Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 17

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 16 December 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bigel

edit
Alan Bigel (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)

Looks to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Previous prod in 2018 Carver1889 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAB TV Pakistan

edit
SAB TV Pakistan (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)

Minor channel, completely unsourced, I didn't find adequate sources demonstrating notability per WP:BEFORE, only trivial mentions and routine announcements, e.g., 1 (this might be an Indian instead of Pakistan version, though I'm unsure), 2. I purpose a redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan (note:my previous WP:BLAR was contested). VickKiang (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath Oblivion

edit
Beneath Oblivion (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 appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for almost 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Complex/Rational 21:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laureta Temaj

edit
Laureta Temaj (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 GNG with very little coverage aside from routine match reports. Avilich (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Tanzanians

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

Procedural nomination. There was RfD consensus in 2020 to restore this article and not have it redirect to Demographics of Tanzania, which does not mention white Tanzanians. Several editors have nonetheless attempted to restore the redirect, contrary to that consensus, and have declined to take it to AfD as is the correct procedure; thus I am bringing it here without an opinion of my own. Courtesy pings @Rsk6400, Scope creep, Thryduulf, and Narky Blert:. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have restored Whites in Tanzania as a retarget to the article in issue, and not to Demographics of Tanzania, in accordance with the 2020 RfD; it had become a WP:DOUBLEREDIRECT. If this article goes, a bot should sweep up the dangling redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egzona Zeka

edit
Egzona Zeka (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. Avilich (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aimo Vartiainen

edit
Aimo Vartiainen (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 olympian Avilich (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While offline and non-English sources would be sufficient, hypothetical ones do not count. A quick search of the Finnish National Archive's newspaper archive (incl. the papers still under copyright) only really shows a bunch of passing mentions in routine sports coverage. The Lapin Kansa story is good, but one source does not multiple (WP:NBASIC/WP:SPORTBASIC) make. The single para at ski.fi doesn't change that calculus much. If someone can locate another good source (along the lines of Lapin Kansa in depth, I'd happily change my !vote, but as it is now, I don't see this reaching notability. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find that Vartiainen is discussed from page 202 to 235 of the 1969 Finnish book "Suomen hiihdon historia 1886-1968" (History of Finnish Skiing 1886-1968) - I can only access the index, however. If someone has a nearby Finnish library, perhaps they could advise if the coverage is sufficient? Still looking. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another in-depth article, here, in the tabloid Iltalehti. A passing mention here also says he was Finland's first Olympic alpine skier, FWIW. Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a copy of Suomen hiihdon historia 1886-1968 in the stacks of the city library nearby, I'll try to take a look tomorrow but can't promise anything.
The Iltalehti article seems long enough. Good finds. I'll change my !vote to neutral for now and revise after getting access to that book. Ljleppan (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are two rather lengthy newspaper sources, and a smattering of smaller sources. I took out the Suomen hiihdon historia 1886-1968 book, and while it doesn't contain extensive prose about the subject, it adds to the pile of shorter references. It's a bit borderline, but I'm leaning keep at the moment. For the reference, here's the gist of what Suomen hiihdon historia says:
  • p202: Won Finnish slalom championship (youth) 1944
  • p208: Won Finnish slalom championship (youth) 1947
  • p217: top-3 in slalom at Lahti Ski Games 1949; Top-4, perhaps 1st (it's a bit unclear) at fi:Puijon hiihtokilpailut that same year.
  • p223: 2nd in men's slalom, 1951 (I understood this to mean the Finnish championship, but the book refuses to explicitly say these things)
  • p235: pictured, described as one of the two best Finns in slalom in 1950s. The other one pictured (also referred to as top-2) is Pentti Alonen.
  • p327 (table): 3rd in men's slalom in 1948 and 1949 in Finnish ski championship ("Suomen hiihtomestaruuskilpailut")
Perhaps someone can integrate that into the article. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan: Thanks for the summary, it will probably bulk up on the career facts. I may have time to work on the article later today and see how it looks incorporating the sources found. Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pentti Uusihauta

edit
Pentti Uusihauta (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 olympian Avilich (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The fi.wp sources are not great. Based on the name, the Siukkonen book (Urheilukunniamme puolustajat – Suomen olympiaedustajat 1906–2000) sounds like it contains a short description of literally every olympic athlete in Finnish history. It might be fine, but I'd expect it to be a rather short entry. The Tilastopaja website (again, based on the name: transl. "statistics hut" or something like that) is presumably just stats. A search of the Finnish National Archive's newspaper archive doesn't surface much of interest. This article by Hufvudstadsbladet and this article from Helsingin Sanomat (both still under copyright, so access only with a researcher account) are a good examples: a few hits for the name, but the content is just your bog-standard sports event coverage without going to the subject in any real detail. There might be additional sourcing, but we generally disregard hypothetical sourcing in these discussions. Please ping me if further sources are identified, and I'll happily reconsider. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with the possibility of it being merged into Twitter suspensions or another broader-scope article in the future.

Well, that was a lot to read! In terms of numbers, the most common position in the discussion was Keep, and there was also a very substantial contingent for Merge. Overall, despite a strong Delete contingent early in the discussion, most participants did not want this material to be completely deleted. (The semi-protection of this page a few hours in probably impacted that.)

With that said, AfD closure is not just about counting; the strength and policy-relevance of the arguments also matters. However, that doesn't change the result. Looking at policy relevance actually weakens the Delete side, as quite a few comments were transparently motivated by off-wiki sociopolitical concerns, some to the point that I just wrote "non-policy" when making my notes on the discussion. There was some of this on the Keep side also, but it seemed to be about twice as common among the Deletes. The real battle for argumentative superiority was between the Keep and Merge positions. The typical Merge position took account of the WP:NOTNEWS concerns of the Deleters, but also recognized that there is plenty of significant coverage to justify having some content about this on Wikipedia. However, there was less agreement about where a merge might be appropriate, and concern about how much material should be merged, with several Merge commenters emphasizing their desire that it be a limited amount of material. These divergences weakened the case for a Merge consensus, and Merge overall had fewer supporters than Keep, even with second choices taken into account. (Perhaps if more Delete commenters had supported Merge as an alternative, it would have pulled ahead, but only a few of them did that.) About a dozen Keep commenters did add some version of "for now", indicating that a merge should be considered later when there is more perspective on the place of this event in the bigger picture. Some others argued specifically against a merge, saying there is enough content to justify a WP:SPLIT of a subtopic. (The best single comment to read about Keep vs. Merge is the relatively thorough analysis of User:Vanilla Wizard.) Based on all of that, I'm closing as Keep, with an extra note about the future possibility of a merge. RL0919 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions

edit
December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

WP:10YT, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NOTDIARY etc. this should be a single sentence on the Wikipedia page of Twitter or so rather than a bloated mess based on "breaking news" articles. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC) addendum: cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gosar Twitter video incident for discussion and consensus/decision on a similar incident. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It has sustained coverage among crazy people. This is obvious much bigger if for no other reason than the fact that the people that got banned get to write stories about it in major outlets. Volunteer Marek 20:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Politico, New York Times, NPR, New York Magazine, etc. Yup, only crazy people have provided sustained coverage of Twitter Files. schetm (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You referenced sustained coverage. Those outlets reported on it when it first happened. Now? It’s just wacky ass conspiracy sites that can’t let it go for the most part. Volunteer Marek 21:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's happened again today and has been reported on, it's at least 3 days worth of coverage now. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe internal documents regarding actual administrative decisions are markedly more important than some suspensions. Wikipedia is (whether intentional or not) blowing the issue way out of proportion, as are other news media sites. 108.51.103.205 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coordinated attacks on journalists (changing the rules to make them in breach of sharing...publicly available information) and consequently also the foundations of democracy on a major global platform seems to be....important enough to talk about. 69.159.86.214 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coordinated attacks? This entire event was just Musk having an outburst. As of right now, both Spaces(which were removed ostensibly because he was being criticized in them) and the accounts have been restored. In two weeks people will have moved on. 108.51.103.205 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All the accounts have been reinstated. What are you on about? 175.136.139.226 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please discuss the article to be deleted, citing why it doesn't follow wikipedia policies. We aren't here to discuss one another's point of view or why it's right or wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the banned accounts have *not* been reinstated, which is precisely why having a high quality, fact-based record of the event is important and in the public interest. There are a number of people on either/any/all sides who would bend the truth to fit their narrative. Wikipedia should help inform people in as neutral a manner as possible.--Fogsparrow (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On one hand, we get to see exactly how top-level executives of a large social media platform deliberate content moderation, that also their interactions with government officials and bodies. The public has never seen such detail of this context ever. On the other hand, temp suspensions that are attributable to extreme incompetence; the kind of mass suspensions we've seen Twitter do pre- and post-Elon. Explain how the latter is more important than the former. 175.136.139.226 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More for the fact that it was decided by Corporate Twitter before hand, and not by one man pulling the strings so openly, that's the issue here as I see it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a whole we need all editors to not rush to create articles just because something gets wide coverage. A burst of coverage is not the same as enduring notability, and we want editors to write as if 10 years have passed and focus on the salient points and key outcomes, not the "juicy details" particularly when it comes to a ideological conflict in the AP2 area. Certainly this incident with the journalist, barring any actual sanctions from the EU, is a newsblip. The Twitter Files are close to being a news blip too and probably should be merged as well. Masem (t) 23:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be distinct enough from Twitter Files and clearly has a lot of coverage. This may need reconsidering in a few years, WP:10YEARS. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Self-promotion for a group of non-notable journalists trying to turn themselves into a story. No one will remember this in a week.Pinchofhope (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s obviously enough reliable sources in the article *right now* (more will probably be added over time) to falsify your crystal-ballin’ Volunteer Marek 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out there. It's going to have to meet WP:GCSD or WP:ACSD. I think you meant strong delete? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes change that to Strong delete. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reporters are from NYT, CNN, Washington Post, the Intercept, and Business Insider (among others). These are some of the most notable journalism outlets in the world.--Fogsparrow (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google says these companies have a total of 6,960 journalist/reporters (1,700 4,000 1,050 60 150) meaning this event impacted 0.1% of those working in 'some of the most notable journalism outlets'.
I hear layoffs in the thousands are imminent for Washington Post, CNN, NYT...
Given the apparent notability, should pages be created documenting each of these events? Even though the impact on media will be immeasurably greater I still say no, keep it to the respective company pages. EatingFudge (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a layoff of thousands of journalists from the most prominent outlets in the United States deserves to be documented on Wikipedia. Given that different actors would be responsible for the layoffs in your hypothetical scenario, documenting the events on the page for their respective companies seems appropriate. It would make little sense to distribute this story to a dozen different pages, given the central actor is a single entity: Elon Musk / Twitter. That being said, this is all beside the point, since your scenario hasn't happened; even if it did, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
You're shifting the goalposts from "these are not notable journalists" to "there weren't enough affected." By your logic, 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea shouldn't exist. Fogsparrow (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, “I think this article is left wing activism (sic)” wtf that is suppose to be, is not a valid reason for deletion. Come on. You’ve been here ostensibly since 2005. You should know that. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTACTIVISM? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, please actually read the bulletin points in that and then also realize that this has nothing to do with notability. You can’t just say “I think this is activism!” without substantiating it and expect to be taken seriously. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and possibly WP:NOR 108.51.103.205 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, how does a brand new IP account with 3 edits know about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOR (answer: either banned user or people on twitter are instructing twitter users how to vote here and what reasons to give) Volunteer Marek 21:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree IP is likely canvassed, you have got to agf. Maybe 108 actually read the ridiculous amount of policies and guidelines before voting, as Wikipedia usually expects them to. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right! 108.51.103.205 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, but to answer your question, I've lurked the more technical aspects of wikipedia for a while, but never got into editing. This is an interesting topic to me, so I've decided to comment. If my commenting annoys you or you think "twitter is sending people", I'd recommend getting some fresh air. 108.51.103.205 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially considering the amount of international backlash it's recieving, with the European Commission musing over whether to sanction Musk for suppressing the free press.Elishop (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it should be kept, or the entire article should be merged into the Twitter, Acquisition by Elon Musk page. SomhlthSmith (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge content to Twitter suspensions per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTALBALL, with no prejudice against recreation if something of enduring notability ends up developing from this. I personally think that articles ought to have a little time to breathe before being AfD'd, which this one got. At the time of its creation, the suspensions were claimed to have been permanent; instead, it seems that all of the journalists were unsuspended quite quickly after Elon realized this was dumb. That is, Matt Binder (@mattbinder), Drew Harwell (@drewharwell), Steven L. Herman (@W7VOA), Micah Lee (@micahflee), Ryan Mac (@rmac18), Donie O'Sullivan (@donie), Keith Olbermann (@keitholbermann), and Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) have been unsuspended; the only exception is Linette Lopez (@lopezlinette). One person being suspended from Twitter is not really notable, unless it is the President or something. Linette Lopez is not the President. Eight people (many of them below the threshold of notability) being suspended from Twitter for one day is not notable, and it's barely even newsworthy -- if these people didn't work for newspapers, I highly doubt that newspapers would have written about it. Note that, for example, one of the sources for Micah Lee's suspension is... an article written by Micah Lee. Other things (like the banning of mastodon.social) links may prove significant in the future, but even so, it's hard to justify having a standalone article about them. While I am personally annoyed when websites ban people for stupid reasons, this has been a fairly regular occurrence for quite some time, and I don't think there is anything particularly distinctive about this event that makes it stand out from, say, the existing list article at Twitter suspensions. jp×g 21:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have no ill will for the creator of the article; at the time, there was no way of telling which direction things were going to go. Sometimes things end up being the start of something huge, and sometimes they don't. Anybody who's tried to write about current breaking-news events on Wikipedia get burned sooner or later; I know I sure have! jp×g 22:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clearly notable in existing context. Seeing lots of brigading here by folks who are being pushed to vote by a subject of the article (Musk), which argues in favor of keeping to ensure we are not sockpuppeted into making deletion decisions we shouldn't make. Secarctangent (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have for your claims? 72.79.45.22 (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...what's my evidence that non-wikipedians are brigading this, asked the non-logged-in IP address? Kinda answers itself. Secarctangent (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, absolutely. This is going to have a very much lasting effect on Twitter and Elon Musk. We have no obligation to hide any negative but highly notable info about Musk and his company. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying they are considering sanctions, and actually placing sanctions, are two very different things. One falls into CRYSTAL territory which we do not consider contributing to notability. Masem (t) 23:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is one of those NOTNEWS scenarios. No lasting effects. Also there are people commenting here about the Twitter Files delete discussion which is irrelevant OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Sorry I’m not linking to the actual pages here I’m on a phone. Anyways delete Nweil (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "Thursday Night Massacre"... really, who dubbed this as a relevant event with such a pompous, absurd name? As if comparing this to the Kristallnacht. Totally out of mind. Okay, now seriously - would be extremely embarrassing to have something like this here. It reeks of pure activism, amplified by absurd magnitudes. It's not even a relevant event per se, given that these journalists have been temporarily suspended and are now back up. Should suffice as fundamental reason to delete this mess. Other reasons WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRYSTALBALL but I could add up more. Please be mindful that once again people are looking closely at Wikipedia and its editors... this definitely looks more like a partisan crusade of politically leaning zealots more than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.32.3.24 (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another brand new account citing Wikipedia policies like a pro. I.e., someone coming over from twitter after being instructed how to vote and what to say. Volunteer Marek 21:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a copy-pasted or otherwise "cached" comment given that it was moved, and is no longer called "Thursday Night massacre".
    I am inclined to agree with Volunteer Marek regarding what's happening here. CharredShorthand (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page still contains the phrase, based on a Intercept source. as an aside, I was like 50% sure the "Thursday Night Massacre" was made up some 4chan type troll to mock the journalists. but whatever the origin, it has now been used by one of the journalists themselves, writing for the Intercept. quite embarassing for them, but I don't think Wikipedia should be blamed for this, if it wasn't the original source. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the editor that re-edited-in the "Thursday Night Massacre" name as it was mentioned in multiple articles, some of which are linked as sources. While I also find the name somewhat extreme (though I strongly disagree with you implying it is supposed to sound similar to Reichspogromnachts. It's clearly a reference to Saturday Night Massacre), WP:NPOV takes precedence-- it's what's reported, it's what it's referred to as by some, and as such it felt appropriate to include that in the article. Aveaoz (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Volunteer Marek I would highlight that not having a registered account on WP doesn't mean I'm not a periodic Wiki contributor. The fact that I don't register is a non-sequitur in your reasoning and you can't imply that I'm "just another 'someone' coming from Twitter". That's ostensibily fallacious. Moreover, even if it were the case (and I should overstate it's not), you should be glad that users get involved and interested about the process, getting closer to Wikis communal, open decision-making process (it's open and public, as it's meant to be). And finally, regarding my initial remark, let me add that having had distant relatives that have gone through the 40s persecution, I feel indignant and aghast, about the obvious and outrageous analogy with the KristallNacht. I humbly believe the journalist(s) that conceived that name in the source is not a journalist to be taken seriously, independently of whichever newspaper they're writing from. Please be mindful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.32.3.24 (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note how many brand new and sleeper accounts (less than 250 edits) are showing up quoting the exact same two policies - NOTNEWS and CRYSTALBALL. Yes, this is being coordinated. Volunteer Marek 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, I'm a "sleeper account" since I don't have over 250 edits. Yes, I haven't edited the wiki in awhile. Does that mean that my statements aren't correct? Does your calling me a "sleeper account" cause this article to suddenly become notable? Personal attacks don't cause inconvenient facts to disappear. Seanr451 (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The intensity of the attempt to suppress this article demonstrates the importance of said article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.156.160 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy delete WP:NOTNEWS, the accounts have already been reinstated. --Jfhutson (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though perhaps start a name change discussion on the talk page to rename to Thursday Night Massacre, since that appears to be the common name being used by reliable sources. As an event, it would likely be a sub-section in the main Twitter article, but has enough content to be split out into its own article here. Particularly considering the international impact the event is having in regards to the EU and elsewhere responses.
Also, it would be best if all of the SPA accounts that Elon sent over here, much like he did with the last AfD on the Twitter Files, should have their "votes" moved to the talk page here, rather than being allowed to clutter this discussion. SilverserenC 22:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: There was a move from "Thursday Night Massacre (Twitter)" to the current title 2 hours ago. Please see the relevant section on the talk page. Aveaoz (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed. And the arguments made therein are...really dumb? The existence of other articles with "Thursday Massacre" are entirely irrelevant, nor does one's personal perspective on it being a "massacre" or not matter whatsoever. What is the WP:COMMONNAME? That is what should be used, period. To do otherwise is to be non-neutral. SilverserenC 22:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, I think we'll probably end up with something like "Timeline of Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter", starting with when he made that initial offer and ending... well, I admit I'm being speculative, but I think there will be an ending. And this incident can be a section thereof. DS (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Twitter or History or twitter, but yeah WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL and before anyone accuses me of being a bot I said the SAME thing about the Twitter Files forever ago.
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we also need an essay WP:NETRUMP but for twitter. At this rate as of UTC 13:24 19 DEC 2022 we will get more and more articles
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 1

edit
  • Merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk (or alternately Twitter suspension). To the extent this is currently expected to have any lasting significance it as part of the acquisition and transition, not on its own. It's far too early to say that it will have any lasting independent significance. Jahaza (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This page is a historical artifact at this point illustrating just how far left and biased wikipedia has become. Deleting it would be a disservice to the absolute absurdity of this page, it authors, and every editor and source who blatantly misrepresented the facts and illustrated such sensationalism over this matter. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to the WP:Project namespace and tag with template:humor? --Jfhutson (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in notability per Wikipedia:Notability (events). If it must stay, then condense and add to Twitter suspensions. Spirarel (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking in notability. More suitable for KnowYourMemes than Wikipedia, to be honest. DockMajestic (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to be it's own event, would be out of place tossed in to Twitter or Twitter suspensions. Tantomile (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Notable enough for an article or entire section 🍁 DinoSoupCanada 🍁 (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with the other articles already written.

There is no reason to create an entire new overly dramatic article about a temporary suspension thay didn't even last a day, specially considering the languages used and the fact that they wanted to somehow liken this to kristalnacht. Kane 1371 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Yup, this AfD is a total shitshow. Volunteer Marek 01:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know it goes against your polticial view, but please Keep it Civil Meganinja202 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You actually don't know chip. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to tell me what my "political views" are. THAT is uncivil. Volunteer Marek 03:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling, I am just giving a heads up that no matter the political views the other person haye, you must keep it civil
It also means avoid NSFW language on civil debates. Meganinja202 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. First we have I know it goes against your polticial view. Then we have I am not telling, I am just giving a heads up. Ascribing motives to editors rather than discussing content is a violation of WP:NPA. Not using a grown up word in a grown up space among grown ups. Volunteer Marek 03:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reginus Paulius Gryphus, since you think that this worldwide top ten website is a leftist cesspool, then why don't you leave Wikipedia and go edit your favorite "rightist cesspool", to elevate that website, whatever it is, into the top ten websites worldwide? We will be looking forward to your success in that regard. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an account with like ten edits. Volunteer Marek 03:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leftist cesspool just means we don't have enough right-wing views here, please, please add then. We encourage all viewpoints here. The whole point is to discuss it using neutral language, presenting all views. We strongly encourage you to join the debate. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We encourage all viewpoints here.
No, we definitely do not. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that an event can be notable enough as to deserve comment from the UN and the EU, but is too lowly to merit acknowledgement from Wikipedia, which is such a lofty reservoir of knowledge that it hosts entries about porn performers -- that argument is comic. Flattering to us editors, but comic. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Twitter#Moderation_of_tweets , Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and Twitter suspensions or Rename - While this is news worthy and should put on pages/areas related to (already many) Twitter and Musk controversies, The fact that most of issues and debate about the theme (including suspensions) was resolved in less of 24 hours, makes that it does not deserve have its own page on wiki, or at least one with such dramatic and pompous name, maybe "Twitter Doxxing Suspension Debate" or "X Musk and Elon Musk vs Journalists Debate" so it keeps the NPOV of wiki.

Also

  • Comment - its Kinda ironic that all this debate happens just few days after Twitter Files debate, and how tables are turned only beacuse the situation affects the "other side", this shows how much our world is divided, how much some news matter or not matter depending of person and above all, how much important is a neutral point of view Wikipedia with political Independence and impartiality. Meganinja202 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion discussions (AFD discussions) revolve around a complex set of criteria; my perception is that the issue you raise relates to the administrative process of managing AFD discussions through narrative driven "news" cycles. (sent you a talk) Flibbertigibbets (talk) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We live in a age that various narrative driven "news" cycles clash with each other constantly, and as main source of human knowledge, in my opinion, Wikipedia should know measure those factors and guarantee NPOV and a common ground of knowledge above all. Meganinja202 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter Files was kept and this article likely won't be. How are people still finding a way to claim that these deletion discussions are proof of a systemic bias against Musk? The reason why Twitter Files started out leaning towards a delete outcome was because its sourcing was unacceptably poor, but its quality rapidly improved as it continued to receive coverage in secondary outlets demonstrating an increase in notability. This article started out decent in quality and will likely be deleted or merged anyways because it has not sufficiently demonstrated enduring notability beyond a brief news cycle. Nothing abnormal is going on, but somehow there are still those who'll look at these deletion discussions and picture an imaginary leftist cabal controlling the narrative... this says much more about those who leave these sorts of comments than it says about Wikipedia itself.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (For clarity, this wasn't directed at you or your comments, but towards a great many other comments here)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps after looking retrospectively at this issue from a historical lens a year from now, the (probably temporary) suspension of a half-dozen journalists for violating Twitter’s terms of service might be noteworthy and encyclopedic and significant enough to merit a page on Wikipedia. But right now, it is A) insufficiently encyclopedic, B) clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS, is C) excessively tabloid-like in nature, and D) is harmful to Wikipedia’s reputation were it allowed to stay. Greg L (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's suspended other journalists today, so the story isn't yet done. Oaktree b (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This stand alone article would in my opinion disturb the possibility of presenting balance in a generalized topic which is covered via Twitter. In my opinion, it is very important to present details of an issue within the larger context. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep article is well-sourced, discussed across multiple RS. Well above the bar for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike duplicate !vote.Jahaza (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, some other editor had been removing my comments, I was pinged and reverted the comment. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote Keep, but I also believe based on how this discussion has been going so far, it's likely that it should end in a No Consensus, as I don't think it will be possible to reach a true consensus here. Many of the arguments are not policy-based, but rather are subjective opinions that the topic doesn't warrant an article, or opinions based upon politics or ideology. Additionally, many are advocating for a merge, which should be a separate discussion outside AfD. The real question here should be whether it meets Wikipedia's notability standards, which is determined by significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. It clearly meets that standard, and the topic is large enough and has generated enough coverage to warrant a standalone article, rather than just a few sentences on the larger Twitter article. Additionally, I would argue this AfD discussion is premature. This is a current event that is still unfolding, and there's no harm in waiting a little while before making any merge or deletion decisions, which can always be raised again later. Honestly, everything is moving a little too fast with this article: in the course of less than 24 hours, the article has been renamed, several merge discussions were started, and now there's an AfD. (In fact, the same editor who speedily closed the rename discussion proposed a merge immediately afterward.). I would suggest we slow things down a little bit here... — Hunter Kahn 02:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't both the Rename and AfD debates be fused on a single debate? many (independently they favor a Keep or Delete) seems in favor of a renaming Meganinja202 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How this should close is for the closer to decide. More than just GNG or notability this is a question of WP:NOPAGE, aka PAGEDECIDE, as was the Paul Gosar page whose AfD I cite above, and many other AfDs of this nature. Does this need a standalone article for blow-by-blow coverage, or is it better covered in some other article? I argue it is obviously the latter, there is no evidence that this incident was of any standalone significance. We absolutely can decide whether this should be merged or not right here, if the consensus here is clear that we don't need a seperate page, there isn't really any reason to hold that separately. It was the creation of this article that was premature, not the deletion or merge discussions. Articles should be created after it is clear whether the event was of any significance or not, not before, WP:RECENTISM creates unnecessary cruft. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This tabloid content can be covered in a brief paragraph elsewhere. --Local hero talk 02:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sheer volume of comments here means this easily passeswp:n—blindlynx 02:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I dont see how a private company temporarily suspending 9 accounts for misconduct is news or noteworthy enough to have its own page. WP:NOTNEWS WP:N WP:RECENT The suspensions ended up being for 1 day. If this is significant enough an event for the individuals involved, it can be recorded on their individual pages which has already been done or on Twitter suspensions which has also already been done. I doubt people will be talking about this in a month let alone a year WP:DELAY This article is solely about the few media personalities caught up in the new rules, there is no mention or reporting on any others that would doubtless also been suspended for doxxing. This to me suggests the reports are for the benefit of the media personalities and it's difficult to separate independent from biased sources. Wikipedia is not the place to air grievances WP:NOTSCANDAL, even if those involved are part of a class with the clout to have articles created for their benefit. WP:IS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingFudge (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS Kafoxe (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage was widespread in the media, and Elon's actions prompted very atypical responses from the UN and the EU. This far surpasses the notability achieved by the Twitter Files nothingburger. Voting should also be redone only with old, registered accounts. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - A section in Twitter suspensions is probably the right amount of detail for this incident, unless it becomes more important as time goes on, in which case it might be spun off again. -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into Twitter suspensions and Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. I believe that this article clearly has enough sources to be considered notable, but it's a notable sub-subject of those subjects. I also want to comment that Elon Musk has canvassed this article on Twitter so it probably needs protection from a wave of brigadiers.Di (they-them) (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a mention in Twitter suspensions already exists and is sufficient. 04:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Tataryn (talk)
  • Strong Delete, It's so absurd that it doesn't even merit a policy violation citation but have all the WP:RECENTs you want if you need one to sleep at night. This is the kind of thing that makes a laughingstock out of Wikipedia. Social media suspensions as a result of flame wars on Twitter is the stuff of middle school legend. I can hardly even believe this is a page that I have vote on. A.S. Williams (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, but definitely do not delete the information - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:10YT and WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps merge the information into ElonJet or the Twitter suspensions article. Oeoi (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOT, etc. This is not a notable event. If a handful of journos getting a suspension for violating the rules of a social media platform is worthy of an article then my dinner last night from preparation to flush needs its own page on the wiki. Xenomancer (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for its own page, and could be merged into existing pages, such as the page for Musk's acquisition of Twitter.
  • Redirect to Twitter suspensions#2022, where this topic is covered in sufficient depth. As far as WP:NEVENT is concerned, there is frankly no evidence about a likely WP:LASTING effect here and the WP:COVERAGE analysis is going to be incomplete because we can't evaluate duration of coverage until the current news cycle is over. Those advocating for a merge into Twitter suspensions frankly don't really identify anything that's missing from the list that would warrant inclusion (I cannot find such material worth merging myself). Outright deletion seems odd, given that we have a reasonable place to redirect this to. Keeping the article seems contrary to WP:NEVENT at this time. As such, redirection seems like the best way forward. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has already generated enough coverage in reliable sources to frankly overwhelm the twitter suspensions page. Needs a standalone article at this point. Not every suspension wave becomes a geopolitical event with comment from multiple governmental and supragovernmental orgs. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 08:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not warranted in any case, and decision on wether to merge or not should wait the storm of troll voters to recess, one article under semi-protection and already three talk pages absolutely spammed is enough, merging prematurely would just restart the process of them spamming the same arguments for deletion —Bookman FirstOfHisName (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously WP:NOTNEWS. Beyond that, this article makes us look ridiculous. Mentioning in Twitter suspensions is appropriate, with WP:DUE weight.LM2000 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Include a few sentences from this abortion of an article in in Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk or History_of_Twitter. High Tinker (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes Wikipedia look like the absurd laughing stock that it is. CTA MART (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or very selectively merge into Twitter suspensions or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk per WP:NOTNEWS. This incident is worth a paragraph or two at most in one of those articles, not this amount of detail for a standalone topic, as it doesn't have nearly enough lasting significance. Yes there is too much information for it all to be merged, but that's the point - as an encyclopedia we don't cover current events in this kind of detail just because there's press coverage. Hut 8.5 09:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our WEB guideline and for didactic purposes. ElMu cites this specific article as support for his proposition that "Wikipedia is controlled by the MSM journalists." (To be particular, Wikipedia's content is controlled by what mainstream journals publish; our REDFLAG policy warns against including apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources or claims … that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge notable parts into Twitter suspensions. I don't think it's necessary to have this much detail about a few Twitter suspensions. Even if there are many reliable sources, an entire article dedicated to this I think is overkill. DarkHorse234 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable considering the attention this has attracted AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - The article's subject is notable enough to have it's own article, even if previous names for the article were a bit...extreme. Multiple news sites have covered the suspension, the German Government (https://twitter.com/AuswaertigesAmt/status/1603689087969411072?t=5YbKeac6HUhXMdQDhE92xA&s=19), The EU, and the UN (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63996061) have criticized the suspension. The article just reflects what is being published in Verifiable, Reliable sources, for Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I could see and I accept the article being merged into another one, such as Twitter suspensions or the article about musk's acquisition of Twitter. But I feel like this topic has become large enough on its own. Littlepagers (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this seems to be a notable event in the history of social media, with more than enough reliable sources. The current neutral name is good and can be changed if the nickname ends up being used much. Coyotedomino (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - I don't see how this subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, certainly, but WP:10YT is the main issue with the article. Everything on this page is already summarized succinctly and appropriately at Twitter suspensions. Should be a ***strong delete *** 14:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybau (talk • contribs)

Sybau, is there a reason your !vote is a word for word carbon copy of Wertwert55 2 !votes above? --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike duplicate !vote. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the EU, the UN, and the German government comment on social media suspensions all the time... Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many world leaders commented on Trump's suspension. It does not have its own page just because of that. Wertwert55 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several users besides Masem who have been here for years have voted for deletion and there's absolutely no reason to think they're doing so in bad faith. This commentary is extremely unprofessional at best. Wertwert55 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, with rationales that have nothing to do with our notability policies but rather consist of incoherent whinnying about “woke politics” or something. Volunteer Marek 21:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, several have given actual reasons to redirect or delete, including Red-tailed hawk and Hut 8.5 right above me and have given absolutely no indications of not arguing in good faith, which you should be assuming in the first place. Wertwert55 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these two users addressed the pro-notability argument for this entry -- that dozens of the most influential reliable sources have covered the suspensions, and both governmental and supragovernmental officials have weighed in on them. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't need to. They were giving their own opinion on why the article should be deleted or redirected, cited policy to do so, and were not responding to anyone else. The context of my reply has more to do with WP:AGF and WP:CIV than anything else. I'd recommend we cut this discussion off and let people discuss the actual AfD. Wertwert55 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woke politics isn't a thing we recognize at AfD, we discuss all viewpoints here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massacre? One guy called this a massacre? The first line already shows how an hyperbole the article is. Twitter beefs and outrage should only be considered once the outrage is over. Recentism. Kameejl (Talk) 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording of the article and individual turns of phrase have nothing to do with whether the event is noteworthy. Individual pieces of language can be cleaned up and improved as needed.--Fogsparrow (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a historical artifact, the page used to be called Thursday Night Massacre (because more than a dozen sources used that name, not just one). Check out the page history [13] and the talk as well. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is how you know this is another account that got canvassed on twitter since the article hasn’t had “massacre” in its name for awhile (and doesn’t know and only had it briefly) Volunteer Marek 23:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I did not refer to the title. It doesn't change anything about my reasoning. This article is Twitter outrage fueled by emotions turned into an encyclopedia entry. Kameejl (Talk) 09:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There have been further/later suspensions and re-instatements, outside of those on the 15th, suggesting this isn't a one-time event, and should perhaps warrant keeping the article. Ongoing news event at least. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bannings of individuals happen all the time, especially in waves like this one. Banning people who break a company's terms of service is not notable, even if it is perceived as such by media figures. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If it’s perceived as such by media then it is indeed notable. that’s the policy. You know kind of like “terms of service”. Volunteer Marek 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to ask yourself who this article benefits. How detailing the course of events and response in superfluous and non-NPOV detail benefits anyone. Does anyone learn, or is this just a glorified news article? Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we’re being perfectly honest, then the truth is that the “NOTNEWS” ship has sailed a long time ago. Wikipedia has been creating articles on “breaking news” for years. And same people who want to delete news they don’t like vote to keep the news they like. And vice versa. Any honest vote would consider Twitter Files in the same way that they approach this article. Or does that not qualify as WP:NOTNEWS for some reason? Note also, that I haven’t even voted, either way. Volunteer Marek 00:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Elon told me to" suppose to be a policy based reason for deletion now? Volunteer Marek 03:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"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."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Elon doesn't run wikipedia at my last check, I don't see how that does or doesn't meet GNG.
Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Well, the (Personal attack removed) are out in force, aren't they? Leaving aside the horde of sock- and meatpuppets, and the predictable MAGAheads screaming "Woke! Liberal! Woke!" at the top of their lungs like so many squawking geese, let me drop a dollop of education on how Wikipedia and deletion policy works on folks. To wit, whether this is an "unremarkable" event, breaking news, ephemeral, whatever, whether or not you approve of the (putative) political stances of the journalists or media outlets covering this, none of that matters. The crux is this: does this event meet the GNG? And it's not merely that it does, but there are many top-rated media sources that have commented on this event in detail. Fox News has covered it. The Economist has covered it. The New York Post has covered it. Conservative outfits to the right of Attila have covered it. If we wanted to refbomb the article, a couple hundred sources describing it in the "significant detail" the GNG requires would take more time to type in than to locate. The notability of this event is not at all in question. Ravenswing 04:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Der Spiegel, Libération, El País, to give just a few examples beyond the anglophone world. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim to be against flaming but at the same time are saying that a bunch of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and "MAGAheads" are your opposition. Really unconstructive and inflamatory. Meritous (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If by some bizarre happenstance you're unaware of the massive descent of sockpuppets and meatpuppets upon this AfD -- to the point of it not merely being tagged, but to the exceptionally rare semi-protection of a deletion discussion -- or that quite a few of them have expressed no grounds for their stance beyond politics, I can't help you. Ravenswing 11:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Press members crying in the press about being banned on a social media site is more than a little self-serving here, wouldn't you agree? That is not unlike a bunch of bloggers blogging about getting banned and expecting Wikipedia to have an article about it. Sure there are media sources discussing it but unlike most other topics that's almost a detriment in this instance. A.S. Williams (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's your answer? Declare any and all media sources unreliable where you fancy there might be a bias? Well, gosh, that'd discount just about any domestic source about a nation's politics, lifestyle, international relations. Isn't it self-serving for a sportswriter to write about sports, after all? OMG, all those reporters are being PAID to report!!! Who can trust anything they say? Ravenswing 21:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My answer is that this is not notable and does not need an article on Wikipedia and that using the subjects as the sources to justify the article is specious. Many journalists are constantly trying to get each other deplatformed on social media. It isn't notable when eventually it happens to them. Please do not put words in my mouth or insinuate malicious intent. A.S. Williams (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a majority or plurality of "Delete" suggestions are from new users/sockpuppets. The only "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" notice I see is from people for "Keep." I'm personally for "Merging" the article. Meritous (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: While it's possible that there is some larger article that this should be merged into in the future (depending on the overall arc of how post-aqcuisition Twitter proceeds), these events -- suppression of a number of mainstream press accounts solely for being critical of the CEO of a major social media network -- are notable as separate from other account suspensions in their breadth and implications. AdamRoach (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Twitter suspensions or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Or split the later article into a pre and post acquisition article. Also, I believe that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Because the topic directly relates to journalism, there will of course be a lot of reputable sources that provide info about it. But just because there are a lot of mainstream outlets covering it doesn't mean it needs to be its own article. Meritous (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the event might be still notable in future, the article fails WP:NOTNEWS for me. However, my choice in order of preference would be: 1) Merge into a dedicated section in either Twitter suspensions or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk; 2) Soft Delete, to avoid losing the job done so far by various contributors; 3) Keep. I'd rather avoid outright deletion. P1221 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is difficult because while I think it passes WP:NOTNEWS in terms of meriting an article or a section of an article, the fall out from it is still unfolding. I agree with the arguments that this may probably end up merged somewhere, but it's not clear where yet. My preference is merge to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk or keep pending developments. But not delete.OsFish (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on applied sourcing this subject meets GNG easily and surpasses WP:EVENTCRITERIA possessing diverse indepth significant coverage and affecting a wide geographic scope. NOTNEWS is not applicable IMHO; this meets none of those criteria. Nothing routine about this coverage. I've just added a cite from Friday's Wired article which claims the incident will have a lasting effect on the Twitter community. This article serves Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk as a subtopic article. The article name will need a separate discussion later, the previous move discussion was closed out of process by an involved editor a mere eight hours after request. BusterD (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: Keep for now, this is a notable event. —Legoless (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cites many reliable sources, therefore it’s notable. Thanks, -My history teacher (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a recentism-biased WP:NOTNEWS. Hopefully I won't be accused of being a canvassed sock. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, I don't think this article is likely to meet WP:PERSISTENCE and would probably better suit being merged, but per WP:RUSHDELETE it's far too early to say JeffUK (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Self-promotion for a group of non-notable journalists trying to turn themselves into a story. This is a 2 day suspension of 7 accounts. It is, as those journalists like to say, a "nothingburger". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously enough reliable sources in the article for notability.Just Alabama (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the appropriate articles per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NOTNEWS. This event is part of a series of events and would be better presented to the reader as part of the other articles about this series of events, as it would be placed in context for the reader. I don't believe having this as a stand-alone spinoff article is the best editorial decision. Doesn't matter to me if the title is deleted or left as a redirect. Levivich (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as much as possible into Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. However, if similar high-profile suspension waves continue, this article could be notable under a different name. But obviously according to WP:CRYSTALBALL, that can't be considered at the moment. D4R1U5 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Notice how last time we did this, this happened. If that viewcount crash isn't clear and obvious evidence that these topics are not persistent, I don't know what is. casualdejekyll 15:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Twitter suspensions: Specifically to the section, 2022 suspensions of journalists. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PAGEDECIDE is applicable here. There's no need to report blow by blow/in real time the happenings on the ground. The entire article can be summarised, and has been summarised accordingly in the Twitter suspensions article. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On top of the remarks about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM above, it's been obvious that a faction of the political establishment in the US have been absolutely livid about the changes to twitter management since Musk took control and have been looking to cause him as much trouble as possible as a result. My view is that the independent existence of this article amounts to advocacy from that faction. Correspondingly, I would like to remind my fellow editors of WP:RGW. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - I'd support merging into Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, but it's focused almost entirely on the pre-acquisition and it would be ridiculously long in TOC size if we started putting a significant amount of post-acquisition stuff there. I think merging is better philosophically, but I don't see a great candidate article to merge into at this time. (Clearly outright deletion is the wrong call; it's notable and covered by reliable sources). CharredShorthand (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, okay with merging, oppose deletion. I've held off from !voting for a while for a few reasons. I've had some very mixed feelings as WP:NOTNEWS is a legitimate concern yet the article does a fine job at sourcing a great many reliable, secondary sources. It took a lot of convincing for me to be decidedly against deletion, but it was much easier to conclude that the case for deletion is tenuous at best considering how a not insignificant percent of the delete !votes make exceptionally weak arguments. I've also been hesitant because I recognize that it would be fairly easy for certain people to weave a narrative that I'm only !voting based on partisan preferences considering that I !voted delete on Twitter Files (though I would've switched to keep by the time it was closed). So I'll try to keep this as policy-focused as I can. First, there's not really a question as to whether or not the topic achieved at least short-term general notability. All of the bullet points at WP:GNG are met pretty easily.
Consider that pretty much every major reliable secondary source covered it:
List of unique outlets cited in the article at this time
  1. The Intercept
  2. Reuters
  3. Mediaite
  4. NBC News
  5. Deadline
  6. The Independent
  7. The Washington Post
  8. The Verge
  9. CNN
  10. NME
  11. Forbes
  12. Financial Post
  13. NPR
  14. The New York Times
  15. BBC News
  16. Engadget
  17. The Daily Beast
  18. Fox News
  19. Wired
This still leaves a valid WP:NOTNEWS concern. Editors have correctly pointed out that an article like this, a news story about people who write the news, is likely to receive coverage in the news. Just because it was covered doesn't mean it has enduring notability. So I had to take a fresh look at NOTNEWS to be reminded of what types of stories typically fail to have enduring notability.
The first, third, and fourth bullet points at NOTNEWS aren't really concerns to me. It's not original research or a biography page, and I feel it's a stretch to reduce all the developments at Twitter to celebrity gossip when the examples at WP:NOTDIARY are primarily personal life details.
The second bullet point is the most interesting one here: routine stories (examples given: sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc) are not inherently notable. This shouldn't be an issue, but right below WP:ROUTINE on Wikipedia:Notability (events) is WP:SENSATIONAL, and I think you can make a good-faith argument that WP:SENSATIONAL still applies, in particular "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking.
I don't think a lack of fact-checking is an issue here, but "24-hour news cycle" is a legitimate concern. That said, this story's already managed to be more than just a 24-hour news cycle, but it admittedly doesn't feel like something I'd expect people to care about 10 years from now (but the same can be said of infinitely many topics on the encylopedia that are perfectly fine to cover in an article of their own, I don't think the standard should be interpreted quite literally as "will this still be a popular thing to talk about in a decade?").
We should also consider that one of the notability guidelines for WP:BREAKING news is that it's not advisable to rush to deletion in a situation like this where only time will tell if notability will endure.
All of this is to say that, while NOTNEWS is by far the strongest argument against keeping it in mainspace, it's still a weak argument for full deletion here. The other arguments for deletion (which range from "this article is too left wing" to "delete because elon said so") are just noise.
Then there's the issue of whether to keep as a standalone article or whether to merge. The article's already 40,000 bytes. Can it be trimmed down to only the most noteworthy bits and pieces of it? Sure, probably. I don't think Twitter suspensions or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk do a bad job at summarizing the event. But there's also enough information made notable by its sourcing that covering it all in a separate article would likely warrant a WP:SPLIT.
I really didn't intend to write the longest !vote ever here when this is only a weak keep, but those are my thoughts. Apologies for being rambly.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break 2

edit
  • Delete I never agree with Elon Musk on anything but here I have to say, in my own opinion, delete. NOTNEWS and frankly almost an abuse of Wikipedia. If only people put their time toward articles that actually need help or need to be written instead of jumping on a Twitter dispute of private users. Trillfendi (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is written by volunteers. Volunteers choose what they want to write about. This is not an "abuse" of the site. -- Zanimum (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who specializes in creating articles for fashion models is ranting about people only working on what they want to work on and not what "needs to be written"? The lack of self awareness is staggering. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fashion models / celebrities are very notable and there is absolutely no question that they should have articles. Meritous (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability =/= needs to be written, nothing meets that standard. There is absolutely nothing which needs to be written. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back Your lack of self-awareness in your sexism is what’s actually staggering here and just another example of the gender bias on Wikipedia. Had it not been for my “specialization” or expertise as others call it, an entire subject matter of Wikipedia would be almost entirely unwritten. So if anything I would know what I’m talking about in that regard. Articles about 7 or so people, half of them without Wikipedia articles themselves allegedly getting suspended from Twitter and reinstated isn’t the soap opera you want to make it out to be. Toodles. Trillfendi (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You limit your article creation to female models? I was unaware of that, my assumption was that you edited the category and not a gender defined subset of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: You're unaware of anything. Out of all articles created by me, 15% of them have been totally unrelated to fashion models.... No one has to "edits categories" (doi. Use the default sort template for that.) and a subject matter is not a category. I don't "limit" my article creation to women and my most recent Good Articles were two famous men. But what in blue hell does that have to do with this besides divert the discussion of Articles for Deletion here with irrelevant griping? Build a bridge and get over it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case this is the part where you retract your baseless personal attack per WP:PA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: If you feel that way, you already know to take it to the noticeboard. No one ever made you reply to me to begin with talking about "my specialization", what and who I edit about outside of this on my time, and pointless misogyny. I gave my vote and went on. Enough with you. Trillfendi (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What misogyny? I never even mentioned gender and you yourself said that your edits are not gender based so where do you get misogyny out of my criticism of your editing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't comprehend how an event that got such widespread media coverage, including quotes from various governments, would be at AFD. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage appears to be sustained and significant. The unilateral stifling of free speech on a large social media platform by its CEO has received broad, globe condemnation. Also interesting to note that this afd received a lock to prevent meddling of new and unregistered users while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation never did. Note how this, while getting long, is rather orderly. While that became an unwieldly clusterfuck that was closed on the basis of "keep because it got too big and we can't deal". Zaathras (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least for now. SIGCOV has been clearly established, and there's no reason to rush deletion as opposed to waiting to determine if this content should reside in a dedicated article. VQuakr (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. According to multiple WP:RS the event is complementary to the existing articles/article sections such as Twitter suspensions#2022 suspensions of journalists, Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and Mastodon (social network)#2022 Twitter-related spikes in adoption; it relates to all three of those but is an individual event seen as significant by the sources. It wouldn't make sense to merge everything into a single article. Thematic modularity is a key to having manageable encyclopedic content. As for the "10 years' time" test: it's credible that this will be seen as one of the key clashes (battles) between a billionaire and major Western mainstream media over the principle of free speech, of the epoch when Facebook and Twitter declined in favour of decentralised social networks such as the Fediverse. Boud (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Concurring with Garuda3 and Vanilla Wizard’s argument. Personally I find this ticking all the boxes for WP:GNG and WP:COVERAGE, and to be honest this AFD seems a bit too WP:RAPID to me. While we need to wait and see if WP:LASTING is satisfied, for now this seems pretty significant for an article. SBS6577P (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The incident already had important geopolitical ramifications, with the UN and EU being involved. This has been reported by multiple WP:RS, and easily satisfies WP:GNG. The fact that the UN and other international organizations responded to this incident makes it more than a simple ban that could be seen as "partisan", but an actual topic of geopolitical concern, and reporting these reactions factually is WP:NPOV. The fact that the ban itself could be seen as "right-wing", or reporting on it as "left-wing", is ultimately a red herring given the amount of WP:RS and the subsequent reactions. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the present at least. The guidance linked above about not rushing to delete articles is apt. The extent of the coverage is more than enough to justify writing about the topic somewhere in this encyclopedia, and the question of whether or not to give it its own page can better be discussed at a later date when the heat has come off. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Twitter suspensions: They were all reinstated, I believe this needs to be merged. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the event is over, why does that mean the page should be deleted? We don't delete articles just because the event they cover has become historical. Nor does that by itself constitute a reason, as far as I can tell, for merging this material into another article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it doesn't actually look all that over: When people visit my Twitter profile, it no longer says “account suspended,” and it looks as if I’m back on the platform. Friends and strangers alike have reached out to me saying it’s good to see that I’m back on Twitter. It’s an illusion. In reality, I’m still locked out of my Twitter account unless I agree to delete a specific tweet at the behest of the billionaire. Several of the other suspended journalists are in the same boat [17]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What happened on Dec 15th was uncontroversially and unambiguously very notable but giving it a stand alone article takes it out of its context with other notable suspensions and restorations occurring on other dates. It is better covered as part of the overall narrative of Twitter under Musk. The question of the best merge target is less obvious. Twitter_suspensions#2022_suspensions_of_journalists is plausible but I'd favour Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk given how Musk was directly and personally involved in all this. It isn't just stuff that coincidentally happened on his watch. (BTW, my second choice after "Merge" would be "Keep". There is no valid case for deleting most of this content, even if it could be tightened up a little. The idea that there is only one sentence in all this is, frankly, ludicrous.) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole AfD is such a mess that I wouldn't blame a closing admin for calling it no consensus and keeping by default. I still think it probably should be merged at some point but if we don't want to open that can of worms right now, and as the consensus among more recent !votes seems to tipping towards keep, then I'm also perfectly happy for this to be a keep. DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, suggestions I applaud the protection applied to this.article, and would support the proposal someone made to apply it to all AfDs, not just on an ad hoc to those considered eespecially contentious. Gaming of AfDs has long been pervasive and contributes to a lot of the newbie biting and general jadedness that understandably pervades a lot of the corps of patrollers and admins trying to keep up with it. It would also forestall cries of censorship if it was universally applied.

It is good to see Wikipedia take some action at least against disinformation. I just wish it extended that beyond the blatant and notorious instances of it. Someone out there may be bristling at the description of what has gone on here as disinformation, and I do have to say that at least in the part of Twitter that I inhabit, I did not find a specific instruction to come vote in this AfD. But I think that Musk has shown he doesn't have to; his true believers have rushed to put their money into meme stocks and Dogecoins. He's been able to manipulate financial markets without so much as asking who would rid him of this troublesome x, so I see no reason to question his ability to game a Wikipedia AfD. Furthermore, many many of the above comments reflect something Musk has said or tweeted, word for word.

As for the article: I originally was inclined to agree with Masem (talk · contribs) that this is an instance of trying to cover a news event to soon. However, Musk himself and his merry troupe of bros have made it notable with what has gone on here. More importantly, this is a very important event from the point of view of free speech and journalism. The accounts of journalists being sanctioned for doing journalist things is a notable development, especially on a platform that was once seen as a beacon of free speech and standing for the truth, in the Arab Spring and elsewhere. I include the admittedly amateur citizen journalist Elon jet account in this, because it reported publicly available and accurate information.

These suspensions unquestionably are notable. I would also say this of the accounts suspended for linking to other social media platforms. This is not a free speech move. I was going to suggest merging to the suspensions article, but I read above that it's already long. It seems counterintuitive to add to an article that probably already should be spinning articles off. Probably all of the Twitter articles that deal with Elon Musk and Twitter should be reworked, but I haven't examined them in enough detail to make specific suggestions, nor is this the place for them. I hate the title though.

I would suggest grouping together any sanctions by Musk against journalists (and possibly those linking to other platforms if this results in an article of manageable size), regardless of their date. Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, maybe Rename or Merge to an article which does not only document suspensions of December 15, but Twitter policy and Twitter moderation fluctuations after acquisition by Elon Musk and their effects in a more general context. Although for most people this started from mentioned suspensions, it went as far as Twitter creating a new "Promotion of alternative social platforms policy", which intended to ban links to Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon etc from Twitter, although only Mastodon ban was implemented in practise and rules were taken back after a day or so. But there is much more to that, like Musk's ideas on freedom of speech and digital town square and how these ideas are laid out in reality. --Märt Põder (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid point on extending to a broader article on the issue of free speech/censorship in online social networks and the specific incidents in the current situation that provide concrete examples. However, that would need sources with good overviews - we might have to wait a typical academic data-collection/analysis/write-up/submission/peer-review cycle of 6-18 months or longer for that. Someone could start it with e.g. non-peer-reviewed analysis articles by academics or Wikipedia-notable digital humanities researchers. But I tend to think that that sounds complementary to this individual incident (compare with e.g. articles on 'battles' as part of wars or invasions), so leaving this as a single article with a well-defined, notable scope, seems justified to me. Boud (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: There are articles for Twitter suspensions, YouTube suspensions, but none for Facebook suspensions or Instagram suspensions. Twitter is a private company, not a government. No one has a right to be allowed on Twitter. If the individual is notable, the suspension is covered in their Wikipedia bio or in the suspensions article. I've already voted delete above for these reasons. If it was a government banning journalists, then the situation would be different and worthy of a stand-alone article, imo. 5Q5|✉ 13:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I know sourcing is very good but it is very common and it is not any international or national news. We can't keep articles about small events. Monthly more than 50 accounts are banned in Youtube globally, it's is not necessary to make article on it. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this very common: The suspensions were condemned by representatives of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, the European Union, and others. European Commission officials said the actions may have violated the Digital Services Act, ...? —Alalch E. 14:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It literally is international news, having been in the Guardian as recently as yesterday (source already in the article). XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on title If this article is kept, thought should be given to the likelihood that someone searching for information on Twitter would begin their search with "December". Obviously that is unlikely. Titles should state the topic in a way that facilitates retrieval. Renaming to "Twitter suspensions of December ..." would be far superior. Think about searching, not just naming. (Yes, a redirect is possible, but it shouldn't be made unnecessarily necessary.) Lamona (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter suspensions has >300k bytes already... Given that this topic unquestionably passes WP:GNG shouldn't it be left as a stand-alone page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I've seen WP:NOTNEWS invoked a lot, but I can't see how it applies. This article is not original reporting. Nor is it based on routine coverage of routine corporate events. Nor is it celebrity gossip. The only line in WP:NOTNEWS that seems at all relevant is the opening: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a case of low competence editors only reading the title and not the article. People think WP:NOTNEWS means "don't cover the news" (whatever they think is news) in the same way they thunk that WP:NPOV means that content has to be "neutral" (whatever they think is neutral). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think it might be a good idea to rename WP:NOTNEWS considering just how wirespread this misunderstanding is. I've seen my share of articles deleted per it, but I don't think any of them were similar to the bulletpoints that are actually outlined at WP:NOTNEWS. The way people have been throwing it around makes it seem as if the policy is "does this feel like a really major event to me? if no, delete it" which is just not how we do things (or rather it shouldn't be, but nevertheless it sometimes is).
The ten-year test is an even weaker deletion rationale in my opinion; it's a suggestion for how to deal with a bias towards recentism. Example given there: the article about the 2020 United States presidential election doesn't need to be significantly larger than the article about the 2000 one just because it's more recent, not everything that happens at the time will be as important in the future. But even WP:10YT itself says "Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating months (or even years) later in the clean-up and maintenance of the page. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." How this ended up being one of the go-to things people cite as a rationale for initiating and !voting in these contentious deletion discussions is a mystery to me. Like with NOTNEWS, the way people throw it around as a delete rationale is more or less "will people look back on this event in 10 years and think it changed the world? if no, delete" which, again, bears no resemblence to what it actually says.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the whole thread above; I am changing my vote to Keep. I didn't read the actual policy in depth before voting; that is a mistake on my part. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: This article appears to set a precedent, so will every journalist who gets suspended on Twitter going forward qualify for a stand-alone article on the event as long as sufficient citable sources can be found? I think you can expect many more AfDs in the future if that's the case, so what happens here with this AfD is significant. Or will it take two journalists being suspended at the same time to generate an article? 5Q5|✉ 13:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, we have to remember, though, journalists have a connection to the industry generating the citable sources and some of those sources (articles, TV reports, etc.) might be written, edited, produced, or reported by friends or even relatives, setting up conflict of interests. Slippery slope, imo. 5Q5|✉ 14:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the sources we cite are secondary and independent (i.e., we have many more outlets than just the ones affected by the story, which is very much the case here), there is no issue or conflict of interest. The number of unique outlets being cited far outnumbers the total number of affected journalists. Speculating that other journalists from unrelated outlets might be friends of the ones affected by the story is baseless guesswork and not a valid rationale for, well, anything. There is no slippery slope, no precedent being set, nothing out of the ordinary happening here. I don't see how it's a landmark ruling for an article to be kept because it effortlessly met the notability criteria. IMO the only reason why this was ever controversial is because it doesn't intuitively feel that notable, but our intuition isn't a great metric for determining notability, hence why we have policies and guidelines.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion between XOR'easter, Horse Eye's Back and Vanilla Wizard about how WP:NOTNEWS does not mean not to cover what's in the news. WP:EVENTCRIT -- Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have ... international ... impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. This is a normal article that does not set a precedent of any type. The article can't be merged to Twitter suspensions per WP:NOMERGE. —Alalch E. 15:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that this Wikipedia article has been mentioned by several news outlets suggest that the topic it covers is notable. And there's plenty of sourcing on the topic itself. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Kappa Sigma Sorority

edit
Theta Kappa Sigma Sorority (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)

Currently has zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches turned up a few brief mentions, but zero in-depth coverage. Had redirected, but was reverted without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelos Georgiou

edit
Evangelos Georgiou (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)

Can't find any evidence that Georgiou passes WP:GNG/WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources are Super Sport FM, which is a copy and paste of a press release from his club, and Sigma Live, which merely states that he had a good performance in one match. You can't build a substantial biography from this type of coverage, only a stats stub, which is what we have currently. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Ioannou

edit
Nicky Ioannou (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)

Played part of 2 matches in the 4th tier of England before seemingly disappearing from the public eye. WP:NFOOTBALL no longer exists so Ioannou needs to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC to have an article. No hits in Google News, ProQuest or the British Newspaper Archive which casts some doubt on whether the significant coverage in multiple independent sources exists. Since there is not yet a list of all Barnet FC players, I'm not seeing any appropriate WP:ATD at this moment in time. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:NEXIST since the consensus is that there are sources to establish notability. If the current content doesn't reflect the sources, editors are welcome to stub and/or rewrite it. RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Freeman (cryptozoologist)

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

This article suffers from the same problems as the other related deleted articles Jonathan Downes and the Centre for Fortean Zoology (CFZ). There is a serious lack of reliable sources. Most of Freeman's books are self-published by the CFZ Press. If we look at the sourcing. Reference 1 is the CFZ website (self-published, primary source). Reference 2 is the Metro tabloid newspaper which is unreliable per WP:METRO. Reference 4 is definitely not reliable and reference 5 is a self-published blogspot [18]. The other referencing is not reliable or only mentions Richard Freeman once or twice. The most reliable source on the article is Regal's book but it is not enough to establish notability and only has a few lines about Freeman. In total if all the unreliable references were removed there would be about 3 references left on the article. Due to lack of reliable sources and the way the article is written (it reads as promotion), I believe the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the user who created the article has admitted to being an employee of CFZ Press [19] (they have not edited since 2008), suspicions were raised about this account being a sock-puppet in a previous afd. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See however the Guardian [20], and note that his works are currently on sale from WHSmith, which generally eschews self-published work of no interest to the public. Also a named-author bit here:[21]. The fundamental problem is that this bloke lives in a grey zone between fantasy and reality, dealing with imaginary monsters that feel more like steam punk/fantasy than reputable zoology, so he's going to attract a lot of attention from sensationalist sources. Nevertheless he has a substantial public profile, and the nominator has said it themselves: "In total if all the unreliable references were removed there would be about 3 references left on the article." Three's enough; why not just trim this down to a non-promotional, simple statement of who he is and what he's done, supported by that tiny handful of references, and leave it at that? Elemimele (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I or someone removes all the unreliable references and keep the 3 reliable sources there will be about one or two lines on the article of text because two of those sources hardly mention Freeman. It isn't enough to establish notability. I have not seen any detailed sources that discuss Freeman's life in detail. The idea of a one or two line article is a joke, that is not even a stub. Just because a source is reliable does not mean it makes this man notable. The sources need to be detailed. Here is an example of a reliable source on the article [22] it merely quotes Freeman saying that he had seen a Wels catfish. This isn't a good source to establish notability. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a search with The Wikipedia Library and found several sources about him, including with a fair bit of background info on his life. Covers several of the citation needed sentences in the current article, it looks like.
  • Brown, Helen (July 12, 2006). "The monster detectives". The Independent. pp. 59, 60. Retrieved December 10, 2022 – via Newspapers.com.
  • Hancox, Dan (June 9, 2005). "In the lab: The worm that didn't turn up". The Guardian – via Gale OneFile.
  • Daly, Ailbhe (June 10, 2019). "Search For The Mythical Peiste". Daily Mirror – via Gale OneFile.
  • Durn, Sarah (February 28, 2022). "Could 'Monsters' Exist in the Modern World?". Atlas Obscura. Retrieved December 10, 2022.
So I think there's enough for at least a good stub currently. Certainly more than just the few sentences you stated above. SilverserenC 19:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought AO was USERG, but that article looks like it might not be. DM is a bit iffy for BLP:s, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AO article seems to be by one of the actual editors for the magazine, so not usergenerated. I made sure to check. :) And agreed on the Daily Mirror, it would only be a minor contributor to notability (and it has the least info on Freeman in it anyways), but I thought to include it in my list since it is something, however minor. SilverserenC 22:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem like any of that is the in the article at present, might be best to just WP:BLOWITUP and start over—blindlynx 20:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and TNT, the sources above are ok but wow, we need a renewal here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Bayka Fajiti Aika

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. One review found, [23], but not sure if it is a reliable source. In any case, films need 2 reviews to pass notability. All other citations are film database sites or links to actors in film or routine announcements. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AShiv1212 (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A single review is insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. I also found this but it has little editorial policies to demonstrate that it is a WP:RS, so I am at delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships

edit
2023 USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships (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)

2023 USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships

This article is written in the past tense about the future, which violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and so violates verifiability. It has already been to draft space once and moved back to article space, so should not be unilaterally draftified again. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draftspace as way WP:TOOSOON for an article, as it's 7 months until the event. Drafting will keep the article history, and it can be moved back when there's more information and sources in 6-7 months time. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL allows for articles to be created for future events if they are notable and almost certain to take place, which is true for this event. Also, it has already received significant coverage from the announcement of the venue and schedule as shown here and here (the latter is already in the article). Frank Anchor 16:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that Wikipedia:CRYSTAL clearly allows this, especially given the notability and proximity of the event. The article just needs improvement. QuintinK (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The event has already been announced, with details (perhaps too many details in the article, but we can edit those down) White 720 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Israel Goldstein Youth Village. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Havat-Hanoar-Hatsioni

edit
Lycée Havat-Hanoar-Hatsioni (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 a "campus within a campus". Basically a program of a school. Both articles are short. Should be selectively merged into Israel Goldstein Youth Village. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bára Klakstein

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Anken

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

Originally PROD'ded for lack of notability; tag removed because someone said they would add sources later that day. 5 days later, no sources added. Don't see too much significant coverage nor notability. Zero sources provided in present version of article aside from "Olympic Results". Just another hockey player? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Medical education in Wales. The consensus is that this subject does not need a separate article at this time, but some of the content my be relevant in other articles, with Medical education in Wales being the most mentioned. RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medical schools in Wales

edit
Medical schools in Wales (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 isn't intended as a directory (especially of entry criteria to colleges) and, secondly, there are only two medical schools in Wales anyway, which each already have their own extensive Wikipedia articles. The two schools could easily be mentioned breifly in Healthcare in Wales and are already listed in List of medical schools in the United Kingdom#Wales. Sionk (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Braia

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

Non-notable musician, at least from the perspective of GNG (I cannot find any sources that give any more than passing mention other than the ones linked in the article already). This also has the knock-on effect of not being able to verify most of the content in the article. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with the only in-depth coverage being the one article in the North Wales Daily Post. The embedded links to her business website and music sales pages suggests this article is here primarily for promotional purposes only. Sionk (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ansu Kabia

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 16:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicolet1327: Its the lack of coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR was the reason I posted it to Afd. I did see him in Netflix advert just this second, so you provide WP:THREE sources that show he is notable, I will withdraw the nomination. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 19:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Probably has enough noteworthy acting credits to meet WP:NOTABILITY. And there are plenty of sources listing his acting credits to meet WP:SIGCOV. I'm tempted to say that this feels like an odd case because there isn't really much to report except his acting credits (if there were more to report, such as from an interview, the subject would more obviously meet the relevant guidelines). In other words, it feels atypical, but probably just about worth keeping. The article needs some cleanup though as I think the sentences introducing credits are superfluous/not standard; ditto for some of the 'notes'. MB190417 (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Middle East Center for Studies and Research

edit
British Middle East Center for Studies and Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax; organization does not exist White 720 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoub Benchaoui

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

Article about footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage available is database entries and routine transfer announcements like [36]. PROD was removed without providing any indication that WP:SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Osborne

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

WP:BLP of a musician not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The closest thing to a legitimate notability claim here is producing a notable album, which isn't an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him -- but the only footnotes are discogs.com and Spotify, neither of which are notability-building sources, and the article is otherwise so highly advertorialized that I'd have speedy deleted it as a G11 if it hadn't existed for a full decade already.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better than this, and the POV here is so egregious that even if he could be salvaged with better sourcing the article would have to be completely rewritten from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saanich Police Department

edit
AfDs for this article:
Saanich Police Department (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)

Kept in 2009 when depth of coverage was not the factor it is now when assessing organizational AfDs. The PD exists, but coverage I've found is routine and local. There is nothing close to WP:ORG level sourcing. Would be fine with a merger to Saanich,_British_Columbia but that was contested pre AfD Star Mississippi 14:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and Canada. Star Mississippi 14:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Municipal police departments exist everywhere and do more or less the same things — so much like local fire departments and local chambers of commerce, they can't all be "inherently" notable just because they exist, because that would result in hundreds of thousands of run of the mill articles about every municipal police department on earth, mostly boilerplate with very little meaningful differentiation apart from the name of the city they serve. So the necessary test isn't "can we verify that it exists", but "can we get it over WP:GNG on the quality and depth of its sourcing" — and with this being referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing, there's no evidence that we can. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Poole

edit
Heather Poole (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:NBAD & WP:GNG. zoglophie 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selling to Zebras

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

Article about a non-fiction book, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for books. The main notability claim here is that it won a "best book" award from a publication whose name exists on Wikipedia only as a redirect to our article about vanity awards rather than a standalone article establishing its notability as a publication -- so a book clearly can't be "inherently" notable for winning an award that is not itself notable at all. But the referencing here is entirely primary sourcing (the self-published press releases of the vanity award, Q&A interviews in which the author is answering questions about his own work in the first person in unreliable sources, and the book circularly metareferencing itself), with absolutely no evidence of reliable or WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the book shown at all.
For added bonus, there are conflict of interest issues here as well, as the book's author has tried at least twice in the past two-years to rewrite the article as a hyperadvertorialized profile of his Zebra-branded software company, and the article was created in the first place by an editor named "Zebrabrent".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this book from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close because in this WP:MULTIAFD editors are unlikely to reach consensus. In this nomination 5 editors favored keeping all of the articles, 4 editors favored relisting them individually. There were 2 editors (3 with the nominator) who favored deleting all of the articles, and there were 6 separate entries which specified deletion of a specific article in the nomination. It appears that the best way forward is to close this nomination without prejudice against relisting. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro

edit
Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro (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)

These are entries in the Defunct restuarants in the "Template:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon". This is list of non-existant restaurants. Coverage is generally routine, profiles, small review profiles and general PR. They are not notable, if they were notable in the first place. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 13:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are closed restuarant article with no historical or enclyclopeadic value, as well:

Alexis Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Altabira City Tavern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Analog Café and Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ataula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aviary (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aviv (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baby Blue Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bailey's Taproom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beast (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berbati's Pan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Berlin Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bistro Agnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
scope_creepTalk 13:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than 50 of them in this list. Assuming I did one a week, that would take me to the same time next year. None of these historically important. scope_creepTalk 15:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're just assuming there's no such thing as a notable defunct restaurant in Portland? Yikes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC
Hopefully we will find out here. 99.999999% of restuarants and bars etc are non-notable and when they close, folk forget about them. They are transitory. scope_creepTalk 15:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, There is WP:NODEADLINE for creating articles, and no deadline for deleting them. we have time. — Jacona (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (disclaimer: I've worked on these). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess nominator hasn't done extensive research here. Did you know Beast earned Naomi Pomeroy a James Beard Award?! I'm quite confident I could turn some of these into Good articles, but I'm not inclined to spend all the time and energy required to rescue them right now (especially given how this discussion's going). Also, nominator spends a few minutes nominating 14 articles for deletion, offering zero evidence, and I'm supposed to spend hours defending my work? Hard pass. I'll consider working harder here if the nominator takes a serious stab at a source assessment table for Beast, otherwise I have other things to do. If the community wants to mass delete articles about (I'd argue, notable) restaurants, by all means. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it for you, any day. Your one of the nicest editors on Wikipedia. I will do a thorough examination of it tommorrow afternoon. Ping me if I forget. scope_creepTalk 15:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean an examination of the 4 citations currently used in the article, I mean a thorough source assessment based on all possible coverage per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Have see the articles I write? If there is any doubt that any of these notable, they will be kept. I conducted a WP:BEFORE on each of these. I was planning to do all them, but it takes a ton of time which I don't have. scope_creepTalk 15:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sure whatever. Meanwhile I've added a bunch of other sources to Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro and that's just preliminary findings from a very simple google search. See also sources at Talk:Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think a better approach would be to add {{notability}} to these articles (and others in addition) and wait several months to see what happens. In the meantime I suggest withdrawing this nomination. EEng 05:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @EEng: It seems to be heading that way, but the cat:nn has almost 59k entries and grows by 150-200 entries a month, so I don't think that would address the problem saving defunct non-notable companies. Its not not anywhere else. It if ends up as a procedural close, I will nominate them individually, 10 a month until they are done. scope_creepTalk 09:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand. You could do the same thing you're doing anyway, just first add the notability tag, wait a few months, then nominate if the referencing hasn't improved, of course. That would give interested editors time to improve the sourcing.
    Also, the fact that a place is defunct isn't relevant; only the sourcing matters, though for whatever reason there are a LOT of establishments with zero significant coverage, and these include current as well as defunct places.
    Finally: what is the "59k" you're talking about? What category? EEng 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The cat:nn maintenance category. Type in CAT:NN in the search box and it takes you there. I'm reluctant to put a note tags on each of these article as it would massively increase the amount of work I would have to do to delete them, particularly since none of them have left any lasting cultural impact. Not one of them, as far as I can see. scope_creepTalk 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing we need to get clear: "lasting cultural impact" isn't the test. The test is simply sufficient sourcing, and once something's notable via sourcing, it's permanently notable even if sources stop appearing. And the isn't to get articles deleted, but to get articles deleted that are on nonnotable subjects, and tagging {notability} in advance will save a lot of work by avoiding making nominations that will end in Keep, plus it's a powerful argument at AfD when you're able to say, "It's been tagged for notability for X months, and a few sources have been added, but it looks like it's still nonnotable even with those sources".
You're not planning to nominate everything in CAT:NN, are you? That would be a terrible idea. I thought we were focusing on this strange set of Portland (etc.) restaurants which, for whatever reason, seems to be rich with nonnotable topics. EEng 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Of course not. I reviewed the first article at WP:NPP and took it from there. Nothing to do with the CAT:NN list. Forget that. Everyone of these fails WP:NCORP. They were non-notable when the company was in existance and they are non-notable now. We don't keep directories of dead companies, unless each one has made a lasting cultural impact, that is verified by references. None of the them have that. That is consensus. We are not a directory of dead companies. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EEng. Let's slow our roll and just tag and wait a couple months. Give AB a chance to improve the sourcing. There's no intentional wrongdoing here. I think it's just an editor who has begun to believe anything locally notable is notable. It's an adjustment of expectations issue. Valereee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: for instance The Maisonette. Defunct. Doesn't mean it wasn't notable. Valereee (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but there's also an editor who has begun to believe any restaurant stub I've created is problematic and/or any defunct restaurant is non-notable. Going about the discussion in this way is not constructive. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I'm with you that a defunct restaurant can certainly be a notable subject. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason I nominated them, is because they don't seem to use post-existance references that show that people are talking about them after they are gone. Instead they are using the sames kinds of references when the company existed including lots of reviews. While some of these types of references are undoubtedly valuable and can be used to show it is notable in the day, they don't prove the company is notable now. It doesn't prove that folk and the cultural landscape are changed because of the companies existance. scope_creepTalk 16:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Like it or not, the nominator is clearly engaged in wikihounding. This can't go on much longer. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 18:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not the slightest hint of notability. Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide. The Banner talk 18:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure Naomi Pomeroy hasn't thrown her James Beard Award in the garbage can. :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets look at each of one of these in turn to show why they transient and non-notable:
    • Alexis Restaurant. There is five references, four of them are a routine annoucement of notice of closure, all dated around Sept/October 2016. The 4th reference is a passing mention, of closure and it used to serve Calamari. A WP:BEFORE and CSE search turn up 0 coverage on it.
    • Altabira City Tavern There is 11 references, all of the dated before the company closed. A WP:BEFORE and CSE and Gbook search search turn up zero post-closure references.
    • Analog Café and Theater Of the 10 references, 4 are routine annoucements, 2 are sex harrassement reporting, the other 4 are profiles and profile reviews. There is not even closure notice in the news. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Arleta Library Bakery & Cafe Bar of the week. 1 PR ref, the rest are no specific. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Ataula Two profiles reviews and two closure noticed. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Aviary (restaurant) Has 13 refs. 5 are closure notices, several clickbait review sites refs and routine annoucements. Mentioned in Fodors in 2022, removed in 2023. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed. It is mentioned in a review of closed restuarant, but its a passing mention.
    • Aviv (restaurant) Vegan restuarant. No other coverage past December 2021. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Baby Blue Pizza Same kind of coverage but closed. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Bailey's Taproom Pub. Two closure notices. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Beast (restaurant) Fine dining. According to Another Believer, this may be notable. However, it is a quite a common name, and even search Beast restaurant, Portland didn't find anything. A CSE search found nothing. Gbook has a couple of trade review books.
    • Berbati's Pan Nothing found after 2011. A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Berlin Inn A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
    • Bistro Agnes A WP:BEFORE and CSE found 0 references, after it closed.
Of these 13 restuarant, 12 of them are non-notable and have no lasting impact. The fine-dining French restaurant Beast has a Gbook trade reviews specific to Portland, which may count but I don't think so. I've not seen any reviews. scope_creepTalk 11:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SC, while I applaud your willingness to take on what is quite clearly a massive problem with essentially empty article on nonnotable businesses, you have just got to stop talking about "lasting impact" and so on. That does not matter. Once there's sourcing giving notability, then that notability is permanent. By continually returning to this "lasting impact" idea, you're undermining your argument. Talk only about SIGCOV and NCORP.
And I renew my entreaty that you withdraw this AfD, tag the various articles (a larger group than this, so we can start making real progress on this very big problem) for {notability}, and wait 4 months. Then no one can accuse you of not BEFOREing, and those interested will have had their opportunity to put their best foot(s) forward, source-wise. EEng 14:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I renew my entreaty that you withdraw this AfD, tag the various articles
@EEng: FYI- Scope creep has been indefinitely blocked from editing this page, and so physically cannot withdraw it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase unintended consequences comes to mind. EEng 17:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, it's so hard to locate this and this and this and this and this and 25 other obvious sources by simply googling "Beast" "Naomi Pomeroy". You had offered to put together a thorough source assessment demonstrating non-notability for Beast but you "didn't find anything" so I guess that's complete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the single Oregon Live source, none of those links give NCORP-satisfying SIGCOV to the restaurant... JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the nominator isn't completing a serious source assessment if they "didn't find anything". I don't expect this will happen, but I'd ask User:Scope creep to please withdraw this particular nomination so we're not attempting to asses 14 entries at once. I have no problem with individual nominations but this is not constructive, IMO. Others have made the same request here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Scope creep are now indefinitely blocked from editing this page, they can no longer withdraw it. Add that to the fact that a few other editors have responded in the Delete column, and withdrawing it would be improper. As would closing it as a SNOW keep. As a further FYI, tagging them continually on the page, or addressing them without their ability to respond, could be seen as antagonizing or failing to WP:DROPTHESTICK. My absolute best advice to you would be: you have made several good arguments here (at least I think they're good). The delete voters have also made some reasonable arguments. Whether others agree remains to be seen. It would be the best possible move for you to step away from this heated page and let the chips fall where they may. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not realize Scope creep was unable to respond here. I'm happy to walk away (the Daily Dozen discussion recently was maddening) but I'm frustrated because I don't feel I can defend 14 articles in a discussion like this. We'll see what happens. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep: nominator and friends are bad-faith targeting useful entries, and have astonishing misconceptions about the importance of the restaurant industry in society and to historical narratives. ɱ (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a far cry between "the restaurant industry" and individual restaurants. A "historical narrative" is not quoting listicles that mention a restaurant that only existed a few years. The restaurant industry includes so many tens of thousands of individual local businesses, and I think it's a major issue to treat routine local news blurbs and passing listicle mentions as establishing lasting notability. Reywas92Talk 14:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's a sourcing bias on your part. My industry shouldn't be largely ignored on Wikipedia simply because restaurants are local (duh). Science articles get to be backed by scientific journals. We don't get that luxury. We get the sources we get, and Wikipedia's food, drink, restaurant culture coverage is fucking abysmal largely because of it. ɱ (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, please immediately stop assuming bad faith. Make an actual argument about why this subject is notable rather than speculating on the motives of other editors. Valereee (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop "Assuming bad faith"? I've witnessed and even been explicitly targeted across articles I've edited, by these editors today. They need to be blocked. ɱ (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I had to remove some comments the editor made that was a clear WP:NPA. scope_creepTalk 19:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You two are making my head hurt. Both p-blocked from this discussion. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I found dozens of WP:RS for Beast at newspapers.com. Did you search newspapers at all for any of these restaurants? — Jacona (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona FYI, @Scope creep has been indefinitely blocked from editing this page, and so cannot respond to you here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bailey's Taproom. I see other Bailey's taprooms, but I don't see WP:SIGCOV here. Jacona (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexis. There's not much coverage outside of routine local stuff. — Jacona (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete Altabira. Again, not a lot of significant coverage. — Jacona (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be seriously thinking of making 14 separate comments... That's just silly KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me to just vote all keep or all delete regardless of the individual situation in each article? Sorry, I think each article deserves consideration, they should not have been lumped together, but just because someone has decided to do so does not obligate all editors to throw away all reason to placate them. Jacona (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, exactly, as I have clearly opined elsewhere, each article does deserve its due care and consideration. I just think it's extremely unfeasible to expect all 14 discussions to take place _here_. The whole discussion page would be swamped! We are not throwing away reason, in fact we are exercising COMMON SENSE. All I'm proposing it, if you really must nominate them for deletion, let's do so SEPARATELY. Peace! KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. But since the nominator made that choice, here we are. Jacona (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona If we consider this to be "impossible" imagine being the poor person who closes this discussion. The logical thing to do is make separate AfD proposals for each. You have illustrated the problems by opining separately that Altabira be kept and be deleted. And you are working diligently. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've also commented on "The Acadian" which is not even a listed topic (?) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer, Ya, so many articles Acadian was short for the headliner Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro. As USER:Timtrent pointed out, it's difficult, with many people editing the AfD more or less simultaneously everything gets mixed up. These AfDs really should be done individually. It's a real cluster. — Jacona (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep Altabira. — Jacona (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aviary. There's so many of these it's hard to discuss fully, but I believe the 13 refs in the article, including a Condé Nast Traveler are sufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. — Jacona (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^ This is precisely why this mass nom was a terrible, terrible idea, EVEN IF it's not Wikihounding. How can a proper discussion be facilitated?! Hard enuf to keep track of which article the Keep/Delete votes are for! Please, let's just end this madness... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked deeper into the references of the restaurants that seemed to have more specific support here (Altabira (but unclear if Jacona supports keeping or deleting?), Aviary, and Beast) and am not particularly satisfied the sources meet NCORP.
  • Delete Altabira. There are four local sources listed: 2 Oregon Live, 2 Willamette Week, Thrillist, and 5 Eater Portland. Neither Oregon Live article is SIGCOV, with the first just listing some menu options and the second announcing the closure of five of the restaurateur's restaurants: Red XN. The first WW article is trivial and obviously PR, and the second is derived wholly from the EP piece on the owner closing his restaurants: Red XN. Thrillist is trivial and of dubious independence: Red XN. None of the EP articles provide SIGCOV of Altabira -- three are trivial listicles; one is clearly primary and non-independent; and the closure article just has a passing mention: Red XN.
  • Weak delete Aviary. 8 sources: 4 Eater Portland, Conde Nast Traveler, 2 Portland Monthly, Portland Mercury, Thrillist, Oregon Live, 2 Willamette Week, and Fodor's. EP1 is strictly quotes from the chef; EP2 is a blurb on its opening; EP3 is an ok-ish but still routine overview of its closure; EP4 provides a slightly more detailed treatment of the same info on the restaurant as found in EP3, with the addition of some menu items and its local accolades; nevertheless, this is still purely local coverage: Red XN. Conde Nast offers a primary, contributed account from a local Portland journalist of some specific dishes with little commentary on anything encyclopedic: Red XN Portland Monthly 1 is an "editor's choice" listing with a brief, flowery blurb; 2 gives an ok-ish pseudo-review of particular dishes while announcing its reopening; but it's also local, so: Red XN. Portland Mercury includes it in a weekly round-up of restaurant closes, although it does reference a lengthy first-person account from a Mercury columnist and a shorter plug from another Mercury contributor; but again, all local: Red XN. Thrillist is a simple listing blurb: Red XN. Oregon Live and WW1 are routine closure coverage: Red XN. WW2 calls Aviary its Restaurant of the Year and gives decent coverage...but is purely local: Red XN. Fodor's has 6 sentences covering the menu, which might partially count toward SIGCOV but is hardly outstanding given the website provides the same local freelance accounts of over 150 PDX restaurants...
  • Delete Beast. Strictly local coverage, much of it centered more on its chef than the restaurant and comprising only routine closure announcements. Notability is not inherited, so it's irrelevant the chef won a (regional) James Beard award. JoelleJay (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's preferable for the articles to be put up for AfD individually. A multiple deletion places too much pressure on the articles' originator/interested contributors to add sources, some of which in the rush to avoid deletion may worsen, rather than improve the article. The point made earlier about placing a {{notability}} tag on the article and waiting, say a month or two, is a good one as it serves notice of the problem but gives contributors time to add quality sources, that may help establish notability. Rupples (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I understand the reservations about this WP:MULTIAFD. But to determine if this is or isn't a worthwhile bundling, while worrying about the likelihood of each article receiving due attention, one would need to try; after trying myself, I ended up with a good impression about this nomination. The articles are similar in terms of development and structure, have a very similar typology of sources, and are all nominated with the same rationale. This makes assessing them all in short succession relatively easy, and I encourage participants to do so themselves. Without going overlong, all of the articles fall quite short of WP:NCORP due to trivial and local coverage. Several other people have also tried -- I agree with the analysis of sources done by the nominator and by JoelleJay (regarding Altabira City Tavern, Aviary (restaurant) /I'll add: a non-notable award received by the organization is explicitly mentioned as an example of trivial coverage; in all of the articles, the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS are not of the significant type, including the Condé Nast Traveler article referenced here/, and Beast (restaurant) /worth highlighting WP:NOTINHERIT again/). I am not at all against there being many notable defunct restaurants, but these ones aren't it. —Alalch E. 11:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and relist this is not an appropriate application of AfD bundling, and it's not reasonable to try to multithread !votes for articles that are only related by a category. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and relist. It is too confusing to consider all these individually in one AfD, and wrong to consider them as a group. Jacona (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and relist. After examining the arguments here, I just don't think we can treat them all the same. Even if I were to say we should delete some of them or keep some of them, clearly the case is more deletionist/inclusionist for some than others. They cannot be fully lumped together. To fully explore this and give each page its due process, this should be split and relist. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For our collective sanity, please split and relist (ideally not all at once so I'm not having to expand 14 articles at the same time). If Scope creep feels strongly about deleting these then the onus should be on them to nominate properly after clearly outlining how each topic fails to meet notability criteria. Otherwise we are wasting massive amounts of editor time which can be better spent improving the encyclopedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For even more collective sanity, can you join me instead in my call that the nominator withdraw, tag the articles for {notability}, then wait 3 to 6 months to give interested editors time to improve the sourcing before nominating the appropriate subset again? Since he's been blocked from this page, I'm going to go ask him on his talk. EEng 17:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decoding Communication

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

A longstanding article on a book of unclear notability. The references are routine and basically primary; the Image Management interview also describes the author as "CEO of the Comniscient Group (which includes Blue Lotus Communications, Trust Research Advisory, and Blue Bytes News)", which indicates this was an in-house publication. Since the article was created, on a couple of occasions it has attracted additions describing the field in general, rather than this particular book. Searches also find this brief at-launch item, but I am not seeing the level of coverage needed to demonstrate that the book achieved notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 15:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama-Notre Dame football rivalry

edit
Alabama-Notre Dame football rivalry (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 appears to be a WP:ESSAY albeit with references. But it is a play by play match report, not an encyclopaedia article. As written it is, surely, out of scope. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alabama and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the text is almost verbatim from 2012_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football_team#No._1_Notre_Dame. I don't see the relevant attribution as far as copying within Wikipedia. Without that, there really is no article. and I say this as an extremely biased Notre Dame fan, there is no rivalry Star Mississippi 14:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the one hand, much of this content is a report on a single game. On the other hand, when there is a Wikipedia article about a sports rivalry, I usually vote to delete unless there are sources that specifically indicate that there is a rivalry between the two teams (as opposed to two teams that play each other from time to time but don't have a true "rivalry"). And there are a few sources like that: Yahoo! Sports, AL.com, The Daily Beast, OregonLive (which is cited in this article). I'm discounting Tourisme83.com and The Western Journal which are cited in the article, because the first is a French tourism website publishing a post irrelevant to its own subject matter and the second is considered generally unreliable, but the existence of some valid sources suggests that a proper article could possibly be created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is very little WP:SIGCOV establishing Alabama and Notre Dame as "rivals" Going through the list provided by User:Metropolitan90, the Oregonian and Daily Beast pages do not describe the teams as "rivals" at all in the body of the article, only in the title. Many times publications will use buzzwords like "rivalry" to manufacture hype and get clicks, but these two simply do nothing to establish the two programs as rivals. The Yahoo! sports page actually calls the Alabama-Notre Dame series a "non-rivalry," the AL.com page simply talks about the series and doesn't establish the two sides as "rivals" (using the term "rivalry" only once in passing). Notre Dame and Alabama are obviously two of the top programs in college football history, but that along with a few high-profile games is not enough to establish a rivalry, as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage. Frank Anchor 02:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor Does this mean the article is a WP:HOAX, or simply a well intentioned probable error of judgement? I have no opinion either way. My nomination is based on article content without any knowledge of the topic covered. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no reason to believe the article wasn’t created in good faith, it’s just not a notable subject. Frank Anchor 11:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with @Frank Anchor here @Timtrent. Likely a case of "rivalry headlines" = worthy of an article on the rivalry. I don't know the editor but assume all good faith and human error w/r/t not attributing. Star Mississippi 15:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Grateful to Frank Anchor and Star Mississippi. It's always well to clear things up. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They've met twice since 1987 and the next time they'll meet is 2029, this isn't an established and "true" rivalry. Coverage will exist, but it's rather routine given how much coverage is given to every individual game of top football programs. I'm with Frank Anchor on this one, rivalry headlines are often misleading. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but maybe rename "Alabama-Notre Dame football series"). These discussions typically get bogged down into whether a series qualifies as a "rivalry". That's fair since the article is titled "Alabama-Notre Dame football rivalry". If we take a step back from the "rivalry" paradigm, the series between the two greatest programs in the history of college football is notable, regardless of whether it's a "rivalry". These teams have played each other nine times, with both of them ranked in eight of those games, the 1973 and 2013 games deciding the national championship, the 1975 game depriving Alabama of a national championship, and the 2021 game as the national championship semifinal. That is at least as notable as Alabama–Penn State football rivalry which has been kept twice in AfDs in 2011 and again in 2018. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the others that 8 games played between the two teams (the 9th will be in 2029) does not make a rivalry. The difference between this and the Alabama-Penn State rivalry that Cbl62 mentions is that Alabama played Penn State every year in the 1980s. Alabama and Notre Dame have played each other sporadically, which does not qualify as a rivalry for me. The sources cited above or in the article only loosely mention the "rivalry" aspect of these teams and were primarily written before the 2013 and 2021 bowl games played between the two of them, perhaps to hype up them up. Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but the only reason I can come up with is ignore all rules because I really believe that the editing of any valuable content into other articles would be better rather than having this stand-alone article right now. I disagree that "we" are the ones who determine if it is a rivalry, but we ARE the ones who weigh on on the notability of that rivalry. I lean toward an editing solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BusterD (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kakde

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG, and with an h-Index of 7, and low citation count, can't see anything else that meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 11:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as you said, low citation count and dubious notability. IA (speak!) 14:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 12:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeng Shwu-zen

edit
Jeng Shwu-zen (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:NBAD & WP:GNG. zoglophie 11:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 12:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia national under-16 futsal team

edit
Malaysia national under-16 futsal team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see any evidence that this topic meets the requirements of WP:GNG. There is no sourced content worth merging and I don't believe that a redirect to Malaysia national futsal team would serve any purpose since the under-16 team is not mentioned there nor should it be. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Malaysia women's national under-16 futsal team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as original research with no reliable sources cited. Those who want to expound new ideas should seek publication in a traditional outlet. Potential use of the title as an unrelated redirect is left to ordinary editorial discretion. RL0919 (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical quantity

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

An odd way of defining "standard mechanical quantities" that I can't find in any reliable source. It appears to be entirely based on a Youtube video. Two quotes from the video say it all "surprisingly, this table does not seem to have been drawn before", and "check Wikipedia, we may have put the table there by the time you have watched this video." In other words, original research. SpinningSpark 09:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've put the page together this morning. I admit it's in the grey area when it comes to "original research". All terms used on the page are standard and not original, but putting these terms in a table seems to be new. My colleagues (Mathieu Hautefeuille, Vivek Sharma) and I (Marc-Antoine Fardin) have put together the youtube video used as reference because we do think that this presentation of mechanical quantities can be pretty useful. And we do think that wikipedia is a great place to check if it is useful indeed, and to invite people to contribute. Quoting wikipedia: The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. Here, the material of the article is so basic that it can draw entirely on uncontroversial wikipedia articles. We added the reference to the video to provide illustration, but this reference can be removed if it helps. Iluvendan (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the video won't help, and the claim that it can rely entirely on other Wikipedia articles is both directly against policy (WP:V and WP:WINARS) and only true because you yourself have added links to multiple articles pointing to the page. The main claim of this article is that "standard mechanical quantities" are defined as those with a LTM dimensional analysis with M1. That claim definitely needs a reliably published source, but the only hit I got on gbooks for "standard mechanical quantities" included temperature in their examples, which obviously does not fit. Also jumping out at me is the omission of velocity and acceleration which can't possibly have a cell in that table, and the inclusion of acoustic impedance which strikes me as nonsense to claim as fundamental. SpinningSpark 11:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The velocity and acceleration that you are mentioning are "mechanical quantities" in the way used in the article, but more restrictively "kinematic" (independent of mass). I guess, quantities including temperature or charge or any other dimension beyond M, L and T would be more broadly "physical quantities", but I note that this other page is also contentious. If the page is maintained users could refine these points and maybe even draw a similar table for kinematic quantities (speed, acceleration, diffusivity, etc). Maybe the word "standard" is inappropriate, "usual" may be more neutral. All these quantities were defined gradually throughout the history of science and classifying them is not really an active subject of research, so finding references beyond those where each term originates may be complicated. The goal of this page is really not to impose any standard but to provide a place where these useful mechanical concepts are understood with respect to one another, in a less random fashion that in pages of lists like List_of_physical_quantities. I doubt that the page makes controversial points, but I expect that it may be useful to wikipedia users. Another possibility would be to transform this page into a Category. Let's wait to see if someone else can contribute to this conversation. Iluvendan (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the deletion discussion being started here but I'd like to chime in:
  1. The omission of velocity and acceleration are because these do not contain M so not yet in scope. Would be interesting to visualise perhaps using 3 dimensions all the difference combinations of powers of L, T and M
  2. I find this particular visualisation of mechanical quantities (quantities of the form \mathsf{L}^{x}\mathsf{T}^y \mathsf{M}) particularly interesting and helpful to relate very common quantities to each other. To me this is a legitimate and clear extension of the original dimensional analysis page.
  3. I do think the article ought to be reworded as a visualisation though. Either way it's clearly not covered by the original research clause for deletion.
ΨΦΘ (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the point of the deletion discussion. There exists no notable topic "mechanical quantities". It does not even exist as a concept in the page Dimensional analysis that you mention. In science, there is no defined category "mechanical quantities". —Quondum 15:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original reasearch, without support from general usage, and as an attempt at WP:CITOGENESIS. The classification "mechanical" has been used loosely (and rather lazily) in WP, primarily in articles on unit systems, to mean "without an electromagnetic component", for which there are better descriptions than "mechanical quantity". (And, of course, as failing to be notable in the sense required by WP.) This is no reason to create an article on the topic, no matter how well-meant, evidently trying to find unifying concepts in a patchwork conceptual framework. In fact, the definition given is not even rigorous: in the CGS system, every quantity meets the definition of "mechanical quantity" as given in the article. —Quondum 13:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability - see WP:GNG A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Explicitly original research creation, defined so broadly that it seems no-one else has recognised its utility, lacks explanatory power when shoe-horned into, for example, Power (physics) as the second sentence.[38], no coverage other than a video co-created by the article creator. Might have been a candidate for speedy deletion under A11 NebY (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR--Srleffler (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "mechanical quantity" has apparently existed for some time to refer to quantities with dimensions of length, time, and/or mass: for example, [39] (1971, in-depth discussion of dimensional analysis, including a mention of "kinematic quantities") and [40] (2013, use in the specific context of meteorology). According to these and other sources, the broad definition at the beginning of the introduction is not OR/citogenesis. However, I can't find any evidence for widespread use of the term specifically for quantities with one dimension of mass, and per the above comments about the video attempting to propagate "new information", everything starting from that specific definition (i.e., everything beyond the first two paragraphs) is WP:OR. I completely support the removal of OR, though seeing as the term is used in a more general sense, would prefer a redirect to physical quantity (whether outright or post-WP:TNT) to leaving a redlink. Additionally, nuances of dimensional analysis (that are discussed in RS) are already described in the article on dimensional analysis. Complex/Rational 22:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second source, I'm not seeing any attempt at a definition of a category of mechanical quantity, let alone one in terms of LTM (but perhaps I have just not read it carefully enough). I don't think a redirect to physical quantity is justified as there is no discussion there. However, I could agree to a merge of the sourceable parts to dimensional analysis which in my opinion is what this is a part of. SpinningSpark 00:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a partial merge could work. And the second source was intended as another example that the term exists and is in use, not to provide a definition for it. Complex/Rational 01:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you interpreting a statement such as "Since a mechanical quantity a can be considered as a composition of length, time and mass" to be a definition of "mechanical quantity"? I only read it to saying that every mechanical quantity can be expressed in that way; not that every quantity that can be expressed that way is a mechanical quantity. —Quondum 00:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In a strictly logical sense, you are correct, though I believe this could be reasonably construed as a definition and is consistent with how the term is used. Nonetheless, I can look to see whether another source gives a more concrete definition. Complex/Rational 01:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I'd suggest that it is very much not for us to "construe" anything, especially something that is clearly ambiguous. Is torque mechanical quantity? Sure. Is mass cubed a mechanical quantity? Hardly. Something that is without some "reality" or practical application could be argued to be clearly not within the mechanical realm. Besides, an occasional use of a pre-assumed concept by a small number of authors to give context for clarity not make it notable as a concept. —Quondum 02:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That line of the article states "length, time, and mass" with a strict logical and, i.e., a mechanical quantity appears to have all three of these dimensions be nonzero.
    I agree that the topic is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. I was only suggesting a redirect to a related article that deals with the subject as explained in reliable sources, as one of the definitions is not blatant OR. Complex/Rational 13:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "one of the definitions is not blatant OR": I'll assume that you are referring to what I quoted: "Since a mechanical quantity a can be considered as a composition of length, time and mass, the unit of a, denoted by [a], must be a function of the fundamental units, i.e. [a] = f(L, T, M)". To assume "composition of a, b, c" in your strict sense seems to be irrelevant to the point you make. My point is that this is not a definition of "mechanical quantity" at all: Saying that a cat can be considered to be an animal is not defining the concept of "cat". It is merely constraining it. The same applies to "mechanical quantity" in this construction. —Quondum 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "this could be reasonably construed as a definition and is consistent with how the term is used": To argue that it is a definition if it is consistent with how it is used makes your argument is baseless: we have yet to find a single admissible usage that unambiguously uses the term to describe the entire class of quantities a that obey [a] = f(L, T, M), let alone show that this is "how the term is used". To create a redirect creates an implication that would reinforce WP:CITOGENESIS. (I have seen this happen, and it is a lot of work countering the edit wars that ensue because editors become entranced by the "neat concept" that they apparently discovered or had reinforced on WP.) —Quondum 15:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A possible redirect target could be Mechanics, which (very briefly) mentions and lists quantities at one point, and could be elaborated. This is essentially unrelated to a definition involving dimensional analysis, though. —Quondum 15:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and make sure to remove the mentions that got shoehorned into other articles. Don't simply unlink them. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Happy Family episodes

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

After the copyvio plot summaries were removed in 2013, given there has been no effort to write original summaries, there is little point in having the page around. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 05:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDATA, could be merged if someone actually cares enough to add summaries. Dronebogus (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:PRESERVE. Episode lists are usually encyclopedic if they are verifiable, but this one is too short to stand on its own. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with the merge proposals, if we can't add find sources to cover the plot summaries, merging is a decent option. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and may constitute WP:OR. Does not cite any sources. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apparently a day before this page was nominated the pagecreator was indef blocked for copyright violation (adding copyrighted episode summary) in TV episode lists just like this one. I'm fine with the merge option, but IMHO there's little here of value and nothing adequately sourced. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacoba Langgaard

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Faroe Islands women's national football team. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Christiansen

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Judge Dredd. Just wanted to mention that there is no article section called "Major Judge Dredd storylines" so please look at the target article when proposing a redirect or merge. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants (Judge Dredd storyline)

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

Another Judge Dredd storyline that's likely fails WP:GNG. No reviews, reception, analysis, just a plot summary referenced to comic books themselves; my BEFORE failed to find anything. As for WP:ATD, I can only recommend redirecting this to Judge Dredd#Major_Judge_Dredd_storylines. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Called Up Sent Down": The Bevin Boys' War

edit
"Called Up Sent Down": The Bevin Boys' War (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 notability standards as per Wikipedia:Notability_(books). KeepItGoingForward (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... It has a good academic citation to a detailed book review in The Oxonian Review. If anything, just needs another reference. Whispyhistory (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really long review in the Oxonian. I am finding others too. Will vote when they are added. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the AFD can be closed if one more significant review can be shown. The "Down the Pit" seems weak, but otherwise I am glad to see notability likely can be shown. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to Weak Keep. The Oxonian Review appears to be WP:RS, the reference also meets WP:SIGCOV requirements. The Spokesman appears to be a credible magazine with numerous subject-matter-experts as per the refs in the Wikipedia article, it is left-wing biased but the extent appears to fall under WP:BIASED and likely does not impact its reliability regarding book reviews, so in this case it's probably reliable, the review, which is four paragraphs long, also meets WP:SIGCOV. I'm unsure if this is reliable but the short single paragraph review IMO fails WP:SIGCOV. While I did not find more refs counting towards notability, right now there are two references that probably count towards WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria 1, making notability IMO borderline, so I'm at neutral to weak keep. If more refs are found do ping me, thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Zumock

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chad Zumock (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)

Media personality who co-hosted a radio show in a mid-sized market for two years a decade ago and has a podcast with 94 Patrons [46] and YouTube view counts in the hundreds and a YouTube channel with 2.12K subscribers and most of its videos receiving less than a thousand views [47]. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Reply- The numbers do not match what Hirolovesswords is claiming, as the link below will show you that Zumock has over 615k views (See About section within the following link:

https://youtube.com/@SitDownZumock

Zumock is a constant target of online harassment and I suspect this request to be a form of vandalism. In addition, Zumock also mentioned that his Wikipedia page had been improved just two days ago on the most recent episode of Kevin Brennan's podcast Misery Loves Company. Zumock is also a co-host on several radio/podcast shows, as his wiki page shows, and aforementioned, the numbers do not match this user's claims. If anything, the semi-protection on this page should be more restrictive, as there's a history of these type of requests/attacks.

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism Hirolovesswords — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the User:Machiavellian Gaddafi, who commented above, and who recently make a large edit to the article, was blocked today for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even more red flags, this concerning. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zumock just filmed a Dry Bar Special this year
https://www.drybarcomedy.com/chadz
and is verified on all social media platforms. @Hirolovesswordscontinues to vandalize this page Brickman757 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need a discussion of the comedy special from reliable news sources, not simply a link to it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗plicit 00:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Cwaik

edit
Joan Cwaik (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)

Promotional BLP- reads like a Linkedin CV rather than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrsSnoozyTurtle is 100% agree, this person only use Wikipedia for personal promotion. Even in Argentina, where this article could have some interest, isn't important at all (I'm from Argentina). Neither Joan's book where of interest. 181.168.21.254 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is a relevant person in Argentina. The article has been reviewed and approved, so it means that it was considered Relevant for a reviewer too (User:ProgrammingGeek) and it has been on Wikipedia since 2018 and has a couple edits by other contributors, so it is clear that there is consensus about the importance of this article. Let me ask this question: what's the point for collaborators on inverting time on reviewing and approving drafts if one day will appear a user and ask for deleting it? I believe it is disrespectful for the people who spend time on reviewing and approving a draft to pretend to delete an article. May the user who wants this has an interest on this deletion because firstly she tried a speed deletion which was reverted by an administrator. Now, defying the decision of and administrator (User:Cyrius) she started this discussion. — User:SuperFurryBoy — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, on ther basis the existing coverage cited in the article is enough to convince me Cwaik passes WP:GNG. Though, as the nominator points out, the article is becoming a rambling CV and needs monitoring/cleaning up at the very least. Sionk (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Alonso Castillo

edit
AfDs for this article:
David Alonso Castillo (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:SIGCOV. While they have won one national track championship in a team event: http://www.cyclingarchives.com/coureurfiche.php?coureurid=37448 it does not make them notable. They have no individual wins or world championship level prominent results or coverage KeepItGoingForward (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was delete. BD2412 T 00:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English Academy School

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

Unreferenced for 14 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arus Sem

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

Unable to find much independent coverage at all past passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Pareta

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

Unable to find much independent coverage at all past passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_17&oldid=1129342830"