significant title win. Non notable junior career (no Grand Slam title or top 3 rank). Jevansen (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager Classics Collection[edit]

Voyager Classics Collection (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 book line. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentPier[edit]

TorrentPier (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)

When I stumbled upon this article it had no sources at all. I've had a go at cleaning it up, but the only useful source I can find is the project's own README file - this does not really make it notable. A brief internet search in both English and Russian has not turned anything useful up. If anyone knows of any materials that could be used to substantiate the page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I suggest that we delete it. Akakievich (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

2011 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously batch-nominated as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament. This currently might qualify A3, though you could write a stub from coverage on their own website. I don't see independent coverage, and there is no article about the season to merge to. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Warm Springs, Virginia[edit]

West Warm Springs, Virginia (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)

Was likely just the western part of Warm Springs. I found a mention about water service to the village of West Warm Springs (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89814412/notice-of-intent-to-request-a-release-of/), but no significant coverage. Note that having a place on NRHP doesn't mean automatic notability. wizzito | say hello! 20:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans, exercising newfound autonomy after the Civil War, purchased land here on the western slope of Little Mountain and established the community of West Warm Springs. Many early residents worked at nearby resorts, including the Warm Springs pools, or were skilled artisans and craftsmen. Central to community life were John Wesley Methodist Episcopal Church (1873), Mount Pisgah Baptist Church (ca. 1880), and the Jones School, which served Black students early in the 20th century. Webb’s Store (ca. 1900), restaurants, and a dance hall provided gathering places for residents. Descendants of the founding families have been instrumental in preserving the history of West Warm Springs.

Also, there's some information in this NRHP nomination form. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ser Amantio. Seems to be a distinct community with enough coverage to write a short standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable community, per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McCowan Spring, Virginia[edit]

McCowan Spring, Virginia (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 guess this was someone's personal hot spring? No results in the Bath County book, only two results on Newspapers.com:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89813790/forest-visitors/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89813819/frank-berry-and-walter-earhart-at-mccowa/

Both are about people visiting, no SIGCOV. wizzito | say hello! 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill (novel)[edit]

Overkill (novel) (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:NBOOK is a very low bar, but even with that I can not find enough notability for this book to pass. It has been included in one "best recent thrillers" list and ... (PS having trouble adding other WikiProject links) Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator passes WP:NBOOK with new refs. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Note Thanks and sorry, I did look honest. I will remove this once I can check I have permission to do so. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Alum, Virginia[edit]

Bath Alum, Virginia (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 Bath County, Virginia book states that this was nothing more than a hotel, a hot springs, and a mid-way point. Not a community.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_lFTDmwHYssC&newbks=0&lpg=PA91&dq=Bacova%20Junction%2C%20Virginia%20-wikipedia&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=bath%20alum&f=false wizzito | say hello! 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Nyssen[edit]

Jan Nyssen (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 relies entirely on primary self-published sources and sources that do not mention the subject of the article. The bulk of it reads like a CV rather than a BLP, and I do not believe the subject meets the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. The original creator and main editor of the article was blocked as a sockpoppet of the article's subject. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In spite of some of the article's obvious shortcomings, I think it should be kept because the subject meets two criteria listed at WP:PROF. Criterion 1 ('research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline') is met because the subject has a high citation count on Google scholar of around 15,000 overall citations and an h-index of 66. Criterion 5 ('named chair or equivalent') is met because he is a full professor at Ghent. As has been discussed many times in AfDs like this, a full professorship in a good European university is the equivalent of a named chair in the United States. I should add that cutting unsuitable material in an otherwise notable article is always an option. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I updated all of the articles's citations to add authors, dates, translations of non-English titles, etc. to better help anyone evaluating this article. Platonk (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't necessarily buy the WP:NPROF C5 argument, but agree that the citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Seems noteworthy enough under WP:NPROF C1. However, despite some good editing by @Platonk, there is still more wrong than right with the article as it stands, and thus would suggest to WP:DRAFTIFY to rectify. Poojean (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thee is no justification for draftification. The purpose of draftification is to raise an article to a standard that would passAfD., and since the subject does, improvements can be made just as well in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Şevval Ay[edit]

Ayşe Şevval Ay (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)

Similar case to recently deleted İpek Özgan and Büşra Demirörs. Ay's appearances at youth level and in WP:NOTFPL leagues do not confer notability. Current references are a stats page and 4 mentions in passing. Google News has nothing of any substance, Google has only stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors as does a DDG source search centred on Turkish sources. No evidence to support a claim towards WP:GNG, which is ultimately what would be required here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also note that "it was created by a banned user" isn't a valid argument if multiple other legitimate users have significantly contributed to the page. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Kolodny[edit]

Debra Kolodny (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 BIO, made by a banned sock, lack of reliable citations Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to pass BIO (coverage by several RS's) and has several apparently reliable citations. Can those in favor of deletion identify which sources are not considered reliable? (Yes, there are one or two or non-independent, but an adequate number seem good.) Matchups 03:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The citations look quite excellent to me, if there's something I'm missing here please let me know. Yitz (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work (especially on organization and tone) but several of the citations are good and demonstrate notability. Jmbranum (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ümran Özev[edit]

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

The article is pieced together from stats coverage only as none of the references offered in the article have any meaningful prose relating to Özev, who has only played in WP:NOTFPL leagues and at youth level for Turkey. Based on the lack of coverage found in Google News and a Turkish DDG search, I am not convinced that this BLP passes WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious (rapper)[edit]

Vicious (rapper) (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 musician. No sources in article other than an AllMusic profile with 2 user ratings total on it and no info. Searching for sources, I tried his rap name, his real name, a combo of both, and all I found were facebook and pinterest pages. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not as good at Googling as you - I just looked again and I cannot find any of those. Can you link to them? Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic and Wax Poetics are here; the rest were found via academic databases. [10], [11] Caro7200 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources listed by Caro7200 and the likelihood of there being additional offline sources due to the age of the subject. NemesisAT (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sümeyra Kıvanç[edit]

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

The article is currently a prose version of her Turkish Football Federation stats page. A similar case to Büşra Demirörs in that this is another semi-pro footballer that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches, including a Turkish source search, yielded this match report, which mentions her a couple of times, some videos and a bunch of U17 and U19 squad lists which don't add up to a GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia Civan[edit]

Rabia Civan (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)

Does not meet our current inclusion criteria for footballers and there is clear consensus from many recent discussions such as those for İpek Özgan and Büşra Demirörs that these sort of BLPs should be deleted. All of the article's current references are either stats databases or squad list mentions. Not one of them takes Civan to one side and provides any type of in-depth analysis. A WP:BEFORE search including but not limited to Google News and a DDG Turkish search came back with more squad list mentions but, again, nothing addressing Civan directly and in depth. Civan therefore does not meet WP:GNG unless anyone is able to provide evidence of multiple reliable sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Wessman[edit]

Róbert Wessman (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)

It is likely from the actions of the page creator that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed their conflict of interest. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Deletion_request for the full explanation. For the record, I am working on behalf of Wessman.

This page should be deleted so that, if the subject is considered notable enough, the article can be recreated from scratch by someone who does not have a vested interest. Noemimanical (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking through the current article, the article subject seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources over at least several years, and a quick Google news search has numerous results in both English and Icelandic. The paid editor working for Wessman who has requested this deletion seems to be making pretty baseless claims against another editor, ignoring all their work on another article to somehow claim they have a conflict of interest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above as the article appears to meet the notability guidelines. If the article is biased or not neutral then you can edit it. Sahaib (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Róbert Wessman is one of Iceland's best known and most successful businessmen and easily passes WP:GNG. While the criticism in the article is a large part of it, it is properly sourced by reliable third party sources. That said, with the amount of sources available about his career, the article could be expanded exceptionally. Alvaldi (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hope Whitehead Lee[edit]

Mary Hope Whitehead Lee (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:BLP of a writer and artist, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for writers or artists. The notability claim here is that her work exists, with no indication of the kind of distinctions that it takes to distill existence into notability, and the referencing is almost entirely to primary or unreliable sources (profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, book self-sourcing its own existence rather than being referenced to independent media attention about it, Goodreads and a blog) which are not support for notability at all — the only source that actually comes from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet isn't about her, but just briefly namechecks her as a giver of soundbite on the significance of a local independent bookstore, which isn't enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself if it's the only real media source in the mix. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the main editors involved with the article several days ago. Ther have been no improvments. I now think the original creator dropped the class and the article had been abandoned. Fails notability and I changed my vote to delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mireille Saba Redford[edit]

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

The article was in a bad state when I came across it, and after nuking all of the unsourced or poorly sourced prose there, I ran a Google search to look for sources, I found nothing contributing to notability, indeed few sources usable in a BLP. GNews had exactly one mention of Redford, GBooks only turned up the books she has written and nothing else of use, and GScholar turned up nothing of any use. There did seem to be one Arabic source I found, but that seemed to be a CV and very unreliable. With the complete lack of coverage she has received, I strongly believe she fails WP:BIO. JavaHurricane 12:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I ran a French-only Google search, not much more turns up, lists of her books, the university catalogue from Lebanon where she teaches.... nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Catfurball (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person was recommended based on a thorough research of notable women to write articles about as part of a project to digitize Lebanese and Arab literary heritage and create articles about forgotten or underrepresented figures. The team deciding on these articles consists of professors and librarians. We take our work of representation very seriously. This representation is very context and culture specific, and we are an underprivileged and underrepresented group, and in deleting or considering our underrepresentation as lack of notability, you are further marginalizing us. Please reconsider. AbirWard 10:39, 6 December, 2021 (CST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Hill (Herkimer County, New York)[edit]

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

Unsourced. I can find no evidence of this summit passing WP:GEOLAND, nor can it be found in GNIS. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a non-notable hill. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything in Newspapers.Com on it except that the "Golf Club of Newport" used to be the "Honey Hill Golf Club" but even if that were notable it would be for the club, not the hill. BBQboffin (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable hill fails NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Herkimer County, New York#Geography. I'm seeing next to zero significant coverage. Per WP:GEOLAND, If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. This article cannot be developed using sources that I can find, so redirection to the place where local geography is handled seems appropriate. I do not oppose deletion outright; there is very little content in the article of encyclopedic value. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. USGS domestic names search shows four entries for Honey Hill in New York state but none are in Herkimer County. RedWolf (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone created hundreds of thousands of these hills in New York State, hills that have no special features other than a name, and it's good to be levelling them. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator of this particular article, 420Traveler, is actually very much still active, creating a new article every few days, although recent creations seem to be decently sourced. I contacted them on their talk page a few weeks before nominating this article, but got no response, and apparently they haven't taken notice of this AfD either. Lennart97 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I contacted them as well about GNIS stubs and they said there are sources but they haven't been added yet. I'm not sure that an editor who thinks it's OK to move such an article to mainspace should have Autopatrol permission, however it looks like most of their articles end up being sourced in the end. –dlthewave ☎ 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Lets not drag this out any more, I agree to delete this, must have been a mistake that it was created. Also, @Dlthewave as far as having Autopatrol permission, look at all the articles ive created and expanded to GA status such as many of the Kansas highway articles, river articles, lake articles. Also look up the description of a stub article. -420Traveler (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you've done a lot of good article expansions as well, I'm not trying to take away from that, and it looks like most of your recent creations are well-sourced. But there's also pretty strong consensus that creating geo stubs with no sources or sourced only to GNIS is disruptive as other editors must do the legwork to verify that the place actually exists and search for secondary coverage. I would hope that an Autopatrolled editor could be trusted to never do that. –dlthewave ☎ 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Mathur[edit]

Devika Mathur (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and radio host, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for musicians or broadcasters: the strongest notability claim as a broadcaster is that she hosted a talk radio show on an internet radio platform whose own Wikipedia article was deleted earlier this year as unsourceable, and the strongest claim as a musician is that she was a non-winning competitor on a Canadian Idol season. Neither of those are "inherent" notability freebies that exempt a person from having to get over WP:GNG -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, even on a search for better sources I just get glancing namechecks of her existence in Canadian Idol coverage and/or local entertainment calendar listings rather than coverage that's substantively about her, and the tone here is so highly advertorialized ("Devika sang hits from such music superstars as Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey & Toni Braxton ... a feat very few true singers could accomplish") that the article would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up even if it were salvageable with stronger notability claims and better sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashionye Ogene[edit]

Ashionye Ogene (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)

While there are some sources by her, or sources by her employer, and one source mentioning her, there are no good sources about her (in the article or online). Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would I intentionally misgender her? I made a mistake in not rechecking the gender after I had spent time looking in vain for better sources, that's all. Fram (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why, and I didn't say that you did. However I've only ever heard Ashionye as a woman's name, the Google search results are full of pictures of her, the article refers to her with she/her pronouns, search results refer to her with she/her pronouns, and the nomination uses he/him pronouns four times, so I had to conclude that you either didn't research her at all, or it was intentional. Since it wasn't intentional, I assume you'll correct it. pburka (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — more specifically, fails WP:JOURNALIST with only 59 Google results, none of which are substantive coverage of her or her work; nothing in JSTOR or NYT. Even the "What links here" articles contain only incidental, passing references. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate engineering[edit]

Climate engineering (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)

Term has no proper modern definition so the article is too confusing and contradicts Carbon dioxide removal. Content should be split between Solar geoengineering and Carbon dioxide removal. "Climate engineering" should redirect to Solar geoengineering. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ R M Harrison; R E Hester, eds. (8 May 2014). Geoengineering of the Climate System. Royal Society of Chemistry. ISBN 978-1-78262-152-2. OCLC 1041008267.
  2. ^ Heutel, Garth; Moreno-Cruz, Juan; Ricke, Katharine (5 October 2016). "Climate Engineering Economics". Annual Review of Resource Economics. 8 (1): 99–118. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100815-095440. eISSN 1941-1359. ISSN 1941-1340.
  3. ^ Gordon, Deborah (21 August 2017). "Understanding Climate Engineering". Carengie Endowmant for International Peace. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
  4. ^ "What is Climate Engineering?". Union of Concerned Scientists. 6 November 2017. Retrieved 30 November 2021.
  5. ^ Jason J. Blackstock (2018). Jason J. Blackstock; Sean Low (eds.). Geoengineering Our Climate?: Ethics, Politics, and Governance. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-05390-1. OCLC 1050360534.
StarryGrandma Can you expand on your claim that "Climate engineering/geoengineering is a far wider field than just solar geoengineering" - what else please? Thanks for finding all those refs and the term may well have had a meaning in the past, but I should have explained that what I meant by "modern" is the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. The first part of that was published early this year and "Climate engineering" is not defined in the glossary. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, are you saying that since the IPCC Report didn't use the words "climate engineering" that the field has ceased to exist and the article should be removed? Wikipedia also has articles about things that used to exist. However, take a look at the program here of the Climate Engineering in Context conference held in October 2021. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
StarryGrandma As the concensus here is to keep this discussion can be closed I think. Thanks for that recent link - so their definition at https://www.ce-conference.org/what-climate-engineering includes CDR. So as SailingInABathTub implies I guess we will have to tell the readers early on in the article that some definitions incude CDR and some don't. And we will have to make clear as best we can which arguments for or against "Climate engineering" include CDR and which don't. Perhaps this can best be done by putting the arguments which don't include CDR only in the "solar geoengineering" article. Unfortunately it is going to be difficult to disentangle the arguments I suspect. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, independently notable of its subtypes and clearly passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. Any confusion within the article can be resolved through editing. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but...I suggest a few changes to reflect the decline in the term's use: (1) shorten the article to include only content that applies to both solar geoengineering and large-scale carbon dioxide removal (i.e. politics and ethics would be removed, maybe more); (2) rename it to "Geoengineering (climate)", as that is now much more common than "climate engineering," and have the latter redirect to the formerand (3) phrase the opening sentence to something like "Geoengineering (or climate engineering) is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, sometimes referring collectively to solar geoengineering and large-scale carbon dioxide removal." TERSEYES (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if the term is no longer in use (which is not the case), there is plenty of material (much of it already in the article) on which an article describing its historical use could be based. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or rewrite I agree with Chidgk1 that many of the highest-quality sources on climate change have stopped using the term. Not only have they stopped using it, they've commented that grouping carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management into one concept makes no sense whatsoever, as I explained in my comments at the Climate change FAR The current article fails NPOV by promoting the point of view that large-scale CDR and solar radiation management are types of the same thing and have similar risks, whereas the majority point of view among scientists is that these are different things with very different risks. We would be better off deleting this article than having the current one. The best outcome would be to rewrite the article to center the majority scientific point of view and to contrast it with uses of the term that perpetuate popular misconceptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any WP:RS for this? SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The NASEM consensus report says, "methods that create or enhance carbon sinks are best considered as part of the toolkit for net CO2 emissions reductions, although they are sometimes misleadingly classified with solar radiation management as “geo-engineering."[1] The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C glossary says, "Because of this separation [between two meanings of the term], the term ‘geoengineering’ is not used in this report."[12] page 549 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SailingInABathTub, there is also this 2021 source from the journal Global Policy, which concludes, "‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate engineering’ should be dropped in pertinent international fora in favor of separate consideration of SRM and CDR." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that the previous definitions of the term are currently considered confusing by the IPCC, and that this fact should be prominent in the article. There are still climate engineering conferences,[13], papers,[14] reliable newspaper articles,[15] and books[16] being published that retain the older definitions - despite them being considered confusing by the IPCC. So in order to maintain a WP:NPOV we need to still cover how these sources define climate engineering and geoengineering in this article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where would a study like geoengineering the Indian Ocean be discussed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere on Wikipedia until secondary sources cover the idea. When there are secondary sources on it, it could be covered, due weight permitting, under whatever umbrella concept the secondary sources put it in. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to keep as the article was improved quite a bit on December 3. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Teeth (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page is no longer useful because there is a hatnote at the article of the primary topic that conveys the same purpose. GMX(on the go!) 14:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Vera (activist)[edit]

Francisco Vera (activist) (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)

BLP concerns. Concerns about BIO1E and BLPs of minors. An 11 year old received a death threat on Twitter and it was made into an international incident. There's nothing else here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep -- seems to be a well described individual, with significant coverage in both Spanish and English language news -- actively says that he will continue activism in the face of the threats, Sadads (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep If you explain "BLP concerns. Concerns about BIO1E and BLPs of minors" in plain English rather than Wikipedia jargon you might have a chance of convincing me as I have no idea what BIO1E means. But as far as I can see there is a fair amount of press coverage in reputable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are pretty basic Wikipedia policy issues. I suggest reading WP:BLP and WP:BIO1E which will introduce most of these issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I read WP:BIO1E but WP:BLP is rather long - can you explain your concern about this being a biography of a child in plain English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea is that minors are more subject to BIO1E than even other people because they have less ability or less awareness, and can be more easily harmed by public attention. (I don't think this is a good argument in this case given that there's international attention to the person in question) but that is a reasonably policy based concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom's concerns. LondonIP (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Coverage is not just about death threats. Is an activist with sources. The 1E issue would be more compelling if there were some other natural place to put the content. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Stuart[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Russell Stuart (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 sigcov. Been deleted in 2006 and recreated/updated by UPE. scope_creepTalk 13:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jessop[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott Jessop (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 YouTuber, whose coverage comes from other Youtubers and a garbage tier TV show that try to capitalize on his failed personal life. Catlemur (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some of the sourcing, like the Salt Lake Tribune article which only mentions the subject in a caption, is poor. However I feel there is sufficient coverage in the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal articles, and these are both major publications, for this article to be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios A. Zamboglou[edit]

Demetrios A. Zamboglou (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 not established. No reliable sources that confirm notability of the subject. Vgbyp (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do appreciate the effort User:Zafas1653 put into this AFD; An account created a few hours ago. Within minuets of its creation the account manages to find this specific AFD, reads the article, evaluates all 45 references in the article, votes. Once done, jumps to the next AFD and do the same. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Chief Operating Officer of CFI Financial Group. COO at Babb Group. European CEO and Development Manager at Lykke. Creator of the world's first crypto-marketplace based on blockchain technology. Top 30 Under 30 Award. Blockpass Advisor. Fellow member of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investments. First Cypriot to join the Young Leaders Circle at the Milken Institute. Made it into GCC list of successful youth under the age of 40 for the year 2021. 5 different professors approved the notability of the object of the article, in order for the NUCT university students to work on the article under the Wikipedia education program in Jordan. 45 citation from three different languages including Philenews, Europes Leading Startup Magazine, chartered institute for securities & investment, blockpass.org, Stockwatch , Finance Magnates, best-masters, forex-awards.com, oneZero, UK Financial Conduct Authority, AtoZ Markets, and the websites of a multi-billion financial organizations. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Tarawneh, what is your connection to this person? I notice that you uploaded this image after receiving a personal email from him. I'm also mildly curious as to why VRT ticket 2021042210007271, which relates to that file, is not visible to ordinary VRT agents. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
after receiving a personal email from him! Can you please elaborate Justlettersandnumbers...
Although this has nothing to do with this AFD, the Answer is: an OTRS agent needs to have permission to gain access to the group where the ticket is located. If you don't have the required permission you will not see it. That is how the system works. It is moved to the main permission group, so if you have access there, you will be able to read it. The students could not find a free image. I adviced them to contact him and request one. He sent an email releasing his photo to CC-BY-SA. Tarawneh (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you, Tarawneh! My reason for asking about personal email from him is that you give your source for that image as "Personal email from Dr Demetrios Zamboglou". As you say, it has nothing directly to do with this AfD, but where is the permission from the photographer in that ticket? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The owner personally (him self) emailed his photo with the required release. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to the ticket, you will see that he affirmed sole ownership and exclusive copyright to the photo. Clearly stating legal authority to release the copyright. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we have a standard response for that: "en-Permission from photographer not subject". Everybody and his wife claims to own photographs taken of them; that's why we routinely ask them if they actually own the copyright, and if so, how it was acquired from the photographer. However, this is off-topic in this discussion, let's leave it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Sources are a mishmash of unreliable, superficial, and non-independent. Professors running a student project don't decide who is notable; the Wikipedia editing community does. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a WP:REFBOMB of questionable sourcing. Tarawneh has been asked already to clarify his relationship to the subject, and not done so; I have asked again at his talk page. This isn't one you can just keep editing through - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David. Who must disclose : Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. Why would you assume that I am one? I rank 100 on ar.wiki editcount. I wrote hundreds of articles presenting living people. I have to say that I admire the technique being used here; Moving this AFD into this direction. In my 20 years of actively contributing and defending the project even from Authorities in foreign countries, I never even imagined that I will ever see this, especially from a guy who's been around for years. Still, I do understand that are protecting the project, and I respect that. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've removed six references from the article because they contained no mention of the person in question; that suggests that all other refs should be checked with some care. Deferring comment on notability until that's been done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, totally agree. We should campaign removing all references failing to mention the subject of the articles. I can see now that references mentioning fuel behavior should not be found in articles talking about specific type of cars, references suggesting a well documented failure in a certain airplane should never be found in the Bermuda triangle article. Even references talking about bombs and weapons should never be in WWII article. I almost forgot to mention the Virus DNA behavior references, these are tricky, and must be removed from all articles addressing different kinds of illnesses and treatment technologies. Generally speaking, I seem to recall a feature in mediawiki called talkpage; Usually that feature is used to discuss and exchange notes about all type of concerns regarding certain reference within the article. Tarawneh (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your article reads like spammy nonsense, and this sort of argument that shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia sourcing doesn't help your case in the slightest - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To start with, on a count, there appear to be 16 editors arguing for deletion, 7 arguing to keep, and one to merge. While of course AfD discussions are not a vote, the number is not entirely irrelevant either. The question, then, is whether strength of argument on the "keep" side outweighs those who argue to delete. In this case, it does not.
The general, though not unanimous, consensus is that while this subject is frequently mentioned, those mentions do not go into the level of depth necessary to pass the notability bar. While one individual suggested a merge, this did not receive further support or discussion. The consensus is therefore to delete.
While I don't intend to say any names, and many people conducted themselves well, I also think it appropriate to give a general reminder that the purpose of an AfD discussion is to discuss whether or not an article's subject is suitable for Wikipedia, and not to discuss the perceived shortcomings of editors of that article, the subject of the article, or other participants in the AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Collier (political activist)[edit]

David Collier (political activist) (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 subject fails our notability guidelines, as of yet. The sole claim to fame is authoring some reports on alleged antisemitism which, as Selfstudier says, is not significantly covered outside of the usual suspects [in Israeli media] that habitually round robin [such] news between them. NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as evidenced by the sources in the article. Notability is determined by the amount of 3rd party coverage, not by his "qualifications" or by being an expert, and there is tons of such non-trivial coverage, in high quality publications such as The Guardian, The BBC, ,The Times, The Jerusalem Post and others. This is not some "random blogger", but an independent researcher whose work has ben used by the British Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue a scathing report on antisemitism in the Labour party which resulted in high ranking members being suspended or leaving the party, it has been featured in several UK parliamentary discussions, and cited by the US Dept. of State in a report on religious freedom in the UK. The sources listed cover a period of more than 5 years, and include peer-reviewed academic papers which cite his research favorably. This is a clear indication that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply Inf-in MD (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock[reply]

  • WP:NOTNEWS apply to events not people Shrike (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis person is a non expert and non notable blogger (see self description), not a political activist (the page should have been disambiguated at David Collier). Article has 2 incoming links, one from a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard initiated by the article creator (the article appears to have been created merely in order to support a content dispute at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign article) and the other from Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party where the article creator added material that probably has zero weight. Reliable independent sources do not cite this person for his views, his principal claim to fame, afaics, is for attacks on Wikipedia itself (as well as some of its editors).Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply false: [17] Inf-in MD (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blog as well. The usual crowd (4 of the articles 8 refs are the Jewish Chronicle) flogging the antisemitism horse to death. Here he is, at http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11737.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:NEWSBLOG, written by a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. And there are many other sources in the article, including the BBC and the Guardian, all of them about his anti-Semitism reports, none about his criticism of Wikipedia. You have clearly not read the article before commenting here.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]
You cited a blog, not an expert Here's a different blog with the other side of this not news story (this one is at least semi reliable per RSN)Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a WP:NEWSBLOG. And there are a dozen of other, non blog sources, read the article before commenting here Inf-in MD (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All discussed at the NPOV noticeboard where there is a virtual consensus that this person is non notable, bring your views there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the ToI blog is not a NEWSBLOG as we define it. It's hosted by the paper, but anyone can apply to have a ToI blog and the paper has no editorial control. I think therefore it counts as an SPS, although possibly written by an expert (not sure about the relevance of his expertise). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could be (though I wonder, if a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is not a notable expert on anti-semitism, who is?) , but is a side issue, really. There are nearly 2 dozen other high quality sources in the article with significant coverage. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]
There is not a single source that provides any amount of coverage of the subject of the article. There is coverage of some of his blog posts and the reaction to them. Nothing about the subject of the article. You may not use a supposed biography of a living person as a WP:COATRACK for his opinions. nableezy - 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, ToI very specifically disclaims any responsibility or editorial control over the blogs, making them not WP:NEWSBLOG but WP:SPS, and making moot that entire bit of handwaving. See their terms where it says Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. nableezy - 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously. And possibly block creator per WP:POINT. But to the point of the AFD, we have a biography with no biographical details of the person. We dont have a birth date, we dont have if he went to school, where he went to school, we dont have info on any personal details. We have an editor who wishes to use a random blogger as a source so made this WP:POINT and BLP violating article. Collier himself is not covered anywhere, a couple of his blog posts have been covered. If any of those posts reach our GNG there can be an article on them, but on the person there is quite literally no substantive coverage on him anywhere. Delete, and sanction the creator. nableezy - 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of that stuff actually matters for determining notability. I've written multiple articles on people who are completely anonymous but have had their work covered enough to be notable. Mlb96 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we make articles about non-notable bloggers now? The only thing that this article can ever be is a platform for promoting Collier and his opinions. Bob drobbs created this article with the comment "David Collier is notable now" when faced with multiple opinions at NPOVN that he isn't notable. Bob drobbs needs to learn that notability leads to articles, not the other way around. Zerotalk 14:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when and how you came to your determination that he's a "non-notable blogger". I did find it very strange that you and others were declaring him a non-notable blogger in the other discussion, especially as RS described him differently. So I went out and reviewed more sources. It was based on that that I came to the conclusion that he's now notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meet WP:GNG per sources presented here and article. WP:NEWS doesn't apply as it not event Shrike (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial mentions in a dozen publications do not GNG make. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not trivial mentions, but full-length stories covering his reporting, in depth [18] [19] [20]. Take the time to read before posting obviously false information. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
The Algemeiner is neither a trivial mention , nor is it an unreliable source. I don't know if it is the best soruce among the more than two dozen in the article, but it clearly disproves you claim that all mentions are "Trivial mentions" or from unreliable sources. This would be a trivial mention (not used in the article). This is not. I think the difference is clear. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Here's one for you. One of his reports was the focus of a Jerusalem Post article. That's clearly not a "trivial mention". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: And please do not misrepresent what is said in the list of perennial sources. Nowhere does it say that Jewish Chronicle is not considered reliable post 2010. The text is: "There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting.. It also says that there's general consensus that it's biased on topics like this one, and that in line attribution is recommended, but it doesn't call for exclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Nableezy said, they do not speak about him at all. Do we know any damn thing about the subject? Any random report on antisemitism has its usual coverage in Israeli media. What is special about this case?
Nobody is misrepresenting anything. Is this news pre-2010? In-line attribution is as good as exclusion, as practice goes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not reliable" is strictly correct if one needs to attribute. Is there an Irish report about the Irish report? Or a report from anywhere apart from the usual suspects that habitually round robin the news between them.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the page in good faith based on the idea that coverage about him and his research collectively passed the bar for notability. He's obviously not a "random blogger". My vote is in part based on this from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He's got lots of mentions, to varying degrees of depth, in lots of different sources. Collectively, I think he definitely passes the bar. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - I edited my original comment for clarity and to reduce verbosity. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That there are so many descriptions ought to tell you something. And none of those match your OR "political activist". Reports by experts are one thing (for example, Mark Rich is considered an antisemitism expert) but reports by an "antisemitism researcher" don't carry the same weight.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source offers any coverage of David Collier at all. What's his birthday? Did he go to college? Does he have brothers or sisters? Where was he born? Where does he live? What does he do for a living? There is literally zero information about David Collier in the article or in any of the sources. This is just silly, and even if he were "notable", he still is not a reliable source and this is not going to change if his blog gets covered in any of the places you want it covered. A WP:POINT violation and an utter abject waste of time. You did not "encounter info" about any person, because there is literally no information about the person on that page besides he has a blog. You dont even have a source saying that this is his real name. nableezy - 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that seems relevant to me here is to what degree RS speak about him and his work. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do not speak about him at all is the point. Do you think this is actually a biography? When you have zero biographical material other than him saying he was born sometime in the 60s? nableezy - 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Collier is tight-lipped about his own life. But, as one of the few critics who have analysed his modus operandi noted, he is known to make profiles of human rights activists present at conferences where Israel and Palestine are discussed by raking up 'info', quoted out of context, that casts them all as anti-Israel ergo anti-Zionist ergo anti-Semitic. These 'proscriptive lists' then spread through the internet, poisoning the well of rational analysis. Of course he would be delighted to have a page on wiki to attest his notability, despite the fact that he despises it as full of anti-Semitic types. One of his criteria for defining an anti-Semite is, apparently, the use of the word 'apartheid' in the context in which Israel is discussed. By that criterion, the three major NGOs, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tselem are, as of 2020, anti-Semitic. When a blogger defines anti-Semitism that narrowly, everyone comes under suspicion as a potential 'Jew hater' simply for worrying about things like the demolition of 50,000 Palestinian homes over the last decades, while immigrant settlements on stolen land flourish.Let him blog away, but his views are not notable, at least to serious scholarship of the kind an encyclopedia covers. There are a million frenetic and frantic conspiratorial thesis pushers blogging out there, seeing bad faith and evil under every suburban rug. This junk posturing has a polemic function, but has no durability, unlike the work of people like Daniel Staetsky ('Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel,' Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2017, who, unlike the Colliers of this world, found no significant correlation between concern for human rights in Israel and anti-Semitism. Staetsky is a sociologist, not someone who blogs 'indefatigably' and asks for funding. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Bob drobbs: Editing your own comments after they have been replied to and without any clarification is not the done thing, it creates a false discussion because people replied to what you wrote originally.Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Besides being non-notable, the article is horribly unbalanced. Lol: "has been described as an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner" ...he has been described in many, many other ways, too, "somewhat" less flattering. Alas, I cannot repeat many of them here, as I risk violating our BLP-rules. (Can I mention the word "toxic"?) The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those descriptions come from RS: The Jerusalem Post called him a "investigative journalist", Algemeir called him a "pro-Israel activist", and op-ed in the Middle East Eye called him a "citizen journalist". If any RS spoke about him in "less flattering" terms, then it seems those could and probably should be included too. I don't understand your claims of bias when the article seems to accurately reflect how RS are describing him. Your complaint seems rooted in the idea that criticism from completely non-reliable sources isn't included, and thus this article is unbalanced?? If you have any RS that speak about Collier in less flattering terms, please share. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you used Middle East Eye, now. It contains the following remark:

"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018

The word 'Palestinianism' has since Edward Said's day been used to describe the Palestinian struggle to have their national identity recognized, and their rights to their land accepted (as they are in international law). Collier describes that national desire, perfectly mirroring the Zionist aspiration for the recognition of Jewish rights in IsraelPalestine, 'a disease that is anathema to freedom one that 'infects' people with anti-Semitism. I see your paraphrase totally ignores this extraordinary absurd statement. In Collier's words above, it is normal for Jews to desire to have a national home: it is pathological for Palestinians, who existed there prior to Zionism, to have the same feeling. That statement is notable for its asinine failure to reason logically. This is the intellectual level of the blogger we are asserting is notable. For whom? Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: What does any of that have to do with this AFD? if you prefer to word "disease" instead of "cult" and "ponzi scheme" as currently written in the article, then take it to the talk page for the article or just edit the article. Don't drag these sorts of squabbles in here!
And it is 110% inappropriate for us to make judgments about deleting a page based on our interpretations of a living person's "intellectual level" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about the British Parliament? This official report reject most of what Collier claimed about a so-called "an anti-Semitic event in Parliament", Huldra (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize, that whether the British Parliament accepted or rejected most of his claims the very fact that they were the subject of an official report is evidence of his notability. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It was only because the Israeli ambassador Mark Regev accepted the Collier rubbish, that the British Parliament took it seriously, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, ad argummentum, that you are correct, that only further establishes his notability - So notable that the Israeli ambassador took his report seriously, and took it to the UK parliament which also took it seriously, and got them to investigate it. Not exactly "some random blogger'. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to assume, you can read the report. The UK parliament is obliged to take seriously any rubbish that an ambassador to St James's spreads; that doesn't make the rubbish (or the rubbish-maker) notable. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should try that, yourself. From your link above (my emphasis): "The Ambassador did not identify an individual alleged to be in breach of the Code; his letter was about the event. Therefore the letter could not be treated as a formal complaint". Think your argument through, you are only making the case for his notability stronger. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]
My case stands: when the Parliament receives a complaint that "“very anti-Semitic with the usual comments made about non-Israeli Jews”; was an “anti-Jewish litany and holocaust deniers’ rant”; it would be outrage iff they did not investigate it. Alas, the things reported in David Collier's blog were found not correct. Now, this is a man you want to use Wikipedia to present to the world as a "an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner"? Huldra (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rather doubt that if a "random blogger" sends a complaint to Parliament they engage in the kind of investigation you linked to, doubly so when even a letter by the Israeli ambassador is explicitly rejected as a complaint worthy of such investigation. My opinion of the man has nothing to do with his notability. Some very awful people have Wikipedia articles, because this is not "Model-Personpedia" . We go by notability, as measured by covered in reliable sources, not by the moral character of the subject as evaluated by Wikipedia editors. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
Again: no. The investigation was due to suggestions that "Baroness Tonge breached the Code of Conduct"; the result was, incidentally, showed that Collier's blog was not to be trusted. And I agree that many awful people have a Wikipedia article, the difference here is that the existence of this bio is used as argument that his views are "notable", Huldra (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt what determines notability. Notability is significant coverage of the topic of the article in reliable sources. Is the topic of the article Collier? What sources provide any significant coverage of him? Would be great if you could quote one giving for instance where he went to school. Or his birth year. nableezy - 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the topic of this article, and I created it, it's David Collier, his activism, and his writing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So youre admitting to making a supposed biography of a living person as a coatrack for his political activism in his blog? Exactly why you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE. nableezy - 22:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:COAT and stop making threats implied or otherwise!
If most of an article about an astronaut speaks about his work, because that's how RS covered him, then it's NOT a coatrack. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unaware of any threat Ive made. A biography of an astronaut would have his birth day. Hey look, Neil Armstrong was born on August 5, 1930 in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and he had a younger brother and sister. He joined the Navy, and went to college, and became a test pilot. You know how I know that? Because there is an actual biography of him. Not a shrine to his blog. But yes, see WP:COAT. See how it describes the article and the motivation for its creation. nableezy - 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent coverage on him (rather than occasional mentions of his reports) is too sparse and most of the article is his opinions from SPS. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another day, another AfD which is really just a PIA dispute featuring the same participants as always. To me, this guy looks notable. Sigcov in The Times and the Herald Scotland are pretty good. The distinction between biographical information and information about his work seems to cut in favor of keeping, as the latter is much more important for establishing notability than the former (in fact, I've seen many editors say that biographical information is worthless trivia). The article definitely has major NPOV problems, though. Mlb96 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable figure, and we cannot submit to those who would remove from Wikipedia details of people they find politically offensive. In case it matters, I am a socialist who agreed with Corbyn on other matters, but could not fully support him because of the levels of Jew-hate which festered within his movement. I don't agree with Collier on everything either, but his activity is significant enough for an article here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quite aside from the deep incivility inherent in presuming that one cannot possibly object to this article save out of biased political motives, what "details" about Collier are you claiming exist here, save for those he supplies himself through his blog or quotes from him in interviews? Ravenswing 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: I didn't see any implication in RobinCarmody's comment that he was speaking about everyone who disagreed. "Those" is simply plural. But I do think he's probably right that some people here might be more motivated by a dislike of this guy, than any fair minded judgment of his notability. Just look at the two comments directly below this. Do they have anything at all to do with Collier's notability? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; you all should be aware that Collier use his blog to WP:DOX any Wikipedia editor he doesn't agree with. And editors are using the existence of this bio as argument that his views are "notable" Huldra (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jane Jackman (University of Exeter). "Advocating Occupation:Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (the esharp paper mentioned in the article) contains interesting references to Collier. Notable is his description of the UN as a "a rabid Jew-hating forum", of UNSC Resolution 2334 as "[f]odder for the anti-Israel lynch mob" and "BDS is an umbrella group under which all Israel haters unite"to "smear Zionists as bullies and Nazis". I'm all for freedom of speech but keepers would do well to actually scrutinize some of the material in the blog, for example, <suppressed>, which I would put in the same category as Holocaust denial.Selfstudier (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pol Pot has a page. I don't think this guy has bad views is quite the argument you think it is when it comes to determining notability. But if there's well sourced criticism of the guy, just add it to the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isnt the place to debate whether or not Collier's views are evidence of a well formed psyche or not, this is a place to debate whether or not a biography of him meets our inclusion requirements. Irrelevant details distract from, not enlighten, that process. I dont give a shit what he writes about. There simply is no significant coverage of him to merit a biography here. That is the reason to debate, not that he has a doxing streak on his blog, or that he espouses views I consider asinine. nableezy - 00:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not now about to edit a page I think should be deleted. Most of the article has been added since this AfD went up, with every bit of trivia that can be dug up in a web search and very little that establishes notability.Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How would the material on his blog affect this AfD in any way, shape, or form? I don't need to read his blog to analyze whether he satisfies WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David Collier is his blog, little else is known about him apart from what's on it. Ask yourself whether that blog (ie Collier) is an RS? Selfstudier (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to determine nobility for that person. Where are the reliable sources devoted to that particular person? Not this one. -->[21] That's not about him, he is mentioned there with the description of an investigative journalist. Can anybody show me RS devoted to David Collier, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 01:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what? This isn't RSN, it's AfD. Whether his blog is reliable or not has no bearing on this discussion.
@GizzyCatBella: Check the Times and Herald Scotland sources I mentioned earlier. Mlb96 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlb96 - Okay, let’s start with this. How old is David Collier? And maybe one more to start before I move forward. What town was is born at? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better question: What do either of those have to do with his notability? Shall we delete our articles on Satoshi Nakamoto and D. B. Cooper as well? Or how about Tommy Wiseau, Dream (YouTuber), and Tank Man? I can name more if you need me to. Mlb96 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can just check his CV...Oh, wait. Linkedin? Nope, blog is it.Selfstudier (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about any source that provides in-depth coverage to the purported subject of this article? The Times is an opinion piece by Melanie Phillips, not reliable for factual material so throw that one right out. The Herald does not cover Collier in any depth at all, it only supports that he was to appear in a debate and the opponent refused due to not wanting to legitimize somebody who had participated in a smear campaign. It provides no detail about Collier besides that he is a blogger. nableezy - 02:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald article is dedicated entirely to describing Collier and the things he did and said; how much more in-depth do you want? Your criteria for sigcov are so strict that anything short of a book-length biography would qualify as trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much untrue, it describes one encounter that didnt occur because the person found him too objectionable to appear on stage with. It does not describe Collier himselg in any significant detail though. Which is why you cant say where he went to school, or if he has siblings, or really anything besides he has made a number of blog posts. nableezy - 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable authority on antisemitism with signifjcant coverage of his activities in reliable sources. Free1Soul (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]
An authority on antisemitism would have a resume and some academic qualifications and have citations to his work in other reliable sources. Please dont make such baldly untrue statements. nableezy - 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The blogger evidently does not consider himself notable, since he is hyper-careful about keeping from the public record anything about who he is, (birthdate, birthplace, education, qualifications, employment). What he does do is publish details about other people, profiling them as antisemites, which, in his view, appears to be tantamount to anyone critical of human rights abuses in Israel’s occupation. I can only find one RS, other than the usual community chat papers, that mentions him, and I say that as someone who follows closely the serious scholarship on antisemitism and anti-Zionism, where he simply does not figure. Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is likely that the subject of this article is following this discussion, given his stated interest in Wikipedia. Separately, I find it odd that such an inconsequential discussion has attracted so many accounts which look like WP:DUCKs. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quackery begets quacks. This is all too predictable Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. So far I have not seen any significant coverage of David Collier himself, only of his works. It is possible for a book to be notable without its author being notable (examples where we have an article on the book but not the author: An Atlas of Fantasy, The Plains Across, Colder Than Hell etc). And so Collier's works, even if notable, don't automatically confer notability onto Collier himself. If someone finds sources that do demonstrate Collier himself meeting GNG, please ping me.VR talk 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to add that in the scientific research world, its common for a researcher to have papers with a dozen citations. Some of these citations give in-depth coverage to the content of the paper (experiments that validate the paper's findings, dispute the paper's findings, improved upon the paper's techniques, compare the paper to another one etc). But we wouldn't have an article on the author just because their papers got a few citations.VR talk 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    VR, your argument would lead more logically to a conclusion of Rename (as a blog) rather than Delete. Headhitter (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator comments on the article talk page I wouldn't particularly describe this article as a biography either, as his work is far more notable than he is as an individual.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short, the article creator is saying that Collier the person is not notable: indeed there appears to be little information about who he is, but what he writes is notable. Well it isn't, except for the rabid smearing, doxxing, and hyperactivism in conducting a witchhunt by insinuation such that institutions like SOAS ban Jews, and are rabid hotbeds of Islamic activism. Oh really? Multiple such absurd claims and you get what Collier is 'notable' for. And the wiki page becomes just one more venue for showcasing the froth of social media shouting matches.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice selective quoting. Here's the rest of it:
... his work is far more notable than he is as an individual. That's possibly by choice. But for a wiki page, that's okay. See: D._B._Cooper
Unless you're also going to argue that the D._B._Cooper, with zero biographical details, needs to be deleted, your strongest argument in favor of deletion seems completely gone. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that your statement is my strongest argument for deletion? I admit it's quite a good argument for deletion but it's not mine, it's yours.Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's sources including The Times, The Guardian, and the Scottish Herald, so appears to pass [[WP:GNG]. The argument that his work is notable but he isn't strikes me as a bit off, that would mean we should deleted the pages of many artists because it's they're art that is notable. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. You've fallen for it. There is no mention of Collier in The Times article. Like most of the page, what is happening is that Collier kicks up a fuss, an aftermath of media havoc ensues somewhat related to some position he advanced, and editors stack the page with news articles that never mention Collier. I.e. Jane Jackman analysed Collier's activities in a peer-reviewed academic paper. A scandal (of 'antisemitism' or of censorship) was created that never mentioned Collier. We cite all of these general articles on the Jackman affaire, which mostly ignore Collier, for Collier's page, while suppressing any reference or link to Jackman's article. I guess most have not accessed The Times article: but it mentions the controversy as Glasgow over Jackman as far as one can see, and it has yet to be shown that it includes any mention of Collier. So the 'impressive' number of articles cited in the mainstream press are not about Collier, but incidents which, on Facebook or Twitter, Collier had a position. Source gamesmanship, potemkin village jerryrigged referencing to give the impression he is notable.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fallen for anything. The Guardian mentions him in a more than passing way, the Herald is about him specifically, the Huffington post is about his work, the BBC article again is about his work, as is the Telegraph article. I'm not interested in the details of the scandals, or this individual, he's in multiple reliable sources - he passed GNG. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now. Seriously? The sum total of the Guardian piece's mention of Collier is "David Collier, a pro-Israel campaigner, who was referenced in the paper and who published a rebuttal on his website, described the removal of the apology as “an act of cowardice”." The sum total of what the Herald piece says about him is "Mr Collier is a UK businessman who lived in Israel for nearly 20 years and whose blog is dedicated to "researching anti-Semitism inside anti-Zionist activity"." These are the very definition of casual mentions that do not meet the GNG's requirement of significant coverage. Ravenswing 07:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald article is entirely about the individual, or about reactions to him. I just don't see how that is 'just a passing mention'. The Guardian is the weekst of the five I mentioned, but those two where not the only ones. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In writing, 'you fell for it', I alluded to your citing the using of The Times artiole to prove he is often mentioned. You didn't examine the article, which does not mention Collier. I.e. you fell for it, taking on trust that since another editor had cited the times as evidence for his notability (inappropriately), the article you hadn't read must have mentioned Collier. The strength of Wikipedia is that numerous editors who don't know each other from a bar of soap, relentlessly check and cross-check things like this before making a call.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I only perused the Times article when I should have been more detailed. Your comment made me go back and read the others more fully. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by claims that The Times doesn't mention Collier. The article, I'm looking at begins with the words: David Collier is a British Jew who devotes much of his life to chronicling the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attitudes... [22] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article in the Times that we were discussing did not mention Collier. The new one you bring up is by Melanie Phillips, who, after writing a paranoid tract on the Muslim takeover of Londonistan, used the Times to eloquently boost Collier, using language he himself is not averse to, i.e. 'cesspit' etc. The Times used to exercise editorial control to guarantee quality reportage. Alas, no longer, save for the TLS. Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'm surprised about the level of extreme bias in the article, I think his report makes him notable enough to be kept as a article. Dunutubble (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One shouldn't be surprised by the 'extreme bias' in the article. That is what the subject is 'notable' for. In the Jackman case, he 'replied' to her careful documentation by a blog spitting fury, using words like 'cesspit', 'gutter' and accusing her of smearing him as someone 'recruited' by Israel. She wrote no such thing. To the contrary, she described him with an innocuous and accurate descriptor as someone engaged on a 'self-appointed mission'. A blogger who consistently distorts sources to stir the witch's brew of toxic commentary is 'notable' only in so far as 1000s of similar types in the infinite web of social media chitchat are, but none really cut mustard as 'researchers'. They only count as a quantifiable mass of group influencers via meme replication in social media.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are what appear to be reliable sources provided, they do not present meaningful coverage of the subject itself, instead detailing wider activity regarding anti-semitism investigations in the Labour Party. Invariably, they include his name in passing but no additional information Dexxtrall (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one RS which goes into depth into one of his reports and mentions Collier 13 times[23]. Some of the 35ish secondary sources are trivial mentions, but by no means all of them. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well. There's 45 minutes of my life I won't get back. But I've just reviewed all the sources in the article and there's no there there. Almost everything mentioned about Collier himself is a casual mention at best, and the couple sources that say anything more are either quotes from Collier or sourced from his blog. Neither, of course, can count towards supporting the notability of a subject. The various keep proponents have the requirements for the GNG only half right: there must be reliable sources, but those sources also must cover the subject -- not his work, not his blog -- in "significant detail." Instead, the sources -- however reliable -- don't cover him in any detail at all, and are thus debarred from supporting notability. Having read the subject's blogpost slamming this AfD and crying conspiracy, I can certainly appreciate why Collier would not want biographical details available to the public. The consequence of that, of course, is that he doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article.

    Beyond any of that, a drum some of the keep proponents are also beating is in the importance of the work. So stipulated, but what about this article is necessary to memorialize it? We already have Jeremy_Corbyn#Allegations_of_antisemitism, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party, Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel, 2021 Meron crowd crush as representative articles. Ravenswing 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to an article an Collier's reports. Not sure what the article should be called, but it's clear the article subject isn't notable enough outside his writings on antisemitism. The writings are definitely of encyclopedic interest , though, based on all the sources. Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 18:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of encyclopedic interest? On his blog he makes no distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, a distinction that the best authority on the subject, Kenneth S. Stern, who wrote the international definition of the latter, thinks cogent. Collier finds an antisemite under ever critic of Israel's policies and thinks UK campuses are infected to the point every Jewish student feels 'unsafe'. Stern did a massive review of that meme as applied to US universities, where the same insinuation was insistently harped on in a certain vein of political rhetoric, and came to the opposite conclusion.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similar feelings to Ravenswing above. I've checked the sources on the article and done my own sweep. There simply is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject himself. Mujinga (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's just not passing the notability test, for me. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - A critical op-ed has been added to the new Criticism section. It walks through one of his reports, but also gives an analysis of his approaches, goals, and views. I think this helps, to some degree, addressing the problems of sources saying little about him and NPOV. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unconvinced. The "Criticism" section consists of a single source to an op-ed piece that's frankly a heavily biased polemic on Why Everything Collier Posts Sucks. This AfD should not and cannot be a referendum on Collier's positions. Its sole purpose must be to answer whether the subject meets the GNG/WP:BIO. I do not believe that he does, and I don't believe this one source adds anything of merit. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Ravenswing 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see this part of WP:BIO:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"
And I didn't say that this new op-ed solve any problems. But point-by-point, as there are more-and-more sources talking about him, there's a greater chance that he passes any bars for notability. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of that, thank you; I have several thousand edits at XfD over the years, and am well up on notability standards. I remain unmoved, and stand by my comments. These sources do not talk about Collier -- they just talk about his allegations, and most of them falling into predictable editorial lines depending on the politics of the speaker. Ravenswing 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions like ' highly regarded antisemitism expert' require RS evidence, particular from ' highly regarded antisemitism experts' (for which there is, as far as I can see, none) who actually have a strong record as scholarly authorities in this field. This is a complex technical call in wikipedia terms, and there is some evidence of attempts to influence the vote with some 'keep' editors having a very low record of interest in wikipedia. Your 523 edits just scrape by the ARBPIA qualification rule.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Is there really any doubt at this point that his reports are notable? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way to find out is maybe try and fit them into the above mentioned article and see a) whether you can and b) what the reaction to that might be. I assume that editors with a specific interest in the subject watch that page and will have an opinion on their encyclopedia value. It's difficult for independent researchers because there will questions about their authors qualifications to write such reports. I'd say it would depend on the amount and type of secondary coverage of the reports that exists, the best kind being known experts in the field commenting in reliable sources.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is another possibility.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I think there's a total misunderstanding of Wikipedia's practices if editors here, or elsewhere, are making judgments about a researcher's "qualifications" or expertise, and using that to decide if material should be included. The only question should be "notability", should it not? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with article content. Reliability and verifiability do. Notability is about whether a topic is suitable for an article here. Reliability is about qualifications. And this blogger has none. He has never written a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject. He has no known academic qualifications. He has no known expertise on literally anything at all. nableezy - 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are totally misunderstanding wikipedia's policies and practices, and I don't care how many edits you have. It is not your role to judge Collier's "qualifications". You cannot do that as an editor, then use your personal opinions to make judgments about content inclusion. NO ONE is advocating that we treat his website as a RS. But, if secondary sources speak about his reports, then we look at the reliability of those sources, period. It is 100% appropriate to include his opinions as opinions, if it's covered by RS, irrespective how you feel about his qualifications. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. But of course we judge qualifications of sources, that is literally what WP:RSN is. Of course we consider their credentials, that is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP is about. And for a non-notable blogger with no qualifications, we do not include his opinion as his opinion just because a source includes it. That is what WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) and WP:WEIGHT (unqualified bloggers merit no weight when their views are not widely covered as having some import) are about. You can keep thinking I am the one misunderstanding Wikipedia's policies and practices, but that is a personal problem for you. nableezy - 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the last sentence of what I wrote? Reports in and of themselves are not "notable". I think we have exhausted the angles here, I see no need to discuss it further.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, his reports are not notable. As a topic, there are no reliable sources covering his reports. Including sources covering different reports as one topic is OR by SYNTH. nableezy - 20:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. coverage of his reports is not the same as coverage of him as a person. Amisom (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he is a significant figure in the British Jewish community and a leading contributor to the continuing political debate in the UK about the extent of antisemitism. Headhitter (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'a leading contributor to the continuing political debate'. Debate? Where has he ever debated anyone in public? Nishidani talk) 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's tried to do so, but he's been no-platformed: <suppressed> Headhitter (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So he is not a contributor to the debate, since debates don't take place. The link doesn't work. Getting people 'no-platformed' appears from his blog to be precisely what his blogging attacks consist in. GB's Jewish community has strong, highly literate, incisively readable and distinguished analysts of anti-Semitism, sociologists, philosophers and critics, as one would expect. Collier does not rate among them.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now corrected the link: it's <suppressed> Collier has received coverage in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/10/glasgow-university-retreats-over-antisemitic-label-for-journal-article and The Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/04/jeremy-corbyns-leadership-has-radicalised-labour-members-attacking/, both of them WP:RS. Headhitter (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The 'coverage' he received in the Guardian states in a sentence the same meme we find mentioned in several other reports on the GlasgowU backtracking fiasco. Nothing new, except further proof of journalistic laziness. Meme replication across numerous breaking news articles is one of the greatest problems in the encyclopedic representation of the conflict. By the way, the repeated mentioned in those sources of Collier's 'rebuttal' has the same function. No one seems to have thought it worthy of a counter-rebuttal, -not notable again-though it is full of cheap smearing (Jackman's co-supervisor,Ilan Pappé apparently is '‘a conspiracy theorist' and ‘liar’) and embarrassing ignorance about Israel. Jackman referred to 'mowing the lawn' with a source he contests.This is either faux naïf or he doesn’t know, aftere 2 decades in Israel, that ‘mowing the lawn’ is a standard IDF idiom for its periodic onslaughts on Gaza. He demands an academic reference for it, since Mouin Rabbani in the London Review of Books, whom Jackman cites, is not in his view, reliable. I.e. he is unfamiliar with Rabbani's background, work and qualifications, thinks the LRB unreliable, and doesn't known enough Hebrew to recognize at sight a phrase that is attested to endemically in RS and throughout the net, often directly cited from named Israeli figures like Naphtali Bennett. He claims that the peer-review system failed. Try sieving his blog with peer-review methodology and one would realize why he blogs and does not go through that process to get published in serious scholarly outlets.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kathryn Hudson, the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, referred to David Collier in her report on Baroness Tonge in 2017: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldprivi/142/14205.htm Headhitter (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you not get that "referred to David Collier" is not "coverage of David Collier". This is textbook COATRACKing. nableezy - 21:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And quite aside from Nishidani's comments, there's a notion a number of people seem to have at AfD generally: that if there's some excuse for a subject not to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, the provisions of the GNG and WP:BIO are somehow suspended in their favor. This curious notion has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The way we know that someone is a "significant figure" in any community is for reliable sources to say so. Ravenswing 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject of this article has tried to canvas people to this AfD. Not linking the page since it contains personal attacks on individual editors, publishing timestamp on article is 2021-12-03T09:02:38+00:00 for reference when closing this AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked, and saw that he names me as a vitriolic 'antisemite' about whom he 'has written about .. both several times before – and there can be little doubt they know it.' News to me -I've only read two screeds on that blog in the past few months, when linked by editors to them: I don't read blogs, twitter, facebook, social media, as is news to me the 'fact' I apparently work 'behind the scenes' to 'get his wiki bio erased. Conspiracy-mongering again. No person profiled on a wiki bio owns that page. To the contrary. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Birds of a feather, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israellycool refers. (Someone is thinking of resuscitating it, I see).Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - This page has been EC protected right around this time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re eSharp I have not voted in this debate, mainly because I am unsure about the usage of the eSharp article, which contains a scholarly assessment of Collier's output:

...David Collier, a blogger under the banner heading Beyond the Great Divide. Given that his posts are frequently recycled and applauded on Facebook and Twitter, he is highly regarded among grassroots Zionist supporters. His writing, however, is peppered with inflammatory language. For example in January 2017 he referred to UNSC Resolution 2334 as ‘[f]odder for the anti-Israel lynch mob’ and the UN itself as ‘a rabid Jew-hating forum’ (Collier 2017) Collier’s self-appointed mission is to attend and report on pro-Palestinian events and academic conferences. He refers to these as ‘hate-fests’. He told his embassy audience in November that ‘BDS is an umbrella group under which all Israel haters unite’ to ‘smear Zionists as bullies and Nazis’. 2 His posts frequently single out prominent supporters of Palestinian rights such as Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi to name-and-shame. Overall, Collier’s blogposts exemplify the discursive categories typical of an extreme ideological perspective. These include outright denials of Israel’s human rights violations beginning with the displacement in 1948 of the indigenous Palestinian population (Pappe 2006); the shifting of blame for the conflict through discourses that claim (for Israel) the right to self-defense, and which imply that Palestinian violence is a random expression of Arab anti-Semitism rather than resistance to decades of dispossession, discrimination and humiliation; dehumanization of Palestinians as a people who routinely sacrifice their children in order to kill Jews; a strong antipathy for anyone supporting Palestinian human rights; and frequent resort to ridicule. When the Al Jazeera documentaries aired, Collier was quick to deride the series, downplaying the seriousness of Israel’s tampering with British public opinion, and citing Marcus Dysch, Political Editor at the Jewish Chronicle, who on 12 January attacked the series as ‘harassment of Jews dressed up as entertainment’ (Collier 2017b). Similarly, Collier reproduced the remarks of fellow blogger Jonathan Hoffman, whose piece on the Zionist website Harry’s Place summed the films as ‘voyeurism for anti-Semites’ (Collier 2017b). It would be easy to dismiss such social media exchanges as inconsequential hot air. But propaganda thrives on the repetition of catchy slogans such as these, and the constant exchange and recirculation of misleading information - Collier’s comments reappear across a range of social media - arguably spreads and entrenches already strongly held Zionist beliefs, inflaming antagonism towards pro-Palestinian supporters and muting their messages. The possibility of free and fair debate is severely limited.

As our article currently explains, Collier did mount a campaign to have this journal article buried, and the resulting editorial cover page on the article would suggest he was partially successful: "But along with such debate comes the responsibility for articles to be rigorous, well-balanced, and supported by evidence. This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data, which promote what some would regard as an unfounded theory regarding the State of Israel and its activity in the United Kingdom." This cover note has been in flux and the one here is dated September 2021; it is not clear to me whether this version is the final product of the ensuing debate. The academic community, in the form of 500 scholars signing a petition, had described in the opposite terms: "The paper was accepted for publication following the standard process of double-blind peer-review. The article is an academic account of public relations, lobbying, advocacy and information management, which is a well-established area of academic study." I am not entirely clear when this petition was delivered. Either way, the debate between the editorial team and the wider academic community was around whether the picture painted of the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom was fair. It had nothing to do with the article's description of individual bloggers or similar.
The way I look at this AfD is that if the eSharp article is admissible, we have a proper academic analysis of Collier and his activities on which to base this article. If it is not, we have only scraps and asides in sources focused on other matters. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone else's info, this article as linked to by Onceinawhile includes this disclaimer:
"This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data"[24]
The article now has other criticism. It doesn't need a a graduate student paper that's been disavowed by the publisher. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: please explain why you duplicated text I already had in my post above, with a statement suggesting I had not already quoted and addressed this? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Uni had to save face after being caught with its pants down by 500 scholars. Thus the revised screed minus the antisemitism nonsense. The crucial part is "some would regard as an unfounded theory" which basically is the same as "All minus "some" would not regard it as an unfounded theory" along with the fact that the paper is still up.Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, why do you refer to the antisemitism charges as "nonsense"? Wikipedia should be WP:NPOV. Headhitter (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original screed claimed the paper contained an "unfounded antisemitic theory" a claim removed when 500 scholars pointed out it it had wrongly conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism and undermined academic freedom, while damaging the reputation of the author as a result, "nonsense" for short. I can say that, this isn't an article page. I call lots of things nonsense, rubbish, twaddle, if that's what I think it is. Selfstudier (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth casting an eye over Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. I had quite forgotten about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive294#ZScarpia (the complaint was filed by a blocked sock and actively supported by 2 others).Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Education?

Question Does anyone know what education Collier has? Usually, you are only called a "researcher" after getting a phD; so what does Collier have? I haven't even seen that he has O-levels; does he? Huldra (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Apparently anyone can call themself "independent researcher", or "investigative journalist"; even if they only scraped through elementary school. That is why I want to know: what is Colliers qualifications? Anyone? Huldra (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an interesting exercise to put up a page on Asa Winstanley for the keepers here to nominate for deletion, heh. Then we could say that everything he has to say about subject is "notable". In fact I can think of a whole raft of bloggers that will get a page should this one make it through.Selfstudier (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again; why hasn't anyone answered my question? Does Collier have any formal education whatsoever? Does he have O-levels? A phD? Did he even pass his 11+? What? Or can you take anyone just off the street and call him/her "independent researcher," or "investigative journalist"? (And yeah, if he is notable, then so is Asa Winstanley (who, incidentally, routinely refers to Collier as a "racist")), Huldra (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something of a mystery, bit like subject's time spent in Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon his return to the UK, David went back to university to study Management (BSc) and Ethics (MSc - distinction)" has been added to the self description at ToI blogs. I think it is a new claim, at least I have not seen it before and I don't think it is on his own blog either. Maybe we can find a reliable source in confirmation. Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is new. He submitted that blog post yesterday, in the full knowledge of this discussion. I have confirmed this by google searching a short string from the text of this new standardized biography box: "Management (BSc) and Ethics (MSc - distinction)". It comes up only once in all of google, i.e. in his blog post yesterday. Presumably he believes that having a wikipedia page will benefit his career. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is unacceptable, and shouldn't be included unless an independent source exists. If one has such achievements, where they were gained should be noted. (I live in a country where, for example, politicians have bought postal degrees in Albania and passed them off as the result of tertiary qualifications. Not that that necessarily is the case)Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should AGF, and all that, but I recall the example of Yousef Al Otaiba -where the official UAE page used to claim that he "obtained a degree in international relations from Georgetown University in Washington, DC". Alas, after The Intercept showed that wasn't true (and after paid editors didn't manage to remove that from the Wikipedia article) the official UAE page now says he "studied international relations from Georgetown University in Washington, DC". Lol!
Anyway, not to fill up this page with stuff: I am hatting it, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break starting from Bob drobbs' sources table[edit]

Sources table: We don't have a clear consensus yet. And as painful as this process has been so far, I would HATE to have to go through it again in 6 months or a year. So here's a first pass at a source analysis table. And as a reminder, WP:BIO does not require any one source to go into depth: "... multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a clear consensus yet Why do you think that? Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least five sources on the list are often contested at RSN. (Israel Hayom, Mondoweiss,Middle East Eye. the Times of Israel and Tablet blogs etc (The Tablet has some good stuff, but it hosts also some of the most toxic journalistic cant I've come across on I/P issues). This is the only time in the past few years where I have seen Mondoweiss, funnily enough, cited positively from a 'pro-Israeli position' perspective. The pro-Israeli position led to its deprecation on Wikipedia. MEE is also deprecated frequently by the same editing group as a source. (the point is consistency: one cannot argue that newspapers are not reliable sources at RSN, and then cite them as reliable sources in a wikibio of a person who would probably regard them as odious sources of antisemitism).
The funniest anomaly is citing the Alliance for Workers' Liberty page. Sources like that have been rigorously rejected by pro-Israeli editors from virtually all articles covering the British Labour Party anti-Semitism accusations topic. One cannot absolutely use it to cover the left position on Corbyn, but it is fine to note Collier's notability. What's good/bad for the goose should be good/bad for the gander.
Despite what you say about bios not requiring depth, the technical issue raised by Ravenswing remains cogent: the coverage is invariably en passant, and several sources all cite the same language and the same incident. We don't know who David Collier is (not that one is interested to know), from these scattered sources: the reports all regard incidents covered in several Wikipedia articles. Therefore this page only justifies its existence to remind readers of the fact he bloigged a few reports on anti-Semitism, that were noted at the time. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually found the Alliance for Workers' Liberty inclusion bizarre too. I didn't look through the edit history to see who added each source. I just documented them. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections/comments re table": "Antisemitic conspiracy fantasy in the age of digital media: Three ‘conspiracy theorists’ and their YouTube audiences" is scholarly article not book, has passing mention in footnote ("O’Keefe achieved mainstream media attention in 2017 after the now-notorious Palestine Live Facebook group was infiltrated by researcher David Collier.") "Labour can't see its cesspool of antisemitism": is an opinion piece, 8 mentions but all about report not him. "'Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews": couple of citations and brief mention ("In 2018, independent researcher David Collier (2018) published evidence showing that Corbyn had been an active member of a secret Facebook group.") "Labour to act on antisemitic member posts": 1 passing mention only. US State Dept: quite brief mention only ("In July Member of Parliament (MP) John Mann, leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, called for action to be taken against “racists,” following the publication of a report written by pro-Israel blogger David Collier and funded by Jewish Human Rights Watch citing links between the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and anti-Semitism in Scotland.") "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews": Four mentions, all about report not person. "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article": Brief citations plus quote, calls him "a pro-Israel campaigner". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction and filling in some of the blanks. I've updated the table. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bob drobbs secondary sources analysis
Secondary Source Analysis
Source Title About Collier About his work Notes
Jerusalem Post "Comprehensive report exposes antisemitism in Ireland" Mention in first sentence, 7 times total, no details Entire article about his report
Scholarly Article "Antisemitic conspiracy fantasy in the age of digital media: Three 'conspiracy theorists' and their YouTube audiences" Referred to in footnote -
Jewish Chronicle "Antisemitism researcher locked out of Twitter" Article centered around him being locked out of twitter -
The Guardian "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article" Brief mention about him, sharing his opinions Brief mention of his work
The Times "Labour can't see its cesspool of antisemitism" First paragraph discusses him; 7 more references just name him 8 mentions of report
Herald Scotland. "Israel apartheid debate in Glasgow cancelled over Labour anti-Semitism investigator presence row" Article is centered around him ?
Ynet "Inside the BDS lions' den" Four paragraphs about Collier -
The Daily Beast "U.K. Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn Was in Secret Anti-Semitic Facebook Group". Very brief statement on him 3 paragraphs speak about his report
Algemeiner "The Top 100 People Positively Influencing Jewish Life, 2017" Long paragraph about him
Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism "Labour's Leaked Report: Who Is to Blame for Antisemitism in Britain's Labour Party? Trivial mention Brief mention of his work
Middle East Eye "Labour's anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity" Analysis of Colliers viewpoint Analysis of one of Collier's reports
i24 News "UK's Corbyn member of anti-Semitic Facebook group before elected Labour leader". Trivial mention Some details from one report
Discourse, Context & Media "'Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews': repertoires for the denial of antisemitism in Facebook discussion of a survey of attitudes to Jews and Israel" Couple of citations and brief mention ?
Book "Why Do People Discriminate Against Jews?" ? ? I don't have the book
The Times "Labour to act on antisemitic member posts". Passing mention ?
Huffington Post UK. "Jeremy Corbyn Was Member Of Facebook Group At Centre Of Anti-Semitism Investigation". Trivial mention Gives Collier credit for unearthing info about Corbyn
BBC News "Labour launches probe into anti-Semitic Facebook claims". Two brief mentions
The Guardian "Labour suspends party members in 'antisemitic' Facebook group" Brief mention Brief mention
The Algemeiner. "New Report Exposes Scottish Palestine Solidarity Activists as Purveyors of Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism" Brief mention Central focus of the article
Alliance for Workers' Liberty "Jackie Walker's questionable allies". 4 brief mentions Lengthy discussion
US State Department "2017 Report on International Religious Freedom: United Kingdom" Brief Mention Brief Mention
Jewish Chronicle "Labour members radicalised into attacking Jews and Israel after Corbyn became leader". 4 mentions, no details Discussion of multiple reports
Telegraph UK "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews" 4 mentions ?
Jerusalem Post "Corbyn turns Labour members against Israel and Jews" Collier is mentioned in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd paragraphs. 7 times total. No real details. Detailed discussion of report
Times of Israel "UK Labour members 'radicalized' on Israel since Corbyn's election, report claims" 13 mentions; no real details Lengthy analysis of report
Israel Hayom "Report exposes pervasive 'top-down' antisemitism in Ireland". Brief mention Focus of article
Algemeiner "New Independent Report Demonstrates 'Horrific' Levels of Antisemitism Present in Ireland, Dublin Pro-Israel Activist Says". 3 mentions; no real details Focus of article
Jewish Chronicle "Pro-Palestine Israeli academic pays damages after libelling Irish ex-minister Alan Shatter". Brief mention Brief mention
Times of Israel Blog "Comments on David Collier's Outstanding Report on Antisemitism in Ireland". 3 mentions, including title, no details Focus of article
Jewish News. "Amnesty International accused of 'obsession' with Israel in new damning report". 4 mentions; no details Focus of article
Jewish News "Report reveals anti-Semitism shared by Palestine Solidarity Campaign activists"". 4 mentions; no details Focus of article
Jewish Chronicle. "Lag b'Omer tragedy greeted with outpouring of antisemitism". Brief mention Brief mention
The Guardian. "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article". Brief citations plus quote -
Algemeiner. "University of Glasgow Journal Revises Apology for Promoting 'Unfounded Antisemitic Theory' After Petition". 3 brief mentions Focus of article?
Book "Contemporary Left Antisemitism" Brief mention 1 page? 2 pages?
Mondoweiss "'BDS is a terrorist movement' – exposing David Collier". Mondoweiss". 62 mentions; analysis of his views and methods details analysis of a report
Book Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel Unclear; at least a short description of his views - I don't have the book
eSharp Advocating Occupation: Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK 3 paragraphs discussing him - Excluded from article as it's been disavowed by publisher as not meeting their academic standards. Unsure how that impacts notability
  • Merge, perhaps to an article on British anti-Semitism. Fails WP:ANYBIO. That said, this article was clearly created in good faith and I find the tenor of this discussion, especially the topic ban call, disturbing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion re editorial dispute at ANI
Good faith? Perhaps. Nonetheless, after several months of disagreements with several editors on multiple pages, (I can't recall whether he opined on three erratic calls for sanctioning Huldra over trivia at ANI etc over the past few months) Bob decided to write a wikibio of a blogger with a record of regarding Wikipedia as a breeding ground for anti-Semitism, where editors here are named and defamed. Purely coincidental, perhaps, but one is not obliged to be naive. The topic ban call was inappropriate, but not, in these contexts, to be jumped at to make the fourth case this year for sanctions against Huldra, a long-standing editor who has single-handedly created at 500 articles with notable historical depth, and unrhetorically factual. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless nothing. There is no excuse for the kind of rhetoric displayed here. The purpose of an AfD is to discuss the notability of an article subject, nothing else. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for Coretheapple. @Nishidani:, what's your point? Bob's behavior, one way or another, has zero bearing on Collier's notability or lack thereof. If you have complaints about him, make them in the proper venues. Collier's own actions and opinions of Wikipedia have zero bearing on his notability or lack thereof. For pity's sake, there's enough inflamed rhetoric going around without pouring more fuel on the fire. Ravenswing 17:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall making any inflammatory rhetoric about Bob. What I stated above was simply intended to contextualize the environment (which cannot be assumed to be known to all - Huldra said something unwarranted. Huldra, 15 years at the rockface during serious work, has been hauled consistently to arbitration in frivolous cases all dismissed, by four relatively new editors in the I/P area. She was exasperated. We're adults here.) alluded to by Coretheapple,who spoke of the tenor of this discussion being disturbing. I can't see that, yet perhaps that is because I've seen far worse for a decade and a half in this area, and generally I think the input here has been fairly balanced between opposed positions. Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, as you say, "The topic ban call was inappropriate ... Huldra said something unwarranted." And you can make equivocations based upon the actions of others, but this was not based on any history between us, or anything I did to her. My line in the sand was crossed when she continued acting without civility outside of this AFD, and continues to show no indication that she understands she did anything wrong. As her supporter and/or friend, have you tried to calm down tensions on both sides, by letting her know some of her behavior wasn't okay and she should not repeat it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for that. Had I been 'sensitive' to every slur and ran to the Mummy of arbitration at every irate comment thrown my way, I'd have a massive record of several hundred cases to my (dis)credit. In principle over 16 years, I have refused to use such a recourse, because (a) at school, the word 'dobber' was loaded with infamy (b) it has historically been an instrument for ridding pages of editors considered adversaries.(c)This is an often extenuating area of the encyclopedia which requires a thick skin, with an extraordinarily high level of motivated disturbance by socks and meatpuppets. One must learn to exercise great patience with, remain unperturbed by, the fact that the nature of these pages means one will have to waste regularly weeks of time arguing with editors who have no encyclopedic interest whatsoever, but are here for at tritional purposes, to get a bunfight going or to stir trouble, mostly by provocative refusals to use commonsense, apply the rules of evidence fairly. You have an equable voice so I for one see no problem, but, just on personal grounds, I take frivolous recourse to ANI/AE (which has occurred in Huldra's case several times recently) as 'disturbing', and it would help generally if editors here of whatever profile, exercised more restraint. We're grown ups, and must avoid the kindergarten recursiveness of whingeing at every perceived hurt. I've said that persistently to all sides. Enough of this, and back to focusing on the content issue.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources I added two sources to the source list. One was a book added to the article by Selfstudier. The other one is the eSharp article. It's not included in the article because it's publisher has disavowed it as biased and faulty research, but I'm not sure if that has any impact in regards to notability. Notability is determined by source's existence, not inclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still trying to "puff it up", are we? I would rather cite the published and still up eSharp paper, double blind peer reviewed, than anything by subject, who has not had anything published, peer reviewed or otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can find seven sources from Bob drobbs's sources table that together I regard as amply satisfying the WP:BASIC criterion for bios and so I don't regard delete to be a defensible outcome to this discussion. However, there are some issues with the article that means simply keeping it may not be ideal:
  • As Nishidani has noted, Collier has been campaigning against Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Zionism in a manner that, through his large Twitter following, has resulted in harassment of Wikipedia editors. While I do not think that Collier is personally engaged in this, equally he is not condemning this harassment or taking steps to prevent it. From what I can see, the harassment has not distorted our coverage, but it is quite possible our coverage has been affected in hard-to-see ways, such as editors choosing not to edit this material.
A good, i.e. verifiable, sufficiently in-depth and well-balanced, article on Collier would actually be an asset against this harassment, since it would cast some light on what is going on. We are not there yet, however, and it occurs to me that draftspace might be a better place to sort out this article than articlespace.
  • This is a new article that arguably should have been created through the AfC process. It's not clear to me that it is well-named, since we might as easily qualify his name (amateur historian) or (Zionist). These categorisations do matter, since they are so prominent, and while there is no reason why these couldn't be handled with an RfC, this issue is more conveniently handled at the draft stage.
I'm inclined against merge, since there does not seem to be one article that is the obvious best place for all the encyclopediac content that could go in the dedicated article, but I think draftify, on the grounds that the article should have been created in draftspace, might be a better result than keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chalst: just on your statement that "I do not think that Collier is personally engaged in this...", that should not inform a view in this debate, which is solely a notability question. I would like to correct it for the record, though. Unfortunately some of his posts have intentionally doxxed editors with their real names. Other examples of harassment from his blog (which I have redacted) include: (1) I believe I am close to uncovering [redacted]’s real identity. The account holder may be [redacted] and connected to [redacted] University (possibly [redacted] campus – so if you know of an anti-Israel academic activist there – probably with [redacted] background – let me know).; and on a different editor: (2) From his edits [redacted] appears to be a raging antisemitic conspiracy theorist with a major fetish for the Nazi Occult. He also seems to have a soft spot for radical Islamists (and may well have converted in about 2007). More generally, his blog posts show a consistent inability to understand the idea of a balanced narrative, as if the coins in his pocket only have one side, and they imply a belief that editors writing anything less than pure Israeli government propaganda are "online terrorists", and he encourages his readers to treat them as such.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
I agree that "merge" is an imperfect solution, but ordinarily when a subject is part of a larger phenomenon but not clearly notable in their own right, that is the solution. If deleted, the article creator should be encouraged to re-create this article if the concerns expressed here are addressed. Though tbh an article on this subject is likely to be a battleground regardless of what happens here. That said, your analysis is a good one and I tend to agree that "delete" is harder to justify than som eother outcome. "Draftify" does seem tantamount to deletion however. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has come a LONG way[25] since the AFD was put up. At least some of the bias has been corrected in the criticism section and people from all sides have contributed to improve the page. As for draftiying, if the existence of this page becomes conditional on documenting harassment, it seems to be an intractable problem: Collier's report on Labour is notable. Collier's issues with a handful of wikipedia editors is not notable, and will probably never be notable.
Discussions about a new name[26] began 10 days ago with little input so far. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing produced so far has changed the fact that he is largely a self-published blogger, and has not emerged from the "blogosphere" in a meaningful way. That and the absence of RS coverage on him. I note too that the criticism section relies excessively on another blog, Mondoweiss. So that is why I lean toward merger. If at some point he becomes notable, we can revisit. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have held off from voting as this has not been an easy one. I didn't want my vote to be influenced by the individual's anti-Wikipedia crusade, his clear interest in self-promotion, or the fact that the two main authors of the article have account histories with WP:DUCK-like characteristics and have previously appeared at WP:SPI (this one was declined because the account had gone stale [it should be reopened now...] and this one was closed as unclear [interestingly two of the three opposing editors at the SPI have both since been confirmed as socks].the second has just been confirmed as a sock [edit: 18:27, 10 December 2021])
I think most editors here would agree the coverage is marginal per WP:GNG, but what pushes me to the delete side is that for such an obviously controversial person there is no WP:RS coverage on the critical side. If the eSharp article is not allowed as a source, there is nothing with a critical assessment of Collier and his more "unusual" characteristics. That would leave us with a WP:PUFF article based mostly on primary sources and a few articles written by his journalist contacts (Melanie Phillips and Aaron Bandler in particular). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once, 10 years ago someone accused me of being a sock. The discussion ended with the the person who posted the query retracting it, and saying let's stop "further protracted persecution" of Bob. You really want to bring that up as part your of argument that this page should be deleted? ;-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are virtually no sources about Collier himself; the article is essentially strung together from passing mentions and WP:PRIMARY sources for his views. This isn't sufficient to support a biography. Furthermore, the article (even with the edits by the banned sockpuppet removed) essentially reads as a WP:COATRACK intended more to argue for (or about, if we include more criticism) the focuses of Collier's activism rather than Collier itself - and the lack of sources actually discussing Collier makes it unlikely that it could be rewritten to fix this problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply does not have enough in-depth sources about the man himself. Like a lot of political commentators, he seems to get quoted a lot, but that isn't the same thing as biographical sources about him. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VU Cyberthon[edit]

VU Cyberthon (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 competition lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 22:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further analysis of the edits which occurred after the nomination was initiated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gasthara[edit]

Gasthara (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)

Created by WP:SOCK, poorly sourced and many sources used does not even mention the content in the article, too much content is non-English and many parts are incomprehensible UmdP 07:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Seems to be this page has hidden historical informations about social history of Sri Lanka. It may not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruccpi45 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Its better to keep the historical social details of Sri Lanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.224.2.54 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

It may keep the page for the students who study the social history of Sri Lanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgd12 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I am striking three sockpuppet comments. JBW (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loveboat (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced, never signed to a label from what I can tell, apparently now inactive. Being played on the radio once appears to have been the high point of their career. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is one of many articles we have or have had (multiple others have been deleted) about non-notable bands of this ilk, created when Wikipedia had much more lax notability standards. This band in fact only emerged after the wave of bands of their ilk (which of course had coincided with Wikipedia's Wild West years) had slipped away, so they never had even the relative or partial claim to notability they might have had if they had started a few years earlier. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh, god, this is clearly one of those band articles, typos and all. I looked up “loveboat (band)” and even “loveboat (rock band)” and all I found was a seemingly completely unrelated group called “Loveboat Big Band”. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also listened to one of their songs. It sounds like he’s singing over a Kevin MacLeod track (don’t get me wrong, I love Kevin MacLeod, but his music is supposed to be generic). Dronebogus (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's clear that this article was created back when music notability rules were much more lenient, and Wikipedia had no process for reviewing new articles. During a search I actually found the band mentioned in a couple of blogs about their local scene, but otherwise they are only found in typical social media and streaming services and even those are rare. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No SIGOV to warrant a GNG pass.VirenRaval89 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find the notability is not inhereted argument persuasive and unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Beth Sharp[edit]

Mary-Beth Sharp (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)

Unsure if meets notability criteria, and is overwhelmingly negative Nauseous Man (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as an addendum to this, I believe that the image being used is probably copyright abuse. Nauseous Man (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable for more than one event. One, she is a judge. Two, Sharp was involved in a dispute with a fellow judge and coworker. Three, Sharp was discharged without conviction but ordered to pay $500 in compensation. Also are also multiple news articles about her with more than one different events. 0800cpc (talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, worse than that, most of the article appears to be about her son (and his dog). Notoriety, like notability, should not be inherited. If a judge drops his/her umbrella, it will make news; there's no reason why micro-scandals should fill the articles of WP. Elemimele (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she has been the subject of in-depth national news coverage on three separate an completely occasions. WP:ONEEVENT can't be involved because there are three separate events. The last of the events was in the national news for an entire week. While I agree that the real-world blame for the events may lie with her son, the coverage is of her, and it's the coverage we're interested in here. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. Having a son that did something stupid and getting quoted on it does not make someone notable. At best this is a footnote in another article. Aircorn (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you don't become notable because your son or your son's dog or your son's dog's fleas did or didn't do something. By the way, my dog ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there's plenty of coverage by reliable media which discusses the judge. If those articles mentioned her as routine coverage, that would be a different story, but several of the stories provide biographical details. I shall say it's irrelevant who the dog owner is; what matters is that Sharp is reported on. This is way beyond WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG is met. With regards to the addendum by Nauseous Man that there's something wrong with the photo licence, I cannot see that. As it's immaterial to this AfD, I will follow up on Nauseous Man's talk page but can say that there are other photos by this particular uploader that I shall put up for deletion. Schwede66 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I can respond: that's precisely my point, this is completely routine coverage by judge standards. Because Judges stand for justice, newspapers (and their readers) love stories of judges - or their friends, associates and relatives - getting on the wrong side of the law. I'd imagine every judge in the world has a handful of such stories behind them. They only have to lose their bus-ticket or get a parking ticket and a newspaper will write an in-depth and accurate report about it. The standards of notability for judges have to be a bit higher. Really I'd like to see the judge actually guilty of something before I'd regard her crime as notable; in this case, the miscreant appears not to be the judge. Logically, if we're establishing notability based on the current news-stories, we'd be better justified in writing an article about the judge's son's dog! Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an update to my own comment, all five files uploaded by this user have now been deleted from Commons and the user has been blocked there for one week for copyvio. Schwede66 04:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete going on the spirit of notability and vibe I have gotten from other AfD. Being involved in a dispute with a neighbour and having a son does not make one notable WP:BIOFAMILY. Every media commentator is not notable just because they get their name in the paper talking about things "unrelated" to themselves. One assumes the son was in all the articles as well, now if anyone asked him how he feels about his mothers neighborhood dispute we could have a page for him too. There is also a living bio problem here if the media is on a witch hunt and semi doxing relations of wrong doers we don't need to play along (WP:AVOIDVICTIM if we "pared back to a version that is ... on-topic" there is not much left). Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking for additional sources, all I find is routine coverage of trial decisions. Looking at the sources in the article, there is the barely-significant coverage of the dog-walking incident and the floodlight dispute, both of which are minor incidents of no importance. The multiple refs about her son and his partner flouting COVID protocols are not significant coverage of her. Not notable under WP:ANYBIO or WP:JUDGE, and I contend that though the type and extent of coverage in sources might be considered sufficient to satisfy the letter of WP:GNG, they do not meet the spirit of WP:BIO: the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Schazjmd (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there anyone that is Mary-Beth Sharp lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0800cpc (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:0800cpc are you the page creator and blocked user mentioned above, can you develop your argument. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the information is on this wiki mostly negative, however it is truthful facts, and it has been displayed in a very netural journalistic way. If this wikpedia page is deleted, censorship is being committed, of a living person. If we remove this page, people will turn to mainstream media for information; we are not incontrol of mainstream media so they could get away with twisting information. A judge is a very high profile person that makes important decisions that will shape society. If we censor information about a Judge, what happens if that Judge is corrupt? Corruption is overwhelmingly negative but it is the truth, so we can't say that because it is too "overwhelmingly negative". This page contains overwhelmingly negative information, however it is not say in a overwhelmingly negative tone. If this page is overwhelmingly negative and that doesn't comply with the rules, we can twist it to make it sound positive. Lastly, I am questioning the integrity of these articles for deletion; because people that have made submissions may have links with Judge Mary-Beth Sharp. As I can understand that Judge Mary-Beth Sharp would want this information about her censored, but Wikipedia doesn't support censorship. I live in New Zealand, so I can properly understand the situation better. comment added by 0800cpc (talk
  • Delete One event and notability more due to son and his dog. — NZFC(talk)(cont) 02:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a petty article. Could be one sentence in a general article about covid in NZ. As to If we remove this page, people will turn to mainstream media for information; we are not incontrol of mainstream media so they could get away with twisting information, that's a ridiculous argument at the best of times, and anyway in this case all the citations are to mainstream media. Somej (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Vlok[edit]

Chris Vlok (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)

Very difficult to find independent coverage of this driver who has only competed in very minor series. This Stuff article has about a paragraph of WP:ROUTINE coverage, but I can't find much else. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Minor achievements in minor events. Text is padded out with guff, and as for that PR photo -- sheesh.Moriori (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and doesn't meet WP:GNG.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 02:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems pretty promotional and has little chance of meeting the GNG. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very promotional article and fails WP:GNG, doesn't belong on main-space. QuantumRealm (meow • pawtrack) 14:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Owen[edit]

Chase Owen (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)

Unable to find significant coverage from independent sources. Even WP:ROUTINE coverage seems extremely limited, with a sole mention in a Motorsport.com article and a paragraph in an Autosport article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Speedcafe coverage was just a reprint of a press release either from the competitor or the series they were competing in, and thus doesn't really count towards notability. I may be wrong though. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necromancy Cottage, Or, The Black Art of Gnawing on Bones[edit]

Necromancy Cottage, Or, The Black Art of Gnawing on Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a very interesting book, but I was unable to locate substantive reviews or other coverage (excluding self-published sources like blogs). I don't think it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, and there is not a good redirect target as the author does not have a Wikipedia article. DanCherek (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love the title (such 18thC Gothic vibes!) but I can't find any RS coverage either. I checked ProQuest and Newspapers.com which, for such a recent book, would have the reviews if they existed. It appears to be self-published, which doesn't mean non-notable necessarily, but also reduces the likelihood that the requisite reviews foe WP:NBOOK are lurking out there somewhere.~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sounds like an awesome book and the title is pretty darn cool, but I just can't find the coverage. It's really a shame, since I really like how the author set up the cover as well. Hopefully the book will eventually get noticed and get the coverage needed for an article, but for now it's just not there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence with this article. It features a female author and is related to a significant historical event, but it's also been marked as "censored", and any information I've been able to find on it is tied up privately in government archives from Canada, so it would be of no use here since visitors would find it inaccessible. I've been able to find more information on the author than on the book itself. Apparently Rebecca Maye Holiday is a repeat judge of an international children's short story contest, and studies law and the occult at a university in Eastern Canada. I find that interesting, but is it significant by Wikipedia's standards? Still, I'm a novice here, so I'll stand by and see what more experienced Wikipedians think. PetSematary182 (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
  • @PetSematary182: those details don’t sound “encyclopedia notable” enough to me (many people, eg, study law or the occult) but I am intrigued by your mention of censorship: that kind of thing often does involve coverage/notability. Also, although it is ideal for readers to be able to follow the sources online, it is not required— print and paywalled sources also “count”. I may have access to the Canadian records: can you tell me what you found & where? I think this book is probably hopeless regardless (record-keeping is usually WP:ROUTINE rather than WP:SIGCOV) but I am curious. Since you mentioned you are new, book AfDs can be nicely clear-cut compared to others because WP:NBOOK says a book with two independent book reviews (or other coverage) passes as “notable”. So that’s what we’re looking for. Most books, in my experience, either have bushels of reviews, passing this easily, or they have zero, which seems to be the case here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinion seems relatively evenly divided on whether this should exist as a separate article. It is possible that time will tell whether that is necessary, or whether a merge into another article is a better option. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant[edit]

Timeline of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (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'm not sure why we have a timeline article for this variant, whose seriousness is still being evaluated by professionals, when we don't have timeline articles for Alpha and Delta, variants that definitely took the world by storm when they first emerged. All of the other timeline articles for the COVID-19 pandemic should adequately cover Omicron and then some. Love of Corey (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep Omicron deserves a timeline because of a) the number of its mutations and b) the number, severity, and immediacy of travel bans and restrictions. Neither Alpha nor Delta took the world by storm. Emergency meetings were not called; draconian travel restrictions globally were not promulgated within days; the economic impact was not severe. kencf0618 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Variants don't need their own timelines separate from Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic. It's an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Omicron has 50 mutations, of which 30 of which are on the proteins spikes alone -the spikes which the three American vaccines target. Delta has nine mutations overall. [2] The immediate and intense global reaction to this variant indubitably meets the criteria of WP: Notability kencf0618 (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete As per comments by @XOR'easter and @Qwaiiplayer. COVID-19 Variants don't currently have their own timeline; if we were to decide to keep this, the Delta variant should also get its own timeline page. JMonkey2006 (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have it backwards. The variants prior were not notable enough to require their own timelines, whereas the global reactions to Omicron are similar in scale to the start of the pandemic itself. Keeping it all in prose makes for article-bloat; a timeline is a necessary auxiliary. And have you noticed that it's getting 3.5K page views daily...?
    https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Timeline_of_the_SARS-CoV-2_Omicron_variant
    kencf0618 (talk)
    I haven't made any comment yet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Omicron's mutations should be documented in the timeline. I don't know if we can merge this timeline with any other variant, but if we do, the constant amount of genetic changes is probably going to overtake the entire thing. I think we should keep the timeline because of its potential (rather than deleting it and then having to resuscitate it later). Beansohgod (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's already coverage of the Omicron variant in the timeline articles for COVID-19, namely the November and (I expect in the future) December timelines. There's no need to maintain multiple timelines as they should cover the same information. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, good point. The articles for September through December don't exist, however, so until those are set up, I don't think we should move to delete yet. Good point though. Beansohgod (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually wait no, those articles exist. Beansohgod (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As a test whether the omicron variant timeline is more notable than the delta variant timeline, I did Google searches like '"delta variant" covid "the first"' using various time-related or sequence-related phrases such as "the first" and using delta or omicron, to see which got more hits. I thought delta might have more hits because it's been around longer, but of five time-related words or phrases I tried, four had more hits for omicron than for delta ("the first", "after", "before" and "until"); for example "the first" had about 28.6 million hits for delta and about 39.3 million for omicron; only one phrase, "within days", had more hits for delta (about 1.7 million) than for omicron (about 0.2 million). The four with more hits for omicron had tens of millions of hits for each variant. ("after": delta 29.1m, omicron 37.4m; "before": delta 37.9m, omicron 50.6m; "until": delta 11.4m, omicron 37.4m.) I interpret this as showing that an omicron timeline is more notable than a delta one. This is a comment on the current AfD and is not intended as opposing creating a delta timeline article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A timeline for Omicron makes sense and while it may (inadvertently) fork some content, it's clearly a notable ongoing worldwide current event that any encyclopedia should address. Please keep the timeline for now, you can always it delete it later... Additionally, I would say that Delta probably deserves one as well and a nice objective criterion might be if the variant gets >X% (50? 90?, etc.) of market share of say GISAID sequences. (Although, Omicron would not yet meet that criterion, but is still clearly notable regardless). Fishermansworf (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary fork, with selective merge of the most notable content into the existing (monthly) timeline articles. — soupvector (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per kencf0618 this particular variant has a lot of mutations that set it apart from the prior variants. It's certainly notable enough that if that content were to be folded back in to the Omicron variant article at some point it would likely reach WP:SPLIT if it's not already there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The Omicron variant is still emerging, but I would say a timeline is necessitated for this variant. Since this variant is in particular, concerning (it has more than 30 mutations),[3] and the world reacted very quickly (also in the above source), this would, in particular, provide a reason to keep it (also per kencf0618). To add, per Fishermansworf, if Omicron does happen to be a not so worrisome variant, we can always merge this article into Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic (suggested by soupvector). Feel free to comment on this. Thank you. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — SANDBOXES — LOGS — 23:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thinking too. Even relying on the omnibus timeline (which I began the day they shut Wuhan down) which be too much of a muchness. kencf0618 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic or Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in November 2021. Not seperate enough to justify a standalone timeline. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This variant is more notable than others therefore this article shouldn't be deleted. This article is needed because it's redirected from the main page and that's where readers get the information about this variant. A timeline dedicated to this variant will tremendously help readers to follow through as all information are within the main page. Regards. KRtau16 (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, then possibly merge later in a few month's time once everything has settled down and we know what is significant and what isn't. -- The Anome (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Having been involved with the initial formation of both the Delta and Gamma variant pages, this feels very different. The sequence of events with Omicron are far more accelerated than, for example, they were with Delta. I think this quotation from Euronews.com sums it up: "It took around two months for Delta to be labeled 'of concern' by WHO. Omicron, on the other hand, received this classification within 72 hours of detection."[4] Also, I feel that the sequence of events will be clearer on a dedicated page because the main Omicron article is already heavily slanted toward the scientific and chronological details could easily be eclipsed or made difficult to discern. SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It just hits different. Remember Swine Flu? We were shipping out body bags and vaccines for that one (FEMA transshipment point in Idaho). A trial run, it made a deep impression on me. I contributed heavily to its timeline, and you can just feel the slow build, the dawning comprehension. I began the COVID-19 timeline the day they shut Wuhan down. And here we are, not even a week in... kencf0618 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, then possibly merge later. I posit that merging all of the variants' histories into a single timeline was a mistake which makes the information less useful in a practical sense. Traversing the history of a single variant makes for a clearer picture in one's mind, and makes trends easier to pick out. In the combined timeline, the cognitive overhead of filtering out and/or compartmentalizing different variants distracts from forming that picture. In this light, making a separate timeline for Omicron represents an incorporation of lessons learned. On the other hand, if Omicron fizzles, there is little to be lost in merging it with the main timeline, though in an ideal world the main timeline would get broken out into different variant-specific timelines. TTK (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Timelines have their uses. You're dealing with segmented paragraphs, not walls of text (and the usual flood of information). It's trenchant and monotonous, and not boring, chronological abstract. I can't find the specific article immediately, but whereas WHO designated Delta as a VoC in weeks it designated Omicron as such within days. So yes, lessons learned. Lastly, Delta didn't have a timeline because practically speaking it became the pandemic itself, and stayed that way for quite a while. kencf0618 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I think we can keep this for now, since this is an event- not just Omicron, but the whole of the pandemic- that kind of represents a sort of growth for our species as a whole. I'd also suggest putting the current events template on it, just to accentuate that point. Perhaps in the future, we can merge the article with the original Covid timeline if we find that, in retrospect, this article doesn't warrant its own page.
  • Merge. While I appreciate the effort that went into writing this article, much of the material could be integrated into the various Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic articles. Most health authorities and epidemiologists seem to be treating it as part of the wider COVID-19 pandemic. Andykatib 09:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an important phase of the pandemic, given the reaction to it -border closings and so on- but I won't belabor the point. kencf0618 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2019). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ https://theconversation.com/will-omicron-the-new-coronavirus-variant-of-concern-be-more-contagious-than-delta-a-virus-expert-explains-what-researchers-know-and-what-they-dont-169020
  3. ^ "Why scientists — and much of the world — reacted so quickly to the omicron variant". NBC News. Retrieved 2021-12-01.
  4. ^ Hurst, Luke; Bateman, Tom (30 November 2021). "Omicron: What do we know about the new COVID 'variant of concern'". Euronews. Retrieved 2 December 2021.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of days of the year[edit]

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

The article is nothing more than a literal list of days of the year. There is no reason why it should exist. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it gets that many page views is because there is a link to it on the Main Page, under the On this day section. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Picture of the day/Archive is also linked from the Main Page, but gets only about a third of the pageviews. This suggests it is being used as a valid navigational list, as User:Dream Focus notes below. Abductive (reasoning) 06:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a valid navigational list. No valid reason given to delete it. WP:USELESS is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 06:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for nomination is not that it is useless, rather that there is no valid reason why such a page should exist on Wikipedia. Philosophy2 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well according to the strict definition of WP:CSK#6, it could never be considered for deletion, as it's always on the front page. Which makes no sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is inherently useful, and would remain so even if it was not linked from the main page. BD2412 T 19:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep at least until it is removed from WP:Selected anniversaries, which would probably require a discussion on the talk page as that's changing the main page. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 23:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list, it's not exactly subject to the usual notability things and it certainly has an use-case as a navigational template. Though it could probably be better in template space, I don't see any particular reason to rock the boat in this one. Juxlos (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is a clear majority for merging to Tailgating, this discussion has been going for over a month and those !votes don't take into account the recent updates to the article by GhostOfDanGurney nor the additional sources found by JPxG. If a merge is still deemed necessary a new discussion can be started on the article talk page. Aervanath (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brake check[edit]

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

I don't think this passes the criteria in WP:Dictionary. Wikitionary even has an entry on this exact subject. While it was previously nominated due to notability concerns, this is about the fact that it is pretty much a dictionary definition. Plutonical (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Plutonical (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brake test. SSSB (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Road rage. Doing research on it, it seems to largely be classified as a form of road rage and it seems to be the only form of road rage with its own article other than tailgating. That article is a bit more expansive and also this shouldn't be kept as a a standalone just because WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. If merged into Road rage it could probably be re-written a little bit more encyclopedically. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is a stub, not a dictionary definition. For example, on WP:Dictionary see the section about definitions... both dictionary and encyclopaedic articles contain definitions! The definition given in the first sentence of this article is about the act not about the words. This article needs improvement, not deletion. As you say, notability is clearly demonstrated in the recent AFD. A7V2 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Road rage. Not enough notability to be a standalone article. --𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 22:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tailgating. Contents appear to fit better into tailgating as a brake check is directly retaliatory for the subject of that article. Doesn't appear that a brake check section would fit in very fluidly into Road rage. Topic is notable for inclusion but not for a standalone article. Bgv. (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article needs to be expanded and improved upon, but I believe notability was established by the sources uncovered in the previous AFD. It's not a WP:BLP so I don't think it's too much of an issue for the article to be in this state. Merging would be viable if it were more obvious where to merge it to. The subject could be merged to road rage or tailgating if we were just looking at it in the context of road driving, but arguably this concept comes up most often in discussions of motor racing, where such concepts don't really apply. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand -- Notable subject both in terms of general coverage and specifically in the context of Motorsports. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC) - Updated !vote below -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tailgating. A brake check is surely a check of the brakes by a driver or garage, not the action described here, which is certainly not worthy of its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - At least two legal firms,[27][28] a car leasing firm,[29] and a respected journalist on the NASCAR beat,[30] agree that a break check is the driving maneuver (aka a brake test). I don't disagree that it can also refer to an inspection of a vehicle's braking system (what is also referred to in my neck of the woods as a brake job), but it does indeed refer to the action described in the article. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevertheless, it is clearly not the primary meaning of the term and, in any case, still not worthy of its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article's contents were merged elsewhere it would presumably have to be made into a disambiguation page, as I noted above that the term comes up in quite distinct contexts. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After deletion review, this discussion has been reopened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 02:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to tailgating, which seems the relevant article (a non-ragey driver might pull this out of a sheer safety concern to see if the tailgater is paying attention). In the highly unlikely future scenario of there being an article specifically on brake diagnostics for how mechanics check & test a brake, then a short, two-item disambiguation page can be made instead. SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think tailgating is the sole relevant destination. It should probably also appear in the glossary of motorsport terms at the very least. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete It's purely about a term, and one that merely just needs a short definition, not an article. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updating keep rationale - The sources identified by TompaDompa in the last AfD held only 6 months previous, in addition to the Autoweek article noted above by myself and the source already in the article more than satisfy WP:GNG requirements for a standalone article. As a concept that is relevant in motorsports as proven by multiple sources including Autoweek, merging with either Tailgating or Road rage, which are not concepts in motorsports, is inappropriate and honestly, those !votes should be disregarded by the closer as they are a partial acknowledgement of already established notability. Being an article about a concept, it also easily passes WP:NOTDIC which is what the nominators rationale was solely concerned about. This is a situation where WP:SOFIXIT should have been taken into account instead of rushing into yet another AfD. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tailgating, unless this article is substantially expanded with material outside the scope of tailgating. Ping me back to have a second look if such expansion is undertaken. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - BD2412, I have begun some expansion. I've added two small sections which should hopefully further distinguish the subject from Tailgating, especially the motorsports section. It's a start, and I haven't begun to look at the additional sources introduced by JPxG. However, I am concerned that this !vote focuses too much on the article's current state and not its POTENTIAL. (Concern answered satisfactorily below) -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 05:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the effort. I am wondering whether occurrences in motorsports are not still something that can be covered in tailgating. It doesn't seem to be a thing that can happen outside of that context. BD2412 T 05:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tailgating isn't a concept that gets discussed in motor racing. The closest parallel would probably be drafting, but that still isn't really relevant or analogous. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe this is a regional thing, but I've certainly used (and heard) this term before many times. I have found some references that talk about the practice in depth. jp×g 20:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any support for it, I can put these in the article. jp×g 20:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tailgating article isn't super-long. Some of these might be reasonable to use as sources in a possible section in the Tailgating article if some sort of "responses to tailgaters" section is made post-merge. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tailgating per SnowFire. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - and per HumanBodyPiloter5, Tailgating is not a topic that comes up in motor racing. Per WP:MERGE Merging should be avoided if: 3) The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.; forcing a merger into this article is inappropriate. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean[edit]

AfDs for this article:
(View AfD • AfD statistics)


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

Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, subject has not played at a professional level either in Australia or Paraguay. Also fails WP:GNG. Whilst long, the article contains a whole lot of nothing. Many of the references are dead and those that aren't do not meet notability. Subject is nothing but a curiosity due to the unusual nature of an relatively unknown Australian amateur association footballer playing in Paraguay. Simione001 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has the longest participation as an Australian not only in PY but on the continent rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 30 November 2021

- It is a player of longest particpation in CONMEBOL from it's nationality and it's country and por ende is an Award - It is a player is Notable in Paraguay and Significant Coverage for 2020 and 2021 - It is a player Important and Notable to the History of Football in Paraguay for the non-CONMEBOL players. .--rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 30 November 2021

    • Comment - In the case this article is kept could somebody assist in moving it to "Lelo Sejean" as per WP:COMMONNAME? Lelo Sejean has been salted. Simione001 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Of new, Look at the fact: - And you arguement is? It can be Lelo Sejean is salted in past Creation of 2020 cause It is a Significant Coverage and Notability Player in PY from 2020 - It's Longest Participation as australian and Oceanian in Paraguay and CONMEBOL of 2020 and forward. is an Award - It is Important and Notable Part of History in Football in Paraguay for the Non-CONMEBOL footballers. and you arguement is? I created it's page in 2020. I see your edit from your account the Australian Futbol then you stick with Australian Futbol and you let me stick with Edit Paraguayan Futbol and Stay Away from Paraguayan Football if you had no arguement or fact OK? rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 30 November 2021
    • Comment - A draft I created for Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean and Marcos Caballero in 2020 cause the two deleted Before 2020 and the two approved In 2020 and Forward. and I created Pages on account of Notability. Of new, look at the fact. Laugh at my works? I see you comments and you deleted them. you provoke? think is a joke?am long service contributer to Football in Paraguay for much years and all of relating to it. and you arguement is? you imbecil. racist. Not interfere any more with Paraguay articles OK? Elie .Charbel Lelo Sejean is for PY and not for Australia rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 30 November 2021
This is one of the most unpleasant personal attacks I've seen. I suggest that you apologise. I've posted a warning on your talk page. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Friend I say you I am offended for Simione001 for dis credit my contribution. For 2020 Specifically I Created two Drafts for two Pages on Facts and Notability and not for Incorrect Comments that later deleted from Simione001 for my work and know nothing of Importance of History of Paraguay Football or know nothing about History of Paaguay Football. Simione001 contributes at it? Why he interfere and for mock the works of other long service contributer to Footba in Paraguay?

look at the fact: - It is a player of longest particpation in CONMEBOL from it's nationality and it's country and por ende is an Award - It is a player is Notable in Paraguay and Significant Coverage for 2020 and 2021 - It is a player Important and Notable to the History of Football in Paraguay for the non-CONMEBOL players. Not is for laugh rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 02 December 2021

  • Delete. Quite apart from how promotional the article is, the undue, the exaggeration, the need for tnt. The coverage falls short. The Geelong piece is a puff look what this local is doing, indiscriminate. The other two are promo pieces from a site showing no signs of being an independent reliable source. Who are they, who wrote these pieces. This is just an unpaid amateur playing in a foreign country. Nothing special there. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
es.wikipedia [34]. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because es.wiki deleted it 2 years ago doesn't mean we have to follow. The Spanish Wiki seemed to just base discussion on the levels he'd played at, ignoring the fact that he gets remarkable coverage for someone playing at those levels. And based it on the fact that we'd deleted it in 2010 (at which point he would have had a lot less coverage, as he was a local player in Australi). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is Precise by Joseph2302 and I return to reiterate is Notable and Significant Coverage for 2020 and Forward. Anterior to 2020 is not my problem. Even, I created a Draft specifically for the Page before creating page. Look at the fact: Is Notable 2020 and Forward. Not 2010. Is Important for History of Football in PY as non CONMEBOL player like is Bryan Lopez, Riki Kitawaki and Kenneth Nkweta Nju for they're antiguity. And Elie Charbel Lelo Sejean it is a player of longest particpation in CONMEBOL from it's nationality and it's country and por ende is an Award.

Your arguement is? rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 02 December 2021

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lelosejean/Archive and Lélo Léhud Sejean. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

look at the fact: 1) It is the large participation of it's continent and it's nationality not only in PY but in all of the CONMEBOL futbol 2) Notable and Significant Coverage on 2020 and Forward (2020, 2021, 2022, forward). cause WP:GNG is more than WP:NFOOTY. 2010 not is my problem 3) is a player important to History of Football in Paraguay to be not from the CONMEBOL and be foreigner as Bryan Lopez, Riki Kitawaki and Kenneth Nkweta Nju rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk) 05 December 2021

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Martens[edit]

Jean-Claude Martens (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 WP:SIGCOV. JBchrch talk 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:GEOLAND, places must either be legally recognized or notable per WP:GNG to qualify for an article. Keep voters in this discussion did not convincingly demonstrate either of those requirements. (Just saying "legally recognized town" doesn't make it so.) Therefore, after the keep votes have been discarded, consensus is to delete. I'm happy to restore the article for the purpose of merging, if anyone is interested. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluestem, Washington[edit]

Bluestem, Washington (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)

It's the usual isolated-grain-elevator-by-the-tracks situation, in this case apparently unaltered for some forty years at least. The Wash. place names DB says it was originally platted as Moscow before being renamed, but there's no significant evidence that anything like a town was ever built other than that the road runs parallel to the rails at an unusual distance; there's a decaying shed and a building that looks like it might be an office for the elevator, but that's it. I get one person born there, but I take those with a grain of salt. Otherwise I get a lot of hits about railroad construction and to the wheat variety itself, as well as various native grasses of the same name. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GNIS spam. No evidence of legal recognition through e.g., incorporation. A post office is not evidence of legal recognition of a population community as these can be literally anywhere, even mobile, and are (and were) often just co-located inside stores and stations that need not be part of any community. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass either. Even if one person was born there - so what? People can be born anywhere, this does not automatically confer notability.
Mangoe's work on these GNIS stubs is commendable, but frankly it should be unnecessary, because the fact that these is literally nothing to write about this place, and the article is essentially a directory-listing, should be reason enough to delete it. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bunch of passing mentions that say absolutely nothing about the actual place, other than at guy called Tom Haji might have been born there. In what way does this actually show notability? What actual article can you write about it? FOARP (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep always going to be a stub, but seems to be a valid ghost town per GEOLAND/finding the same sources as Eastmain/some mentions in the state legislature. Passing mentions are irrelevant for GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
where’s the evidence of actual legal recognition (and not just “some govt document mentioned it”)? Without legal recognition, you've got to show a WP:GNG pass. FOARP (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GEOLAND. Notable small ghost town. Decent amount of sources available per above. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does it meet Geoland? FOARP (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Lincoln County, Washington #Communities - Appears to be a non-notable town/community; the sources presented above are merely passing mentions and do not meet SIGCOV. Per WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." –dlthewave ☎ 15:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Keep position here appears to be "any place that was arguably populated at any point is notable", but this has no basis at all in guides or policy. A pass under WP:GEOLAND#1 requires legal recognition, which simply isn't evident in anything produced above or found in my WP:BEFORE. As far as I can see the mention in State Senate records is related to railway building, and does not in anyway confer legal recognition on Bluestem as a populated community, rather it highlights that this place may well have just been a railway station, and not a meaningful community of any kind. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see any reason why the news snippets shared above provide any notability towards GNG. GEOLAND only confers presumed notability to populated, legally recognized places, not just any place where a few people might have lived a long time ago; GNIS and databases does not constitute legal recognition. There seems to be an idea that always pops up in these discussions, that if a place exists at all and anyone has ever lived there, it must be notable, but that is plainly false. The sources pointed about above do not in any way help the case for this article to exist and can in no way be used to sustain it. Info on non-notable people shouldn't even be mentioned in settlement articles per guidelines like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people (To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE.), so why should sources about them impact notability in any way? eviolite (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. More than just a railroad stop with a post office. Legally recognized town. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which source supports your assertion that this was a "legally recognized town"? –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merger per Dlthewave. There is enough usage to support a redirect and a few sentences in the county article. While there is not enough info to write an article, we should at least cover it somewhere as people could search for it. MB 01:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ava railway station. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ava, New Zealand[edit]

Ava, New Zealand (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)

Proposed deletion from lack of notability and unreliable information. This is, to the best of my research, not a suburb as defined by Hutt City Council. The area referred to as Ava appears to either be in Petone or in Alicetown, or perhaps split between those two suburbs. It is unclear why this area would be notable enough for a separate article; the article's only source is a partly-broken archive of one document in which I couldn't find any mention of Ava. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FWIW, it has an entry by LINZ as a "place" and that entry gives some context. Schwede66 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a suburb/neighbourhood and even has its own train station. Probably doesn't rise to GEOLAND, probably suitable for an article if better sourced, currently fails GNG; I can't find anything quickly that suggests that it does pass GNG, but at worst this should redirect to the Lower Hutt area or perhaps the station article, so not bolding any particular "vote." SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not really the name of a suburb or area, it's just the name of the railway station, which was named after the nearby Ava Street in 1927. I grew up in the Hutt Valley and I've never heard anyone say they live in Ava. The LINZ article sort of confirms this, describing the name as "unofficial". Finally, on the Papers Past website, a search for newspaper articles mentioning "Ava" alongside "Petone" yields hits only in the context of the railway station or the street name. Given the lack of content, and the fact that the railway station has its own fairly substantive article, I think it's safe to delete. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Edit I checked out the postcode finder at the NZ Post website, trying various addresses near the railway station as given on google maps. Addresses south of the railway station (Plunket Ave, Ava St, William St, North St etc) are described as "Petone, Lower Hutt" and given postcode 5012. Addresses north of the station (Wakefield St etc) are described as "Alicetown, Lower Hutt" and given the postcode 5010. This doesn't mean Ava has never been considered a suburb, but it does mean NZ Post doesn't recognize it as one. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ava railway station as a valid WP:ATD. Clearly the only location this could refer to and as a plausible (due to possible historical usage, and possibly for those who might not know this is just a railway station and not much else) if somewhat unlikely search term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2021_November_30&oldid=1059461995"