Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 29
![]() |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The sources provided over the course of the AfD have largely not been rebutted Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- 100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso (edit | talk | history | 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 found no significant coverage for this book. This isn't worth a merge to the curator's page because it is unreferenced and doesn't fit well into his her biography. I'm not sure if such a title is worth a redirect to the curator. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and England. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least. Jane (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per WP:BK and WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her". SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them. Jane (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not my definition. "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list." Please read what I linked to. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I picked List of works in the Museum of Modern Art at random from the many museum lists on Wikipedia. Works at the Museum of Modern Art have been discussed in the context of the group with works such as "A Landmark Acquisition for MoMA's Architecture and Design Department". In this case, only the curator or individual works have been discussed in reliable sources. There has been no such coverage about the book or list "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting I just noticed this 1994 edition example here. I only noticed because the cover illustration is different. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your list example is exactly the point, because that list actually says it is a random selection: "This is a partial list of works in the Museum of Modern Art, and organized by type and department." This list is not randomly crowd-sourced, but published by a national museum for arguably it's most significant department by the curator of that department. You could use the notability logic for this painting which probably deserves an article and was purchased by the museum the year that this catalog was published: commons:File:Helene Rouart in her Father's Study.jpg. Here is a more in-depth discussion of that acquistion published a few years later in 1984 Acquisition in focus : Edgar Degas : Hélène Rouart in her father's study and in 2000 the painting was discussed in the Guardian here. Again, It makes sense that individual paintings are discussed elsewhere - this is a general souvenir guidebook for the public, and it is published lists of exhibits I am referring to. Jane (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your definition of stand-alone. This list does not stand alone in any sense. Are you referring to incoming links or categories? This is a typical museum guide list, such as many others on Wikipedia. For institutions with very large collections, it is customary to have more than one type of catalog for a collection, such as this one. Jane (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I realize that the paintings are notable, but such a list doesn't work per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which states, "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." We would need significant coverage referring specifically to "100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso". SL93 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes I see we are miscommunicating on a different level however. I was referring to the notability of the paintings of course. Individual curators are notable for their contributions to the study of paintings, as are the institutions that hold them. Jane (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jane023 It is irrelevant whether I am familiar with the museum or not. Notability does not work that way on Wikipedia, but rather per WP:BK and WP:Stand-alone lists in this case. It has no coverage as a book, and it doesn't have the notability for a stand-alone list. If the museum ever created such a guide, that guide would still need significant coverage. By "fits well into his biography", I mean that it would make his article look awkward to merge a non-notable list into her article. I, at least, have never seen such a thing. The only thing is that I typed "his" instead of "her". SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well as the article creator I disagree. You may not be familiar with the museum, but considering the large number of paintings to choose from, the distillation of notability to just 100 by the then curator of the collection is significant as an amplifier within the wider world of exhibitions during this period. The purpose of such catalogs were keepsakes for visitors, so perfect as a tool to inform casual Wikipedia readers. If the museum ever created a guide for their overall top 100 paintings it would be significant for the same reason. Saying it doesn't "fit well into his biography" is surprising, to say the least. Jane (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirectto Dillian Gordon. "doesn't fit well" makes little sense to me. He made the book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean if it's a book she wrote that's always a valid redirect unless it's so vague as to be useless. It is not vague, so I don't see why not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Change vote to Keep per Cunard. Also who turned my name into a red link lol? PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- PARAKANYAA I never said such a thing about a redirect. For a redirect, I was thinking about how probable of a search term it is, but I now guess it doesn't truly matter.SL93 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Significant coverage is simply missing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. One of the two listed "References" is another Wikipedia article, the other is the subject of the article. I have not been able to find any reliable independent sources. Elspea756 (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Delete; the book doesn't meet our criteria for notability. d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso is a better place for this information. Ham II (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If a list like List of works in the Museum of Modern Art would be created for the National Gallery then this book could serve as ONE OF the references. The book itself does not meet requirements for an article. I would advise Jane to make a copy of this article, which is destined for deletion, with the idea of using this content as the basis for a list of key works at the National Gallery. The problem is using the book as the article focus rather than the artworks themselves. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that any top museum willing to risk snide comments in the art world by distilling their huge list of items on show to a number approaching something browsable on a mobile phone (100 is still a bit long) deserve our support. It was only in the 1980s that paperback guidebooks became more available, and generally were only made by top-ticket museums. Goodness knows there is less and less funding available to produce such guidebooks, and it may be a dying genre, but I do think it would be worthwhile to set up some guidelines for covering museum guidebooks and exhibition catalogues on Wikipedia, if only to avoid comparing them to generic non-fiction. Jane (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-fiction books do indeed get reviews, especially those that add to a discipline or area of study. If this article is to be analyzed as an article about the book, rather than about the institution, then one needs to establish if this book is "esteemed" by the community it could serve. Some below have unearthed reviews. The question is whether those reviews alone make this book notable. I'm still going with "delete" since the Hatwell is a mere paragraph and the Cole is one page. The policy states "non-trivial" sources so I expect something more in depth. The Cole review MIGHT meet that, but the Hatwell does not, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lamona: There are already two other list articles for works in the National Gallery: Collection of the National Gallery, London and Catalogue of paintings in the National Gallery, London. There is no need for more than one in an encyclopaedia; probably the first should be deleted and the second should have illustrations added to it. That second page should perhaps also be renamed to List of works in the National Gallery, as it includes the single significant work in the collection which isn't a painting, Leonardo's Virgin and Child with Saint Anne and Saint John the Baptist. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a book that should be treated as a novel that gets "reviews". If anyone reviewed it, it was probably museum nerds in London. That does not detract from it's notability as a selection of important paintings. Jane (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I found no reviews. It has minor presence in libraries as per WorldCat. The book is cited in G-Scholar less than one dozen times. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
SourcesA book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
- The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Lubbock, Tom (2001-08-24). "Don't take this book as the last word on art. It can be only an introduction". The Independent. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.The review notes: "On the other hand, as the book is intended for beginners, some guidelines seem useful. For example, to fill it up with the most famous pictures would be pointless. People are going to bump into ... anyway, in the windows of poster shops. A little adventurousness, even eccentricity, is wise. It's good, for example, that Georges de la Tour is represented not by his famous, dreamy, candle-lit visions, but by one of his sharp-edged card-cheating scenes. What's more, the choices should inspire further exploration. What's depressing about having Caravaggio represented by his early, static Lute Player is not only that it's far from his best, but that this choice conceals from the novice the terrific excitement of Caravaggio's art. It does not truly introduce. Overall, this selection is as good as any. But, actually, for a really engaging introduction, you don't want a book of the 100 greatest paintings."- Cole, R. (March 1984). "100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso (Book Review)". Museums Journal. Vol. 83. pp. 244–245. EBSCOhost 513730664. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Google Books.
The review notes: "The publication of this volume by the National Gallery marks a new venture in that it is sponsored by Messrs Coutts & Co , bankers to the Gallery since 1864. Let us hope that this volume will be succeeded by others and that the example given by this kind of sponsorship is followed elsewhere. One hundred paintings from the National Gallery (approximately five percent of the total collection) have been selected by Dillian Gordon as examples of the richness and range of this famous collection. The paintings are reproduced at full-page size and in an excellent full-colour rendering. The Gallery's most famous paintings are here: Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin of the Rocks and cartoon of the Virgin and Št Anne, Bellini's Doge and Botticelli's Venus and Mars, Titian's Bacchus and Ariadne and the Rembrandt Self-Portrait, van Eyck's Arnolfini Marriage and Vermeer's Woman at a Virginal, Velasquez' Rokeby Venus and Goya's Dona Isabel de Porcel. Coming closer to home, we find Constable's Hay Wain, Turner's Fighting Temeraire and the great French paintings such as Renoir's Les Parapluies, Seurat's Bathers at Asnieres and Van Gogh's famous Sunflowers. There are also less well-known works: Pisanello's darkly gleaming Vision of St Eustach, a Canaletto, which takes us a few yards away from the vistas of the Grand Canal to a Stonemason's Yard, a plump and motherly Madame de Pompadour by Drouais, The Grote Kerk, Haarlem with its glowing white interior by Saenredam, a nice Steen of ..."
- Cunard Thanks for finding this. However, it seems to be a fairly short review since the page range given is just one page. Is that what you see? (I don't have access to it.) Lamona (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you sure that the first reference is about this book? It seems strange for a 2001 article to review a 1981 publication. SL93 (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cunard There is not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Caravaggio's Lute Player is not in this book, and Georges de la Tour isn't featured at all. SL93 (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:
- Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes: "Duccio to Picasso: 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery, London (4.95 until December 31, then £5.95). The enviable task of browsing through the NG's 2,000 treasures to produce a book of a mere hundred fell to assistant keeper Dillian Gordon. Of course, she's ridiculously wrong about some things. Her choice of four Titians against only one each of Cezanne and Renoir is probably explained by her three-year study period in Italy, dangerous for anyone at any impressionable age. ... But one shouldn't grumble. To let the book fall open at, say, Tiepolo's Venus And Time, ... or Corregio's School of Love is to let the spirit breathe deep. At the price (Coutts Bank have helped keep it down), the book is a treasure in itself." The caption notes: "... Her comments on each picture in 100 Great Paintings From The National Gallery are unfailingly helpful."
- Cunard Thank you. I haven't been able to use Newspapers.com through Wikipedia Library for a while now now because of the current errors per this. Are you using a paid subscription? Not being able to access it, especially for creating articles, has been upsetting. SL93 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- With help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, I've updated the https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ link to a clipping. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad it worked! It would be really painful not to have Newspapers.com access when working on articles as it has so much content that other resources don't have. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It worked for me. Awesome. SL93 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com. Like the user in this comment, I can access Newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. But I cannot log in to Newspapers.com to clip the article. Cunard (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hatwell, Don (1981-11-05). "Treasure Trove of Art". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-08-02. Retrieved 2024-08-02 – via Newspapers.com.
- Thank you for catching this mistake. My apologies, that was the wrong source. This is the correct source:
- Comment: If this article is kept, and is about the book rather than the list itself, it should probably be renamed to match the book title. From the links above, either Duccio to Picasso or 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The cover of the 1981 edition and MOS:TITLEPUNCT suggest that the article title would be The National Gallery, London: 100 Great Paintings – Duccio to Picasso, but the cover of the 1994 edition suggests it's 100 Great Paintings: Duccio to Picasso. I don't know if the title pages had something different from the covers; if they did that could explain the titles in the 1981 reviews of the book. Ham II (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as I think a 1981 book was probably covered in offline sourcing that we haven't yet found. At worst, merge to Dillian Gordon where it makes sense to cover the book with the sourcing that has been identified. I'm a little confused about the redirect not being of value but may have misunderstood what was meant. Star Mississippi 13:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I've struck my previous "delete" comment above. The Independent and Museums Journal sources found by Cunard look promising and suggest there are others that are difficult to find based on being from the early 1980s. I may have found another, but it is behind a pay wall. The article needs to be rewritten to be about the book, including its reception, rather than just duplicating the contents of the book. Elspea756 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - really as that very rare animal on WP: a fully sourced list that someone might actually want to look at. A rename might be in order, but I can't see we should delete that given the vast number of unsourced lists of all sorts on WP. Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete
or MergeI think it is not notable enough to merit its own page, however I noticed the Collection highlights section of National Gallery article is just what appears to be an arbitrary list of works. Would be be better to use Dillian Gordon's list instead? I believe it is notable enough for that. Myotus (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.
We shouldn't give undue prominence to one souvenir guide from 1981, as if that's the only publication that's ever given a condensed list of highlights of the collection. If we really wanted to base National Gallery § Collection highlights on some sort of statistical analysis, there would be lots of books in a similar vein to Dillian Gordon's to take into account, none of them suitable topics for encyclopaedia articles. As I've said, Wikidata is the place to gather that sort of data, and that has already been done for this book at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Catalog/100 great paintings from Duccio to Picasso. Because the Commons gallery c:National Gallery, London is also a compilation of highlights, there might be a case for adding all the (out of copyright) works in Gordon's selection to that, and noting in the captions when a painting is in her top 100. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- That section isn't an arbitrary list; it's a selection of the (some 300 by now) works in the National Gallery with their own articles, largely weighted towards the most famous ones.
- An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- They don't have any Cassatts that I can see - rather late, & not many oils. They would be in the Tate. They have two VlBs, one of top quality but a secondary version (oddly, these are not mentioned in our much longer Collection of the National Gallery, London list). Non-European (indeed Byzantine) art is outside the NG's scope. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- BTW: I just added Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun's Self Portrait in a Straw Hat to the "Collection highlights" section in the Nation Gallery article, doubling the number of women of in the listed 58 artists in the section. Myotus (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about Mary Cassatt and Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun? However, I suppose you are correct about artists of color. The European painters of the modern movements (Impressionism Cubism, Fauvism and Expressionism) were influenced by African and Asian art. It would be highly unlikely that the National Gallery at that time would want to seek out the actual originals when it had the works by Europeans. I still stand that the book by Dillian Gordon is not notable enough for its own page and not relevant enough to include as a list of artworks on the National Gallery article. Myotus (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phooey! There aren't many "artists of color and female artists" in the NG, which doesn't collect much beyond 1900, and whether any such qualify as "great paintings" is moot. You can be sure Gordon's list ignored silly PC concerns in its selection. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- One more thing, I am happy however to see that Dillian Gordon included gay and bisexual men in the list. Points! Myotus (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- An addendum to my previous comment. I just realized the lack of artists of color and female artists in Dillian Gordon's list of 100 great paintings in the National Gallery. As it leaves out important painters I don't think it would be a list to include. It appears to be a dated list of its time. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources found by Cunard seem enough to show this is notable and could be kept. I will note that this article format, nature and content are quite idiosyncratic (list official works selection book) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, a good rescue of source discovery. The volume covers important paintings of one of the most important art collections in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm seeing clear consensus against a standalone article, and considerable opposition to a merger for reasons of due weight. As such the consensus here is for deletion. If someone wishes to develop this content toward a partial merger I'm happy to provide a userspace copy, but I'm explicitly noting that there is not consensus supporting a complete merger here, and large mergers would probably require more discussion at the target talk page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- List of NCAA Division III independents football records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic is not notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a list of records for loosely-related college football team seasons. These teams are "independent" and do not belong to conferences, only joined together because they are in a division of college football together. The text in many of these templates also show up as wikitext because of improper code writing. This list was also created as a way to try avoiding deletion of the individual templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 13#Template:2023 NCAA Division III independents football records. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Nothing is here connecting these records together; fails WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Member of an already established set of pages. (List of Division I FBS independents football standings (1973–present), List of NCAA Division II independents football records) Unless you plan on also nominating both of those for deletion to remain consistent. But I reckon that is not the plan since this is the only one hindering the deletion of the Division III independent templates. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a stats sheet. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just saying - if this isn't a notable list/container article, none of the standings template pages are notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did not nominate other articles similar to this because I feel this one in particular is the least notable, and I don't agree that everything else would have to be deleted as a result of this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting following a deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, do not merge, do not redirect.
- I agree with previous delete supporters that the absence of athletic conferences makes the connections among these teams and records too weak to justify an article per WP:NLIST (shortcut to WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists, guideline).
- There are significant issues with merging to NCAA Division III independent schools as suggested by Jweiss11.
- List of NCAA Division III independents football records is a historical list of season records going back to 1973. Very few schools are included in recent years: 2024, 2023, and 2022 each list one or two teams.
- NCAA Division III independent schools is the current list of independent schools. The Football section contains only Maine Maritime Academy, which is highlighted in pink because it will join the Commonwealth Coast Conference in 2025 and be removed from the table. No records are included for any sport. There is a historical list of former full (all sports) independents under Former members.
- A comprehensive merge would create WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) problems. Merging only 2024 would have the same problems, only less pronounced.
- Jweiss11 included no details beyond the destination's title and made no argument for merging, contrary to the recommendations of WP:Merge what? (essay).
- If no content is merged, I believe a redirect would be deleted at WP:Redirects for discussion as "not mentioned at target".
- Disclosure: I recommended relist or overturn to no consensus at the DRV.
- Redirect. Allow a possible merge from the history. Give it time, and then let Flatscan’s hypothetical RfD play out. Flatscan is over-sure of future editing. Otherwise, per Flatscan, and if it results as he predicts, so be it. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the five weeks since Jweiss11's comment, no one has made any progress toward a merge. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD) advises against copying, but proposals and discussions are fine. As I wrote at the DRV and Cryptic confirmed below, the page's template transclusions are not creative content requiring attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT). Also, the templates are organized in Category:NCAA Division III football independents standings templates. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know. I am not actively disagreeing with you or Cryptic, but my !vote is more tentative. Probably my route will lead to deletion, but I would leave open the tenuous possibility of a merge. I think it is right to allow for a merge despite not seeing how it would justifiably happen. To be clear, I agree firmly with “NOT KEEP”, and do not close as “MERGE”. I don’t think there are any real problems with a redirect continuing indefinitely. Also note, I have very little interest in the topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the five weeks since Jweiss11's comment, no one has made any progress toward a merge. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD) advises against copying, but proposals and discussions are fine. As I wrote at the DRV and Cryptic confirmed below, the page's template transclusions are not creative content requiring attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed (guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT). Also, the templates are organized in Category:NCAA Division III football independents standings templates. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Flatscan's being overly generous when they say they "believe" such a redirect would be deleted at RFD. It would be more accurate to say it would never be kept in a million years, and would be an R3 speedy deletion candidate were it not exempt due to age and for having article-like content in the history. Forcing a second discussion at RFD under these circumstances is nonsensical. Even if there was anything merged and not immediately reverted, a redirect is unnecessary - there's zero copyrightable content on this page, so retaining the history is unnecessary for attribution. —Cryptic 14:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete now that the individual templates have been kept, there's no need for this. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per Thetreesarespeakingtome and Jweiss11. If it is not kept, it should definitely be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools as an WP:ATD, as per Jweiss' suggestion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Ejgreen77, I suggest you do that merge now. Show us what it would look like. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:NLIST due to lack of SIGCOV as a group. Also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I consider merging to be a reasonable ATD, though outright deletion is my first preference. Frank Anchor 17:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why not create a List of NCAA independents football records, where one could include the standings at all the different levels of NCAA football? (Div. I, II, III). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't see that this topic has been covered as a group or set in reliable sources as required by WP:NLIST. Oppose merging or redirecting for now because no one has proposed a reasonable target that currently exists. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hatman31, you don't think NCAA Division III independent schools is a reasonable merge target? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Correct, because that list is of the schools which don't belong to a conference in any sport, without historical standings or records; merging these football records there would give them undue weight and make the page much more unwieldy. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hatman31, you don't think NCAA Division III independent schools is a reasonable merge target? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Delete views carry more P&G weight than the Keeps. But even after four weeks, the Delete views failed to achieve quorum, let alone consensus. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- SMK Seri Kembangan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Multimedia University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay @KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.
- https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/
- https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi N niyaz (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @N niyaz: If I'm not mistaken and correct me If I'm wrong, both of the sources you said have no mention of being paid. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @KjjjKjjj You could already tell by the topic and style of the writing that it is a press release/paid article. Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid. N niyaz (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @N niyaz: If I'm not mistaken and correct me If I'm wrong, both of the sources you said have no mention of being paid. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Multiple secondary sources, passes WP:NOTABILITY at it's barest. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Checked the sources listed in English. None of them provide significant coverage, just mentions or sponsored content/press releases. Cannot check sources in Malay, hence weak. Tried to find some more coverage for this article, but failed. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I disagree that "Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid", online content often includes a statement when it is sponsored content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- Although often it's not mandatory for them to declare it. The article
- https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/
- https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi
- is obviously a press release and not a reliable source. N niyaz (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The school has high Chinese student number which is special as this school is unacknowledged by Chinese association.[1][2] A search of "史里肯邦安国中" on Google showed some Chinese newspapers. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- How does that even make it special? LIKE I STRESSED, there is no significant coverage on the school, it isn't notable, and most of the sources cited is a press release/paid article. N niyaz (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "【暖势力】放下藤条感化"坏学生".戴庆义改变问题国巾". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). Retrieved July 7, 2024.
- ^ "筹建多元化讲堂 史中盼华社援手". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-06-23. Retrieved 2024-08-04.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Alyy Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves.
That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth.
But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all.
Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.
Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [1] is a student newspaper and this is primary [2]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep:
- - more Sources got added, below are two more Interviews
- - https://www.friesenpress.com/blog/2023/6/27/alyy-patel-author-interview
- - https://urbanasian.com/crown-the-brown/2020/02/valentines-pride-praanee-and-alyy-were-desi-gender-fluid-in-love/ Cupkake4Yoshi (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews are not WP:GNG-building sourcing. A source has to represent somebody else talking about her in the third person, not her talking about herself or something else in the first. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - They pass WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC with multiple cited peer reviewed published papers. Also while yes, some of the refs in the article are interviews, the point of them being discounted for AfDs is contended and the essay WP:INTERVIEW is just that, an essay, not policy or guideline, plus even the essay says that sometimes interviews can add to notability, not outright dismissal of them. Raladic (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note that much of her academic work was under her birth name "Sonali Patel", which brings up most of the academic sources and citations, including her work having been cited in several (just pulled up some quickly here [3], [4]) published books, including the latest from just a few months ago by a respected Canadian Professor. It looks like the AfD nomination missed the academic side of the person, and that they are/were going by different names was missed in WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating the article for deletion. Raladic (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as per Raladic.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Raladic (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep due to the peer reviewed published papers which shows that it meets GNG criteria and WP:NACADEMIC. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Marc Cayce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly promotional page for non-notable director, recreated and moved to mainspace after soft deletion in 2023. No evidence that he passes WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:FILMMAKER. There is no evidence beyond WP:USERGENERATED IMDb that he co-directed Trapped: Haitian Nights, the one notable production in his filmography, or that his direct-to-video "A Day of Trouble" premiered at Cannes. Sources are all press releases, WP:INTERVIEWS and similar primary sources, as well as a handful of tabloid items disallowed for notability under WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Hardly any coverage of his career, some confirmation here in regards to a sexual assault allegation [5], which doesn't help notability (beyond confirming his work). The sources used in the article are as described by the nom, non-helpful. Vaguely PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I can find his name and the name of films in the usual (non-reliable) places, like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. In that latter there are no ratings, which means that it would be hard to consider his body of work significant. I also note that this article has gone through iterations with socks, undeclared COI, and a few other things that indicate that this is a PROMO. (See User_talk:Genevieve_Elodie_Ottilie for some hints, plus the revision history on this article.) Lamona (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please add new sources to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Skwatta Kamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography or chart activity, while their "numerous awards" mentioned in article include only two regional ones. Article has been a poorly-sourced stub since its 2015 creation, and searches turn up the usual niche sites (YouTube, Bandcamp, Genius, et al.) or stories about member deaths. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 00:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Meets notability criterion 3 of WP:BAND (Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country). [6]. Also got coverage from national circulation WP:RS.[7] [8][9][10] [11][12], and they are described in those RS as "legendary" and "revolutionary" indicating that they meet WP:GNG. Also not sure why all the stories about their members dying etc in WP:RS are not indicative of notability as per nom. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies as well. Park3r (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the South African Music Awards that the group won are notable national awards, and there is also reliable sources coverage as described by Park3r, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Callahan (with anyone welcome to move the page history as discussed below). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- William J. Callahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not all senior government officials are notable enough to justify a WP article. Mentions of Callahan in WP:RS are WP:TRIVIAL related to his WP:ROUTINE job duties and not WP:SIGCOV focused on Callahan that would establish his notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - sufficient sources are included in the article to satisfy notability.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see little justification for deletion - he held the position. Political? OLDGUY50 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC) — OLDGUY50 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic
- I also see little justification for deletion as he held the position and was within the agency for 25 plus years. 198.100.2.74 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) — 198.100.2.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. So far no policy-based justification or RS presented to justify keeping. Only source with WP:SIGCOV in the article is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and an official biography. Longhornsg (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: "Gov't official did gov't official things". Nothing notable in his actions, nor in the coverage, which remains trivial. Both of the references fail WP:SIRS for this topic. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Director of the United States Secret Service#William J. Callahan (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people). The closest additional criteria is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges, but the Director of the United States Secret Service is not a politician or judge so that part of the guideline does not apply.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I support this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete He exists, yes. Is he notable per WP:NBIO? Clearly not. No in-depth coverage, just name drops and primary sources. Don't strongly oppose a redirect but also not sure it's desirable when there are other people of the same name who attracted media attention such as a soldier killed in Iraq AusLondonder (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Two sources on a BLP is not notable. Felicia (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Two sources would be sufficient for a BLP to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria if these two criteria were met:
- the two sources were independent reliable sources that provided significant coverage of the subject and
- the two sources did not cover the subject in the context of only one event
- Two sources would be sufficient for a BLP to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria if these two criteria were met:
- Comment: AusLonder raises a good point that there are other people with the same name. Instead of redirecting William J. Callahan to Director of the United States Secret Service#William J. Callahan, I propose a redirect of William J. Callahan to the disambiguation page William Callahan which can cover all of the people named William J. Callahan who are mentioned on Wikipedia. To keep the history of the new disambiguation page separate from that of the Secret Service official, the article on William J. Callahan could be moved to William J. Callahan (Secret Service)—which matches the disambiguation for another Secret Service director article, Joseph Clancy (Secret Service)—and then redirected to Director of the United States Secret Service#William J. Callahan.
I could not find the soldier killed in Iraq mentioned on Wikipedia. According to this search on "William J. Callahan", except for three articles, all of the mentions are of the Acting Director of the United States Secret Service. Those three articles are Ancient Regime of Spain (where there is a William J. Callahan who is the author of a reference), Sacco and Vanzetti (where there is a William J. Callahan who is mentioned as an attorney), and 1936 United States Senate election in New Hampshire (where there is a William J. Callahan who is mentioned as a political candidate).
Some of these people can be mentioned at William Callahan per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Items appearing within other articles. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails notability. Wakeupking (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Move then redirect per Cunard. This is a very thorough and well thought-out ATD that respects page history, PRIMARYTOPIC and COMMONNAME. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: These suggested ATD instructions are too complicated. I was going to close this as Delete because they are confusing but decided to relist instead. Just state what you want to happen with THIS article not other articles. And if you want this article Moved, then "vote" to Keep and later editors can discuss a page move after this AFD is closed. AFD has a limited number of closure options, please make your argument from among them: Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons i stated above.XavierGreen (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- XavierGreen, you can't vote twice. Longhornsg (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Im not voting twice, the Admin stated to clarify votes, see above.XavierGreen (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- XavierGreen, you can't vote twice. Longhornsg (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Deputy director of a federal service such as the USSS in a major country, especially one who has (albeit briefly) acted as director, is clearly notable per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: In response to the relist comment, the title William J. Callahan should redirect to William Callahan with the page history preserved per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. It is not required to split the page history to William J. Callahan (Secret Service). If the page history is split, that can be handled outside of AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Takota. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Ivory Tower (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)
I'm not sure if this album is notable. There's a PopMatters review and there's a brief review in HM (magazine) (page 32). According to the Wikipedia article, there's also a Kerrang review, but I wasn't able to find it; according to oldies.com music mail-order company, it at least contained the words "Taking driving riffs and breakdowns from emo and the huge radio-hugging choruses of, say, Journey or Mister Mister, Orange County quintet Takota are on to a winner on this, their debut album." Other than that, there's a Punktastic review, consisting of 10 adjectives, there's an Alternative Vision review (listed as generally unreliable on WP:A/S), and there's a NeuFutur review, a publication I hadn't heard of until today. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This was a pretty good BEFORE, which it would be good to merge into the Takota article at least. There is also supposed to be a review printed in this edition of Burn. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to the band. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election. RL0919 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Results of the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has incomplete results, only has one reference which is just the election commission website. The page List of members elected in the 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election already lists the winners and other information has been or can be added to pages for the constituency. PenGear (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. PenGear (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't remember why I created this, whether this was a split from an article or created to place the election tables that were probably in templates before they were deleted. Anyways, I have nothing to add here. Gonnym (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into 2008 Nepalese Constituent Assembly election Scu ba (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per above, to the election page. Orientls (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People here disagree in good faith about whether this is a POV fork of Siege of Masada, dedicated to expounding a point of view that should be covered in the main article in proportion to its support in reliable sources, or whether it is a subject of academic study in its own right, and therefore worthy of an article, similar to our other "X myth" articles linked to by Onceinawhile. I cannot resolve this disagreement as AfD closer. Sandstein 11:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Masada myth (edit | talk | history | 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 new article falls short of Wikipedia's content policies in several critical areas: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VER. Firstly, the article relies heavily on broad claims and does not really verify its arguments with credible, independent sources. There are assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, making the article’s claims questionable and unneutral.
However, the main point is that the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view over the others regarding what exactly happened in Masada. The academic debate is mostly around the specifics of the siege's conclusion: whether a mass suicide and final battle happened as Josephus says, or if something else happened, since there are neither confirming nor refuting archaeological evidence for what happened to the rebels (the siege itself is firmly evidenced). If we fix this POV issue, this article will become an overview of the debates surrounding reconstruction of the events on Masada, which does not need their own article. Other issues presented as part of the myth (myths are generally not neccesarily entirely fictional), like whether the Jews in Masada can be considered freedom fighters or not, remains mostly subjective.
Given that Masada is well-documented and discussed in better-defined and more comprehensive articles like Masada and siege of Masada, the academic debate surrounding its end and its symbolism in modern culture should be presented there. This would ensure that the discussion of the Masada myth is presented within the broader context of scholarly debate. HaOfa (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HaOfa (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. HaOfa (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The nominator's first paragraph is odd. They describe
assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing
, yet the article’s very first footnote contains a quotation from Nachman Ben-Yehuda, professor emeritus and former dean of the department of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from 1996: "On the professional level, we now know that the Masada myth is a particular selective historically invented sequence (narrative) based, partially, on Josephus Flavius's account, minus some very important details and supplemented by items ranging from a rather liberal interpretation of his writings to sheer fabrication". - The decision not to read the article carefully enough before opening this discussion may have resulted in the misunderstanding shown in the second paragraph of the nomination. There is no scholarly debate on this topic. The questions mentioned by the nominator have nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about the version of the siege story created by early Zionists for nationalism purposes which markedly differs from the only historical version of the story in existence, which is Josephus’s version. The differences between the two versions is summarized at Masada myth#Table of elements. The sources show that this national myth topic is much more notable than the actual siege itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The nominator's first paragraph is odd. They describe
- keep, article is well-sourced.
the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view
- it discusses the myth, and because this myth exists and is discussed in multiple scholarly sources, the topic passes notability guidelines. It can be see as a Legacy section for the main siege of Masada article, but because of its length it's better to have a separate one. Artem.G (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- delete, I agree the content should be much more balanced and that discussions of Masada in Israeli culture should be described as part of the article on Masada where it has more relevant context and all the relevant views.
- Delete. Info on the myth should be included under the main topic, either "Masada" or "Siege of Masada," alongside the main scholarly opinions and with stronger sourcing (if exists), as some of the claims made here are controversial and lack balance. Masada#Legacy could be a good option. PeleYoetz (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination is faulty to say the least, there is no "academic debate" over the siege's conclusion and the matter is referenced as a national myth promoted by the Zionist movement in the UNESCO world heritage nomination for Masada. Clearly meets GNG and the material is more than sufficient to justify an independent article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for highlighting this. For others’ ease of reference, relevant excerpts are shown below. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- • Delete - The content of this article is completely out of context and therefore leads to misunderstanding. If the content is to remain, it belongs in the main article about Masada or the Siege of Masada, as has been suggested above by the nominator.
- That being said, I am not sure the content should remain altogether. The article is heavily one-sided, it uses questionable phrasing and sources, and quotes selectively from the sources it cites. For example, the source quoted most in the article is Ben-Yehuda's book, which is criticized for being superficial, having a main theory which relies on a misunderstanding of historiographical issues, and being inconsistent in its application of the constructionist method which it officially adopts, but only uses when comfortable, among many other criticisms.(see https://www.jstor.org/stable/43044142) The book is also not self-aware, and is representative mainly of the subjective-constructionist approach, but does not represent the objective approach adequately, and therefore is given undue weight in the article, which relies on this approach exclusively. (ibid.)
- As an example for selective quoting of the source, the article ignores the sections of the book which discuss the decline of the "Masada Myth" (Ben Yehuda P. 253 and onward, Magness P. 199).
- The article relies heavily on the identification of the inhabitants of Masada as Sicarii, as mentioned by Josephus, and while the passage quoted from the book by Magness is rather blunt -"How did the site of a reported mass suicide of a band of Jewish rebels who terrorized other Jews become a symbol of the modern State of Israel? The creation of the Masada myth—in which these Jewish terrorists are transformed into freedom fighters and the mass suicide becomes a heroic last stand-has been explored by a number of scholars." (Magness P. 197) It is clear that her biting rhetoric is meant to magnify the question she presents. Her actual position, together with other opinions, is mentioned in a previous chapter: "The Jews at Masada likely included unaffiliated individuals and families as well as members of groups such as the Qumran Sect/Essenes",(Magness P. 164) and: "The nature and even the very existence of the Zealots and sicarii are also debated by scholars. Steve Mason proposes that instead of being a distinct faction, the term sicarii was used by Josephus as a “scare-word” to evoke a particular kind of violence and terrorism. Hanan Eshel speculated that because Josephus was a Zealot leader at the beginning of the revolt, when writing War years later he artificially distinguished between the “moderate” Zealots and the “extremist” sicarii, pinning on the latter the responsibility for the disastrous outcome of the revolt and thereby distancing himself. Here I use the terms rebels and refugees to encompass the variety of backgrounds and affiliations represented among the Jews at Masada."(Magness P.165) And so, this would be another example of selective quotation. But regarding the point of discussion, it is not clear whether the Sicarii inhabited Masada at all. The possibility that the inhabitants of Masada were in fact not Sicarii, together with the fact that both Ben-Yehuda and Magness state explicitly that although archaeology cannot confirm the narrative given by Josephus, it also cannot refute it (Ben-Yehuda P.57, Magness P. 195-196), make the idea of the Masada Myth "whitewashing" history or supplementing it "with fabrications and omissions" lose much of its weight, seeing as much is still left for interpretation. The article is both problematic and out of context, therefore it should be deleted or merged into existing articles. Uppagus (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
MASADA: PROPOSED WORLD HERlTAGE SlTE by the State of Israel, 2000
- p.4: Josephus Flavius’s account of the revolt of the Jews, who realized that their end was near and preferred to commit suicide and die as free people as opposed to the option of living in slavery and degradation in Rome, became in the 20th century the Myth of Masada. The Myth was one of the corner stones of the Zionist Movement, whose desire was to renew the Jewish life in Zion, which is the Land of Israel. The pinnacle of the identification with the Myth, as an example of valor and sacrifice, was during the Second World War.
- p.41: Masada in the Zionist Ethos: The story of Masada - the suicide of the Jewish Zealots who preferred to die as free people and not live as slaves in Rome - which is called the myth of Masada - affected the Jewish pioneers in the years before the founding of the state of Israel, in 1948. The call of the Jewish refugee in the poem written by Lamdan in the early 1920s “Open your gates, Masada, and I, the refugee will enter”, became the cry of the Jewish pioneers for freedom. For them, only the land of Israel is the real refuge, which was forged out of agony. Lamdan coined the famous phrase “Masada won’t fall again”. The most significant example expressing the identification with the myth of Masada was during World-War 2, when Romell’s troops threatened from Egypt in the south and the pro Nazi Vichy regime threatened from Lebanon in the north. The Jews in Israel felt sieged like the Zealots in Masada: struggling for liberation and ready to sacrifice their lives for it.
- p.44: It’s true that the development of Masada site derives partly from the myth and the movie…
*Delete, this is better as part of the Masada article, and would need some NPOV work even there. While a national and cultural myth has grown around Masada, this article is distinctly biased against the Masada defenders, and reads like an attack page. If it is not deleted, it needs to be made more neutral. Jerdle (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Huldra Why does an editor have to be an EC to vote here? This is an article that is in no way related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Eladkarmel: as a rather central myth in modern Israel, I would unquestionably place it as part of the conflict. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic at hand is how an event from ancient history is viewed in modern Israeli culture. This vote seems as valid as any other... HaOfa (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The EC is broad. It includes anything from food (Hummus, Za'atar, Tabbouleh, or Falafel) to academics (Ian Lustick, Benny Morris), to anything else even touching on the issue. This article is clearly within its limits, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that a new user with 67 edits manages to find and participate in an RM about Gaza genocide, the RSN noticeboard concerning the counting of the dead in Gaza and now an AfD for something tied to Zionism (an Arbpia covered article) so "broadly construed" might well apply here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Quite. Better not spend too much time thinking about that, though. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- In what way is this related to the conflict? Just because an article deals with modern Israel does not mean it pertains to the conflict. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would be happy, per my comment above, to have the closer determine what weight to assign to this !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic at hand is how an event from ancient history is viewed in modern Israeli culture. This vote seems as valid as any other... HaOfa (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Eladkarmel: as a rather central myth in modern Israel, I would unquestionably place it as part of the conflict. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge (and improve) I’m having a hard time seeing a need for a stand-alone article, it would be better to merge it into one of the articles in the last paragraphs of the nom, and redirect the name there. FortunateSons (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per FortunateSons. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Majority of the thirteen sources are directly about the myth itself, which makes it clear this clears the hurdle for needing a standalone article. If all of the sourcing mentioned this as a footnote or a secondary topic to the proposed merge articles, I'd understand the rationale, but as is I do not. Votes calling for deletion because this article "should be much more balanced" misunderstand AfD, and should be discussing that on the talkpage. Deletion for NPOV reasons without first working with editors on the article itself is a high hurdle to clear. Parabolist (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Notable topic, covered in reliable sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a blatant WP: FORK and WP:FRINGE. Compare: Rootless cosmopolitan. I’m not unsympathetic to both sides, when it’s reasonable; see Palestinian law. This is bollcks and irredeemably bad. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note This editor has been kind enough to admit that they did not read the citations and bibliography, because they did not have time. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fork of what? Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fringe ? How so? How can it a fork of something fringe? Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on the notability of the subject. Content can be fixed editorially.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good grief, that is awful. Blatant WP:FORK of Siege of Masada; a merge back to the parent article with a balanced discussion of the other perspectives is in order. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The word "myth" is not even in the article (lead or body) of Siege of Masada, so how is it a fork? Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, which is how this is a POV fork! This is just a very elaborated version of two paragraphs of the "siege" article, only it isn't called a myth there and it doesn't belabor matters with huge excerpts from its sources. Those excerpts alone rival the size of the whole "siege" article and for that matter the length of the actual "myth" article text itself, which is its own problem, but as it stands, we have a "mythless" article in which the apparent falsehood of Josephus's version is largely an afterthought and its connection to modern Israel is somewhat in passing, whereas the "mythic" version is all about deconstructing both of those. It also comes across as something of an attack page against the Israeli archeologists. I don't see why this needs to be split out. I'm not saying that the myth article is wrong; what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: thanks for the extended comment. To quote your comment, the
"apparent falsehood of Josephus's version"
has nothing to do with this article; that is a different subject. - The sources say that Josephus's version is the only historically known version, but that the real siege itself is not particularly notable in (ancient) Jewish history. What is notable is the modern 20th century history, which is the story of the myth. It is called a myth, by scholars and by the State of Israel itself (see the UNESCO application quoted above), because it differs substantially from Josephus and these differences have no basis other than the romanticism required to create a national myth.
- The story and impact of that myth is much more notable than the Josephan-told-siege itself, hence why a fully-fledged article about the myth will always be multiples of the size of an article about the real siege. You can see that from the underlying source material. Thus there is much more of a reason for a separate article here than there is for any of the other articles in our Category:Historical myths. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: thanks for the extended comment. To quote your comment, the
- Yeah, which is how this is a POV fork! This is just a very elaborated version of two paragraphs of the "siege" article, only it isn't called a myth there and it doesn't belabor matters with huge excerpts from its sources. Those excerpts alone rival the size of the whole "siege" article and for that matter the length of the actual "myth" article text itself, which is its own problem, but as it stands, we have a "mythless" article in which the apparent falsehood of Josephus's version is largely an afterthought and its connection to modern Israel is somewhat in passing, whereas the "mythic" version is all about deconstructing both of those. It also comes across as something of an attack page against the Israeli archeologists. I don't see why this needs to be split out. I'm not saying that the myth article is wrong; what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or merge. This article is a POV fork from its base. We cannot present some views as truth and describe all others as "myth." Even if some reliable sources use "myth" (though they seem to disagree on what is the myth exactly), this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should give a balanced coverage of all views and not one-sided articles on each. O.maximov (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- We are describing the viewpoints of "all others" as myth, as RS's call those viewpoints myth.
"though they seem to disagree on what is the myth exactly"
Which RS's are in disagreement?"An encyclopedia should give a balanced coverage of all views and not one-sided articles on each."
Yes, we should give a balanced coverage, and what that means is that we give more weight to RS's rather than myths. See WP:DUE. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC) - Well, that is an inexplicable view, since we already know there is no multiplicity of views and no debate, the relist comment says to focus on notability, which virtually none of the deleters do, because that is inconvenient to their arguments. And I am now finally going to point out that many of those advocating delete and/or merge are of a pro Israel disposition (I'm sure they would not disagree with that characterization) and I am minded to conclude that their positions are motivated by considerations other than a straightforward GNG assessment, in particular that it is a "Zionist" promoted myth, which in fact makes it even more notable, not less. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The logic of those editors arguing that a myth article should not exist standalone suggests that we should also merge:
- The right answer depends on the specifics of each case, and lies in the sources, specifically whether or not they confirm that the myth is itself a notable standalone subject. The sources here confirm clearly that the Masada myth is a notable topic in its own right, given its impact on the history of modern Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Too readily giving each (sometimes politically motivated) interpretation of fact or historical event its own article fractures our collective worldview into pieces, and is the antithesis of the encyclopedic approach. Personally, I think the Rommel myth deserves a section in Erwin Rommel, unless it becomes an idiom used outside the context of the military leader. As another example, it was long believed that cracking or popping knuckles caused osteoarthritis, but although this has been written about many times, both as fact and as myth, this "myth" does not get its own Wikipedia page. Perhaps WP:Notability should have a section on myths? Dotyoyo (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- We are describing the viewpoints of "all others" as myth, as RS's call those viewpoints myth.
- Keep per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 07:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an unnecessary WP:FORK of the Siege of Masada, which is fully capable of covering different uncertainty-qualified interpretations of this historical event in its different sections, such as "Josephus' narrative" and "Historical interpretations". Fracturing coverage of a historical event by interpretation is the antithesis of the encyclopedic approach. It's worth preserving some content from this article, but I propose this be done à la carte, rather than through a Merge, due to how extensively this article covers the mythic narrative (WP:BIAS, WP:WEIGHT). Furthermore, echoing other statements made here, any article related to the Jewish-Roman wars that references Josephus should perhaps stress his POV, given that he was not only a Roman, but a client of the the Roman Empire's ruling family, as reflected by his name change. As User:Huldra phrased it, "Josephus history cannot be taken at face value". Dotyoyo (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"I propose this be done à la carte, rather than through a Merge, due to how extensively this article covers the mythic narrative"
– actually, the logical corollary of this, i.e. that the material here is so substantive that it would cause such weight issues if merged, is just to not merge and simply to leave it as a self-sufficient topic – including it in summary style and linked on the seige page, lest it otherwise get overwhelmed. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep there is compelling evidence that this is a notable "myth" or whatever else you would like to call it. There is no reason that this article cannot be summarized in the other one. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: did you mislay a negative? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean summary as in summarizing a sub article in the main article according to due weight. (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: did you mislay a negative? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. From my research on Google Scholar, mentions of the myth surrounding Masada typically refer to various, really differing aspects, and this article confuses them all. One of them touches the question whether the mass suicide actually occurred or whether Josephus, generally considered reliable, fabricated the account based on his experiences at Yodfat and Gamla. Labelling one view with the term 'myth' here is used in a non-neutral and non-notable manner if taken a separate article, as it represents one viewpoint among many—some scholars support Josephus' account, while others adopt a middle-ground perspective, as seen in many scholarly debates. Additionally, I have seen a few other articles that use the word 'myth' surrounding a theory popularized primarily by sociologist N. Ben-Yehuda, which focuses on how Masada has been presented in state-building in modern Israel. This theory, primarily developed by a single scholar, also does not seem notable enough for a dedicated article. In summary, all those differing critiques labeled as 'myth,' are not notable enough for standalone articles and should be included within relevant sections of existing articles per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POV, and to refrain from unwanted WP:POVFORKs. ABHammad (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- No need to research anything on Google scholar because all those sources are right there in the article already and I cannot recognize your description of them at all. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge back into the Siege of Masada because quite frankly the main article sucks and could use a lot of the material in this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am surprised this article cites Ben-Yahuda's 1996 work but not his 2014 work on the same topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: As pretty much everything created by Once, this is meticulously sourced – here to eminent historians clearly outlining what they identify as a specific process of modern myth-building around the kernel of historic truths. The language of myth is used incredibly consistently across the dozen sources cited, including in the titles of four of them. It is clearly a very well discussed, standalone topic. Myth building was a key component of early Zionist historiography, and this topic is as much a child of that as yet uncreated topic (alongside wider issues of Zionist revisionism re: 1948, including Nakba denial, as well as other dates and events) as it is of the specific events at Masada. The calls here for outright deletion are entirely incredible, given that the sourcing is watertight. If the thinking is that the topic is merely a POV that shoots off from an existing topic then the argument should be for a merger, but there appear to be many pure deletion votes here – as if the quality sourcing counts for nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1, the fact that people are voting to outright delete this baffles me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 21:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alex Coffey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. All sources in article are primary or written by the subject, and WP:BEFORE search doesn't return any better coverage for me. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Baseball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 16:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suicide of Aubreigh Wyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Young Ms Wyatt's suicide is a tragedy, but outside of sensational coverage, it is not notable. The event has no long-term impact. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Mississippi. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree that a standalone article is not warranted; perhaps merge with Ocean Springs School District? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Skywatcher68: Perhaps, but given the lightness of the OSSD article, I think any mention of this given case would give it WP:UNDUE weight within the overall context of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with everything that WikiDan61 has said. The incident is not notable enough to have its own article, and to give coverage in the school district's article to this one incident out of the entire history of the school district would be grossly disproportionate. JBW (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, this seems to be not notable enough for an article Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE: This article should actually be expanded on. This story has generated a grass roots movement in the social media world equal to that of Amber Rene Hagermanm (Amber Alert), Adam Walsh (Crime Stoppers), and more recently JonBenét Ramsey. These stories are a distinct sign of the times and mark the social change that is unfolding in real time across the country. This article will grow as this story unfolds over the next sever days maybe even years. Most notable is the 7/31 & 8/01 wear pink show of solidarity against bullying.
- P.S. I'm the 5th person to weigh in on this in 24 hours. Obviously there is some interest in this story. 75.175.175.10 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The number of people weighing in on a deletion discussion is of less than no consequence to whether an article should be kept or not. Also, if the grassroots movement you claim exists, surely you can provide some sort of sourcing to back it up? Hamtechperson 23:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, do not merge. Fails WP:NEVENT due to local WP:GEOSCOPE. Despite some national coverage (eg Washington Post) the follow-on events related to the suicide appear to be local in nature. No evidence offered yet of WP:LASTING effects, and per policy, "'shock' news...and viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tammy Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content is primarily promotional. Fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Geoff | Who, me? 17:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, can you please guide me what changes can i do so the article of deleting could be remove from my article Naqqash6 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Naqqash6, did you check the links under "New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Vietnam, and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: The best source is The Atlantic which might meet SIGCOV but most of it is based on what she says and one source is not enough. The other sources are primary, brief mentions and/or her comments. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per current sourcing. The Atlantic helps towards WP:N (there's a lot of "she says", but IMO it still counts), maybe the NYT paragraph helps a little, but that seems to be it for WP:N. Also, in a WP-article, it's not "Tammy" in running text, it's "Tran" (like in The Atlantic). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete A lawyer who started a law firm and has clients is not notable. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The article asserts she was a member of Parliament, so a two-word nomination is not a useful conversation starter. (non-admin closure) Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anis Kidwai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability issues Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Women, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again, a vague and insufficient nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shipra Guha-Mukherjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability and significance issues Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and West Bengal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I think Fellow of the Indian Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Sciences, India passes WP:PROF#C3, and we have in-depth sourcing such as [13] (pp. 24–25). The WP:VAGUEWAVE given as a nomination statement does not even address the appropriate notability guideline, WP:PROF, and "significance" is not any kind of notability criterion. Incidentally, all sources I found spell her name "Sipra"; assuming this closes as keep, we should consider moving the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Moved the article in advance, since the outcome seems clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, pointless nomination. Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:PROF#C3 at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additionally, a nominator should make a persuasive nomination statement that demonstrates BEFORE has been done and argues why this article should be deleted. This two word comment is non-specific and doesn't prove due diligence has been completed. Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reshma Pathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability issues Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, no issues needing deletion have been identified. Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources seem to show she meets the general requirements for notability, so that deletion is not necessary, in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: She is clearly passes WP:NACTOR, including WP:THREE. Youknow? (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Source review, source 1 is reliable but not independent as it is an interview, source 2 is reliable on the trailer launch about the subject as first stuntwoman Reshma Pathan, source 3 is unreliable, source 4 is reliable with good coverage, source 5 is also reliable with good coverage and source 6 is unreliable. Three sources help with coverage and notability of the subject and her profession as first stunt woman. RangersRus (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 16:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Vasko Ruseimy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NBIO. Sources are his statements, brief mentions or press releases. S0091 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per above, non-notable, fails WP:NBIO Nyanardsan (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete does not appear to meet any of our notability criteria. Zingarese talk · contribs (please
mention me on reply; thanks!) 03:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Finance. Curbon7 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also the author has only edited this specific article, which might raise a potential WP:COI issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NBIO. In addition, a draft about him has been declined and rejected. Fjnat (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shawl. Liz Read! Talk! 16:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shahmina (edit | talk | history | 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 unsourced one-line article. When it was first created back in 2010, it was also unsourced but much longer and blatantly promotional. In the first instance, it should have been deleted per WP:G11. Now, if it were eligible, it should be deleted as an WP:A7, but because it is not, I am nominating it for deletion. Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources on the page. Page fails WP:GNG and does not warrant a stand alone article on Wikipedia. RangersRus (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Shawl: where a mention might be added in the future. Don't see any coverage except stores selling them and a few trivial mentions in journals. C F A 💬 04:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discarding the disruptive, obvious SPA/COI, there is a clear consensus to delete. Thank you, Star Mississippi and Daniel, for moderating this discussion. Owen× ☎ 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nori Bunasawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Potential COI issues aside, the subject evidently seems to be a notable coach at Olympic and World Championship level, and for US colleges. Other pursuits as a magazine publisher/author and film consultant (?) would probably not rise to notability themselves, but the coverage for all three careers being mostly in 50 year old newspapers – paired with the subject being otherwise covered by not only non-English, but non-Latin-alphabet, media – would be the AGF reason for fewer substantial sources (which is satisfactory here). The article could do with some clean-up, but from a glancing view I would also say it is not short on sources for its coverage, and that the coverage generally indicates notability. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Collapsing a large amount of bludgeoning content from an editor now pblocked from the discussion (as well as a smaller number of replies from other editors to the bludgeoning). Daniel (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Keep The subject of the articles is notable as a US coach at the Olympic, World, and collegiate levels. He is also involved in the movie industry and has multiple credits. His The Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. Is in the process of being adapted into a motion picture.
- Citations on his coaching career
- Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.
- "Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.
- New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975
- "Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.
- Citations & evidence on his involvement in the motion picture industry
- https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/
- Bunasawa's involvement in "Dead or Alive"
- https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career
- José Padilha as the director on the BJJ-Judo movie project
- https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/
- https://about.netflix.com/en/news/josé-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix
- https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/narcos-director-jose-padilha-tackling-netflix-jiu-jitsu-movie-dead-alive-1181926/
- DN27ND (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have added the following source assessment table for many of the additional sources cited above by DN27ND. It doesn't cover all of the sources DN27ND mentioned, but I'll keep searching online for links for those not in the table. I used Google translate for the one Russian source since I don't understand Russian, but am able to read the Japanese sources unassisted. The assessments are mine and I tried to give detailed explanations as to the reasons why I made them. The table's last column "Count source toward GNG?" is an assessment done by the table itself. An explanation of it's computed can be found at Template:Source assess#"Overall" assessment.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Marchjuly
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/12/ichiban-sports-complex-shares-strange-s/ | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNUDAAAAMBAJ&q=bunasawa&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=bunasawa&f=false | ![]() |
![]() |
? Three of the four pages are photos of Bunsawa demonstrating some technique, but the first page is part interview and part biographical material. Not sure this qualifies as sigcov per se, but it seems enough of a RS to support some article content. The quoted parts of the article though probably need to be treated as WP:ABOUTSELF. | ? Unknown |
https://www.abebooks.com/9780964898424/Toughest-Man-Who-Lived-Nori-096489842X/plp#:~:text=A book about Conde Koma,force in the martial arts | ? AbeBooks page about the book Toughest Man Who Ever Lived. The paragraph on the book appears to be WP:UGC content | ? Could possibly be used to support Bunasawa co-writing the book | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career | ? Has a fansite feel to it. | ? Niche website which looks like UGC content, but might be conisdered a RS for Judo. | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.instagram.com/p/Crg9KAmBek5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== | ![]() |
? UGC and WP:SPS type of source that only could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/ | ![]() |
? Original article is probably a good source for content about the movie, but there's nothing in the article about Bunasawa; so, trying to use this to support content about Bunasawa's involvement with the film seems to be WP:SYN. | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://about.netflix.com/en/news/josé-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix | ? Netflix PR blurb about film | ? Like the above source, might be for content about the film as WP:PRIMARY source, but makes no mention of Bunasawa. | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/ | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/4294861/ | ? Russian language movie website | ? Looks to be similar to IMDb, and bascially just a cast/crew list for the 1990 film Martial Marshal (seems to also be called Judo Justice). Bunasawa isn't mentioned at all | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://en.kinorium.com/2680888/cast/ | ? Another movie database type site | ? Appear to be an IMDb type site. Bunasawa in listed by name in the "Cast" section as playing "Gonji Tamashita" but nothing more. | ? Not close to being sigcov | ? Unknown |
https://4kou.jp/news/434/ (link is to high school's alumni association's website which scanned and reposted the article. An April 2021 archived version of the article from the Asahi Shimbun website can be found here.) | ![]() |
![]() |
? There's more converage about Bunasawa in this particular article than there's is in perhaps many of the other sources mentioned above, but it doesn't seem to be sigcov. | ? Unknown |
https://www.judo-ch.jp/result/ajsc/men1970.shtml | ? Database-like site of judo competition results | ? Appears to be a UGC type of site, but might be considered reliable for articles about judo competitions。Bunsawa is mentioned by name once for finishing runner up in the light-weight class of a 1969 judo tournament in Fukuoka, Japan. | ![]() |
✘ No |
https://sputniknews.jp/20190902/6634165.html | ? August 2019 piece by Sputnik (news agency) | ![]() |
![]() |
✘ No |
https://www.ocjaa.org/orange-network | ![]() |
? This would appear to be UGC content with very little if any kind of rigorous editorial control. I don't think the OCJAA would knowingly post anything false, but they might not have the capability to the type of strenuous fact checking expected of a RS. It's certainly doesn't seem to be a major news publication; it doesn't even seem to be close to the level of the Rafu Shimpo. It's published in Japanese and its target audience is most likely Japanese-Americans, Japanese nationals or other Japanese speakers living/working in the area. The April 2023 issue in which the the article "Judo" is supposed to appear isn't available any longer on the OCJAA website, but the cover can be seen here. I tried to see if I could find an archived version of of the issue from an archived version of the main page like this one from June 2023 or this one from April 2024 and work backwards, but had no luck. | ? Hard to assess whether the article is sigcov, but from looking at some recent issues still available online like july 2024, June 2024, May 2024 and April 2024, the "magazine" appears to be mainly advertisements and event listing with a few stories/interviews thrown in. There's a good chance the "Judo" article was an part interview and part general interest piece that had some biographical information about Bunasawa but nothing resembling the sigcov to help establish Wikipedia notability. | ? Unknown |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
-- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lean delete per table above, unless it is updated with other sources. The COI is a contributing factor. DN27ND, please do not try to convince me otherwise of COI, you had several essays worth of space to do so and you have not yet. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
More bludgeoning (again, with a smaller number of brief contributions by others to said bludgeoning). Daniel (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Delete on the basis that this discussion [14] suggests that the subject doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Also, the article was originally written by a user who has claimed on Commons to be the subject. User DN27ND is clearly closely associated with the subject, if they are not actually the subject, and at the very least is editing directly on behalf of the subject. His claims to be a journalist are clearly questionable, as journalists do not post the results of their work on Wikipedia. COI users, however, do. Axad12 (talk) 14.39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I appreciate the analysis done by Marchjuly. I had started to put together my own list, but he published first. I generally agree with his analysis. I didn't see anything that convinces me that there are multiple cases of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Passing mentions, being named a judo instructor, martial arts rank, demonstrating techniques, and listings of results have never been considered sufficient to provide the coverage necessary to show WP notability. There is no evidence that he meets WP:SPORTBASIC which talks about having "success in a major international competition at the highest level." He didn't qualify for the Japanese team even though they were awarded two spots in each division. Being one of two team alternates in his division isn't enough, nor are high school or collegiate championships. I also don't see him meeting notability requirements as an author or actor. I would say he's a talented judoka, but that alone is not grounds for WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet more bludgeoning along with a healthy dose of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- DN27ND, I suggest you look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. The notability of other articles has no bearing on the WP notability of this article. If you feel those articles about about non-notable subjects, you are welcome to put them up for deletion. If the U.S. head coach at the 1972 Olympics isn't notable, why would the technical coach be notable? I would also caution you about WP:BLUDGEON. I mention these other guidelines because the fact you haven't contributed to any other articles means you might not be aware of other relevant policies and guidelines. You should be aware that open events mean they are open to all (hence the name). They are often different from national championships, especially in sports that can only accommodate a limited number of competitors. For example, this year's U.S. Open in chess has over 300 competitors, but the U.S. championship invites the highest ranked 10 Americans (according to world rankings). Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
No prizes for guessing why this is being collapsed at this point. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Comment/Question I've stopped trying to read through the avalanche of text by DN27ND. Am I wrong or are both of the keep votes from him? Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, one is from Kingsif. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Am I wrong to keep votes from you? You who believes IBJJF senior 2 divisions count as notable because they are international competitions DN27ND (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, one is from Kingsif. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hate to interrupt your monologue, but you might want to get your facts correct. I never said Cartmell was notable. My editing of his page was to remove 3000 characters of text, as was agreed to at the AfD discussion. Any search of my edits would show I have frequently argued for removal of articles based on age group titles. Harping on 14 year old edits from a then new user shows how much you don't understand about how WP works. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed two entries from the source assessment table that were added by added by DN27ND, on the basis that the source assessment table above is clearly marked "prepared by User:Marchjuly" and so it is misleading to add source analysis that is not actually prepared by Marchjuly. DN27ND is free to re-add this analysis separately if it is clearly indicated with who it's coming from. DanCherek (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There were users who wanted me to add to the table. I shouldnt have to do Marchjuly's homework, but ok I'll entertain him. I posted 2 of the relevant photographs of newspaper clippings rather than add those sources to his table list before its deletion, he choose to hide them before deletion. This is censorship of sourced information and of sources. DN27ND (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to have some input from Marchjuly and Papaursa on whether the two sources in the table below genuinely count towards satisfying WP:GNG. My understanding of previous comments in this thread is that references to someone having been a coach do not confer notability.
- Personally I'm very reluctant to take the word of an editor who has admitted to having approved a draft that they had themselves authored, in clear contravention of policy, and who seems to be very unfamiliar with broader policy here. Not to mention, of course, the fact that they have a conflict of interest but have yet to declare it on their user page. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I think it's possible the subject of the article is notable, but the draft creation and approval process is so suspect that I don't think we should keep the article up. It sets a bad precedent. If someone really wants this article back, then they can recreate in future, without a COI and without this extreme belligerence. The conduct from DN27ND in this thread has been unacceptable. Throwing around accusations of censorship, walls of text, poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and refusal to learn the policy, refusal to adjust the POV language. It just keeps going.
- I already voted above, but we should delete the article. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There were users who wanted me to add to the table. I shouldnt have to do Marchjuly's homework, but ok I'll entertain him. I posted 2 of the relevant photographs of newspaper clippings rather than add those sources to his table list before its deletion, he choose to hide them before deletion. This is censorship of sourced information and of sources. DN27ND (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Collapsing per the inappropriate commentary and line of questioning. Daniel (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- I meant to add this to my last post but forgot. A possible alternative to deletion might be to WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can continue to be worked on. I do think, however, that there should be a condition attached to this if that's what the consensus ends up being: the draft should be submitted for WP:AFC review and not moved back to the mainspace by either the article's creator, any other (new) account with an WP:APPARENTCOI, but might be able to skip AfC if assessed and moved by an account which is WP:AUTOPATROLLED or an established record of problem-free article creation. That's not a guarantee that the article won't or can't end up at AfD again, but it might address any COI concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- For why I advocate for deletion over draftify: I'm a bit uncomfortable with the likely COI's impact on the article's content. I think deleting would be cleaner.
- If we do draftify, I'd prefer if the reviewer be informed about the conditions under which the article was created, and that the POV language gets toned down before approval. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to add this to my last post but forgot. A possible alternative to deletion might be to WP:DRAFTIFY so that it can continue to be worked on. I do think, however, that there should be a condition attached to this if that's what the consensus ends up being: the draft should be submitted for WP:AFC review and not moved back to the mainspace by either the article's creator, any other (new) account with an WP:APPARENTCOI, but might be able to skip AfC if assessed and moved by an account which is WP:AUTOPATROLLED or an established record of problem-free article creation. That's not a guarantee that the article won't or can't end up at AfD again, but it might address any COI concerns. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
|
- After repeated warnings about bludgeoning, the user made 24 replies, interrupted by one reply from Axad12, in a row. A number of the replies alledge conspiracies and are accusations about having hidden agendas. A number of the replies are about my race: [15][16][17]. At what point does this stop being acceptable? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- An absolutely incredibly amount of bludgeoning which caused significant disruption to this deletion discussion. I have taken liberty to collapse a large amount of it. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- After repeated warnings about bludgeoning, the user made 24 replies, interrupted by one reply from Axad12, in a row. A number of the replies alledge conspiracies and are accusations about having hidden agendas. A number of the replies are about my race: [15][16][17]. At what point does this stop being acceptable? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Source assessment table: prepared by User:DN27ND
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fears, Randy (October 1975). "U.S. Judo team". Rogers Daily News. | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
"New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975. | ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975. | ![]() |
![]() 1975 newspaper put out by the Rogers Daily News of Arkansas |
![]() |
✔ Yes |
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by DN27ND (talk • contribs) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Section break 1
[edit]- Admin comment, I have p-blocked DN27ND Star Mississippi 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I have collapsed large portions of the bludgeoning that led to this pblock. I have also installed a section break to make it easier for new editors to contribute. Daniel (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am hesitant to relist this, but I do not think consensus has been reached yet (though we could be close). Could new comments please focus on the two source assessments provided?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)- The former of the two source assessment tables is based on online sources which can be checked. It is by an experienced contributor and indicates that GNG hasn't been met. That was also the opinion of three other contributors to this discussion.
- The latter of the two source assessment tables is based on sources that have only been seen by a contributor with an admitted COI. From their contributions above their understanding of Wikipedia policies is clearly faulty and I don't think their assessment of GNG can be given any credence.
- Now that the latter user has been blocked from contributing to this discussion I don't see how the rest of us are likely to be able to see the sources that they refer to. While that is unfortunate, the chances of those sources having satisfied GNG must surely be assessed as exceptionally low.
- Apart from the COI contributor, the only other contributor to vote KEEP did so on the basis that "from a glancing view I would also say [the article] is not short on sources", but no one disputes the quantity of the sources, the issue is the quality. Axad12 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per Source analysis table, no WP:SIGCOV, thus WP:GNG not met. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone looked at the offline(?) sources mentioned by the user trying to keep? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It would appear not, based on this resource request at WikiProject Resource Exchange [18]. Axad12 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a follow-up to Marchjuly's post at the Resource Exchange, I'd be happy to share a full-text copy of the Orange County Register source via email with anyone who wants it. Just let me know! I don't have time to otherwise contribute to this AFD, so will leave that for others. DanCherek (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I received an email from DanCherek about a 1988 Orange Country Register article by John Rezell titled "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense" a few days ago in response to my WP:RX request. However, I wasn't sure if it would be OK to post the link here; so, I asked about it at WP:AN#COPYLINK question. I did look at the article and did come up with my own assessment of it, but the reason I didn't add to my "source assessment table" above was because I don't think it really qualifies as significant coverage to establish Wikipedia notability on its own. It certainly has value as a reliable source in support of certain article content, and it is about Bunasawa; however, it's mainly about his involvement in teaching elementary school students judo with some quotes and a bit of background as well. To me it seemed like a nice local interest story but not really a strong claim for Wikipedia notability. Given the tenor of the discussion at that time and that the article's creator had provided their own assessment, I didn't want to add mine to the table until I could also add a link to the article; so, that others can see and assess it for themselves. I also didn't offer to email the link to anyone else because it didn't come from me and I didn't want to do so without checking with DanCherek first. I've been trying to find some of the other articles mentioned above online somewhere but haven't had much success. I don't have a membership to newspapers.com and their may be some stuff there. Finally, my assessments of this offline source and the other sources in my source assessment table are just my assessments. It should go without saying that others can freely check those links and disagree with my assessments if they feel the need to do so. Others are also free to get the link that I got from DanCherek, but there are issues posting it on Wikipedia that you should be aware. DanCherek will probably explain these to you if you ask. Finally, there are various newly created accounts posting which would be considered WP:ILIKEIT type "keep" !votes at Talk:Nori Bunasawa and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nori Bunasawa. If someone wants to incoporate these !votes into this discussion, then please do. Since it appears that word of this AfD has probably been sent via text/email/social media/whatever to these other persons (I don't think their posts are a coincidence), it might also be a good idea to add {{Not a ballot}} to the top of this AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comments on DN27ND's sources Stating facts does not make coverage significant. Nobody has disputed he was a US team coach, though being a technical coach is less than being the head coach. When even appearing at the event as a competitor isn't sufficient to show WP notability, it's clear that coaching is even less likely to show notability--especially when the teams he was coaching won no medals. Coaching the IUP collegiate team is even less of a notability indicator (see WP:NCOLLATH). That's why many MMA fighters have been deleted, nobody disputed the facts but fight coverage, results, and databases are not considered sufficient to show significant coverage. I hope I am now finished with this topic. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I was able to find one of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND, but it's behind a paywall. Being behind a paywall doesn't mean it can't be used per WP:PAYWALL, but it does make it harder to verify.The source is as follows: "New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975 – via NewspaperArchive.In addition, I was able to find some other stuff: this 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times is about Bunaswa being a local business owner representing a group involved in a zoning dispute with the City of Costa Mesa that mentions he owns Judo Journal; this is 2017 The Freeman article is about Bunaswa teaching a seminar in the Philippines and describes him as "legendary"; this describes Bunaswa being inducted into a "Masters Hall of Fame" in 2000; this is a 1996 The New York Times article quotes Bunaswa about the performance of the Japanese men's judo team at the 1996 Summer Olympics as refers to him as the publisher of Judo Journal; and this June 1977 issue of Black Belt magazine has a picture of Bunasawa and states he was a "former All-Japan Collegiate Judo Champion" as part of a larger article about someone or something else, If you Google Bunasawa, you'll get lots of hits to various YouTube videos and other stuff, but I'm not sure how much of it rises to the level generally needed per WP:SIGCOV and how much is just trivial stuff as defined by the Wikipedia community.Many of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND like Rogers Daily News, Orange County Register and Indiana Evening Gazette are newspapers per se, but they seem to be more local/county publications with limited subscription bases that cater specifically to their particular areas. They might do lots of features on local residents or local businesses just because that's part of the niche they're trying to carve out. Such sources don't immediately jump out (in my opinion) as being significnt coverage. Finally, I don't think a valid claim of notability for Bunasawa can be made per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACTOR
or WP:NCREATIVE; so, it seems everything is riding on whether he meets WP:NSPORTS or perhaps maybe maybe WP:ANYBIO. Promotional tone or COI related issuses should be able to be sorted out if the consensus is that Bunasawa clearly meets WP:BASIC; however, no amount of cleaning up will matter per WP:OVERCOME if the consensus is that he doesn't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC); post edited. -- 11:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Many thanks for the sterling work above.
- I share your concerns about local newspapers. The journalists have a certain amount of space to fill and anything vaguely outside of the norm that they happen to hear about will get covered. Often the coverage ends up being because the subjects approached the papers concerned and nothing else happened that week. So, the fact that something was reported does not infer SIGCOV or notability.
- My vote is still for Delete. Axad12 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I might've of found another one of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND. It's referred to in the first collapsed section as being an article about one of Bunasawa's teen students using judo in self-defense against an assault. It's another one behind a paywall, but it's as follows: "Youth Says Judo 'Saved Life'". The Tustin News. May 27, 1982. p. 19 – via Newspapers.com. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I was able to find one of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND, but it's behind a paywall. Being behind a paywall doesn't mean it can't be used per WP:PAYWALL, but it does make it harder to verify.The source is as follows: "New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975 – via NewspaperArchive.In addition, I was able to find some other stuff: this 2002 article in the Los Angeles Times is about Bunaswa being a local business owner representing a group involved in a zoning dispute with the City of Costa Mesa that mentions he owns Judo Journal; this is 2017 The Freeman article is about Bunaswa teaching a seminar in the Philippines and describes him as "legendary"; this describes Bunaswa being inducted into a "Masters Hall of Fame" in 2000; this is a 1996 The New York Times article quotes Bunaswa about the performance of the Japanese men's judo team at the 1996 Summer Olympics as refers to him as the publisher of Judo Journal; and this June 1977 issue of Black Belt magazine has a picture of Bunasawa and states he was a "former All-Japan Collegiate Judo Champion" as part of a larger article about someone or something else, If you Google Bunasawa, you'll get lots of hits to various YouTube videos and other stuff, but I'm not sure how much of it rises to the level generally needed per WP:SIGCOV and how much is just trivial stuff as defined by the Wikipedia community.Many of the sources mentioned above by DN27ND like Rogers Daily News, Orange County Register and Indiana Evening Gazette are newspapers per se, but they seem to be more local/county publications with limited subscription bases that cater specifically to their particular areas. They might do lots of features on local residents or local businesses just because that's part of the niche they're trying to carve out. Such sources don't immediately jump out (in my opinion) as being significnt coverage. Finally, I don't think a valid claim of notability for Bunasawa can be made per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACTOR
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television#Current broadcasts. Despite the socking shenanigans, it looks like nobody here wants to keep this and there is no objection to the redirect as an ATD. Sandstein 16:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pukaar – Dil Se Dil Tak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here than deleting the page and redirecting, given that this is an ongoing tv show which satisfies WP:TV. Also I don't find any issues with the current sources of this article, only thing is that more WP:RS sources should be added. Editingmylove (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - With only 28 edits you may not be familiar with WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is what all of these references fall under. Nothing reliable to show notability. I would also say that a redirect wouldn't be a suitable WP:ATD based on the objection to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Sony_Entertainment_Television#Current_broadcasts: Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage. A redirect is not only suitable but should always be considered when production, cast and broadcast are verifiable, which the said coverage clearly allows. If someone objected to the redirect, it is most likely because they wished a standalone page, not on principled opposition to keep history and allow further improvement or expansion here or on the target page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG and does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. (Also fine with a redirect) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Adding a few references. I don't know if that helps WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetvshows (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I was the one that created the plot tab for the show and added stuff to it. I usually just fix the plot or the cast section in TV shows so I am not completely aware of why the deletion might be happening. I would like an explanation and if there is anything I can do to stop the deletion? Whothatwhothatwhothstboi (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging the relevent people @CNMall41 @Mushy Yank @Alien333 @Ilovetvshows. I think this conversation should be in the talk page Editingmylove (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. @Whothatwhothatwhothstboi: you may vote if you think the page should be retained (see the template in the corner of the page: how to contribute and deletion process). Ilovetvshows may !vote too. Adding sources certainly can help unless other users consider them not reliable/not independent and maybe someone should explain why most sources have been said to fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA when it does not concern websites or media that are considered generally unreliable (and that are simply not mentioned there), as, not only for newcomers, that might not be completely clear. The quantity of coverage added certainly means something, though. Bylined sources would be better, I guess. Maybe such as https://www.news18.com/entertainment/abhishek-nigam-is-part-of-sayli-salunkhes-pukaar-dil-se-dil-tak-8884431.html, which contains a paragraph that might pass for independent coverage. But I will leave it that as I don't wish to comment any further on the topic and maybe my !vote is clear enough (not opposed to keep- suggesting redirect as a useful compromise, alternative to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging the relevent people @CNMall41 @Mushy Yank @Alien333 @Ilovetvshows. I think this conversation should be in the talk page Editingmylove (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is opposition to Deletion although editors have not offered bolded Keep votes as they should. To the nominator, don't bring an article to AFD unless you are seeking a Deletion. Because that is often the outcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)- Liz, hello; you mean they have not offered bolded Keep, perhaps? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, I have changed my relisting statement. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, hello; you mean they have not offered bolded Keep, perhaps? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- List of Playboy Interviews (edit | talk | history | 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 is very incomplete, and only includes interview subjects for some years in the twentieth century, and none in the twenty-first century. The only sources are the Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared, so that there is no independent sourcing to establish list notability.
- Draftify as nominator. This might be a useful list article when completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article has been expanded and is in the process of being completed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, unless I am mistaken, you cast another !vote at the bottom of the page. Consider "unbolding" one of your "Keep", please, as you can't do that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. - Thanks. I interpreted the relisting as a division point. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, unless I am mistaken, you cast another !vote at the bottom of the page. Consider "unbolding" one of your "Keep", please, as you can't do that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The table is already well populated considering the task at hand and would only improve given more time to add content and additional references. The sources only being Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared makes good sense as the way to develop this article currently. Rockycape (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Incomplete is never a valid reason for deletion. Notability is though. I see The Rolling Stone Interview that mentions why the interview section is notable, then links to some interviews. Doesn't list all of them, which is odd, no selection criteria listed. Anyway, nothing else at Category:Interviews is like this. Are we going to list every magazine there is, and all the famous people they interviewed? Dream Focus 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of this magazine's interviews, several sources point out that the magazine's body of work has had the same cultural impact. Ref: (1) (2) (3). Other sources are cited in the article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I can see the great amount of work that @GimmeChoco44 has been doing. Dont see anuthing wrong here in temrs of notability either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:HARDWORK applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- “One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources” – as presented here [19] and here [20]. Meets WP:CSC and WP:LSC. I think we should keep the list as it gives a broader understanding of the topic. Repurpose is also okay for me. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:HARDWORK applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Strong keep; HEY, WP:NLIST applies. If we start deleting incomplete lists or articles, then the whole thing can go straight to the bin.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is an insignificant list that doesn't merit an article but is probably a violation of WP:PROMO. desmay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree with "insignificant" -- the influence of the "Playboy interview" is documented by many sources (some are cited in the list article). In addition to the comprehensive content of the interviews, the breadth of subjects (world leaders, entertainers, businessmen, athletes) is often cited as a benchmark for periodical journalism, and the list provides an overview without undue burden on the main Playboy article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary database. Some of these interviews didn't even happen and were mere copy-paste job. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is a wild and unsupported claim. Not only did these interviews happen, but the proof exists in both printed and digital sources, and the interviews are referenced by major sources such as Los Angeles Times and Associated Press. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Another unnecessary list that serves nobody but the most ardent fans. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NLIST is the focus of this discussion. Please check the update page content to see the multiple citations which fulfill this criteria. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- General comment: Since the essay about arguments to avoid was already cited, I will mention 2 other sections: Wikipedia:UNNECESSARY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most opinions are more or less respectable but guidelines should prevail and WP:NLIST is the applicable guideline.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on whether the article meets WP:NLIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: It seems clear to me that the subject has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources which is all that WP:NLIST requires. Refering to the nomination: one might at first glance get the impression that it's all primary sourcing, but once you actually look at it, that isn't true at all. I think this issue could be sovled by either using WP:REFGROUP or this being one of those few edge cases where ext links are prefered in the article body. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete We've had inclusionists push in that we need to include every single episode of a television talk show's run (see The Ellen DeGeneres Show#Episodes, whose reads are in the >800 views range each; who is still actively reading these articles three years after it ended?), and we should not be extending that consensus to magazine interviews. We should not be doing a job a company should be doing for themselves. Nate • (chatter) 23:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the difference between this list and the Ellen show is clear when looking at the amount of references by major media to the importance of the Playboy interview in popular culture. (Ex: Time, Billboard, Variety, CNN, among others) GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There are several citations cited in this article which support the notability of the Playboy interview. More examples will be added by other editors as the article continues to grow. The article fulfills the requirements of WP:NLIST in that it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", with examples from publications such as AP News, Los Angeles Times, Billboard, Slate, CNN, and multiple others. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It does meet the requirements, GimmeChoco44's references found prove that. Dream Focus 06:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Moreover,
114 revisions since 2024-07-21
-- we haven't even let the water fill in yet, we are throwing a baby out of an empty bathtub. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Samoa at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Boxing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lionel Elika Fatupaito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Boxing coach who tragically passed away at the Olympics. Article created after death and I cannot find any useful sources on him apart from news stories about his death. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: This seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Perhaps worth of a mention in the article about Plodzicki-Faoagali| when discussing his olympic performance, which no doubt this will have cast a shadow over. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Samoa at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Boxing for WP:ATD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Samoa at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Boxing - Agree. He was part of the delegation, and will have had his share in the Olympic boxing scene, too. Royalrec (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Oceania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bounce Back Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable IT consultancy, fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage from reliable sources found in a WP:BEFORE search. Referenced only by a press release posted to two websites. Borderline speedy WP:A7. Wikishovel (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. Wikishovel (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: "offers technology solutions " is so vague, pretty much any product could be described that way - there doesn't appear to be anything to say about this company. Only given sources are press releases. -- D'n'B-t -- 14:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: An article about a company, setting out their wares but without indication of encyclopaedic notability; nor does the partnership press release reference assist with this. Searchesare not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Datacopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm unable to find any independent coverage to indicate that either WP:CORP or WP:NSOFTWARE can be satisfied. SmartSE (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Czech Republic women's international footballers. ✗plicit 13:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Petra Taušová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to List of Czech Republic women's international footballers as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I found were Deník and iDNES (2004, 2011) – none of which cover Taušová in-depth. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Czech Republic. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. There seems to be a rough consensus against keeping the article as a standalone page, and no convincing argument against redirecting it to a relevant page. A discussion about what content, if any, to merge into the target is best left for the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- List of Doctor Who villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a directory. Purposeless list of often one-story characters from Doctor Who, with next to no attempt at secondary sourcing or justification of the notability of the group. U-Mos (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect per nom. WP:BEFORE can't WP:VERIFY most of the contents here. There are some sources for individual notable characters, but these are already covered better at their character articles. Sometimes a single character list is fine for navigation and context (which is the case for List of Doctor Who characters), per WP:ATD. But the premise for this list is flawed, and contains far too much unverifiable content for an additional list. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker: I expect more or less everything here can be WP:VERIFYed by primary sources, but on what basis did come to the conclusion that most of the contents cannot be verified by secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's no reliable definition of a villain without reliable secondary sources. Just to reiterate, this overlaps heavily with list of Doctor Who characters and this is an WP:AVOIDSPLIT situation. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker:
There's no reliable definition of a villain without reliable secondary sources.
So what do you think about the many secondary sources listed below which do apply the term villain, in general and to most if not all of the examples in our list here as it currently stands? And the content already referenced in the list now? - I am not specifically opposed to the WP:AVOIDSPLIT argument, but then why remain with the Delete !vote? Daranios (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm always in favor of consensus building, and if things start to lean towards merging, I am usually in favor. I am not currently convinced by questionable/situational sources (e.g.: valnet) and I see a lot of these characters are already covered in more standard character lists. I wouldn't oppose a merge and I appreciate editors such as yourself who can offer a compromise a solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker: Ok, in this case I would like to point out that there are also many secondary sources listed below which are not by Valnet and which to my knowledge are reliable, mostly books. The same is the case for all the referenced material currently in the article - no Valnet sources there. Daranios (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm always in favor of consensus building, and if things start to lean towards merging, I am usually in favor. I am not currently convinced by questionable/situational sources (e.g.: valnet) and I see a lot of these characters are already covered in more standard character lists. I wouldn't oppose a merge and I appreciate editors such as yourself who can offer a compromise a solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker:
- There's no reliable definition of a villain without reliable secondary sources. Just to reiterate, this overlaps heavily with list of Doctor Who characters and this is an WP:AVOIDSPLIT situation. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shooterwalker: I expect more or less everything here can be WP:VERIFYed by primary sources, but on what basis did come to the conclusion that most of the contents cannot be verified by secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge: I do see the issues with list, but as the topic clearly seems notable based on the secondary sources a WP:BEFORE search brings up, those issues all can be solved through normal editing are therefore not grounds for deletion: As for the purpose, this list can gather links to the Doctor Who villains notable in their own right for navigation, and collect a balanced amount of relevant information on characters who are not notable in their own right, in accordance with WP:CSC and the result of the earlier discussions (although these are quite old). Lacking references can be added from the existing secondary sources (and probably trimming some entries). As for justification and Wikipedia is not a directory, inclusion criteria can and should be phrased. And while tags are admittedly often not very effective, one month is a bit short for see if someone else would like to tackle the problem before bringing things to a deletion discussion. And AfD is not cleanup. And as always, if you see an issue, always consider to Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. All that said, I have no objection against a merge to List of Doctor Who characters, if a majority thinks this is the better way of presenting things for editorial reasons. A renaming away from List of Doctor Who supporting characters might then be in order, though. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll confess I didn't look at List of Doctor Who supporting characters before nominating - one thing at a time - but now I have, that too is hard to justify. What doesn't duplicate List of Doctor Who cast members and/or Companion (Doctor Who) is in-universe trivia. We can of course talk about adding in secondary material, but when there's nothing worth keeping at the present moment aren't we in WP:STARTOVER territory? And why is it worth preserving this structure when an alternative exists concurrently, and is far better maintained? U-Mos (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - The List of Doctor Who supporting characters would likely be the best Redirect/Merge target, as I did notice that the small handful of entries here that were not just one-shot Monster-of-the-Week type characters and were reoccurring characters linking to their own articles are also all listed on that page already. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now I was not at this point aware of List of Doctor Who cast members. I do not much care under what heading the information is presented, and if List of Doctor Who cast members and List of Doctor Who supporting characters should be merged, but the current format of List of Doctor Who cast members does not allow for adding additional information/commentary on characters without major overhaul. List of Doctor Who supporting characters does. With regard to Pokelego999's opinion, I do believe that the concept of "Villains" in Doctor Who is notable based on sources like The Humanism of Doctor Who. But if they should be presented separately or not is an editorial decision. I do not think that this is a case of WP:TNT, because while we are currently lacking secondary sources, I believe that most entries in the list will have such secondary sources. I have arbitrarily chosen to look for Axos and Helen A, I have right away found sources for both. In general I have made the experience that such a collected list, in a bad shape as it is, is a good starting point if one seriously wants to improve things. So I believe preserving it in one form or another is best. If someone performed a search for secondary sources on any specific character and came up empty, then that one can be removed. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first is a review, the second is from an unreliable source, and the third mentions Helen A once. Additionally, notability must be established with the group being a notable group of subjects, not by individual members having small amounts of coverage. The book source you've linked above is honestly pretty solid, but admittedly my main concern is with the overlap with the main characters list even if other sources are found. List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens has a lot of entries, but that's mostly alright because the list itself doesn't really have much viable overlap. The villains list is a majority of one offs who tend to fall into a supporting character role, or fall into the aliens list itself. There's some notable entities in there in terms of the series, but most of these could probably be included in the supporting characters list, with a subsection related to villain reception inside the article. The list obviously needs some work before that can happen, but it's 100% a feasible outcome with some editing that I'm fine with doing myself. I just don't see as visible a need for separation here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The first is a review
: I don't see a problem with that, as there is coverage of the character. Per WP:NOTPAPER it is also not a problem if things were covered at two place each with their respective different contexts, i.e. in the episode article if that exists, and in this overview list of villains or characters.the third mentions Helen A once
: Not only sentences where the name of the character appears are relevant. There is more commentary on references to Margaret Thatcher in Doctor Who more generally, which refer back to Helen A being such a reference. But even aside from that, the character being a commentary on real-world politics surely is fitting for an encyclopedic entry. And that that is in one sentence does not make it irrelevant, as here we are not talking about Helen A getting a stand-alone article, but that it is content exactly fitting for such a list with regard to WP:CSC.the second is from an unreliable source
: Right, sorry, I did not realize that at that time. But the point is that it was easy to find coverage, and that these three results are by no means the results of an exhaustive WP:BEFORE search. So I currently see the viewpoint that most entries here are not covered by secondary sources as unfounded, one just has to invest the time to properly search for the entries individually.notability must be established with the group
That is the case when consulting secondary sources such as the one I mentioned. I wonder how U-Mos came to a different conclusion.- So I still think keeping this list would be fine, but I also understand and am fine with a merge to a more general character list, seeing that this would solve the point raised by Svampesky of the somewhat fuzzy definition of villain. (Even though secondary source do use that term a lot!)
- Now that I have found and restored some sourced content formerly in the article and added some noe content to show that it exists, would you, Pokelego999, and anyone be willing to support a merge of such material as WP:AtD rather than pure delete/redirect?
- I would also be happy to further add such materials based on secondary sources if anyone who has voiced concerns with the current state of the article would like to team up. Daranios (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Notability of lists is based on the group, and that's my concern. Sources and secondary material can be added to episode articles and elsewhere as appropriate; what I'm not seeing is significant secondary material covering Doctor Who villains as a topic in its own right. I have at no point stated a belief that entries in this list are not the subjects of secondary coverage. U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @U-Mos:
Well, there is the already mentioned The Humanism of Doctor Who, and other early hits are The Best ‘Doctor Who’ Villains, Ranked and A World of Demons, a whole book dedicated to the villains of Doctor Who. More generally, the deletion process requires a WP:BEFORE search from the nominator, and to "demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth". Now the mandatory searches in Google, Google News and Google Books, as well as the optional one in Google Scholar produce a lot of hits. Can you please comment on why you think that nowhere in all of those is material to establish notability for the villains as a group?Daranios (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)- I'm finding your tone unconstructive so will not be engaging with this discussion any further. I'm glad that this proposal has spurred some work on improving the WikiProject, whatever its outcome may be. U-Mos (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @U-Mos: Sorry, I did not realize that. Please let me rephrase. You've mentioned you were concerned about the notability of the characters as a group, as required by WP:LISTN. What do you think about the coverage in The Humanism of Doctor Who, the web article The Best ‘Doctor Who’ Villains, Ranked and A World of Demons, a whole book dedicated to the villains of Doctor Who. I believe these contain enough to fullfill that requirement. What do you think of these? I believe there are even more secondary sources about that. In case you think these three are a start but not enough, I could look again. Thanks for letting me know. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The third source you listed seems solid, but the Mary Sue source is pretty weak. Not only does it include characters not included in the current list (Alien species such as the Daleks and Weeping Angels) but it does not give commentary as a group, only individual members in the list. It honestly compounds the issues with list overlap mentioned above, as this list overlaps with several different lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999: So where does that leave us? Are you happy with the two other sources, discounting the Mary Sue article? Would it change something if someone dug up more secondary sources on the villains as a group? Daranios (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do feel if you can prove notability as a group, you've got a strong argument for keeping the article. I still believe it's better off merged, but I definitely believe that if you can dig up sources you can probably sway the argument towards keep. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999: So where does that leave us? Are you happy with the two other sources, discounting the Mary Sue article? Would it change something if someone dug up more secondary sources on the villains as a group? Daranios (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The third source you listed seems solid, but the Mary Sue source is pretty weak. Not only does it include characters not included in the current list (Alien species such as the Daleks and Weeping Angels) but it does not give commentary as a group, only individual members in the list. It honestly compounds the issues with list overlap mentioned above, as this list overlaps with several different lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @U-Mos: Sorry, I did not realize that. Please let me rephrase. You've mentioned you were concerned about the notability of the characters as a group, as required by WP:LISTN. What do you think about the coverage in The Humanism of Doctor Who, the web article The Best ‘Doctor Who’ Villains, Ranked and A World of Demons, a whole book dedicated to the villains of Doctor Who. I believe these contain enough to fullfill that requirement. What do you think of these? I believe there are even more secondary sources about that. In case you think these three are a start but not enough, I could look again. Thanks for letting me know. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm finding your tone unconstructive so will not be engaging with this discussion any further. I'm glad that this proposal has spurred some work on improving the WikiProject, whatever its outcome may be. U-Mos (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @U-Mos:
- Notability of lists is based on the group, and that's my concern. Sources and secondary material can be added to episode articles and elsewhere as appropriate; what I'm not seeing is significant secondary material covering Doctor Who villains as a topic in its own right. I have at no point stated a belief that entries in this list are not the subjects of secondary coverage. U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now I was not at this point aware of List of Doctor Who cast members. I do not much care under what heading the information is presented, and if List of Doctor Who cast members and List of Doctor Who supporting characters should be merged, but the current format of List of Doctor Who cast members does not allow for adding additional information/commentary on characters without major overhaul. List of Doctor Who supporting characters does. With regard to Pokelego999's opinion, I do believe that the concept of "Villains" in Doctor Who is notable based on sources like The Humanism of Doctor Who. But if they should be presented separately or not is an editorial decision. I do not think that this is a case of WP:TNT, because while we are currently lacking secondary sources, I believe that most entries in the list will have such secondary sources. I have arbitrarily chosen to look for Axos and Helen A, I have right away found sources for both. In general I have made the experience that such a collected list, in a bad shape as it is, is a good starting point if one seriously wants to improve things. So I believe preserving it in one form or another is best. If someone performed a search for secondary sources on any specific character and came up empty, then that one can be removed. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll confess I didn't look at List of Doctor Who supporting characters before nominating - one thing at a time - but now I have, that too is hard to justify. What doesn't duplicate List of Doctor Who cast members and/or Companion (Doctor Who) is in-universe trivia. We can of course talk about adding in secondary material, but when there's nothing worth keeping at the present moment aren't we in WP:STARTOVER territory? And why is it worth preserving this structure when an alternative exists concurrently, and is far better maintained? U-Mos (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Allright, we already have two uncontested secondary sources covering the villains as a group. Another one is Regeneration - The Changing Style of Doctor Who: An Unofficial and Unauthorised Analysis: It discusses the various eras of Doctor Who and each time discusses the villains and monsters for that era. So overall a lot of treatment of the villains as a group, sectioned into production eras, i.e. a real-world related framework. Another one is Tarnished Heroes, Charming Villains and Modern Monsters: Science Fiction in Shades of Gray on 21st Century Television, which dedicates chapter 10 to Doctor Who. I can only see a few pages of this chapter, but those already show that villains there are discussed as a group, as well as relevant ones individually. @Svampesky: You might be interested to see that this source discusses villainous traits of the Doctor on p. 218-219. (The complete guide for Doctor Who TV Series fans has relevant treatment of the villains as a group, but looks very dubious. I assume that this is not a reliable source, but it would be interesting to get additional input one way or another.) A critical history of Doctor Who on television takes an episode-by-episode approach and has no one global discussion of villains, but has at various places commentary on Doctor Who villains as a group, like on p. 248, 312, 320. "Political Satire and British-American Relations in Five Decades of Doctor Who" deals with the villains' relationship to real-world politics. So in my view this non-exhaustive list of secondary sources makes very clear that a prose article on the topic of "Doctor Who villains" could be written and WP:LISTN is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yeah, and there is also this web news article which not so much discusses the villains as a group, but is a secondary source which just sees fit to collect all of them (as of the date of publication). This should also allow to WP:VERIFY almost all currently uncited information here, including the status of the entries as "villains", without recourse to primary sources or original research. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect per nom, whatever works best. I've meaning to take action on this list for some time, and was planning to start a merge discussion once I finished my work at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Most of the characters in here are one-offs easily redirectable to their target article, as I don't believe the concept of "Villains" is really independently notable from the main character list. The main character list is, for all intents and purposes, complete shit, and was on my to-do list for a rewrite. I do plan to work on the list eventually and improve it, but I believe the recurring villains can be safely merged to the main list while one offs can be redirected to their parent article. I'd be happy to handle individual character redirects should this article be merged, redirected, or what have you. Should the supporting characters list be decided as the target, I'd be fine with shifting my priorities to rewriting the character list to be actually useful if editors feel that would more greatly beneficial than doing the aliens list, as I already have a draft started in my userspace for a rewrite, because per nom, that list is very much in Wikipedia:STARTOVER territory. In any case, I see no reason this article should exist, and if sources spring up to determine separate notability, the Villains list would require a complete rewrite akin to the aliens list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fitting for Fandom at best. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Inadequately sourced and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. The list is entirely subjective in defining what constitutes a 'villain', which borders on original research. For instance, doesn't the titular character of the show (who is not included in the list) eliminate entire species? That seems rather villainous. Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. Svampesky (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Svampesky: You are referring to WP:NOTTARDIS. So what about the content where secondary sources can be found, as that essay asks us to do, and the content where they already have been found and added? Daranios (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Svampesky: I'd be happy to work together and improve this in some form (merge?) or another, if it were not summarily deleted. Daranios (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Svampesky: You are referring to WP:NOTTARDIS. So what about the content where secondary sources can be found, as that essay asks us to do, and the content where they already have been found and added? Daranios (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per all. There is already a problematic List of Doctor Who robots, List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, and List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs, in addition to the main List of Doctor Who supporting characters. Wikipedia does not support random compilations invented by editors; Wikipedia articles need to be justified in reliable third-party sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, largely unsourced and so subject to WP:NPOV issues - especially with entries like the Bogeyman, where as well as being listed as a villain there's a note saying it's no longer a villain by the end of the episode. Doctor Who is not Batman, and doesn't have or need a 'rogues gallery' in the same sense. The key villains (Daleks, Cybermen, etc) already have their own articles and are more than adequately covered. As others have noted, this is not the only list of Doctor Who characters, so it seems there's a lot of unnecessary duplication and segregation that will need to be looked at.
- JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will note that List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens has a very strong keep rationale (Meets LISTN and was proven notable in its last AfD). Supporting Characters is likely notable for the same reasons, but needs to be entirely reworked. Spin-off companions can probably be merged back to the main article (Companion (Doctor Who)) while Robots is iffy but I have seen significant coverage for in several books. Could potentially be merged with the aliens article but it'd depend on how much coverage there is tbh. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, because it can be considered a WP:SPLITLIST from List of Doctor Who characters; and/or because the topic as a set has been discussed (https://www.space.com/doctor-who-villains-ranked-worst-to-best ; https://www.cbr.com/doctor-who-villains-ranked/, https://collider.com/doctor-who-modern-villains-best-ranked/ https://www.thegamer.com/doctor-who-best-villains-list/ https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-villains-monsters-most-appearances/ https://movieweb.com/doctor-who-best-villains-from-the-modern-era-ranked/ https://movieweb.com/doctor-who-underrated-villains-more-respect/ https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-classic-villains-return-after-toymaker/ https://www.scifiscience.co.uk/drwho/drwho_badguys.html and so on, ....) which is the requirement for lists (WP:NLIST. A redirect and merge is anyway warranted imv, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- These lists don't really contain discussion as a group, though. The list needs a valid split rationale and the above sources aren't really doing it since they don't discuss the subjects as a group. These sources mention them being in a group, but only discusses them as individuals, not as a group. Additionally, many of them are Valnet, which don't contribute to notability. For an example of sources valuable for building Reception and a split reason, consider the book sources Daranios found above, which contain hefty discussion of the subject as a group.
- Unrelated, but what does imv mean? I haven't seen that abbreviation before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "in my view". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, when you make a list of the 10 best villains or the most underrated ones, and so on, your approach of the set is collective. It is not possible to have an even collective appraisal of a list without considering the items it consists of. A list is not a mass of unquantifiable mud. As for split rationale, WP:SPLITLIST is very clear: size and navigation matter because this is an online encyclopaedia. I had seen the books mentioned above but thanks for mentioning them again as yet another reason for keeping this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many of these lists don't contribute to notability, and additionally, those that do don't actually say anything about the concept of a villain in Doctor Who. They simply list several, which focuses more on them individually. Let's go through the ones you posted:
- Ignoring CBR and Screen Rant, I'm going to assume the other sources here are reliable for the sake of discussion, though I lack familiarity with Space.com and MovieWeb.
- -TheGamer gives a brief two paragraphs of plot summary at the start before going into individual coverage of the top ten. Another thing to note is that of this top ten, only three of these do not overlap with List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (The Toymaker, The Master, The Family of Blood)
- -Space.com briefly summarizes the show for the first few paragraphs, and merely touches on the antagonists as existing in the latter two. Again, only three don't overlap with the aliens list (The Master, Torchwood, and the Gas Mask People.)
- -The two MovieWeb sources have the same issues as the two above. The first again only has three without overlap (The Master, the Family of Blood, The Beast) and while the second does a little bit better, it still is only covering these entities individually, and many of the individual entities are one off members of specific species that can be, if not already covered, at the creatures list.
- -I frankly have no clue what "Sci-Fi Science" is but this site is not a significant coverage source. This is just a list of every vaguely antagonistic figure with a brief bit of plot summary explaining who they are. Many of these are iffy in terms of their "villainy" as well (Such as Aggedor, a character who is literally just a wild animal who has helped the main protagonist on several occasions in the past).
- -Collider's small bit, I'll give them credit for, is potentially usable, unlike the others, but it's still just the usual "two paragraph lead-in" and I wouldn't count it as significant for the whole group. Again, there are only four entries without overlap (The Empty Child, Maestro, The Master, the Toymaker).
- Each of these lists has significant overlap with the aliens list (Since many of these antagonists are aliens) and many of them even outright discuss aliens in terms of the antagonist role (Such as TheGamer and Space.com). The few entities that aren't covered on the aliens list can easily be ported over to the supporting characters list, and if there is significant coverage of some of the one offs that got a lot of attention (Like the Gas Mask People or Family of Blood) they can be covered there too. My problem, again, is that not only is actual coverage of the group weak, but the actual subject matter is far more logical merged than anything else because it overlaps with the other lists in significant contexts. Unless you can find actual significant coverage about the subject of villains in Doctor Who, then all this does is prove further how heavy the overlap is with the other two lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- And yes, when you make a list of the 10 best villains or the most underrated ones, and so on, your approach of the set is collective. It is not possible to have an even collective appraisal of a list without considering the items it consists of. A list is not a mass of unquantifiable mud. As for split rationale, WP:SPLITLIST is very clear: size and navigation matter because this is an online encyclopaedia. I had seen the books mentioned above but thanks for mentioning them again as yet another reason for keeping this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "in my view". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999:
Unless you can find actual significant coverage about the subject of villains in Doctor Who
We did discuss further sources further up, though, didn't we?but the actual subject matter is far more logical merged than anything else
But then why remain with the "Delete" !vote? Daranios (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- Only two sources that were considerably, guaranteed notable, which isn't enough for a whole article. As for my vote, I personally feel it's better off deleted with the redirection of content handled editorially, as trying to decide new targets and merged content here would clutter discussion. (Additionally, the current lists' merged content for aliens is already there while the supporting characters list itself needs an overhaul before content can be improved, which I have volunteered to undertake should it be deemed for the best) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999:
- Delete. Irrespective of possible notability as a topic, this content fails WP:NOTPLOT, WP:V. An encyclopedic treatment of the topic would present the villains in a real-world context (e.g. are there any Soviet analogs, as the Klingons were in Star Trek?), based on reliable sources. Sandstein 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: So what about the currently present referenced content on fan reception, production, and "literary" commentary, brief as it might be? Daranios (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- What little encyclopedic prose content there is would fit better into the existing articles about the respective characters or episodes. Otherwise, deleting all the superfluous or unsourced entries, we'd be left with a list of like four entries. Sandstein 16:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: So what about the currently present referenced content on fan reception, production, and "literary" commentary, brief as it might be? Daranios (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suhka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former village in Estonia. No backlinks. Estopedist1 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- comment This is in fact the Suhka Tourist Farm (the coords are slightly off, which is common for GNS). No idea whether there was more a village back when, and I leave notability to others. In the US this probably wouldn't pass WP:NCORP. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Former (tiny) village, disestablished in 1997 and reestablished as two populated villages (Ala-Suhka and Mäe-Suhka). Very few sources for much information on the former village. Although WP:NPLACE states that even abandoned places "can be notable": Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. Fails any sort of WP: GNG IMO. ExRat (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPathtalk 11:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Villawood railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
8 out of 9 of the references (one of the items listed as a reference out of 10 is not a reference, but a note) are primary sources. The remaining source does not provide WP:SIGCOV. In a WP:BEFORE I found a lot of hits with passing mentions but nothing with SIGCOV. TarnishedPathtalk 07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. TarnishedPathtalk 07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I've found some more sources from the National Library's archive of printed newspapers in regards to roughly the time period in which the station was built: 1954 The Biz article, 1929 The Biz article, 1955 The Broadcaster article, 1928 Sydney Morning Herald article. Fork99 (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. I would also note that it is locally heritage listed, which clearly contributes to its notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp, WP:NBUILD states that
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability
. However, I've not been able to find any significant in-depth coverage. Even the sources that @Fork99 dug up don't demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. If any source are provided demonstrating SIGCOV, in reliable, third-party sources, I would happily withdraw this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp, WP:NBUILD states that
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The station is heritage-listed. We normally keep buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in the United States and its counterparts in other countries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not especially familiar with Australian heritage listing, but I think this is locally listed rather than on the national or even state register (although I'm happy to be proved wrong on this). However, it clearly contributes to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: The link above is for the NSW State Heritage Inventory, so it is state-listed by the NSW Government. Fork99 (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not so sure this is the case, as it says "Fairfield Local Environment Plan". The State Heritage Inventory appears to include sites that are locally listed as well as those that are state listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: The link above is for the NSW State Heritage Inventory, so it is state-listed by the NSW Government. Fork99 (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not especially familiar with Australian heritage listing, but I think this is locally listed rather than on the national or even state register (although I'm happy to be proved wrong on this). However, it clearly contributes to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. Please nominate more carefully! Every debate is time people do not spend in the article space. gidonb (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, KEEP. History is vital; WP enhances the vitality. Left Central (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given the above discussion I'm going to withdraw this nomination, closing as Speedy Keep. I was aware of the heritage listing, but didn't think it was enough for notability given how easy it can be for ALL buildings which fall into specific architectural styles (e.g. Brutalist, see here for an example) to find themselves with heritage listings in some places in Australia. The above discussion demonstrates a consensus which indicates that I was incorrect. TarnishedPathtalk 11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Push Interactions (edit | talk | history | 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 the notability guideline for companies. Previous AfD was reference bombed by the founder, who did not disclose his conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 07:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. – Teratix ₵ 07:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources are mostly from some financial group. No RSes I could find. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find any independent reliable sources. Felicia (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per Felicia and nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- AUBEA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Only primary sources provided. I also searched under full name "Australasian Universities Building Education Association", and only got a primary source. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: as A7. Completely fails NCORP. No credible claim of significance. C F A 💬 02:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, LibStar. Cabrils (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Widescreen Mode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: If it's notable enough for Finnish Wikipedia, it's notable enough for the English one. Matter of fact, the Finnish article has sources that can be ported with proper translations to the English article. That Article Editing Guy (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is not how the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines work. Regardless, I don't think the sources on the Finnish page demonstrate notability per WP:GNG: one is a press release, three of them are links to music charts, and the last is the band's Facebook page. However, they may qualify through WP:MUSICBIO, criterion 2. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: There are sources in the corresponding Finnish Wikipedia denoting notability which can be used to expand the article. Requires work though, but certainly not unnotable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion regarding how coverage in specific sources contribute towards notability would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not sure what the above voters are referring to on the Finnish article. There are 5 sources, all of which don't count towards notability. I've included one additional source (blabbermouth.net) I managed to find below:
- Even if we count blabbermouth.net as significant coverage, that is only one source that counts towards GNG. Yes, they could meet WP:NBAND because they charted on Finland's national chart, but there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article. At the moment, most of the article is unsourced original research. Charting does not mean a band is inherently notable or has to be kept; it just means there is usually enough coverage to write an article. C F A 💬 02:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per this. Ping me if something changes but these sources do not appear to contribute towards enough GNG for an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.