Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this would be around "no consensus" territory, one "keep" argument is based entirely upon the now-removed "appearances in professional leagues" criterion, and one upon stating sources exist without specifying where those might be found. Given those factors, the outcome tilts to "delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gam Han-sol[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG/SPORTSPEOPLE as Gam has not met any individual notability. Completely unreferenced and hasn't won championships/any notable titles. Wikipedia isn't a database for non-notable athletes. Mentioned in passing at most within Korean sources with the rest of Bucheon FC, and zero results for English google news. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not seeing much in Korean sources, lots of hits for a female golfer for some reaosn. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Mucube. In addition to his sources, I found other Korean sources as well. Player with ongoing career who has made over 100 appearances in the fully professional Korean second tier. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz: Could you list out the sources you found so we can take a look at them? Mucube (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FPL, he has made many appearances in the FPL. Meets WP:BIO --Assyrtiko (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Those advocating Keep will have to provide additional reliable sources as only one of those offered is considered to be acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Again, Wikipedia no longer confers notabiity to athetes based on the number of appearances they've made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Sportsworldi.com has an article on Gam that reads a bit like a press release from his club, but there is a byline with a reporter named. However, the footballist.co.kr article mentioned above is the same word-for-word which I think proves that it is just a club press release. I'm not seeing anything else that looks like significant coverage from a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eccellenza Campania. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pol. San Giorgio a Cremano[edit]

Pol. San Giorgio a Cremano (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)

Originally marked as WP:PROD, delisted. An amateur club with no professional football history that no longer exists, the article has not been updated since years. Fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Angelo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eccellenza Campania as possible search term, does not appear to be independently notable. GiantSnowman 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments You said they don't exist, but they seem to exist, their website is still live. Even know they are not updating it, but are they still playing football this year? I see last season here, [1], I don't see any matches for this season know. They played in Italy's Serie D [2]. They also played in the Coppa Italia per [3], San Giorgio 1926 is the WP:COMMONNAME. So forgive me, under the old rules they qualify for an article. Do they still qualify. And a club from 1926, I assume there is a lot of history that can be compiled. @GiantSnowman:, There are still a lot of links to go through, don't count your chickens mate. Govvy (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    where is the significant coverage? GiantSnowman 09:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The club is no longer existing. I could not find any formal announcement, but they were relegated from Serie D last season and did not submit any application to play football this season. See [4] - no mention of 2022-2023 football here (and this is possibly the largest Italian website for amateur football, so I would consider it rather reliable). The website was not updated since 2018, they just abandoned it - remember we are talking of amateur football here, so there is very little significant coverage to be expected in general. "1926" does not necessarily mean the club was founded in 1926, it is in fact a typical thing for Italian clubs to mention of a year as the one when the "football history" in a city had started. Playing a single Serie D season, and gaining little to no coverage for it, so much so that I could not even find an article formally confirming the fact they left Italian football for good (and no, they are not, I checked on all football leagues of Campania), is quite telling to me. --Angelo (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, in the alternative, redirect to Eccellenza Campania as otherwise non-notable TEAM. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A few ideas have surfaced in this discussion which might be resolved through editing, so I'd recommend continuing this in article talk or on the appropriate WikiProject and seeing if the synthesis and content fork issues can be resolved otherwise. If not, no prejudice against a renomination in some time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Shakira's musical work[edit]

Analysis of Shakira's musical work (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)

Okay, this is a very well-sourced, well written article. Unfortunately, it is WP:SYNTH. The article is not about the analysis of Shakira's work, it IS an analysis of her work. Therefore it is WP:OR. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems fine, it's well sourced and talks about the aspects of her work in the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oaktree b: except that a lot of it is duplicated content from elsewhere, which is the reason why a lot of it is well-sourced and well-written – see my comment below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicated as in Copyright violation, or duplication as in it appears in other articles on wiki? The editors always use their judgement in what to include in an article. It's only really OR if they conclude something different than what an article says or if they go out and do the research themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have is that everything you say above is not incorrect, however, the editor has added their own editorial judgement to much of the article, which makes it WP:OR. Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed – for example, the first line of the "Recognitions" section starts, "According to some media and the general public, Shakira is considered 'the most influential Latin female artist of all time'"... no, the source doesn't say that, it calls her the most influential artist in the world right now, and that's according to only one publication, and no mention of the public at all. And in any case, what does this have to do with the analysis of her musical work? Richard3120 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a rewrite, not a reason for deleting the entire article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, which is why I haven't voted to delete. It was just an example of the OR that the nominator has highlighted, which is prevalent with this editor's articles, along with addition of irrelevant material. Richard3120 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI searched various sources for information, everything has its respective source that talks about her music and her musical work, the analysis is made by magazines such as Billboard, Rolling Stone critics among other media outlets, in addition to the fact that Shakira has received all kinds of recognition due to her music work. AlexanderShakifan29 (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AlexanderShakifan29 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Comment: the big problem with this editor's creations is that they are creating a lot of what I believe are WP:CONTENTFORKs and repetition of information already found elsewhere. For example, the section Analysis of Shakira's musical work#Decade of 2000 is largely a copy and paste of Laundry Service#Composition and Oral Fixation, Vol. 2#Music and lyrics. Other parts are replicated in Cultural impact of Shakira. This could be a worthwhile article, but the article creator pumps out an enormous amount of Shakira content at such a rate it's very difficult to find the time to sit down and go through everything and see what has been duplicated over several of their articles. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing wrong with duplicating small chunks of analysis into a larger one that combines them, that's really what wiki is for. I doubt there's been much peer-reviewed analysis of her work in scholarly journals the article creator can use as sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but personally I don't think it should be wholesale copy and pastes. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little concerned about overlap between this article and another they worked on, Cultural impact of Shakira. I remember that reading that one and being a little shocked that so much analysis had gone into studying a pop music singer. I'm not arguing for Delete for either article right now. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liz: Just reading the table of contents of that article makes my head hurt. But this overlap is exactly my concern as well. I do think there are some good articles in there trying to get out, but they are overwhelming at the moment and really need to be trimmed down and split into distinct articles. And then there is Shakira impersonator (which I definitely think should be merged elsewhere), Shakira Fandom... Richard3120 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, irredeemably OR. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this overlapping, OR-laden synthesis. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article seems fine, and it uses verified sources to support its information, I don't think it should be deleted, just corrected or edited following some of the suggestions of the comments above mine. Juan12353 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC) — Juan12353 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 21:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although it needs quite a bit of editing; much needs clarification and additional citations. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there aren't strong policy arguments to keep or delete beyond claiming it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR without specifics. There seems to be some consensus that the article is well-sourced which indicates to me a No consensus result unless some examples or SYNTH or OR can be presented.

I did make a comment in this discussion but I don't think it makes me INVOLVED as I wasn't arguing for the Keep or Delete of this article just stating that I saw some overlap between articles on this subject. But, just in case that anyone has misgivings, I'll let another admin actually close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Ramos de la Torre[edit]

Adrián Ramos de la Torre (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 about former footballer who had a very brief career in the second level of Mexican football. Unlike his namesake that is a Colombian international, there is no significant coverage of this footballer at all - just database entries and match reports - so it comprehensively fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed without providing any indication that SPORTBASIC could be met. Jogurney (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is complex. And we truly have a lack of consensus, not a kick the can down the road and re-nominate n/c either. Well thought out input from established editors has been roughly matched by those taking a different POV, equally relatively policy based. A discussion on spinning out or refining the content similarly did not attain consensus. The community appears divided on this.

NB: I have disregarded the nom and their !votes as, aside from the GS issue, much was not policy based. There was similarly no merit to any of the "speedy" !votes as these didn't meet the criteria.

NB2: going to explicitly say that you do not need to come to me if you believe this merits DRV I have re-read this discussion three times and do not see any consensus. Star Mississippi 03:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazi monuments in Canada[edit]

List of Nazi monuments in Canada (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)

Reposting a malformed AfD request, see below. 162 etc. (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a useless list containing only 3 items, and a POV pusher. I suggest to merge it to the article Canadian war memorials. The three items should get added to the said article, and this page should become a redirect. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this due to the significant coverage in reliable sources. Examples:
  1. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/canada-nazi-monuments-antisemitism/
  2. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/progressalberta/pages/2693/attachments/original/1594062960/Per_Anders_Rudling_-_Nationalist_Monuments_in_Canada.pdf?1594062960
  3. https://jacobin.com/2022/11/roman-shukhevych-monument-canada-nazi-ukrainian-ultranationalism
I note the points made on the talk page about if it is fair to call these monuments to Nazis and Nazi collaborators, so for the avoidance of doubt:
  1. Two of these are monuments to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Yes indeed, the SS, a Nazi organisation
  2. One of these is a monument to Roman Shukhevych, his collaboration with Nazis is well document on his page.
WP:NLIST is satisfied as many sources deal with these collectively, some as mentioned above, others clearly do, I don't think I need to list them.
In reply to the POV pushing that is being accused, what is the point of view that is being pushed? Is it that these are Nazi memorials? That is very well documented in reliable sources. I see why this is a difficult topic and at a difficult time, I am sympathetic, but there is no original research happening here. Canada has Nazi memorials and it's hitting the news, being a notable topic, and an appropriate one for Wikipedia.
Edit: procedural close because renaming discussion is ongoing on the talk page and appears to solve the complaints of the nominator to their satisfaction "Honestly, if I saw this comment before submitting the AFD, maybe I would not have submitted it." CT55555 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the renaming discussion was closed a procedural close. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 16:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this closes, you can reopen it (which was confirmed in the closing notes). CT55555 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree with Michael. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 16:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "list" only has three entries (two of which have Wikipedia articles), and I agree with the proposer that the title is needlessly NPOV. 162 etc. (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following reasons:
  1. This is a WP:POVFORK WP:CONTENTFORK. The content included to the 3-item list is already covered on a number of other pages. (see comment by Tristario about this below)
  2. The listing is simply not supported by the best available and presumably scholarly source, i.e. the chapter from the book by Per Anders Rudling (see here) who is by no means a pro-Ukrainian author (rather the opposite based on our page about him). According to the book, none of the memorials commemorate specifically "Nazi" or 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), contrary to the page under discussion. In particular, the memorial in Edmonton was established by Ukrainian War Veterans’ Society in Edmonton, not a Nazi or SS organization. Further, this monument was erected by three different Ukrainian nationalist organizations and dedicated to several different military formations of Ukrainian nationalists during WW II. Same is about the second monument ("Glory to UPA"): it is dedicated to several different military formations of Ukrainian nationalists during WW II, according to the book.
  3. The "Nazi monuments", as defined in the title, would normally mean either monuments built by Nazi (e.g. Nazi architecture) or monuments commemorating Nazism (with swastikas,etc.). In this case, the text on Memorials say to "Those who died for the freedom of Ukraine". The opinion by vandals and some others that all Ukrainian veterans commemorated by these memorials at the cemeteries were Nazi is just that, an opinion, and hardly a reasonable one (it was incited from Russian embassy, according to sources). Calling them "Nazi monuments" in the title, in WP voice, essentially as a matter of fact and describing them as such on the page I think is "inherently POV". All or most sources describe this as a controversy, not a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The initial version of this page had four examples, one was French. You started a merge discussion asking that the French example be removed. So it's only about Ukraine because you pushed the article in that direction. This seems unfair. CT55555 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not start an official "merge" discussion, which would be an RfC. I started a section on talk to clarify opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The french example was removed because it wasn't a monument Tristario (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I think you elaborated the point about the content fork in your comment below already.My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the French example gets added back, that won’t solve the POV problem. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 08:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:My_very_best_wishes, Changing what was said after people already replied is inconsistent with the behavioural guidelines at WP:TALK#REPLIED Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes. Please put back what you said before, then strikethrough if you want to take it back, then put in the new comments. It's very unfair on those of us who have replied, to retroactively change what you said. CT55555(talk) 04:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My change did not affect anything related to responses, i.e. the use of French source and note about "merge" discussion. Yes, I can strike through my entire previous comment and write a new one (if you insist), but I do not think it will be more readable. That would not be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you change (expand) the original comment, it makes the replies to it seem like they neglected some points. I should not have to insist that you follow guidelines in the context of you now obviously knowing you have strayed from them. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added point #2. If you want to address it, please do it here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're still completely focussed on changing the name, which is a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. Check out WP:ATD.
Nonetheless, one source not saying something, is not the say as the source rejecting something.
We're in a weird spot here with you continuing to imply that a monument to a Waffen-SS group is not a Nazi monument, even weirder when reliable sources concur. CT55five55(talk) 05:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not distort what I said. Yes, of course Waffen-SS were worst of the Nazi. I am only saying that according to the scholarly source (see link above), each of two monuments was dedicated to members of several different Ukrainian military units, only one which was 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Therefore, just calling all of them "Nazi" is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as this is a notable issue in Canada (see sources) but I’m open to adjusting the title. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every subject in the list is individually notable (all three of them). That's why we have such pages. But I do not think this is a legitimate list as a POV fork. If it was a regular page, if it was titled differently and written differently, as I suggested on talk, then maybe. But in the present state I think it better be deleted.My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this is a major issue in Canada (for years). Here what Ottawa Citizen daily writes about it - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD is policy and directs us clearly that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting CT55555 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content of this article is already covered by the articles 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) and St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery. I don't see any good reasons why we need a separate three entry list of these monuments/memorials - not every collection of three items needs to be made into a separate article listing them on wikipedia - WP:CONTENTFORK also applies here. There has also been a great deal of difficulty of choosing a WP:NPOV name for this article - Some people want the name "Nazi monuments", but there is only one source, which is a biased source and arguable an opinion piece, which (without attribution or scarequotes, and per WP:HEADLINES in the body of the article) refers to them directly as "nazi monuments". There is also this source, which quotes a historian that pushes back against the straightout "Nazi" label. In terms of the wording used by sources, they typically say nazi collaborators (or some variant) when talking about the nazi connection, but there's a lot of variety in how the sources in the article label these monuments, and they usually quote different viewpoints, making it hard to decide on a label. The nature of making a list like this where you group items like this together is that you have to make a judgement on what the best collective description is - and that naturally brings in WP:NPOV issues, which is a difficulty that isn't necessary to deal with in the first place, since I think this falls under WP:CONTENTFORK--Tristario (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments at the talk page are chiefly about NPOV in the title, which is of course a perfectly valid concern. But this article was nominated for AFD in the middle of the second move proposal by the AFD nominator, and the nominator has made it clear both here and at the article talk page that a move to their preferred title is acceptable.
So if this article is deleted WP:GNG and/or WP:NLIST, then it's also deleted under an alternative title, such as List of Ukrainian Insurgent Army monuments in Canada, or Ukrainian World War II memorials in Canada, correct? Storchy (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main arguments for the deletion are WP:CONTENTFORK (which people often equate or mix up with WP:FORK or WP:POVFORK) or WP:POVFORK, and that it isn't a good list (which arguably relates to WP:NLIST). The issues over the title are related to the content forking, because creating an (unnecessary) article like this where you need to create a generalized label creates NPOV difficulties, and it can be argued the existence of the article pushes a particular POV. I prefer deletion over a name change (for reasons in my above comment), but people are allowed to have preferences for multiple options, that doesn't necessarily undermine their arguments. I assume if it's deleted it's deleted under any name. Tristario (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

  • Speedy delete  Because the encyclopedia shouldn’t demonize national groups. Shukhevych was not a Nazi and the article about him doesn’t define him as one, and the Canadian organizations associated with the monument are not Nazi organizations. The members of the Galicia Division, one of the German foreign legions, were not Nazis and the article about the unit does not define them or the unit as such, and neither is St. Michael’s church and cemetery in Edmonton Nazi organizations. Nor was the Ukrainian Insurgent Army a Nazi military, and the article about it doesn’t define it as such, nor are St. Volodymyr cathedral and cemetery in Oakville Nazi. Reliable sources do not call any of these things “Nazi.” The existence of this list violates WP:LIBEL, and the topic falls within the purview of WP:ACDS as falling under Eastern European subjects. —Michael Z. 15:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why WP:RS call these controversial statutes 'Nazi' monuments in Canada? (page 126) Are we supposed to follow WP:RS or the opinion of a few Wikipedians? Tell me all you folks because I'm lost. 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good article in the Time of Israel (Russia’s ‘denazification’ lie and the whitewash of Roman Shukhevych) about the problem today’s Ukraine is facing, the problem, that if not addressed, will always haunt Ukraine. (always). - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t say Shukhevych was a Nazi or his memorial is Nazi. Stop wasting our time.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? Please cite the page number and quote the text. Google won’t show me the content, and the only search result it returns is a quote of a scare quote: “Russia tweets about ‘Nazi’ monuments in Canada amid ongoing concerns over political interference.”
It appears to be in the chapter by Per A. Rudling. As I’ve told you before, Rudling has a WP:FRINGE bias on these topics, having characterized the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association as “ultranationalist lobbies” in Ball and Rudling 2015, “The Underbelly of Canadian Multiculturalism.”  —Michael Z. 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I’m wasting your time now Mzajac 🙂 ? I’m sorry. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are wasting everyone’s time. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I’m. Too bad WP:RS call those monuments Nazi ... oops, here is another one --> Canada’s Nazi Monuments 🤔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 by the way. This is probably a good title for our article --> [6] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has the same problems as the previous one. It’s needlessly pushing a POV and there’s no any reason to keep this list. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Golinkin opinion piece in the Nation labelling Ukrainians Nazis is not a reliable source. He also wrote a vague but nasty screed about Azov battalion/regiment/movement that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. —Michael Z. 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.. and @Mzajac you need to stop calling Rudling fringe okay? You know which our policy apply here, don’t you? Get familiar with this letter please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That letter defends only his one article.[7] He doesn’t call anything “Nazi” in that piece and he doesn’t slag the UCC and UCCLA as “ultranationalist” in it. He does that elsewhere, and no one familiar with the subject is defending those statements and they are fringe.
But stop trying to muddy the waters. You still haven’t demonstrated that Rudling calls these “Nazi monuments.” I asked you to quote and cite, but you’re still defending your statement and link that shows nothing.  —Michael Z. 19:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) Requiring me to prove a negative now? b) We'd need a preponderance of sources classifying this group as such, which I'm not seeing yet. c) The recent additions of the Draža Mihailović statue and Mount Pétain muddy the waters still further by trying to shoehorn in a Chetnik and a mountain. Are we aiming for "List of things in Canada that are vaguely related to Nazism" then? Good luck with defending that list ambit. - This is a WP:SYNTH exercise, and not made more acceptable by being emotionally agreeable to most of us. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not requiring you, I’m just asking. So you don’t have a single source that claims that those monuments aren’t Nazi. (Correct?) Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella and Elmidae: Hi. In this discussion, there are suggestion(s) to rename the article as list Ukrainian monuments in Canada. As a halfway solution, I suggest we rename it to Sri Lankan monuments. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to be funny for what? What's the purpose of your comment I was pinged to? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t get it.🤷‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella and Elmidae: What I am trying to say is, as long as there are no sources saying "those aren't Sri Lankan monuments, the title "(list of) Sri Lankan monuments in Canada" should be considered as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh i see, okay. thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: that was supposed to be humor. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (maybe lean to delete) The title of the article seems wrong somehow, although irksome as a subject there is validity to it. I read through the article and agree there is a large portion of content-forking here. The St. Volodymyr Ukrainian Cemetery article seems to largely focus what is already on this page, which is directly a content-fork issue at play. The Roman Shukhevych statue (Edmonton) is more balanced with this article. I am not sure what my verdict is, whether to keep or delete. But it does feel like the article is partly working as a news service here to highlight a problem. And wikipedia is not a news service. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure yet if such a list should exist though there does seems to be a controversy over these monuments specifically, for example the Guardian has an article on the monuments and refers to a "monument dedicated to Nazi soldiers" and another to Shukhevych as a Nazi collaborator as well as the controversy they have resulted in.[8] Mellk (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid and legitimate list article containing three notable entries about related topics. Perhaps the title can be improved. Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list, recognizing that two of the three entries already have articles and the third could probably have its own. But in exchange, I would recommend expanding the existing article Nazism in the Americas to include the situation in Canada, in which reference to these monuments can be made, but give better context for why they exist. Some of the existing text on the list could be incorporated there. --Masem (t) 19:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the vast majority of Wikipedia's list articles are comprised entirely (or almost entirely) of entries which have separate articles. In fact, many times having an article is a requirement for inclusion, so I'm not seeing where having separate articles is a policy-based rationale for deletion of this list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem Yeah, not a bad idea. Let’s see what the nominator has to say about it. Hey @Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 do you mind if someone (maybe you?) expanded the existing article Nazism in the Americas to include the situation in Canada instead? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's less about policy (though the NPOV concerns listed above are of concern), and more about a more rational organization of information which then eliminates any NPOV/FORK concern. Each monument is individually notable so each can have a page, that's hopefully of no question. But instead of a list to include re-summaries of the individual articles, it seems far better to use an existing article to talk about Nazism in Canada in broad terms, and then include mention of these monuments as part of that. An extremely brief Google Scholar search on "Nazism Canada" shows numerous quality sources, so that can be built out in the suggested article. (I am surprised there's not separate ones for the US and Mexico, and I would anticipate if they had invididual articles, an article "Nazism in Canada" would also be appropriate. However, that is a separate issue). Masem (t) 20:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what about 'List of Waffen-SS monuments'? 'Nazi' is arguably an ambigous and unhelpful term, largely functioning as a slur. Saying that X and Y military units were units of Waffen-SS should be possible to verify, whether their soldiers and commanders were thouroughly National Socialists in terms of ideology and philosophy is of course much more complex to verify (and hotly contended). Also, the listing could potentially be expanded to North America or the Americas in general, if there is material for such an expansion. --Soman (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can all see that these are SS monuments (indeed they are), why is anyone objecting to us calling them Nazi monuments. Indeed Nazi is used as a slur, but when we're talking about actual Nazis...
    That said, List of Waffen-SS monuments is also correct, so I'd accept it. I think we all just need to contemplate why we're OK to label something "SS" but not "Nazi" when the SS the Nazi's paramilitary organisation, the Waffen-SS was their armed branch - the people who fought in the war for the Nazis. Our own article on the SS has the word Nazi in it exactly 100 times. Who are we all trying to not offend and why? CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Elmidae Change title to Ukrainian Monuments in Canada - add holodomor monuments et al. The grouping of these three statues (which have articles that do/could stand alone) creates an article in controversy and without NPOV. I agree that the grouping simplifies a complex issue as to push POV. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to a policy that requires Wikipedia articles to not be "controversial", as opposed to NPOV, which policy requires "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." One can point to numerous articles which are written from a NPOV and yet are considered "controversial" by some editors.
    By POV you are presumably referring to the description of these monuments as being "Nazi monuments", but there is more than sufficient evidence to refer to the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) as a Nazi organization. Consider that the Waffen-SS was the military branch of the SS, one of the most notorious of Nazi organizations, and they fought at the direction of SS commanders. The Waffen-SS was not part of the Wehrmacht, the regular German Army, and it did not come under their supervision. It was a Nazi organization. That some, most, or all of its ordinary members were not members of the Party, I do not doubt -- for that matter, most members of the SA stormtroopers were not members of the Nazi Party, and yet that is universally, and correctly, considered to be a Nazi organization.
    That the Gallicia Division was a Nazi organization cannot be gainsaid, so there is no NPOV problem in calling monuments to its soldiers "Nazi monuments". (Although I, personally, would have no problem with the article being moved to List of monuments to Nazi collaborators in Canada.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay that establishes that we don't want articles that are strictly criticism - with certain exemptions - is WP:CRITS. That allows for articles like Criticism of Christianity where each subtopic is treated in an NPOV fashion (trying to present the article from both sides). The difficulty here is that there's primarily only negative criticism related to these monuments, though obviously we can't create a false balance either under NPOV. The better way is through the idea of grouping their discussion as a whole into a larger article describing, in a neutral way, the history of Nazism in Canada. Masem (t) 22:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that information, but it actually isn't really to the point. Flibbertigibbets objected to the article as being "in controversy", which is not the same thing as being entirely critical of the subject matter. As you say, we should never insist on false balance, but if there are RS's which have positive things to say on these monuments, then we should certainly include that information, but simply because someone or some group finds an article to be "controversial" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. In any case, the primary complaint in this discussion appears to be the description of the monuments as "Nazi monuments", which, as I've pointed out above, is very firmly supported by the facts, and is not "controversial" when examined neutrally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was speaking to the "article in controversy" which is akin to "a journalist becoming the story." In my reading, the salient point of the article relates to Ukraine not about Nazi monuments in Canada, they are Ukrainian monuments in Canada (for better or worse) along with any Holodomor monuments that might be in Canada. The details in the body can cover controversy, factual, and/or perceptual changes in history. A parallel might be found in the "Lee Barracks at U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York (1962)" where the barracks simply are (independent from an analysis on Lee). There was a call in the article for Ukrainians within Canada to become more introspective about their history. The article has balance but (in my opinion) the title does not - the article is about Ukrainian monuments in Canada. (a cursory search indicates there are quite a few) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from, but folding in another monument just in order to re-name the article seems like a false move to me. The three monuments are a natural grouping because they are dedicated to a Nazi military unit, which is unusual and controversial in a country such as Canada, one of the anti-Nazi allies in WWII. There is (or shouldn't be) any controversy about a memorial to the tragic loss of life in the Holodomor, so adding it to the article is not adding like to like, instead it's an attempt to provide "cover" for the controversial nature of the other monuments.
    I've no objection to finding another title for the article, as long as the title is accurate and makes entirely clear the nature of the monuments themselves and to whom they are dedicated. I'm not in favor, however, of whitewashing the very reason for the three monuments existing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Gainsaying, as per some of my other posts on this, the whole Waffen SS was ruled and categorised as Nazi's in the Nuremberg trials, not in 1943 when the regiment was formed in Ukraine, by volunteers, opposing the USSR, promised to only be tasked with that part of the eastern front, and before the full scale of the crimes and action the Hitler regime were culpable of, context and knowledge is key. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:BCFF:F9AF:F090:C065 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
  • Merge to Nazism in the Americas. I like GizzyCatBella's proposal. I am not convinced that this article's subjects reach WP:LISTCRIT on their own merits, but I agree that the content would be notable in a general article on the topic. We must be careful not to oversimplify or offend on what is evidently a very contentious topic. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
  • I would be OK with that merger, but I have my doubts that the nom will agree to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with GizzyCatBella and Cullen328. The subject is notable and coverage by sources is adequate, but the title needs improvement to comply with WP:NPOVTITLE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:LISTN it meets our guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with current title, it passes WP:LISTN. If there are concerns similar to "there are only three items in a list article", then change the title to "Nazi monuments in Canada" or similar, as the latter passes WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. It seems much of the argument is about the article name, which should be discussed at the article talk page. "Nazi monuments in Canada" as suggested above seems most appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On seconds thoughts "Nazi memorials in Canada" would be better. Some of the monuments are not to Nazis but they still contain memorials to Nazis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and expand - I'm convinced by the argument of User:Beyond My Ken that this is not a fork of the sorts discussed above.
The title definitely needs fixing, but as noted above, WP:LOUSYTITLE is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.
The proposal to merge with Nazism in the Americas isn't quite appropriate, because this article isn't actually about Nazism, but about monuments to their collaborators, why they're still there, and about their defence mostly by people who aren't even faintly Nazi, but see the monuments as vital to commemorating important aspects of national and military history. There are analogies to be made with the Confederate monuments debates in the US, and the Statue of Edward Colston in the UK: they're monuments to people who did both good and evil things with their lives, and the debates for and against their removal are notable by Wikipedia standards.
The list was narrowly focused on monuments to Ukrainians, so I've added a paragraph each on the statue of Draža Mihailović (Serbian) and the mountain named for Pétain (French). But the list could be greatly expanded, at least to North America (as there are monuments to Nazis all over the US, see [9] for example). It could even be expanded to a list of monuments to Nazi collaborators worldwide. Storchy (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian monuments are present in Canada because a significant percentage of the population identify as Ukranians.
Four holodomor monuments mentioned here;
https://education.holodomor.ca/introduction/holodomor-monuments/
As a suggestion, add the above statues to the article, rename the article to "Ukrainian memorials in Canada" and let the readers decide.
Another consideration is the context of the current war - An interest exists in setting the narrative via the press; which has more to do with the weighting and omission of facts which are true and the context of the time.. The same concern is mentioned here;
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/08/13/shukhevych-monument-canada-oun-upa/ Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's already an article List of Holodomor memorials and monuments, which could do with better referencing. I'll try to get to that later today. Storchy (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that our task, as editors of an encyclopaedia is to present verifiable information. The idea that we should let readers reach their own conclusions doesn't work well for encyclopedias. We should not let Russia's propaganda efforts nor the probably-widespread sympathy for Ukrainians right now influence how we write about verifiable information.
Also we should be talking about if this article meets the notability threshold, not what it should be called. CT55555(talk) 14:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The, prewar, article I provided from "Radio Canada International" said this; "Competing narratives and quest for legitimacy." Denazification is a stated justification for war Casus belli that looks like Total war or perhaps a genocide of another flavor (we will see). The presentation of facts cannot set a narrative. As you said, "We should not let Russia's propaganda efforts nor the probably-widespread sympathy for Ukrainians right now influence how we write about verifiable information." We need, to provide balance there is quite a bit of factual and historic complexity to a topic presented out of context. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add to the article whatever complexity you think has been missed. CT55555(talk) 15:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into a "context tag" so readers unfamiliar with this complex subject would know that there is more complexity involved. The complexity of Ukrainian history and current events resides well outside the scope of a narrowly titled article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename most of the sources use "Nazi" i.e. they're not all directly linked to Nazism, so there must be a better title for this. The expansions made recently further highlight that there is sufficient scope to pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at WP:LISTN, and this article seems to meet it. Perhaps the name should be changed, but it's no cause for deletion. Surmountable problem. Those pontificating on "Russian propaganda" and avoiding controversy should gain a greater understanding of Wikipedia:Purpose. Wikipedia is not a tool for fighting a propaganda war, or simply recording uncontested claims - it's an encyclopedia. Carlp941 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Though it should be expanded and probably a new title is needed. Mellk (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per above; Article scope has merit On second thought, Delete list per Elmidae as WP:SYNTH and expand each monument as its own article individually. The current title is an incredibly shameful violation of NPOV and should not have been move-warred back to. SMDH. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC) !vote changed - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 06:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling monuments commemorating a Waffen-SS unit "Nazi" is "shameful"? I'm not seeing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So GhostOfDanGurney now, after you changed your !vote from keep to delete following the petite challenge by Beyond My Ken (see comment above) do you mind telling us what’s incredibly shameful about calling the monuments commemorating soldiers of the Nazi Party's Schutzstaffel (Waffen SS) division - Nazis? Because I'm also lost here. Oh...and one more side question that might be useful for the closer of this RfC.. what made you change your mind? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The monuments clearly say “to those who fought for the freedom of Ukraine”. Please stop spreading russian propaganda. This are NOT Nazi monuments. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 10:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough WP:RS stating that they are Nazi monuments and grouping them together. I'm skeptical that the list is canonical enough to satisfy WP:LISTCRIT and that it does not, as some have suggested above, contradict WP:POVFORK, since there are equally-reliable sources that disagree with this labelling. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC) 30/500[reply]
I think there is an important difference between a source being silent on a topic and disagreeing with it. Are there any reliable sources saying these are not Nazi monuments? CT55555(talk) 13:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all three of the sources you cite in the beginning of this AfD describe views that disagree with this characterisation (particularly your second one, pg 115-120). This is why I would vastly prefer it being in an article, since greater context can be provided. The only subject on this list with a separate article does describe some level of disagreement about how the Edmonton statue should be labeled, and I think that model is the way forward. This is why I don't think it's a canonical enough list for WP:LISTCRIT.
Having said that, not sure if I should be posting here given what Gizzy has stated at the bottom of the AfD. Forgive me if I have broken some kind of rule. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)30/500[reply]
GizzyCatBella, Questioning everyone who disagrees with you isn't going to help your cause. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 13:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney Asking two editors a question to clarify their comment isn’t bludgeoning and I’m not asking everyone. Also falsely accusing someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil and should be avoided. So you can’t or don’t want to answer I understand. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. Some of your comments towards the nominator could be seen as antagonizing, which is not at all civil. Please don't jump to conclusions. No one is obligated to answer you (as written in WP:BLUDGEON). - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 03:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney - As far as I'm concerned, everything is clear thanks to your replies. You don't have to explain anything anymore. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Elmidae. Thriley (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List articles risk bloating as has happened here (e.g. adding a street in West Chezzetcook which contains the name Petain] and for propagation of the initial story line we could thank the Russian embassy in Ottawa. Individual bits might be due elsewhere but as noted elsewhere some already are. See also the history of Monuments in the United States to Nazi collaborators. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there's a controversy in Canada about memorials to collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII, as reflected by reliable sources; the article meets WP:LISTN. I don't see how the page is a WP:CONTENTFORK; rather it's a reverse "fork" as it brings related content together in a coherent fashion. The issues with naming could be dealt with via WP:RM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NLIST requires that the topic of a list be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which this one has been, as demonstrated above. I don't see how the concerns about SYNTH, NPOV, or CONTENTFORK apply here, and any concerns about "Russian propaganda" are completely irrelevant and should be disregarded. Hatman31 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The Ukrainian collaborationist monuments are clearly notable as a group, but I am concerned with the addition of the French and Serbian stuff. The currently title is unacceptably ambiguous and misleading (since no members of the Nazi Party are anywhere to be found in the article). Since "Nazi collaborator" is not well defined, the page should be renamed and refocused specifically on the Ukrainian monuments that have generated controversy. This also justifies the use of news sources, which, frankly, are not acceptable in general for defining defining a monument as Nazi or to a Nazi collaborator. Srnec (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets LISTN. [10] , [11] and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- None of the content actually refers to Nazis, rather to those who for their own national reasons chose to ally themselves with the Germans in WWII:
    • General Petain no doubt sought to protect France from the worst of German occupation.
    • A Serb general chose to fight for one view of what Yugoslavia should be, something other than that of the ultimately victorious communists.
    • Various Ukrainians, whose objective was presumably a country independent of the Soviet Union.
This is a controversial topic, as can be seen from how Russian propaganda is portraying the present democratically-elected Ukrainian government. It is difficult at this distance in time to discern the motives of those who collaborated with the Germans in WWII. How about List of monuments in Canada to those allied to Germany in World War II. German allies are likely to have been nationalists, rather than those adopting full Nazi ideology. I dislike having to defend even allies of those guilty of genocide, but we should be wary of guilt merely by association. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:LISTN. Would not object to renaming. Not everybody who collaborated with Germany was a Nazi, but many of them did participate in genocide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the scope and title may need refining (I don't think this needs to be a list). Many sources covering this. There are even academic sources talking about Ukrainian nationalist/Nazi collaborationist memorials in Canada:
  • Rudling, Per A. (2011). "Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta". Nationalities Papers. 39 (5). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 733–768. doi:10.1080/00905992.2011.599375. ISSN 0090-5992.
  • Rudling, Per A. (2020). "Long-Distance Nationalism: Ukrainian Monuments and Historical Memory in Multicultural Canada". Public Memory in the Context of Transnational Migration and Displacement. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41329-3_4. ISBN 978-3-030-41328-6. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning towards Delete This really is a poorly written article, should be deleted and put as a disambiguation for each one of the memorials. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being "poorly written" is not a legitimate policy-based reason for deletion. See WP:ATD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications of the nominator[edit]

Qualifications of the nominator have been clarified; as there have been multiple opinions expressed, it no longer meets the criteria for a procedural or speedy close. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment - You know what folks? I just noticed is that the nominator (who is indefinitely blocked now by the way) wasn't extended confirmed. (see Arbitration Committee notice below) Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. The monuments to members of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) and Roman Shukhevych are related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45). (🤷‍♀️) Please speed close this nomination and someone who !voted "Delete" please renominate if want. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Good active discussion that owes nothing to the antecedents of the nominator. Nothing is served by process-wankery in this case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae Do you mind asking ArbCom for clarification? I'm confident about what this -->Non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions means - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I mean by process-wankery. I'm sure everyone who took time to contribute to this discussion will be thrilled to have their efforts annulled because the nominator should have been someone with slightly more edits. Our purpose is not the warm glow of following guidelines to the letter, but to figure out how to create the best encyclopedic representation of a contentious topic. Please give it a rest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae Oh, I see. So now we should ignore ArbCom's ruling too. Interesting 🙂 (PS - it's unfortunate that we all wasted time on a discussion that shouldn't even occur due to the standing of the nominator) - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae - I wonder if you consigning this nomination would solve the issue. (IDK ask someone if you want), but as of now this AfD is invalid - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So now we should ignore ArbCom's ruling too - yes we should. This is a prime instance of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because nothing at all is served by huffing and puffing after perfect compliance at this point. There is no damage to undo and only useful discussion to curtail/lose. Seriously, you don't need to worry about this, and we don't need a co-signer. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and I'm worried about it. All ArbCom rulings need to be followed with no exceptions. Unless they (ArbCom) clarify that it's okay to continue here, as far as I'm concerned, this AfD is invalid. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is valid because other editos have !voted to delete. End of. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 16:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an involved participant in this discussion, who are you to strike the nominator's comments? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 16:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In case this helps reach consensus: I started this article and have argued to keep. But I don't think we should close it because the nominator is banned. In a pragmatic sense, someone will just renominate it and we'll get fewer people inputting. It's best we resolve this through discussion, not try to end the process on this technicality. I also acknowledge that I might be accused of double standards, I did ask for it to be ended on a technically early on, but the difference now is that many people have shared bona fide comments, even if the nominator's credibility has since been reduced. CT55555(talk) 17:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that article is going to be kept (note - that’s what I wanted) but I strongly believe we should respect and follow ArbCom rulings. Those folks are there for a reason and work hard. Someone, please close it now or renominate it if we are to continue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, shouldn't the AfD be labelled in some way? If I'm not wanted, I will stay away, but I feel rather unhappy with the fact that this list is under a hidden sanction... NeverRainsButPours (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverRainsButPours (good idea) - that was never done anywhere else before, as far as I know. And yes, you are right, you can’t yet comment here until you reach extended confirmed status. Since your above comment isn’t about keeping or deleting, then it can stay I guess (?) but the other one has to go, unfortunately. Sorry about that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that ArbCom decisions should be followed in all instances, but I see this situation as analogous to the WP:G5 speedy deletion criteria, "Creations by banned or blocked users", which says: "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. " (emphasis added) Here we have an AfD that was created by an editor who did not qualify to do so, and if that had been caught at the beginning, then it could rightly have been deleted - but since that wasn't determined right off, the subsequent comments and discussion of a large number of qualified editors has changed the circumstances. It's useful to think of all the editors who !voted "delete" as being the de facto co-nominators, and leave it at that. (BTW, I !voted to keep.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if that’s what you guys want. 🤷‍♀️ Two questions:
    1- Should we let ArbCom know about this occurrence? (I think we should)
    2 - Should this case be a model to follow in future similar circumstances? (again, I think that's up to them, ArbCom, to decide) GizzyCatBella🍁 22:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dropped an email to ArbCom to bring it to their attention. (Just a link to this section.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all. @Beyond My Ken: I saw your note to arbcom-en, but I'll respond here publicly. Writing individually and not on behalf of the Committee, I don't see an issue with keeping this AfD open with the nominator's comments stricken. WP:SK4 governs this scenario: the nominator was essentially banned from nominating this AfD, but did it anyway. The rule is: if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed[2] (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). The note "[2]" says: Unless all such comments support keeping the article, in which case the discussion may be closed as a speedy keep. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @L235 Thank you for this Kevin. Greatly appreciated.- GizzyCatBella🍁 23:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be more comfortable if someone uninvolved struck the comments, rather than GizzyCatBella, who is clearly involved and, in my opinion WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion by (among what I've already pointed out here) repeatedly calling for a speedy close despite the presence of good-faith delete !votes. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 23:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GhostOfDanGurney What you are comfortable with is nonessential. You falsely accused me of responding to every [12] delete comment. You hatted this section twice, edits warring about it. You continue here accusing me of WP:BLUDGEONING. Full stop now, please - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment (September 2021)

Remedy 7 of the Antisemitism in Poland case ("500/30 restriction") is retitled "Extended confirmed restriction" and amended to read as follows:

Extended confirmed the restriction

7) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.

  • For technical reasons concerning the log page, the section breaks in this AfD have been demoted to level 4, one level below the AfD header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second convenience break[edit]

  • Delete or prune and rename. The current title should be read as "list of monuments which someone including us associates with Nazis", which is an invalid way to name articles. An example is Petain Mountain, named for Phillipe Petain when he was a WWI hero. Later Petain blackened his own name by collaborating with the Nazis during WWII, but that doesn't turn the mountain into a "Nazi monument". It remained a mountain named for a WWI hero, even though the later indirect link to Nazis was a good reason to rename it. Zerotalk 02:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article passes GNG and others. It is sourced article and should be kept on wikipedia.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 02:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

District X[edit]

District X (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)

Fictional location with no evidence of notability, mixed with some information about a short lived comic book series, which has a reception section, but the references seem not very reliable. Maybe redirect to some list of Marvel comic locations, hmmm, can't find it, Features of the Marvel Universe then? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ConceiveAbilities[edit]

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

All the sources are press releases or self-published. Does not appear to pass WP:ORG. ~TPW 18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ConceiveAbilities has only received brief mentions from secondary sources. That's not enough. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Coverage in sources is only trivial. ProofRobust 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Everything I find is affiliated (including interviews and quotes with the founder talking about her own organization), from social media, from a blog, from the organization's own public relations, or an inclusion of a publication by the organization in a bibliography. There is a list of top 8 surrogacy centers that might have come close, but the write-up of this organization is a barely reworded version of their own PR. Nothing that passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Largoplazo (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing++ 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Dyer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joyce Dyer (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)

Extremely obvious WP:CONNECTION issues, as well as WP:NOTABILITY (no secondary coverage that I can find). It was previously nominated and kept based on now-outdated guidelines. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed Work: The Awakening: A Novel of Beginnings by Joyce Dyer Review by: Denise D. Knight, American Literary Realism, 1870-1910 Vol. 27, No. 2 (Winter, 1995), pp. 88-89 (2 pages).
BOOKMARKS: Writers and events of regional interest Literary women reclaim their culture The Roanoke Times, May 10, 1998 (multi-paragraph review of a book she edited)
Reviewed Work: Bloodroot: Reflections on Place by Appalachian Women Writers by Joyce Dyer Review by: Lynda Ann Ewen, Journal of Appalachian Studies Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 1998), pp. 340-342 (3 pages)
Reviewed Work: Bloodroot: Reflections on Place by Appalachian Women Writers by Joyce Dyer, Review by: Nancy Carol Joyner NWSA Journal Vol. 11, No. 3, Appalachia and the South: Place, Gender, Pedagogy (Autumn, 1999), pp. 195-197 (3 pages)
Reviewed Work: Goosetown: Reconstructing an Akron Neighborhood by Joyce Dyer Review by: Sharon Hatfield, Appalachian Journal Vol. 39, No. 1/2 (Fall 2011/Winter 2012), pp. 171-172 (2 pages).
Book Talk: Plot thickens in 'Evil Under the Tuscan Sun' by the USA Today network has a multi-paragraph review.
and just some general coverage Professor at Hiram compiles essays into a book, Akron Beacon Journal is a multi-paragraph story about her and her editing a book.
(and there are more reviews). Looks like the article does need some cleanup and reference work but the above and with a significant body of published works seems to meet WP:NACADEMIC #1? Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the previous AfD did not adequately provide justification for notability. But I think there are enough published book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. And although much of the text of the article is currently unsourced, we could use this Encyclopedia.com article as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:AUTHOR#3 - my initial online search finds WP:SECONDARY coverage of some of her work, e.g. 2 reviews from Kirkus Reviews (for Bloodroot and Pursuing John Brown) and the journal Appalachian Heritage (Bloodroot). At the WP Library, the first page of results include the review "From Curlers to Chainsaws: Women and Their Machines, by Joyce Dyer" By: Pesses, Michael W., Women's studies, Vol. 47, Issue 6 (via EBSCOhost), reviews of Bloodroot in the NWSA Journal (via JSTOR), the Journal of Appalachian Studies (via JSTOR) and Appalachian Journal (via JSTOR), a review of Goosetown in Appalachian Heritage (via JSTOR), a review of The Awakening in American Literary Realism (via JSTOR), an article about her and her book "Author traces father's life in 'Gum-Dipped'" in Rubber & Plastics News (via EBSCOhost) and a brief biographical entry in the Writer's Directory via Gale. On the second page of results, she also has an entry in the Directory of American Scholars (via Gale. These sources can be used to help further develop the article and suggest further sources likely WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing this. I suppose I am not terribly well-versed in the specific notability criteria for authors. Should I close this, or do you believe this discussion has any further value? An anonymous username, not my real name 19:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, An anonymous username, not my real name, and while allowing the discussion to remain open for a bit could allow more editors to become aware of the opportunity to conduct more research and develop the article, if you also agree that notability now appears supported, then it looks like a speedy keep is supported. And thank you for bringing this article up for discussion! Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to International Council of Museums. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Transport and Communication Museums[edit]

International Association of Transport and Communication Museums (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)

Yes it exists; The IATCM is a very small "trade group or association" that holds a conference periodically and has a handful of members. In my opinion this group is not notable. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remorse ASCII[edit]

Remorse ASCII (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)

Small hobby group of ASCII "artists" - the article is unsourced, fan essay, and was not notable at the time of authorship. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACiD spun off an ASCII art subdivision called Remorse in December of 1994. and By this time a substantial proportion of warez trading had shifted to the Internet, which preferred the platform-independence of ASCII art over Codepage 437. In this it is notable that ACiD's Remorse ASCII division appeared approximately at the beginning of this trend and continued through to the end of ACiD as a driving force in computer art.
So... if this is deleted I'll try to add some more to the primary page. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raso, Arizona[edit]

Raso, Arizona (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)

Even the place names books call this a rail spot, and they are the only sources of info besides GNIS and old topos, the latter showing a passing siding and nothing else. It's not a notable settlement or anything else. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you point to any guidelines governing notability of places like this? I'm not seeing them, but suspect we're not writing on a blank slate here. My inclination, when dealing with something historical, is to keep if we can find sufficient sources to write an article -- I don't worry very much about self-promotion when we're talking about ghost towns and the like. But there's probably a standard that provides more guidance than that... TheOtherBob 17:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that WP:GEOLAND is the primary subject-specific WP:Notability guideline covering this. Skynxnex (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should also read WP:GNIS to understand the problems with the principal source for this article. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rail sidings are not populated places, no notable community. If there is anything historic worth mentioning about this location, it should be in another article such as History of the Southern Pacific. MB 17:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find stray mentions of the place in books, but nothing that indicates it was a notable settlement historically (or at least outside of similar abandoned sidings in aggregate) and it certainly ain't now. Doesn't meet GEOLAND. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Americans in Nevada[edit]

Asian Americans in Nevada (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 huge clustering of asian americans, no significance of Asian Americans in Nevada. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - with no prejudice against the merge proposal being discussed further on the article's talk page. Closing this AfD as there is no consensus to delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chosen One (trope)[edit]

The Chosen One (trope) (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)

Mostly just a WP:DICDEF with an example farm attached. No real difference with hero, surely any relevant information can be incorporated there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge with hero aside form the list it has some pretty valuable info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2006toyotacorrola (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the entry paragraph already goes beyond a pure definition. (Just compare it to the actual dictionary definition.) The secondary sources do not support "No real difference with hero", as one already says, it "is a very specific trope in F/SF" (rooted in religion). (You can have a group of heroes, but only one Chosen One, can't you?) Then, the trope is currently not discussed at hero at all. If "surely any relevant information can be incorporated there", why are we leading a deletion discussion, rather than a merge discussion? As we already have at least two relevant secondary sources, Fantasy Magazine and Tor.com (which do discuss the pros and cons of the trope, so they go beyond a dictionary definition, too), notability is established, and the article could be expanded. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and notability is not based on an article's current status. Granted, the trope is so ubiquitous that few sources stop to talk about the Chosen One as such (like this PhD thesis, p. 94-59 does) before going into a discussion of how it is applied in specific works (and such sources are numerous). But that's all the more reason we should provide info on the basic concept here on Wikipedia for the interested reader. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Chosen Ones can be multiple quite easily, which is another reason why this article's title and body content is misleading at best.
    Deletion discussion is because merge discussions can also be done at AfD. That is perfectly normal Wikipedia policy, if the article is believed to be totally unencyclopedic in its current state.
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that thesis papers are highly dubious as reliable sources as they are often subject to little scrutiny. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: "this article's title and body content is misleading at best" is a new argument. The term is what it is (except if you want to claim WP:NEOLOGISM somehow). Would you care to elaborate where the article is misleading despite being mostly sourced?
And what was your reason for deletion again? I thought it might be "5. Contentforks", which explicitely says it's a reason for deletion "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate". Then deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and lists merging as one way that editing can improve an article percieved as too short. So while a merge can sometimes be the outcome of a deletion discussion in opposition to the nomination, those Wikipedia policies I have seen say the opposite of "merge discussions can also be done at AfD" (and for good reasons).
I would be really curious if there are existing examples of a group of Chosen Ones in fiction or religion. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Chosen people? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Interesting! I'd say it's not really the same trope, though. Daranios (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Not the same but highly related. Chosen one vs chosen group. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand/improve. This is a well-worn and well-documented literary and cultural trope. BD2412 T 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Something must have discussion in RS as an individual concept, not just be a trope. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the RS already mentioned above, this one also discusses the concept for two paragraphs. Daranios (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to hero and remove the list. There is a way to cover this on an encyclopedia, and I agree with the nominator that it isn't a TV tropes style list. There is a good paragraph to be written about a hero and their destiny. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Weak keep. It's a bit complicated. We have one decent paragraph that might be merged to hero, hero's journey or list of stock characters, and a fancrufty list that needs to be deleted per WP:IPC. The question is, whether the trope of chosen one warrants a stand-alone article or a merger? The term is used but I am having trouble locating a clear definition, which leads me to suspsect "chosen one" is just a synonym for hero, and therefore, a merge would be best. According to [21]and [22], the only difference between "chosen one" and "hero" from "hero's journey" is that the chosen one doesn't have a choice in becoming a hero. I just don't see the need to split this trope into a separate article unless more SIGCOV sourcing is found, a merge. Regarding where to merge, I think the best place right now is the chosen one entry in the table at List of stock characters. Our articles on hero and hero's journey don't mention this term, although they probably should. PS. To be clear, I am not far from leaning weak keep as well. If this is expanded (text-wise, the unrefeenced IPC-violating list needs to go), this might be ok as stand-alone article. But if all we have is the current one paragraph, the table I link to will be a valid merge target. PPS. Last thought: the current article also suffers from no scholarly sources, the best we have are two online "trade journals", aka minor sf websites/magazines, The Nerd Daily and Fantasy Magazine (the former article by Anita Olsen Stoebakk, the latter article authored by K. Tempest Bradford; tentatively I'd call the second one reliable, but I have my doubts about the first one). PPPS. I didn't notice Tor's article ([23]). With two reliable and SIGCOV meeting sources, I guess this is a borderline keep for this trope, also when we factor in some other sources found, like the two paragraphs in the book Daranios mentioned (I didn't verify, no access through TF site, can anyone link it if it's in IA or another place that's accessible without $$$?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The Routledge Companion to Imaginary Worlds is also avialable on Google books, though I could see the relevant pages at some times but not others. Daranios (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It sure *seems* like this should have an article, but the discussion indicates that there is not SIGCOV in reliable sources about the topic. Those sources that have been presented have been meticulously debunked. I think I'd consider this an "anti-salt" delete, if and when enough sources are discovered upon which to build an NPOV article of sufficient length to be of encyclopedic value, we should welcome its recreation. As stands the article is a dictionary definition and belongs on a sister project. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancy[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO. I tried to find a way to merge it into magic in fiction but couldn't even find sufficient sources for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. The idea of magic interacting with technology is reasonably well-established, but this is clearly not in mainspace article shape. BD2412 T 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea might be established, but Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and not the place for indiscriminate original research. If the idea is not discussed in a detailed fashion then it's probably not fit to be anywhere on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is important and makes a cool article. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ILIKEIT for why that isn't a valid argument in deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Google Scholar search shows it widely used in academic literature. There may well be ways to merge this with similar concepts, but outright deletion is almost certainly not warranted. I'll note that 2 of the 3 literary examples that immediately came to mind when reading the article title are covered appropriately in the article, although not with the depth I think is likely supported by RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Without proof that it is widely discussed in reliable sources, a keep vote holds no weight really, and is outright speculation at best. Many things pop up in Google searches, much of it unusable on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BEFORE for why the failure to find and engage with these uses is your problem, not mine. That is, if you can't click on the scholar link above and see that my statement is accurate, that is your problem, not mine. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens Seriously, no, and you know better. Requirement to provide sources, per WP:V, is on editors who want to keep the article. Anyway, I did BEFORE and I claim there are next to no sources, this is a niche term with next to zero notability. Few uses are confused and don't define the concept, nor do they discuss it at any lenght. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    piotrus So what are you going to give me if I prove your statement wrong? If you can't click 'scholar' and see that there are plenty of uses of the word--which demonstrates that it is not a neologism--then we've got a problem here. The reason I didn't post a source analysis is that none is needed. The nomination does not argue that the word is non-notable, but that it's "a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO" and the bar for refuting that is far lower than proving the concept is actually notable. Allow me to quote, to save you a precious click: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. This has RS usage; it is not a neologism. Now, if you want to re-nominate this article on a different basis, please do so, but I do not see the value of doing any more work than necessary to prove that the nomination basis is incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Scholar shows there are few passing mentions, with no attempt to define the subject, and that these mentions occur in more than one context. It is a neologism, with no universal definition. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "You may have not found sources, but I did - I'm keeping them to myself!" if you think that sounds ridiculous, I'm just paraphrasing your response. Suffice it to say it is nonsensical. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Zxcvbnm the fact that you can't see enough sources to eviscerate your nomination rationale (see my above response to Piotrus) is not a failure on my part, but one of yours to understand the rationale upon which you're advocating deletion: clicking Google Scholar and seeing all those isolated mentions is all I need, or you need, to see that your WP:NEO rationale is in error. Copying a bunch of them into the AfD debate 1) isn't my job per WP:BEFORE, and 2) wouldn't help anyways because the issue appears to be one of you expecting more from the sourcing than policy actually requires. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As it states in WP:NEO, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." This is what I meant in my rationale, which never attempted to claim that it was not widely used. However, it is not notable as a term either, a fact which has been confirmed by others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-established and well-covered concept in fantasy fiction and gaming. Certainly not any sort of neologism. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: I will gladly withdraw my deletion nomination if I see WP:THREE reliable sources that discuss technomancy in significant detail. So far, none have been shown, just assertions that sources likely exist somewhere because people have heard of the word one day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that WP:THREE is just an essay and has no standing on Wikipedia? WP:GNG is the standard we use. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is "just an essay". Sometimes articles are contingent on a couple of sources, or even one source. However, these are usually very indepth and large. I do not see evidence of such, nor any source really. Just back and forth Wikilawyering about nonexistent sources that may exist somewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Zxcvbnm,WP:NEO is part of WP:NOTDICT and not part of WP:N at all. Did you mean to raise a notability argument in the nomination? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT an well-estabilished term. It's a super niche, super rare term. If you want to prove me wrong, cite your sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this article could use a lot of improvement, there are a number of sources which use and discuss the term, e.g. [24], [25], and [26]. The concepts appearing in those sources as "technomancy" are not identical, which is reflected in the differences between the sections of our article here. Daranios (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daranios: I am not seeing much to salvage here, nor SIGCOV of this topic; worse, your last source that has a few sentences about this seems to discuss not literary genre but some pseudoscience? BUT Encyclopedia of Fantasy has an entry on technofantasy [27], which seems to be the a related concept. In either case, I checked several encyclopedias of sf and such and neither of these terms is used (well, outside technofantasy in EoF). As such, I am afraid I have to lean delete due to failure to estabilish WP:GNG and significant WP:OR. The discussed term "technomancy" doesn't seem to be either discussed or even defined anywhere, and that's a major strike. Do let me know if I missed a source which defines it and discusses it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Piotrus: Based on the the publisher and the the author, I had no reason to assume the third source to be pseudoscience. I don't claim to completely understand it, nor have I read the whole thing, but I still think this is a valid sociological examination of quasi-magical practices, and sees practitioners of technomancy as having some understanding of the world ("ability to read and represent the signs of time and nature"), but clad it in a magical guise appropriate to their time/culture. Daranios (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daranios The point is, as TD noted below, is that the definition you found is about a different concept than the one discussed in the article. Maybe, just maybe, there is a notable concept of technomancy related to occult, but our article is about something else. As such, WP:TNT applies anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first source says [...] beginning to blur the lines between technology as medium and techonology as magical tool. This theory of technomancy is a useful one to at least be aware of in your own occult research., the second source says we'll consider what would happen if God or his surrogate were all knowing but constrained to perform miracles by natural means. Borrowing from fantasy novelist Terry Pratchett, we'll call this kind of explanation "technomancy"., and the third source says Technomancy is a postmodern fusion of the art of schematisation and sympathetic picturisation (téchne) with the embodied craft of divination (manteía). A relevant technomancy of the world is fēng shui [...]). Those concepts are not just "not identical", they are fundamentally different concepts to the point of equivocation. Nor do they really correspond to the different sections in the article ("Theme", "Non-mystical technomancy", and "Non-scientific technology"). Those sources might make a case for a disambiguation page (if appropriate targets exist), but they don't make a case for keeping this article as it is currently constructed. The current state of the article is an WP:OR mess. What would you keep? TompaDompa (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. Three authors cited use the term in three differnet ways. It's a mess, clearly, nobody knows what this term is suppoed to mean, people use it as synonym for various other stuff. Only the third source tries to define it, and well, it treats it as a synonym of feng shui. Seriously, this is a mess. I can't even seriously suggest we make it into a disambig, as the cited uses are inconsistent and based on a single source. Note I've created an entry on technofantasy now, but it is not the same concept as the one discussed here, or in the sources cited. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the term is used in different ways. I did not mean to say the three sources I picked as examples correspond to the three sections of our article, but rather that the article recognized that the term has been used differently. So if I come to Wikipedia to learn what the term means, I'd like to see an article that does explain the different variations out there. If this could be done by a disambiguation page, that would be fine with me, but I doubt that there are appropriate target pages - Non-scientific technology would correspond to Magitech, though. I did not have the time to thoroughly go through the numerous sources available (that's why it would be so helpful to learn what the nominator found out on individual sources in the required WP:BEFORE search before getting to their overall conclusion). [28] uses the term in the sense of Clarke's third law, so I would keep the paragraph surrounding that, with the sourced Technomages from Babylon 5 as a good example. Terry Pratchett: Titan of Technomancy confirms that the Non-scientific technology is one important part of what the author describes as Pratchett's technomancy. (Unfortunately I don't have access to p. 230.) The Shadowrun example should be double-checked and corrected or expanded with regard to the short definition in this secondary source, chapter 25.3. that the characteristicon of a technomancer is their "embodied magical ability to manipulate the ghost in the machine". Daranios (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Just so we understand each other, what would you say this article is about: the word "technomancy" (i.e. WP:WORDISSUBJECT) or the concept of technomancy? TompaDompa (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure. What I'd expect from a cleaned page was to explain that technomancy has been used to describe a, b, c, give the word origin, background on the concepts where available, examples where appropriate. Maybe not unlike the Minority article before it became a disambig page. Which would you say that is? Daranios (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, but surely you understand that's a major problem? The way to write an article about the word and an article about the concept are completely different. The sources that are necessary to write an article about the word and an article about the concept are completely different. How can you even tell if a source is relevant if you don't know if the article is (supposed to be) about the word or the concept? In order to write an article about the word, you need sources that discuss the word and how it's been used in different ways—not just sources that use it in different ways. In order to write an article about the concept, you need sources that discuss the concept—and they need to be discussing the same concept rather than different ones that happen to be described using the same word. What you're suggesting goes against WP:NOTDICT (In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.) and WP:BROADCONCEPT—because it would be like writing an article about Mercury (element), Mercury (planet), Mercury (automobile), and Mercury (mythology) all in the same article. It should perhaps give you pause that the version of Minority you linked to is from 2006.
      For the record, the Technomancy article is (ostensibly) about the (or perhaps more accurately a) concept—the WP:LEAD says In science fiction and fantasy, technomancy, also called technomagic, is a category of magical abilities that affect technology or magical powers that are gained through the use of technology. Other senses of the word "technomancy" are consequently out of scope, and sources using the word to mean something else are off-topic. TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TompaDompa Just a side note that you may want to actually vote... so far the votes are pretty unanimous and my reading of your comments is that you may not lean the same way as they do. But this discussion may be closed soon if all the closer sees are several bold keeps. NOTAVOTE, yes, but... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I had chosen the example of the old version of Minority to show that such a topic can grow from an imperfect article to a proper disambiguation page when enough material has been collected, as Wikipedia as a whole has grown. (Obviously Minority is a way more relevant concept than Technomancy, so no surprise in that issue having been solved long ago there but not yet here.) I am somewhat disappointed that the policies should forbid the kind of article I had described. Anyways, staying concept for the time being, if you are not offended by the current "or" in the lead, and are a bit generous, I think this (in contrast to the Mercury example) can still qualify as a "sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts" of WP:BROADCONCEPT under the following umbrella: Technomancy, also called technomagic, is a category of abilities to affect technology through magical or beyond-mundane means or magical powers that are gained through the use of technology. This fits the colloquial use of "surprising ability with technology", the Shadowrun example, the Clarke's third law examples, and (as far as I understand it) Tzanelli's defition, where understanding of nature is used to produce results in the guise of magic. If time permits I'll look for more soures to support the individual concepts below this broad one another time. Daranios (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with that is that that definition is original to you, synthesized from disparate uses of of a term. You're engaging in WP:ANALYSIS, or in other words WP:Original research. Surely you understand that? TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting more sources: A Worldbuilder's Guide to Magic, p. 57, has a good half-page with definition, examples and background on our primary defintion here. CBR. Gizmondo uses technomancy and techno-magic interchangeably for the example of Ravnica. Daranios (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The former does not speak of technomancy but technomagic, and CBR is a really low-quality source for this type of material. I think it's pretty clear that this does not rise to the level of coverage required by WP:GNG. Recall 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. That being said, I have done you the courtesy of removing the unsourced and irrelevant material and adding a single-sentence WP:Dictionary definition based on the CBR source. If you think you can expand it to a full article based on the sources, feel free to do so. Otherwise, it might be a better idea to figure out some other article where this can be mentioned in a sentence or two (there does not seem to exist any list of types of magic, or else we could perhaps have redirected there). TompaDompa (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: The article is explicitely on technomancy and technomagic as synonyms. Oh, well, it was a moment ago. You will see that the definitions of the two sources match. I will continue to look for sources. As a preliminary opinion, if there were only those two, it would be fine in my view to merge that to, for lack of a better target, Magic in fiction. Then this should become a disambiguation page linking to that, Magitech, Wiktionary:Technomancy, Clarke's third law, and probably Wiktionary:Technomagic, to account for the various ways the term(s) have been used. Daranios (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here it is: Tales of superhuman powers, p. 124, has another half page. It uses the broader definition which next to affecting technology supernaturally also includes "creating advanced technology" and "marvelous inventions". Daranios (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the idea that "technomancy" and "technomagic" are synonyms come from, exactly? Certainly not from the sources. These are, as Piotrus said above, extremely niche terms. I still don't see the coverage being sufficient for more than a basic WP:Dictionary definition, and in order to even write that we have to ignore the sources that define the word in a different way that does not conform to our preconceived notions of what it should mean. There's nothing to merge here. The Wiktionary entry is to my eye enough, which is no obstacle to deletion. The rest of the stuff you're proposing as part of a disambiguation page is on very shaky grounds, methinks. TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: I did not mean to "ignore the sources that define the word in a different way", but initally thought the variants should all be treated here, but I understood you told me we should focus on the separate concepts separately. Was I wrong? Based on the old lead, the editors knew or percieved that the two terms "technomancy" and "technomagic" are synonyms, so technomagic should certainly have been part of the WP:BEFORE search. You have suggested we should not focus on the word but the concept, right? I have concentrated my later search on the concept described in the old lead. I did not find a secondary source for this concept which spells out the two words being synonyms. But we have three source which use two different words and define the concept in different depths. Do you see those as describing different concepts? Do you think the definition used in the technomagic source does not conform to the old lead or your succint new lead? If so, how could we distinguish them properly, so that a hypothetical technomagic article would not be a WP:CONTENTFORK of our topic here? Otherwise I think all secondary sources on a topic should be counted towards notability. Daranios (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, and Wiktionary:-mancy tells us that -magic and -mancy are synonyms in the field of fantasy. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make by saying that in order to even write that we have to ignore the sources that define the word in a different way that does not conform to our preconceived notions of what it should mean was that if this had been an established term, we wouldn't have to go through so many "false positives" (for lack of a better term) to get the sources that use the term in the way we want them to. I realize that I probably could have been clearer on that. The old WP:LEAD was engaging in WP:Original research, which is really all there is to it. I have concentrated my later search on the concept described in the old lead.—that's the problem. When your starting point is original research, that's also where you end up. That you did not find a secondary source for this concept which spells out the two words being synonyms should probably tell you something about the viability of what you're doing. TompaDompa (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I still agree with TD, also, another meaning: https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Technomancer - that's another variant. If we allowed OR, that would be worth discussing. Sadly, we don't. Arguably, there is probably a RS sufficient to mention this term appears in the Shadowrun universe, just like another can be found for B5 (and I'll also throw in GURPS Technomancer), but again, we need RS for examples. All we have at the end are a bunch of definitions in various context. The source that was found [29] is arguably the best for the current context (in fiction), but one source is a bit below WP:GNG treshold. Still, it's something, and I'd constructively suggest to think if there is a merge/redirect target for the current one-sentence, single-reference definition. Perhaps the solution is to create the technology in science fiction article, based on [30]. Then we could merge and redirect that definition, even expand it from the source with examples cited. PS. Instead of a redirect, we also need to consider whether a disambig is not needed instead, given the occult uses? Bu a disambig to where, assuming one place would be the "tech in sf" article? Any thoughs what might be the occult target? Technopaganism, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I don't think the Shadowrun example has another meanining, but rather fits quite well into the concept as defined in Tales of superhuman powers. Don't you think so? Daranios (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios It does, the problem is that saying so in the article may be ORish. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I disagree because WP:SKYISBLUE and such, but we don't need to quibble about that, as A Worldbuilder's Guide to Magic tells us that GURPS' Technomancer followed by Shadowrun falls into the category of technomagic (which is another indication that the two terms are used interchangeably). Daranios (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per my extensive rationale in comments above (TL;DR: this topic is not notable, sources found seem to be about a different meaning anyway, if not meanings, plural, neither of whic appears notable either). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My initial plan was to rewrite this article (because the current version is an WP:OR mess without proper sourcing) based on the sources found by Jclemens and Daranios, as I have done previously during deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time viewer. However, after actually looking at the sources it became apparent that they are not about the topic of this article (magical abilities that affect technology or magical powers that are gained through the use of technology in fiction), but rather use the term "technomancy" to mean something completely different (and the sources use it in completely different ways from each other, too). Like Piotrus, I searched sources that I know to be useful for writing articles like this (e.g. science fiction encyclopaedias such as The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy) for this term without any success. The term "technomancy" (and for that matter "technomagic") does not appear in Brave New Words: The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction or the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction. That tells me that this is not, contrary to assertions above, an established term in this sense. If anybody happens to find any sources that actually provide WP:Significant coverage of this topic, ping me and I'll reconsider. If the sources are sufficient for it, I'll rewrite the article myself. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After removing all the uncited content, we're left with a dicdef. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Das Ich. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti'christ[edit]

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

No sources on page. Found this review from Exclaim! but nothing else. Redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notably, the German Wikipedia article has no sources either. BD2412 T 16:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the albums that have been created by this band are not notable enough for wikipedia.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom Fifthapril (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Das Ich, as is common procedure for a non-notable album from a notable band. The title is a possible search term (with this punctuation, at least). The Exclaim review seems to be one of the few pieces of reliable media coverage ever received by one of this band's albums, and it helps a little but it's still rather slight. Nobody else seems to have noticed the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Das Ich. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Das Ich. I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources to support this subject having a separate article, but I think a redirect is always more beneficial than outright deletion if a viable target article exists. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Das Ich. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 10:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret (Das Ich album)[edit]

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

Neither source on page appears to be reliable. One is Discogs and the other is some webzine (per their about page with no apparent editorial oversight or anything else an RS needs. Found no additional coverage. Redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurmail Singh (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.- TheWikiholic (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clique Brands[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are PR driven and press-releases. UPE. scope_creepTalk 08:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep there is a decent write up here [31] and this is an interview but has a decent-ish lead [32]. With the rest given, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first source noted above in support of a weak keep is from the Los Angeles Business Journal and is an announcement of a capital transaction, such as raised capital: Powered Brands Gets Off to Strong Start With $276 Million IPO, and is largely based on "documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission", information "according to the company", "according to SEC filings", what "the company describes", "according to the company", "according to SEC filings", so does not provide sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND to support notability, because it is essentially a press release. The second source cited is written by a WP:FORBESCON and is not a reliable source. In the article, the 2017 Fast Company source announces a name, brand and personnel change, based on a promotional interview, e.g. "says Katherine Power", "says Power", "Power says", "she says", so is also insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The 2015 Business Insider source is also mostly based on a promotional interview related to raised capital, e.g. "Power told Business Insider", "Power said", "Power said". Similary, the 2015 Techcrunch source is mostly quotes from Power related to the announcement of an acquisition, so it lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The 2016 WWD source similarly announces a product based on statements by Power. The 2016 Instyle source is thinly-veiled advertisement for a book co-authored by Power and Kerr, which begins by noting a personal friendship (i.e. lack of independence) with Kerr. The 2016 Forbes article reports an acquisition and is based on "Power said", "Power noted", "Power expects" and promotes a Forbes podcast with Power speaking, so also lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The remaining sources are similar or worse, including a blog, more interviews, and announcements of routine business transactions. A search for more sources finds more of the same. There appears to be insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to support an article, and little to no support that is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr's source analysis and reasoning. The article for one of it's brands Who What Wear should probably also be nominated for deletion as it has similar sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Beccaynr's thorough analysis. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've sent Who What Wear to Afd. Seems to be a considerable consensus that it should go up Afd. I never included it in this, as thought they would be better consensus as independent Afd, but its now nominated. scope_creepTalk 15:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varsha Rittu Lakra[edit]

Varsha Rittu Lakra (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:NACTOR. Minor actress with no coverage of significance or role anywhere. Wareon (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She acted in around 10 films of which 3 are the notable film. Dev0745 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In particular, user-generated websites are not reliable and cannot be used to bolster a claim to notability/GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stark, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stark, Arizona (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 improvement of an article on a non-notable rail spot. Ghosttowns.com claims it was a settlement and claims a store which is at variance with the place names book; passing references to people "from" the place do not turn it into a town. Post offices are routine features of train stations. Mangoe (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To have an article on a populated place, we need to have a reliable source which says it's a populated place, per WP:V. This article cites GNIS (which is not reliable for this purpose) and "AZ Hometown Locator" (which just isn't reliable, and is probably just repeating data from GNIS or a similar database). The user-generated websites listed above are not reliable because they rely on user-generated data. Trying to infer the existence of a populated place from sources which don't say it's a populated place, such as a newspaper clipping which says someone is from there, is original research which isn't allowed here.
  • WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, populated places without legal recognition need to pass the GNG. We have no evidence of legal recognition and passing mentions and database entries aren't remotely enough for the GNG. Having a post office is not evidence of legal recognition, they could be in any old building.
Hut 8.5 12:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Things are not important just because some people used to live there. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The most extensive info in the ghost-town website even says it was a railstop at a ranch with a post office. Not enough evidence of an actual community. People lived on ranches. The newspaper listing are all legal notices regarding homesteading and are just passing mentions. As an WP:ATD, no objection to a redirect to Cochise County where it could be listed under ghosttowns (although not as a redlink). MB 18:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass–energy–information equivalence[edit]

Mass–energy–information equivalence (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)

Fringe theorie. Have not secondary sources. Have not notability. Jim Hokins (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not seeing any valid reason for deletion here. Just because a theory isn't widely accepted doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't cover it, provided it's been covered in reliable sources. Even the vaguest WP:BEFORE work demonstrates that this is a theory which multiple academics have at least deemed worthy of consideration. ‑ Iridescent 08:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, far from fringe. Secondly plenty of academic discussion per Iridescent. Fermiboson (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Searches uncovered numerous sources with significant coverage. No reason for deletion. ProofRobust 09:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good grief. This is run-of-the-mill fringe-physics fluff supported by a press release and "publications" in junk journals. (In physics, conference proceedings count for jack.) Nor does the Google Scholar search linked above provide anything better. I mean, it's down in the dregs of MDPI by the sixth hit. There are absolutely no grounds for keeping this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on the physics? I'm not actually certain what's new about mass-energy-information equivalence; after all, mass energy equivalence is well established, and information is entropy, which because is a source of heat, etc. Fermiboson (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple meanings of "entropy" (thermodynamic, Shannon, and von Neumann to name only the most familiar three), and multiple ways of defining a quantitative measure of information content (the major division being between probabilistic and algorithmic approaches). Carelessly equating these always leads to problems. Vopson actually claims that a "data storage device should be heavier when information is stored on it than when it is in fully erased state", based on (as far as I can tell) nothing more than careless equivocation.
    Let's say that our "data storage device" is a cylinder with a gas atom bouncing around inside. In the middle of the cylinder, we put a partition, as in the Szilárd engine; the atom can be either on the left or the right of the partition, so it takes 1 bit to specify which region is occupied. "Erasing" the device means ensuring that the atom is on a given side, say the left. (If we had a row of many such devices, we'd "erase" the message LLRRLRLLRRR... by setting it to LLLLLLLLLLL...) But the energy stored in the cylinder is the same whether the atom is on the left or the right, and it's the same whether we know whether the atom is on the left or the right. Any work we do on the cylinder, by pushing in a piston to squeeze the atom into a smaller region or whatever, bleeds back out into the environment. The internal energy of the single-atom gas is just the kinetic energy of that atom, and that is given by the temperature. As long as the device is at a fixed temperature, which all these thought-experiments presume, then the stored energy is constant. No change in energy, no change in mass.
    Vopson's original paper is full of strange moments, like saying that the energy needed to lift a weight off one side of a balance is rather than, I don't know, anything to do with the weight. More importantly for Wikipedia's purposes, the citations to it include nothing worthwhile: MDPI journals, the quantized inertia guy, and Vopson citing himself. We don't even have grounds to write about this as a noteworthy weird idea. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. On further inspection, changing vote to delete. Fermiboson (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The theory doesn't need to be correct, but criticized. Article satisfies General notability guidelines. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. There is no reliably-published criticism, because there is almost no content to criticize. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But you criticized it here. And there is publication in Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Journal of Physics: Conference Series is not a reliable source. Outside of a few niche cases that don't apply here, conference proceedings in physics are basically unreviewed. And a discussion in a Wikipedia back-channel forum like this cannot contribute to notability. That's not how anything works. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Outside of a few niche cases that don't apply here, conference proceedings in physics are basically unreviewed." I disagree that a conference Journal is not reliable source. It's not like any guy could come there and give a talk on something.
    "And a discussion in a Wikipedia back-channel forum like this cannot contribute to notability" I understand:) I mean that this fact proves that it can be criticized and analysed, which would give it notability. There is something to analyse there, even if it is not right. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, that is literally the policy of physics conferences [35]. Anybody who has been to one of the big APS meetings will know about the session set aside for fringe types. And those are serious conferences — we haven't even addressed the fact that some supposed conferences are complete shams. Earlier this year, Journal of Physics: Conference Series had to retract a whopping 232 articles in one go for being bullshit [36]. Then, in September, they had to retract another 463 [37]. And no, an explanation of the basic physics that the paper fails to understand is not an indication that "there is something to analyze there". XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – “For over 60 years, we have been trying unsuccessfully to detect, isolate or understand the mysterious dark matter,” said Vopson. “If information indeed has mass, a digital informational universe would contain a lot of it, and perhaps this missing dark matter could be information.” This statement alone brands Vopson as a crackpot, since the mass due to the heat energy (which is related to the the entropy) is already accounted for in the physics. Suggesting that dark matter, which is taken to have many times the expected mass of each galaxy, is somehow hiddenly added is very much not something that should be taken seriously. The stated "equivalence" via entropy is also temperature-dependent; it is like saying that velocity and momentum are equivalent (if you don't find the mass-dependence bothersome). —Quondum 20:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That quote is hilarious; great find. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information is negative entropy. It cannot be related to energy without specifying a temperature. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. just vapid fringe ramblings. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    There are articles on fringe theories in Wikipedia, too. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles are only retained if notability for the topic has been established. The fringeness in itself is not a criterion, though it usually serves to prevent the topic achieving notability. —Quondum 15:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it does, But here are plenty of sources: [38] [39] [40] [41] Kirill C1 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These source are tabloid junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
The very first is a website called "Giant Freakin Robot" that says Vopson is crowdfunding for an experiment to prove that we are living inside a simulation. That's the kind of "source" I would invent as a joke. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have had this kind of argument before. When a crackpot manages to get a bunch of science-illiterate popular science rags to publish something about their theory, this does not establish notability. The "quantized inertia guy" mentioned above even had a DARPA grant that made the news and was arguably more notable than this, but that got deleted as an article. Rather argue that it should be included as a mention in some article listing fringe science examples. —Quondum 21:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XOR'easter mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XOReaster's rationale.--Srleffler (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is necessary (for example, to prevent people from cluttering the encyclopedia with articles about their favorite cat videos), but it is not sufficient. Articles which are false, misleading, incoherent nonsense, or otherwise immoral should also be excluded. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia content may cause protest from readers. Then we should write about this as incoherent theory. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JRSpriggs, the idea that "notability is not sufficient" or that we don't host "immoral" articles is categorically untrue; provided the article is neutral and correctly sourced, notability is our only criterion for inclusion. We currently host upwards of a thousand articles on crank theories; if it's a fringe theory and sourceable, it goes in, along with a sourced statement that it's a fringe theory. ‑ Iridescent 19:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And this isn't sourceable. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found the book Физика (Третья) 21 века. Том 1 in Russian -"Physics (Third) of XXI century", page 120 (2022) by Valeriy Asadov. It is written there "Other researches extrapolated physical nature of information for evaluating information mass, the culmination of this being the recent publication of "Mass–energy–information equivalence... These radical theories" - so the theory may be criticized, but it seems that it has some notability and influence. I found a mention in book "Cheating the Ferryman: The Revolutionary Science of Life" by Anthony Peake. "further, arguing that, once created, information has 'finite and quantifiable mass'. His mass-energy-information equivalence theory calculates that the mass of one bit of information at room temperature of 26.85°C is 3.19 × 10–38 kg. ... Information is the fifth state of matter"The idea and theory may be bizarre, but if it causes debate, then we should write about it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheating the Ferryman claims to bring together ideas from ancient philosophy, neuroscience, quantum physics and consciousness studies, and manages to explain a number of seemingly mysterious experiences such as precognition, déjà vu, synchronicity, near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences. Yeah, no, that's not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. The other book you mention purports to solve the problem of dark matter by saying that the Universe is 291,604,086,700 years old. Let's not pretend that's a reliable source, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) An anonymous username, not my real name 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Admiral of the Fleet (Sri Lanka) (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)

Creator has a history of making unsourced/poorly sourced articles, which this most definitely is. The fact that they self-tagged their own creation as possibly not meeting notability guidelines makes me suspect a troll. The topic is of highly dubious notability overall. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the tag has now been removed. My other points still stand. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you could explain as to why the topic is of highly dubious notability. The Sri Lanka (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Initially it appeared that no sources discussed the role itself, only the bearer. However, it seems I did not look hard enough. Closing. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. This is a very high profile role. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I made an error. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birefringence#Uniaxial materials. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uniaxial crystal[edit]

Uniaxial crystal (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)

Much more detailed coverage of the same thing already at Birefringence#uniaxial_materials Fermiboson (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why not merge? Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment better suited for a merge discussion.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is nothing to merge. Everything that is in this article is already in the section. Fermiboson (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So redirect it. If it's duplicative, just redirect it WP:BLAR and WP:BRD. Reywas92Talk 14:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I’ll let this run its course; if it gets deleted, I’ll request a redirect. Fermiboson (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Birefringence#Uniaxial materials – poorly written; has no content not at the destination so need to merge any of it. I don't see why an AfD can't be closed as a redirect. —Quondum 19:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree with above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect is the solution indeed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UXB (band)[edit]

UXB (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)

Non-notable punk band. --Viennese Waltz 09:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on this band, there's a publisher called UXB. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Academy (Philippines)[edit]

Faith Academy (Philippines) (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern University Roosevelt[edit]

Far Eastern University Roosevelt (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cainta#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Isidro High School[edit]

Governor Isidro High School (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ICCT Colleges[edit]

ICCT Colleges (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marikina#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt College Marikina[edit]

Roosevelt College Marikina (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt College Science High School[edit]

Roosevelt College Science High School (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marikina#Education. Star Mississippi 04:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marikina Polytechnic College[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marikina#Education. Star Mississippi 04:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marikina Science High School[edit]

Marikina Science High School (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Christian Life College[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marikina#Education. Star Mississippi 04:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Perpetual Succor College[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marikina#Education. Star Mississippi 04:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina[edit]

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marikina#Education. Star Mississippi 04:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Scholastica's Academy of Marikina[edit]

St. Scholastica's Academy of Marikina (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:NSCHOOL. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Elena High School[edit]

Santa Elena High School (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:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Colorado Springs nightclub shooting. Star Mississippi 04:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Fierro[edit]

Richard M. Fierro (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)

Clear case of WP:1E, the subject is known solely for his involvement in the Colorado Springs nightclub shooting. Everything that needs to be said about him can be covered in that article WWGB (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, and Colorado. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought this article was PRODded. It clearly doesn’t meet BLP1E as written, and I’m not sure if writing about his ownership of a Colorado Springs brewery is notable enough to save it. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 05:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prod was removed.[42] WWGB (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the prod. Given the massive wave of WP:SIGCOV focused on Fierro in major worldwide news outlets, an AfD is appropriate to allow the community to decide whether the correct outcome here is to delete, redirect, or keep. Bear in mind that WP:BLP1E leaves room to preserve stand-alone articles on heroic figures (e.g., Sully Sullenberger/US Airways Flight 1549, James Shaw Jr./Nashville Waffle House shooting) in addition to the event where the coverage is sufficiently pervasive. This AfD provides a deliberative process for the community to make that assessment. Cbl62 (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tripled the size of the article, sourcing articles from across the U.S. political spectrum. I appreciate your thoughts and hope that others will take a look at its current state before it's precipitously swept away. This guy has had rather illustrious academic, military, professional and entrepeneurial careers for almost 30 years, winning many academic, military, entrepeneurial and professional awards, despite suffering from combat-induced PTSD for more than eight years. There's little about him that isn't remarkable. Compare what [[Anthony Sadler]] did as 6th man to a pile-on taking down a terrorist, and he's accomplished and compared to say, [[Alek Skarlatos]], an empty-headed early community college dropout and the 5th man arriving at the pile-on. Both have articles. Skarlatos has had the Republican party throw away over $10 million failing to get him elected to the Douglas, OR, county commission and twice to congress. Their buddy [[Spencer Stone]], was the real hero of the affair, IMHO, along with American expat Mark Mooglian, who has no article as both men actually took and kept the terrorist down. Stone also ably tended to Mooglian's horrific wounds, saving his life, before the train they were on eventually arrived at a French community with a hospital. Activist (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadler did not get an article until several years later, and Skarlatos appeared on Dancing with the Stars within a month which bolstered his notability. Not the best comparisons. --Pokelova (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer decision: It's a breaking story probably will attain WP:NOT as we speak. No point deleting and then reinventing the wheel four days later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to the main shooting article Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, pure WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. Too soon to say if his fame will be fleeting or enduring. If it's enduring, no prejudice to recreating. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Colorado Springs nightclub shooting As an article, it's a BLP1E, but it would make a plausible redirect ('Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article.'). I also concur with the reasoning of Cbl62-- if coverage of Fierro lasts, we can always recreate the article later. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 20:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as much as I think Mr. Fierro is an absolute hero (who also runs an award-winning brewery), I must agree that a standalone article for him is not warranted right now, per WP:BLP1E. Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reditect. Subject is not notable enough under BLP. --My tightness (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too soon. Significant coverage in RS, but it's too early to tell if they'll be notable beyond this event. Redirect —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one is easy. Here's a solid precedent. We have articles for three Americans who helped stop a heavily armed terrorist on a train from Brussels to Paris, as recounted in the 2015 Thalys train attack article. The first three passengers who tried to intervene were an unnamed Frenchman, a Brit, and an American expat living in Paris. The expat first grappled with the terrorist, taking his AK47 knockoff away momentarily, but the terrorist retrieved an ancient Luger and shot the expat in the chest and neck, 'through and through," severing an artery next to his attacker's throat and retrieving his automatic rifle. At that point, coming from the far side of the railway car, a U.S. Air Force soldier, Spencer Stone charged the Moroccan would-be killer, taking him down and knocking the rifle out of his grip, though the terrorist was cutting him badly on the face and hand. Then Stone's childhood friend, Alek Skarlatos, joined him, retrieved the rifle from the floor, and began hitting him in the face with its muzzle, fortunately not killing his friend Spencer, who was holding the terrorist from underneath, in the process. Then Sadler and the Brit helped tied the terrorist up. Spencer then got up and put his thumb into the expat's exit wound stopping the hemorrhaging of arterial blood, and saving his life. Spencer almost lost his thumb and was nearly blinded in one eye. The 62-y/o Brit is quoted as saying, "I'm not going to be the guy who dies sitting down." "If you're going to die, try to do something about it," which anticipates Fierro's reaction. There are now WP articles for the three Yank buddies. They gave notes to a reporter who compiled them into a boring book. Clint Eastwood made a movie about the incident, but used the actual trio who fell considerably short of getting good reviews. Skarlatos was invited on Dancing with the Stars and a professional dancer partner carried him to second place. Though he only had a few community college courses in his resume, he first ran for county commissioner and lost to another Republican. That party then spent over $5 million each year in 2020 and 2022 trying to get him elected to congress in Oregon District 4. He was easily dispatched by the incumbent in 2020, then by the state Labor Commissioner in 2022. A video in which he joked about women choking to death while giving oral sex may have compromised his aspirations. A TV campaign ad falsely claimed he was endorsed by President Obama. Spencer Stone intervened in another situation of unprovoked street violence in Sacramento where he lives, almost getting killed in the process. Fierro has used his opportunity to credit others with helping to subdue the "alleged" killer and to address the problems in the United States about the proliferation of automatic firearms and the vilification and demonization of behavioral minorities. He is an ex-US Army Major, a vet of 15 years, a tour in Iraq and three in Afghanistan. I'd suggest that the proponents of deletion of the article read the source articles posted so far, whose references I've brought up to standards, before making such a judgment. Thanks to you all. Activist (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Activist: I hear you, and James Shaw Jr. is another example of a mass-shooting hero. But the difference is the others have had sustained coverage. Fierro may well end up fitting that bill as well (I suspect he will). That's why I favor a "redirect" that allows for the article to revived once it is shown that the coverage is not fleeting. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The issue is notability. I just Googled Fierro's name and got sixteen million, three hundred thousand hits. Of course it's early, and so more may be coming. Activist (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also Googled Fierro's name abroad. He was also mentioned in foreign news sources, i.e., Britian's The Independent, The Guardian, etc. His daughter had her fiancee killed in the shooting. She was injured as well, she had a broken kneecap, for example, yet he did not express personal rancor, but pointed out broad societal problems in a context for what had happened. Before this year, the L.A. Times features reporter who covered the story had written up a story on unique and fascinating commercial and cultural aspect of Richard and his wife's brewery, though another assignment kept him from expanding and publishing it. Activist (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded the article somewhat, which should remove it from a possible "stub" classification, and I'll continue to do so. Activist (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above "keep" argument relates to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sure, this is a very slapdash article about a BLP1E, but I don't see any reason to believe that it will remain slapdash (or that its subject will remain a BLP1E) indefinitely. I would recommend that everybody hold their horses for a few days and see where the dust settles. Note that I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an AfD at all: just that it will be a much more productive one in a week, or a couple weeks, or whatever. jp×g 01:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the shooting. He's only known for his connection to this shooting; therefore, this falls under BLP1E. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 03:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. And Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is only known for one marathon bombing, and John Hinckley, Jr. ls only known for shooting one presidential press secretary, and Sully Sullenberger is only known for landing one plane on the Hudson River, and, and, and... Activist (talk) Activist (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If Fierro continues to receive much coverage over time then we can consider an article, but right now that is not the case. All his article says is veteran tackles shooter and receives thanks from politicians with some loony attacks from the far-right. Everything significant about him can be easily introduced into the article about the shooting. Sully, Hinckley, and Tsarnaev are different largely because the events they were involved in are different as well. I hate to put it this way but this is a run of the mill mass shooting that's all to common in the US today. It's not a attempted assassination of the president, historic water landing, or significant bombing. Nikolas Cruz has received coverage years past his shooting, but he doesn't have an article because he doesn't need one. Everything about him is covered in the shooting, and the same principle applies here. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
James Shaw Jr. is the better comparison. Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A much better comparison, and thanks for calling attention to that article. Activist (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chesapeake, Virginia#History. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Chesapeake, Virginia[edit]

History of Chesapeake, 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)

This is literally a copy-and-paste job of Chesapeake, Virginia#History. This article has been up since 2009 and no substantial improvements have been made on it since then. There aren't even any references to its name. There's nothing to suggest that Chesapeake's history is long and expansive enough to warrant its own article. Love of Corey (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify. The consensus is that this article is non-notable, leading to a delete conclusion. However, IveGoneAway is interested in working on the article and finding more sources that are not yet immediately available, so I am invoking IAR to draftify it rather than making them go through the WP:REFUND process and it can go through AfC if/when the necessary sources exist. Legoktm (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cucamonga Junction, Arizona[edit]

Cucamonga Junction, Arizona (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)

Sourcing from a Forest Service map is always a bad sign on GNIS, and this is not an exception. I can find nothing at all about this place other than that someone set a novel in this place. Since it was published in 2019, it's not at all unlikely that all the author knew about it came from Wikipedia. The topos and aerials are little help, as they aren't that old, but they show nothing but a huge array of mines until the name just starts appearing on the maps in the 1990s, probably copied there from GNIS. It's possible this is a misplaced rail spot, as there is a line not far north, but again, I can't find any verification. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for a while yet at least That is actually not a small quarry, I have seen historic villages with smaller quarries. 25 acres? The quarrying activity extends along the Santa Fe tracks for over 10 miles. I do not know yet what was mined, but I could find out without too much trouble (first guess, Fort Hays Limestone for cement, which means there would have been a community). Oh, it's flagstone. There is still activity at some of the quarries, possibly just for aggregate and recreation.
There was a wye junction at the given coordinates, the possibility is that there was a division point there, or at least a water stop, the limestone being an aquifer. (I could find out).
There is a book about a real Cucamonga Junction, Arizona, on the Santa Fe line and on Route 66 (I could find out if this is the place). It is plausible that the coordinates were set by the OP on the quarry rather than the town site.
There are old foundations northwest of the OP's coordinates nest to the tracks, near the old wye junction on a bend of Forest Road 124.
It might be a rail fan site. (Fan photo near the given location is stated as Cucamonga Junction).
The 1986 National Gazetteer lists a Cucamonga Junction near those coordinates.
I would next try my own newspaper search, if we don't delete it.
IveGoneAway (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the Bohan book is described as placing the old town on the Santa Fe Railroad and on Route 66 and near a Harvey House. But, the coordinate place the site on a Santa Fe line that did not exist until the 1950s.
An alternate location would be a rail junction close to Ash Fork.
The Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Railway had a terminus Junction just east of Ash Fork. (I can just make out the "Peavine" junction just on the east edge of Ash Fork.)
But just north of the town is another abandoned rail junction and yard. This railroad is clearly the present-day route of the DoubleA Ranch Road (FR 124) that McGivney describes as passing what locals say is the Cucamonga Junction site.
At a minimum, this railroad hauled Ash Fork's famous flagstone from the quarries back to town and a number of spurs into the quarries can be identified.
Clearly, the 1950s Santa Fe realignment paralleled the quarry track north of the quarries.
I now have a number to call for the active qarry, and there are topos, railroad galleries, and geological maps yet to be consulted.
So, I think there is something to research and write about here.
IveGoneAway (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the Arizona Highways article that refers to the ruins of an old mining town, there is not much else. Searching newspapers.com finds one article that talks about buying stone from the quarries at C.J. Not enough to establish that it was a populated place. MB 04:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, you see that that stone you mention is the present day Ash Fork community's identity.
There is a "wide spot on the tracks" where McGivney said there is.
The Bohan book has some reason to take its title from whatever was at the quarry.
Give me a chance to make a few calls to dig into offline sources, but if it is just local knowledge, I would recommend merge over delete. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I understand the possibility that there was no settlement for housing of the flagstone quarry workers, but there is the possibility that there was, and I am foolish enough to chase down the locals about it. There were human stuctures there at a rail siding and a grade down to the realigned ATSF track, (but not where present maps put the pin) but given what they were digging up, there was no reason as I see it for the structures to be rock processing structures (like ore mills).
IveGoneAway (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every place with human-built structures is not a settlement that qualifies for an article, even if people slept there - work camps are not towns. MB 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get that, the working observation is that there was rail line from Ash Fork to the putative "Cucamonga Junction", and that when ATSF realigned its mainline to run parallel to the site, it set a junction to the site (further obsoleting the line to Ash Fork) and BNSF still maintains a siding there. At a minimum, this would be industrial history for Ash Fork, and is of interest and I will probably continue the plan of contacting local historians. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just talked with their Historic Society, "Oh, yeah, that's in the rail section!" They will look up what they have and email me.
When I can sneak it in, I will contact the quarry and the DoubleA Ranch.
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we don't eventually connect with citations for a settlement, that doesn't mean there isn't other notabilty to cite in some way. Quarries and Beyond reports about 10 companies operating roughly 20 active quarries here in 2000. Given that the only other industry going on here is the DoubleA cattle and serial Route 66 museum, that's not pocket change. And the location is a scenic railfan site (Walthers and Trains have done shoots there); it is the crest of a grade in a beautiful road cut a convenient 10 miles off of an Interstate. This one of many railfan videos at the site incidentally shows the "Cucamonga Junction" site on DoubleA Ranch Road (upper right) that McGivney mentioned.
IveGoneAway (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm willing to relist this once as research is still going on trying to establish whether or not there was a town at this location. But this closure won't be delayed indefinitely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that, but, I am not familiar with the significance or process of "relist". Honestly, I have been holding back as a delete discussion page did not seem the proper venue for a daily report on progress on notability. Forestry service sources might not be entirely unimportant as they counted over 200 limestone and flagstone quarries on that ridge. Ike Yost built a much shorter-lived ghost town for just one small quarry. The present site is the heart of the community 10 miles to the south; all of the abandoned railroad right-of-way surrounding Ash Fork is today covered with pallets of Kiabib and Coconino construction stone. I have local contacts to work through, and books to buy or borrow, but that will take some time.
Assuming this is consistent with "relisting", I propose copying the above links with other citations I am building to Talk:Cucamonga Junction, Arizona, and continuing working there. I am open to the eventual range of disposition (delete/keep/move/merge) depending on findings.
IveGoneAway (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a sandbox for developing citations for the topic. Please, add it to your watch list if you are interested in the AfD.
I have found the 1962 topo that locates the church and dozens of stuctures in between the quarries. Later maps that just show the place name generally pin it to the locaton of the Calvary Baptist church. I would like to upload an image of that map. Screen clippings of a US government website displaying US government publications should be safe to upload to Commons, am I correct?
IveGoneAway (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC) 22:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Addressing the points of the original poster of the delete tag. (See citations here)

"Sourcing from a Forest Service map is always a bad sign on GNIS, and this is not an exception."

The boldness of that statement is what prompted me to look into this.

"I can find nothing at all about this place other than that someone set a novel in this place. Since it was published in 2019, it's not at all unlikely that all the author knew about it came from Wikipedia."

​Maybe he got everything in the book from WP, maybe he didn't; I was not going to pre-judge. Just reading the liner, it is clear that Ash Fork fits the description, but anonymised under the insider's name for the hill-folk "cutter" families living in 1975 without plumbing or electricity.

Presumptions aside, what we know about the author from profiles (in his books) is that he and his family spent 15 years off the grid in the waterless Arizona high desert (Kaibab is high dessert), starting with 18 months in a tent in a place not unlike Cucamonga Junction. I haven't found out yet where they actually lived, but it is presumptous to assume that it could not possibly be somewhere around Ash Fork. Maybe the book to read is not Cucamonga Junction, but Living on the Edge, which with any luck would tell us where they lived.

The book does not "document" the quarry community, but it is an interesting reflection. Bohan moved his four boys to Arizona in the early 90s. Coincidentally, a male Bohan graduated from Ash Fork in 1998. I could look into this.

"The topos and aerials are little help, as they aren't that old, ..."

The topos actually show quite a bit. They schematically illustrate almost a century of history for the settlement.

Today's aerials show abbandoned foundations in the Cucamonga Junction area, and really none in the decades younger quarries to the west.

The 1962 topo shows the dozens of structures and the church, Cavalry Baptist. The Arizona Republic profiled the community in 1963.

"... but they show nothing but a huge array of mines until the name just starts appearing on the maps in the 1990s, probably copied there from GNIS."

The GNIS point seems centered on the church, now gone, or the road junction.

Railfans used the name "Cucamonga" for the train-chasing road in the early 60s.

" It's possible this is a misplaced rail spot, as there is a line not far north, but again, I can't find any verification."

The Crookton Cutoff was completed in 1960, and even though the line is right up against some abandoned foundations, the locals say there never was any siding at Cucamonga Junction. Neither was there any quarry railroad.

So, it is not a misplaced rail spot, it is a location pinned on a church wedged in at the junction of the roads to Williams, Corva Station and DoubleA Ranch

I vote Keep. Even though the place could be claimed by Ash Fork, it has been connected also with Williams and Corva. The quarry community was under a different county juristition than Ash Fork and the children were in the Williams School district. In 1960, the best road was to Williams, and today the road to Williams is two miles shorter than to Ash fork.

I would like to proceed with getting the books and interviewing the octagenarian witnesses with the knowlege that you all are willing to keep the page.

IveGoneAway (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IveGoneAway, while you are free to comment, you have already "voted" Keep above so I have stricken your second vote. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I have just figured the process of relisting (wow, 7 days). OK, it does not mean revoting. However, I also meant to clarify my qualifiers for "keep" have changed from "maybe there is something here" to "I think there is enough here for an DYK expansion" (in case I wasn't wearing that on my sleave already), which is why I want to work on the article in sandbox due to the expansion requirements for DYK, a months-long process for me at best.

However, it just so happens that all of the present and pending contacts are observing a family holiday until Monday, probably. And I don't want to be any more of a pest.

@Mangoe: Sorry for any "Fight me, mate!" tone.

IveGoneAway (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC) 22:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just when I was telling someone that I had learned how to spell "Cucamonga", this is published:
Ashley B Jones (Nov 10, 2022). Kukamunga Junction. Xlibris Corporation. Retrieved November 26, 2022. Kukamuga Junction was not officially the name of where I grew up. But that is what the people in the community called It. The people who lived there leased quarries from the forest service. All the people who lived there had to haul drinking water in fifty five gallon barrels.
In the previewed text, the early 1950s route to "Kukamunga Junction" from Ash Fork is through Corva Station, agreeing with the history presented in the Topos.
Today, I order Living on the Edge, Cucamonga Junction and Kukamunga Junction. Yikes! Delivery is a week!
Re. WP:GEOLAND Populated places without legal recognition,
  • It was a real populated place (even if we speculate that the NSF made up the name sometime before 1950)
  • Then there is the question of notability. If we were to compose a list of flagstone quarries in North Arizona, the list would be Cucamonga Junction. The term "rock doodler" is largely (surprisingly) restricted to this locality, and the community is mentioned in the neighboring towns repeatedly prior to 1960 (residences demolished by 1974 (Ashley, 2022)) for its importance to the economy and the distinctiveness of its demographic and peculiar labor arrangement. It is a particular case for a US community living though the 1960s without basic utilities.
IveGoneAway (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book you mention is self-published. Every apostrophe has somehow become a comma. Reading though, I see misspelled words and phrases like "batterry", "leniet", "Violence Against Womens Act", etc. This is not a Reliable Source, and the timing of this book's publication is very strange. This needs more eyes. I'm pinging recent geography AFD closers. @Missvain:, @Explicit:, or @Liz: I don't have enough time to follow up this week. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" timing of this book's publication is very strange" I suppose, I mean that aspect is ironic to me. I get your point about it being poor grammar; I guess that is an aspect of self-published. I have questioned to myself the ability to recall such childhood details after almost 70 years (the cardinal directions that she gives for the drive to Corva don't jive at first blush, but I actually haven't tried yet to to follow them turn by turn). I am willing to look at the whole book, the impression from the available previews is that the author recently visited the site. They are familiar with the roads, but I guess they could have gotten that information from my list of topos and clippings? She starts a description from the church, but I think I have two RS on the existence of the church, plus an email from the historical society staff that introduce me to the existence of the church. This reflects an issue I already worried over, living witnesses of the 1950s community are rapidly passing on. I was interested in looking at the books and comparing their statements with what I have found.
But, yes, the book could be a fiction if that what is being suggested. I guess could be prone to being duped. Please, let me know how to best cooperate. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firsfron: The Ash Fork Historical Society wants to look at the Ashley book. I feel that I should disclose your concerns to them. Could you please be more specific about your suspicions as I should relay to them? What would you wish them to know? Autobiographies are something I would assume they are experienced in examining. I appreciate the raising of RS, as I am not used to working with autobiographical sources, in this case autobiographical sources as witnesses to the existence of the community -- please see the WP:RS bullet below.
IveGoneAway (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
eeeeeeh, Getty images. IveGoneAway (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This afternoon I had a good phone conversation with David Cox, cited by Heide Branndes of Route Magazine. David has been the minister of the First Southern Baptist Church of Ash Fork since the 80s. "Oh, yes, absolutely a real place!" David said there were 200-300 people up there before the Forest Service moved them out. The Cucamonga Junction church was one of two missions established by his Ash Fork Southern Baptist church. Thanks to Mr. Cox, I can talk with Fayrene Hume later this week.

IveGoneAway (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Re WP:RS : My focus has been on the Delete reason, "There was never a community here".
    • There was a community there, from multiple sources, but I have no intent or desire to use a continuous source. I want to expand the article. But, you should be able to see that when I expand articles, I hope to have the citations run as long as the article. From my experience, this sort of expansion can take months to years, but I would like to know that you can accept that there was a community here and not delete the page. You are not the only one short on time (Sorry if that is drama, Liz).
    • The topos are RS, maybe? 1962 topo shows a community. The 1980s topos show removal. Multiple sources (not all RS, true) say the removal happened in the 1970s.
    • I have a newspaper giving an estimate of the population with corroboration from an an independent witness by a recognized authority, and I am working on a lead on a third corroboration. I don't see in WP:RS how interviews of witnesses are considered, even if they are recognized experts.
    • Clearly, part of the expansion would be clearing the sources with you all, examples:
    • Is David Cox RS? Even if he is, I hope to see if he can produce church records of the existence of the community and its church. My idea now with Mr. Cox is to ask him if he has church records about their mission if that is necessary. But am I pestering him over a page that will be deleted?
    • The Catholic church also provided aid to the community, but I would try to access printed records for the expansion.
    • Kayrene Hume is considered the most respected source. I would need advice on how or if I even may cite her. It occurs to me it may be problematic for a Wikipedian to cite an interview that they conducted! Is that OR?
    • I would think that Marshall Trimble would be a state-recognized authority. I should be able to manage contact with him now.
    • Charlotte Madison was a witness to the community for nearly 20 years. But the records of her witness are largely autobiographical, and her blog post witness to the existence of Cucamonga Junction has the problem of being a blog post. I could get her books, for the purpose of witness to the community (and living conditions), but her books are autobiographical, and probably self-published. Would recognition by the Ash Fork Historical Society lend reliability?
    • Is WP:RS silent on autobiography? Or do the same rules apply?
    • Is the Ash Fork Historical Society or members thereof RS? Or are they presumed Ash Fork boosters and not independent?
Too much for now. IveGoneAway (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how to process all of this information that turned into a pretty one-sided discussion. IveGoneAway, you do realize that personal telephone calls can't be used to establish notability, right? They aren't reliable, secondary, independent sources. You are getting too far down into the weeds here. If this article survives, it can never contain the level of detail you are proposing. This is an encyclopedia, not a county historical journal. Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked questions of you and the other reviewers. I asked these questions of RS; "Is David Cox RS?" and "problematic for a Wikipedian to cite an interview that they conducted". I have arranged to contact the most knowledgedable on the person on the topic today, and I do have concerns as I stated above. Thank you very much for the truely valuable response. It would hope that it would be apparent that in asking these questions that I am not confident the usabilty of the calls, and express that I am working towards needing in-print RS, with no intent of having them to go out a write something, but find to find records if they exist.
But, that takes time. You have been helpful and very patient. The problem for me has been the rolling time limit for relisting, promting me to accelerate efforts, including day by day postings that become tl:dr. This is my first time working under a relist and I sincerely don't think it has been fair to you ask you to bump the relist week by week. Perhaps it would have been a better suggestion to Draftify the page (which I have worked through before at a more natural pace), or to suggest letting the delete progess and after I have solidified the RS citations then "Request for article" (sorry, I don't remember the name for the WP).
Thank you
IveGoneAway (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The consensus established in 2007 was there must be community there to have an article. If its an old mining sites, then its non-notable. Sites that held a village or a town and were then abandonded are non-notable. scope_creepTalk 17:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Das Ich. Star Mississippi 04:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satanische Verse[edit]

Satanische Verse (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)

Unnotable song from a notable band, but the main point is this album is unnotable. I couldn't find anything on google on the 1st - 9th page. Fails WP:GNG `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 04:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Das Ich. My own search (which included more than just Google, helps to be more thorough especially with a release this old where sources are more likely to be from print media rather than websites) didn't find any useful coverage. Some passing mentions, but mostly German-language articles about Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses. QuietHere (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I was about, had a look at their other two albums with articles which resulted in these two AfDs. QuietHere (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Das Ich, as is common procedure for a non-notable album from a notable band. The title is a possible search term. I can find no useful pro reviews for this album, and like the previous voter found, this album could be confused with the Rushdie book. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Das Ich. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ID10T with Chris Hardwick. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ID10T with Chris Hardwick episodes[edit]

List of ID10T with Chris Hardwick episodes (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 list topic is not notable. The notability of this list has been discussed previously here and here. It appears that the episode list was removed and readded to the original article and then eventually split into this stand-alone list as a compromise of sorts. So I don't think this deletion discussion is unwarranted, but it is one of the first list articles that I've nominated for deletion so if I've missed something obvious let me know and I would be willing to retract the nomination. WP:NLIST states that a list topic is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" and I'm not seeing how this list meets this requirement. Doing a few Google searches reveals that it is not uncommon for sources to recommend and review groupings of episodes from a particular podcast. For instance, Stuff You Should Know,[1] WTF with Marc Maron,[2][3] The Joe Rogan Experience,[4] My Favorite Murder,[5] and Criminal.[6] Also, Podcast Review—a channel of LA Review of Books—which is one of the only relatively reliable sources that exclusively covers podcasts has done quite a few groupings of episodes.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] It's also not uncommon for sources to review individual episodes of podcasts.[17][18][19] However, I don't see any sources like these for this podcast. Sure, some of the sources mention that the podcast has episodes, but it's very much in passing. I don't see full reviews of individual episodes or reviews of multiple episodes grouped together. I just don't see how any of the sources discuss episodes of the podcast as a group or set. At best there are mentions of how many episodes the show has done. Perhaps I am interpreting the guideline to strictly? Does discussion of the podcast count as discussion of its episodes simply because the podcast consists of episodes? I'm pretty sure this list is also a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY and in one of the previous discussions someone suggested it violated WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Because the list is so long there was an ongoing split discussion, but I felt that the notability of the list should be discussed before splitting the list into more articles to avoid unnecessary cleanup if the list was not deemed notable. I asked at the help desk and mentioned in the split discussion that I intended to pursue an AfD and no one actively opposed my suggestion or provided any reasoning as to why the list is notable. I also followed WP:BEFORE as best I could, but again, this is one of the first list articles I've ever nominated for deletion so let me know if I've made any big mistakes in nominating this particular list. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The 20 Essential Episodes Of 'Stuff You Should Know'". UPROXX. 2020-02-20. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  2. ^ "15 Essential Episodes of Marc Maron's 'WTF' Podcast". Thrillist. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  3. ^ Haglund, David (2014-05-26). "There Are Now 500 Episodes of Marc Maron's WTF. Which Ones Should You Start With?". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  4. ^ "Want To Understand The 'Joe Rogan Experience'? Here Are 25 Episodes To Start With". UPROXX. 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  5. ^ Jacoby, Cortland (2020-12-12). "'My Favorite Murder' podcast: All the best episodes to listen to". Film Daily. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  6. ^ "The top five episodes of the best true crime podcast out there". PhillyVoice. 2016-10-14. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  7. ^ Runde, Katie (2019-12-09). "The 11 Best Episodes of Invisibila". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  8. ^ Greenberg, Jake (2019-12-31). "The 10 Best Episodes of Heavyweight". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  9. ^ Greenberg, Jake (2020-01-20). "The 10 Best Episodes of You Must Remember This". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  10. ^ Jones, Erik (2020-05-13). "The 20 Best Episodes of Planet Money". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  11. ^ Yost, Aaron (2020-07-08). "The 15 Best Episodes of 99% Invisible". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  12. ^ Jones, Erik (2020-08-03). "The 15 Best Episodes of Reply All". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  13. ^ Kesler, Sam Yellowhorse (2020-08-26). "The 10 Best Episodes of Song Exploder". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  14. ^ Staff, P. R. (2020-11-30). "The 25 Best Episodes of This American Life". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  15. ^ Jones, Erik (2021-01-27). "The 14 Best Episodes of Revisionist History". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  16. ^ Rooney, Kat (2021-07-14). "The 15 Best Episodes of Longform Podcast". Podcast Review. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  17. ^ "Take today to listen to some of our favorite podcast episodes ever". The A.V. Club. 2020-05-25. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  18. ^ Haglund, David; Onion, Rebecca (2014-12-14). "The 25 Best Podcast Episodes Ever". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  19. ^ Quah, Nicholas (2018-12-14). "The 10 Best Podcast Episodes of 2018". Vulture. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
TipsyElephant (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ID10T with Chris Hardwick. And if this is removed, should also remove the "Episodes" section from that page as it only exists to link to this list and contain a single unsourced statement. QuietHere (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ID10T with Chris Hardwick as page creator. I have no personal interest in this material; I excised it several years ago from the main article, creating this list. I had hoped RS might one day be found. I also agree that without addition of RS, the episodes section can be removed. It's enough that all this material is available via page history over there. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 04:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanand Mitra[edit]

Sanand Mitra (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)
Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Flibbertigibbets; I am neutral. Their stated reasoning is:

-The text of the article was originally from a user created marketing website

-The focus of the text was to market companies which may or may not exist -I question the notability of the subject and his impact and reach 

-The chronology and career seems to be self authored, I don't think it would be relevant to anyone but the subject

■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! There is a site called "Your Story" which contains a bio and story very similar in content and tone to the Wikipedia article. It is my opinion (and I could be quite wrong) that the subject is not notable. The tone of the article used adjectives to inflate - Support Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flibbertigibbets, I'm confused. If the text is copied from elsewhere, then what's the copyright status of the source? (If this article is a mere copyvio, it may, indeed should, be summarily deleted.) Or are you now saying that the content and style are similar but the text is not the same? -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes lots of the text is copied from "a marketing/vanity press/public relations site," where "Sanand Mitra" created the content - the marketing content then found its way to Wikipedia in some cases verbatim. There is actually a page on "Your Story" where you can enter anything you want to say about a "venture" you might want to start or be involved in. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It also looks like the article was created by a "special purpose, single use account, single edit" as part of a marketing effort; Special:Contributions/Ttango121 Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spam and copyvio aren't automatic justifications for deletion ([WP:BATHWATER]]), it should be cleaned up for the problem text first. Winning two national golds in a sport may be significant enough, even if the other business ventures aren't as notable. Dl2000 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the article in AFD as to not to edit the article down to virtually one sentence; as a new user I was uncomfortable making a radical change (blanking an article) even if it conformed to Wikipedia rules and standards. The article is one sentence which is an effectual deletion. The only question, with this one sentence article remaining now is if the subject is notable? I would categorize the supporting articles as "mentions." The "info-box" links don't go anywhere and offer no support for "the medals." I have no idea as to whether or not "the medals" are a substantive credential. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am now looking for notable archers in India (with no mention)
Archery in India
https://khelnow.com/olympic-sports/top-5-indian-archer-of-all-time
From what I can tell the Mitra "medals" were in time to University B-level Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a reference to a won event in 2005 which is a paragraph
https://archive.ph/20130125191723/http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/04/07/stories/2005040705652000.htm#selection-273.1-273.196
"Everything went according to the script in the compound bow section with Naresh Damor (ITBP) winning the title ahead of Sanand Mitra of Jharkhand, with only four points separating them (110-106)." Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm asking about copyright violation and plagiarism, Flibbertigibbets, not about likely motivation. Please specify the page from which "lots of the text is copied". If it's on a blacklisted website and you are therefore unable to provide a regular link, just add spaces to the URL ("http: // www.promotionalgarbage .com/whatever.html" or similar). -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to figure out if there is a chronology. You can see some of the same phrases yourstory com 2011 04 sanand-mitra-on-being-an-archer-and-an-entrepreneur against previous versions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In your nomination, Flibbertigibbets, you wrote "The text of the article was originally from a user created marketing website". Obviously that refers to the article in the state it was when you asked for an AfD. It has changed since then; this is not problematic. But now you seem to be saying that you don't know which is a copy of which. Well, nominators can change their minds; but it would be a great help to people reading this if you would strike through (like this) what you wrote earlier but are now uncertain of. -- Hoary (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do; the questionable content (and mostly all of the article) has been blanked with not much remaining Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    just figured out how to strike-though, took me a bit.. thanks Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found this [43], same name, but it looks like a very different person (heavier and facial features). Unsure about the rest. If it was only university level athletics, not sure that's GNG stuff we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Andhra cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jyothi Krishna (cricketer)[edit]

Jyothi Krishna (cricketer) (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 general coverage. ESPC cricinfo is the only source provided, and other cricketing websites also have the same statistics as this. Per the stats, he played about 30 matches in his career. Bringing to AfD as a contested PROD. Jay 💬 03:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers Once again, not sure why my redirect was moved. WP:ATD is policy. It's highly likely the subject fails GNG despite the games that he played, but he did play those games, so has some notability. There is a clear redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the consensus established at multiple AfD and other discussions going back to at least 2018, this is a clear redirect to the team the person played for most frequently or their most significant team. In this case clearly List of Andhra cricketers. A note can be added their to partially merge some of the content if there's someone prepared to do this. It's worth noting that his fullname, per CricketArchive, is Nakketla Jyothi Sai Krishna and he seems to be regularly known as Jyothi Sai Krishna - it might be worth the article being merged first with Jyothi Sai Krishna - which is already a redirect about the same person - in order to allow more sources to be picked up. Certainly his full name brings up an article in the Hindu which is clearly significant coverage and could probably be used to build the article up a bit. I can't find very much more at present so am happy with the redirect, but that article is well worth adding as a source for the note. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers per WP:ATD and the comments above. BcJvs | talk UTC 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Andhra cricketers per WP:ATD policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) I appear to have voted twice, so have unbolded this vote. This doesn't affect the discussion below in reply. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • I do not wish to convert this to a redirect discussion, we have WP:RfD for that. If the BLAR was to a suitable list, I wouldn't have brought this to AfD. From what I see, the suggested target list has entries with articles or redlinks, and Jyothi Krishna, if redirected there, will be neither, and we can't have circular redirects. Jay 💬 15:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jay. To prevent circular redirects involving a list of players, we remove the link from the redirected player's name in the list. Does that help? BcJvs | talk UTC 15:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The authors at List of Andhra cricketers can decide that, and in this case I believe an entry without a link will be removed from the list, resulting in the inevitable deletion nomination at RfD. Jay 💬 05:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of examples of lists of cricketers where there are non-linked entries that no one has ever, to my knolwedge, tried to remove. There are different ways of dealing with this sort of thing: sometimes, such as at List of Otago representative cricketers , someone adds a note to each player without an article; sometimes, such as at List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 we use a table to summarise each player anyway; sometimes we add an HTML note to make it clear where redirects come from; sometimes we use statistical tables; sometimes we just leave them unlinked and don't do anything else. But I've, honestly, never seen anyone try and remove them. If you're specifically concerned about the Andhra list then you could work through it yourself, ask one of the linked projects to work through it or ask one of the articles creators or significant editors to do the same thing. But there's, honestly, no evidence that I've ever seen to support your assertion that a name without a link would get removed from a list such as this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists I have seen are strict per WP:PEOPLELIST where editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one). If the cricket lists in general, and the editors at the Andhra one, allows for non-linked entries, then I have no problem with this being a redirect there. Jay 💬 07:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an established alternative. In general the problem in most cases is finding sources rather than anything else; playing top-level domestic cricket in a country such as India is noteworthy, and there is clearly some coverage of Krishna - see the article linked above. He played 35 top-level matches and was still playing earlier this year in the Andhra Premier League - all of which will have generated some coverage in local, print-based media that I doubt anyone here can access. If we had access to that sort of coverage I don't think we'd have any problems establishing notability, but we can't right now. At some point in the future someone might be able to, at which point we can build a proper article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phyline Jean[edit]

Phyline Jean (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/WP:BASIC/WP:NACTOR. Minor broadcaster/actor failing WP:JOURNALIST or WP:NACTOR, the current references are non-SIGCOV minor awards or routine, promotional announcements from a questionable non-RS source with a two sentence about us page, with no editorial policies showing that WP:NEWSORG is met. WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions, e.g., 1. Article is also promotionally written, with large sections being a potential copyvio. VickKiang (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And look at this, it's also likely a copyvio for the image: [44] Oaktree b (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It now appears the photo's been changed and the article has been rewritten somewhat. Regardless, this is still not at GNG. the links used are simply puff pieces written to promote her brand. And there have been two photos used in the article, both appear to be copyvios uploaded by a red-linked user with no proof of authorship, all red flags at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she is important, she would have a decent job. Wikipedia is a place where we write about important people, not a place to write advertisements for job searching. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Godse[edit]

Gopal Godse (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. Whatever this person is known for has been already covered at Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.

Nearly all of the information is WP:OR and written by someone who personally know this person. Editorkamran (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete as G5 and A7. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Katha[edit]

Sari Katha (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 find no evidence that this subject is notable. As far as I can see from translations of the cited references they do not mention the subject. I find no obvious mentions elsewhere (except in Simple Wikipedia where another editor has requested deletion). I did PROD the article but the author removed the PROD. David Biddulph (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ray 04:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has produced cartoon animated series in Tribe voice version. it is an Indian santali language children's channel owned by Kalyani Solvex Private Limited. Actually this person is not discover about this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golmala (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to provide cited sources. You MUST NOT attempt to strike out annother editor's comment here. I have reverted your attempt to strike out Ray's comment. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Review this news reference and You read this ᱟᱢ ᱪᱮᱫ ᱮᱢ ᱵᱟᱰᱟᱭᱟ.ᱦᱟᱱᱟ ᱱᱚᱣᱟ ᱢᱮᱱ ᱠᱟᱛᱮ ᱵᱟᱝ ᱪᱤᱠᱟᱹᱛᱮ. Golmala (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Santali Wikipedia is Already approved this because They are know that this important for Santali Community and Culture Development.But You are not understand because your are foreign People. So You are not Approved this Article. That sit. Golmala (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Golmala, other language Wikipedias can have different standards for articles. On the English Wikipedia, the requirement is WP:GNG - or, in the most basic possible terms, the subject of the article is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (On Wikipedia, nobody is a "foreign people". Articles are written from a global perspective.)
    I cannot translate the Santali-language statement above, but do know that this is the English Wikipedia, and users are expected to communicate in English whenever possible. If you have a Santali-language reference you would like to share, please provide a link or an English translation of the name. casualdejekyll 20:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've blocked Golmala (who created this article) as an xwiki sock. This is one of several socks in the pool that seem focused on Sari Katha. Therefore speedy delete as G5, as well as A7 on the article's contents itself. DMacks (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there isn't policy behind the !votes, there is merit and we don't have anyone else arguing for deletion. Star Mississippi 04:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ramsay Science and Humanities Fellowship[edit]

Thomas Ramsay Science and Humanities Fellowship (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. Nothing in gnews and limited coverage in Australian search engine trove. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is quite an unusual fellowship, requiring the research to cut across both science and the humanities, so I would hate to see the Wikipedia coverage lost. The award has resulted in several published books. None of this rises to the level of GNG, but just to put it out there –
    • Continent of Curiosities by Danielle Clode includes some rather fullsome praise [45] of the Fellowship by the forward writer (Tom Griffiths) who was also a Fellowship recipient.
    • The Antarctic Dictionary: A Complete Guide to Antarctic English by Bernadette Hince [46]. Hince's award also gets covered in an issue of Antarctic [47].
    • Curating empire: Museums and the British imperial experience contains a chapter based on Fellowship research [48].
    • The Australian Zoologist has a review of a book by Pamela Conder [49] which discusses her award of the Fellowship. It points out that award was the result of her intersection of interests in art and zoology. SpinningSpark 11:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, if no one else wants to comment, keep because we can. SpinningSpark 10:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'll chime in. I agree it's unusual. Firstly, I can't find any RS via Wiki Library; Newsbank; and ProQuest; so on that basis I can't point to anything that meets GNG. However, the entry is discrete, does not appear promotional or commercial, and I agree with Spinningspark: I think the page should be included. Cabrils (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without consensus that the title is sufficient for notability, which we do not have, there is no pass of GNG. Star Mississippi 04:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirmay Chakravarty[edit]

Jyotirmay Chakravarty (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 difficult to do a BEFORE, but the argument from the creator seems to be that this job title confers notability. I have not found any evidence that it does, and sources seem to be routine, bare mentions, etc., so I think this fails GNG. Valereee (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very senior officer with sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp, the sources don't seem to support it. All of them seem to be bare mentions, routine, etc. Are you saying the job title confers notability? Or if it's the sources, which would be the best sources for supporting that? I'm just not easily seeing it. Valereee (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying both. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • zKeep as a WP:GNG pass, [50], [51], [52]. Notable officer. Yandeńo (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss K[edit]

Miss K (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 is an article about a character (persona or fictional character) of Klara McMurray who is a celebrant, performer, or artist. that may in herself lack notability. The article was in fact written by Klara McMurray as self promotion. Here is a link that does mention Klara McMurry https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/it-ll-be-tough-very-tough-small-businesses-steel-themselves-for-retail-shutdown-20200803-p55i03.html The subject, and her derivative character lack notability. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 02:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2022_November_23&oldid=1124868809"