Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 23

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      October 28 (Mon)      October 27 (Sun)      October 26 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Ri Kwang-hyok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As individual is a verified international footballer, but needs more sources. Would just class as a stub article for now, Jattlife121 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing that however the problem is that there aren't anymore sources. Simione001 (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea Lâm (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Someone with specific expertise might be able to find some references given the subject matter, but it's fine if this is recreated later when those references are found as well. A redirect is better than a delete, and a little bit more time would be better than a redirect here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep International footballer.Quotevegas (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charterhouse Square 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)

I tagged this article about an independent primary school with potential notability issues in February this year. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and added coverage of the school's acquisition by Cognita and its 2004 inspection, which received some media attention; both these references are to the same newspaper, the Evening Standard. I cannot find significant independent coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the school satisfies WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The other references and links are to the school's website, its inspection reports, the Department for Education and the association of which it is a member. This is run of the mill coverage which does not demonstrate notability. I found a letter in The Spectator about its admission procedures, a brief mention in a memoir by Andrew Mitchell (his children went there), coverage by an architectural firm of the work it did for the school, a write-up by an advertising agency of the campaign it carried out for the school, details on the council's site about the School Street restrictions around the building. None of these are significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cognita, maybe? I had a look at the Times Digital Archive, and there's no in-depth coverage there either - only a few passing mentions as one of the schools in the City. The Evening Standard was functionally a local paper for central London at the time of the references, so it's reasonable that they would cover it but it doesn't demonstrate interest outside the local area. Adam Sampson (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cognita per Adam Sampson. Not independently notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Martial Arts (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 fails the second WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being an WP:NOESSAY that is full of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The section listing Christian martial arts programs violates WP:NOTDIR. Sources are primary; while there are several self-published sources available, there is no independent, reliable, secondary coverage of this topic on which to base an encyclopedic treatment. (A quick note on the provenance of this page: I draftified it in September during new page review and the creator later returned it to mainspace. Another editor inadvertently draftified it a second time and then reverted per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Hence it is now at AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Martial arts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. This is not ready to be an encyclopedic entry as it is not objective and contains WP:PEACOCK. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand Wikipedia editing (I am new to it and learning), one of the first things I read is that editors are to try to improve articles and make them ready for Wikipedia. Why seek deletion when, based on your comment (not ready), improvement and inclusion appear to be viable? Bushido77 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed all of the un-needed bold and left it as italics (Bushido77 has already been warned about). I have no rebuttal to this comment by Bushido77 as it appears they have not understood or refuse to listen to anything from the several discussions concerning their articles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize if I missed something. What I read in the Wikipedia guidelines is that some bold type is allowable. Please advise as to which article says no bold type. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is true that the article as it currently stands is more of a sermon than an encyclopedic entry and would need much revision, perhaps on an entry on religious views on martial arts or something of that sort could be created in the future. While I have found articles analyzing martial arts from a Christian perspective (and that is indeed the sourcing being provided), there is not enough quality sourcing and scholarly analysis regarding a martial arts specialty within Christianity to create an encyclopedic article. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article "would need much revision", would it not be appropriate to allow for such revisions to be made, rather than simply delete the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rejected three times by three different editors as a draft (on top of at least one regular decline) and for good reason, since there's no sourcing to support the claim that this is a recognised type of martial art. It's all original research. --bonadea contributions talk 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To my knowledge, no one claimed it is a recognized type of martial art. Similar to taekwondo and karate, Christian martial arts are also a subset of the martial arts. Under taekwondo and karate there are thousands of different developed styles. It is similar with Christian martial arts, under this banner there are many different styles. Bushido77 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the Wikipedia page about editors I read, the first response of an editor is to seek to improve the page to make it acceptable for inclusion. Instead biased opinions have done nothing to encourage correcting the page... just deleting it and a months worth of work goes down the toilet.

It appears that Wikipedia editors pick and choose the parts of the Wikipedia guides that they want to adhere to.

NONE of the article is original research. Bushido77 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should assume good faith here on Wikipedia. Complaining like this will have no effect on whether the article gets deleted, and only serves to antagonize others. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My frustration with the Wikipedia process got the better of me. Bushido77 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus = four of us are in a room and I have $100. The other three agree that I must give them the money and they take it. Consensus got them what they wanted... but the majority does not make it right. Bushido77 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, decisions are based on consensus, not voting. Consensus is reached through reasoned arguments that demonstrate both the article’s usefulness and its reliance on reliable, independent sources, neither of which this article has. Sorry. Nswix (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is not based on "voting", why have I been told to only highlight "keep" once because we are only allowed to vote once? It has also been referred to as voting by others as well. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido, you are WP:SHOUTing again. Remove your bold text from this AfD, and only bold the word keep once, to make it easier for whoever closes this deletion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - i rejected the draft and author decides to move to mainspace. Is complete WP:OR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize. That was due to me being a newbie and someone else telling me that I could do that. Bushido77 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Three of the four sources are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and the fourth is non-notable, so the article fails WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Four sources?" I am not sure what you are looking at. When I created the article that were about 30 books and magazine articles (including Black Belt magazine) that discussed Christian martial arts and about 30 links to Christian martial arts ministries.

  Sad - I just looked and someone edited out all of those various links. Now I see why you only saw four. There used to be many more. Bushido77 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is a total lack of significant coverage. The claim in 2024 that we have no standards is untenable. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC) FWIW, the links were removed as spam. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you look at the article before they deleted all of the links? There were approximately 30 books and magazine articles and approximately 30 Christian martial arts ministries.

  I have no idea who or why all of those references were deleted from the article. I have them saved, if yo would like to see the many links. (Are they still available somewhere here on Wikipedia? I am new to editing.) Bushido77 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How can links to Black Belt magazine be spam? How can links to books be spam? How could links to Christian martial arts ministries be spam?

  Wow, Wikipedia is extremely confusing. Bushido77 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bushido77 the changes can all be seen in the article's history. It's true, there are a lot of rules here, which can be overwhelming for a newcomer (which is why many of us recommend that newcomers learn the most important rules by working on improving existing content rather than trying to write new articles from scratch first).

  In your case, I think the most important guidelines that you need to consider are Reliable sources and § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As others have already pointed out, assuming good faith on the part of other editors, and accepting that Wikipedia works by consensus, are also essential. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I am trying to learn. But I still don't understand how Black Belt magazine and published books are "spam." Bushido77 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. lack of significant coverage doesn't pass WP:GNG.

Talks at Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Google. Not independently notable and lack of WP:SIGCOV about Talks at Google as a standalone subject. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Google as a viable ATD, per Longhornsg. Sal2100 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, Music, Entertainment, Science, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Google.It is not independently notable and fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Pretty much nothing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barb Kelly (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)

Biography of a mayor, not demonstrated as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just for existing as mayors, and the notability test hinges on the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of reliable source coverage, about her political career: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the community, and on and so forth. But this barely goes any further than "there once was a mayor who lived and died, the end", and is referenced entirely to three short blurbs that aren't enough to pass WP:GNG all by themselves, with no evidence of genuinely substantive coverage shown at all.
The mere fact that she existed is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sourcing to support it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The subject was mayor of a municipality of almost 80,000 folks. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with our notability criteria for mayors. Those hinge on the quality and depth of what can be said about her mayoralty based on reliable sources, and confer absolutely no exemptions from that just because of the population of the municipality. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks independent, reliable sources that demonstrate her notability --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIALMENTION; no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woh Aik Pal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I found a lot of name-check coverage, I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Therefore, I'm taking this to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: https://www.gqindia.com/binge-watch/collection/7-best-pakistani-dramas-mx-player-offer-unique-entertainment-experience/ and similar coverage (this one bylined) ; +coverage about production+ notable cast and crew+ mildly significant nomination= all in all, a certain notability; if other users judge this is not enough, redirect to the page about the writer, Samira Fazal, and merge (or with/to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV); opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I’m also open to the idea of redirect/merging it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in reliable news sources [2] [3] Received nomination at Lux Style Awards which is country's notable and significant annual award show. [4] Sometimes spell as Woh Ek Pal. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libraa2019, This isn’t SIGCOV; it’s just routine coverage. Also, being nominated for the Lux Style Awards isn’t enough to establish WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is clearly under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and not reliable for notability. GQ is a good verification it exists, but not significant (it is included in a list of shows).--CNMall41 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nom. Should be deleted. Not encyclopedic material. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikibear47, someone already filed SPI that you are supporting nominator in almost every AFD initiated by him, so you should present better reason instead of just voting delete to support a nominator. Also, you need to see WP:ATA. Libraa2019 (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm sorry. My reasoning does need to be improved. Wikibear47 (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Libraa2019, I think you should stop your bullying tactics, as it seems like you’re overdoing it. It’s not a crime to share the same opinion nor do I see their vote as WP:ATA. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib, No need of WP:bludgeon, i've just noticed you are canvassing others for supporting you in AFD's [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] therefore i am not fully wrong. Also WP:AGF. You have filed an SPI against me which is bullying actually. Libraa2019 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib and Libraa2019, both of you, focus on the article and its sources, not each other. Don't bring up SPIs in an attempt to sway editors in offering their assessments of this article. That could be seen as attempted intimidation which can result in a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sources on the page are unreliable. So are those listed above and in my search. Plenty of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and mentions in references about the actors, but nothing significant about the show itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin already notified here not to use WP:NEWSORGINDIA in Pakistan related AFD's and do not use it as a justification for deletion. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis (as requested) - The first four are on the page, the rest were presented in the discussion above. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Happymaza, Not sure what this source is and cannot locate anything on the Waybackmachine.
• The International News, references says nothing about the series.
• News18, typical churnalism as we see often. Falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and cannot be used to establish notability.
• Dawn, as with The International News source, says nothing about the series. In fact, the reference is used to support an award nomination and the reference doesn't even support that.
• GQ India, probably the only source that comes close to significant coverage. It is one of of seven series listed in a listicle and has one paragraph (five sentences) with a brief overview.
• The Tribune, also falls under NEWSORGINDIA. But, even if it was bylined, the source only contains one mention of the series where the writer was nominated for an award.

• Keep - The serial aired back in 2017 and have still information available on websites as per above sources analysis (i.e, GQ India, Tribune and The News), I can't recall what exactly the policy said but there was something regarding serials that aired before 5 recent years should be considered notable on the basis of their available reference cites. Therefore, I feel rather than going for the quantity considering the coverage, it should be kept plus I found some sources on search as well like this.Reshmaaaa (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Reshmaaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can't recall what the policy yet only have 10 edits prior to this AfD discussion so you must have just saw it unless you have prior editing experience. By the way, the source you provided above falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so cannot be used for notability. Nothing else you provided in your keep vote is policy-based. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do have minimal contribution cause I prefer going by the rules and policies and I'm taking my time to read policies and guidelines. Anyways, in Wikipedia:Notability (television) under WP:NTVNATL, it's clearly mentioned why this should be kept as it aired not only on National television plus it has garnered broader regional coverage. Neither it was instantly cancelled or aired on a minor secondary channel to be not notable. Since that's what policy said, so in line with it I have voted "Keep".Reshmaaaa (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're referencing an essay and second, this essay states that television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on a network of television stations. However, I don't see it as notable because if it were, it would have easily met the GNG. PS. Declare your other sock accounts! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YES, It has been aired on Hum TV as well as Hum Sitaray so it is more likely to be notable as it has aired on a network of television stations plus it has been available for streaming in India as well, making it notable as per the said essay. As far as your claim of sock account is concerned, see User talk:Reshmaaaa. Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reshmaaaa, Just because it aired on some TV channels doesn't make it WP:N; it has to meet GNG, which nobody has been able to demonstrate yet. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The essay I mentioned itself establishes WP:N regarding WP: Notability (TV) and the article falls under this category I guess. I'll leave it to closing admin now to decide. I'll stick to my vote cause I see it as a notable show as per WP:Notability (TV) as I mentioned earlier. Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Liz already notified here not to use WP:NEWSORGINDIA in Pakistan related AFD's and do not use it as a justification for deletion therefore it is not a valid point to mention here. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not how that works. There has been disagreement about the application of NEWSORGINDIA but no consunsus if it applies to ONLY India or the subcontinent. You could always bring it up on the RSN but Wikipedia relies on consensus, not dictatorship. Those sources are being challenged as unreliable. It would be up to you to show how they are reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the case is similar here, your vote is based on WP:NEWSORGINDIA sites and Liz has clearly quoted here not to use it as a justification in future Afds. Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reshmaaaa, No offense to Liz, but I also believe WP:NEWSORGINDIA is relevant here and should apply to every Pakistan-related AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the comment left by Liz. I am also aware that some others have expressed their concern that it doesn't apply to media outlets outside of India. I am also aware that others have expressed that it DOES in fact apply to media outlets in the region. What you are inferring is that we should honor an admin's statement because they are an admin. I respect their opinion, but again, consensus is what governs. Also, you keep going back to this statement instead of showing how the disputed sources are in fact reliable which would be more helpful to the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 I'm not keep going back to that statement, I'm just linking your vote with a closing admin's decision. Based on it your vote becomes null and void since you've yourself said it in your source analysis that One of the sources covers WP:SIGCOV and others are WP: NEWSORGINDIA, which is not supposed to be a decisive factor in deleting this article. And are you sure this reference says nothing about article cause apparently it does mention the show in it's title and based solely on the show, Isn't it? Reshmaaaa (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do keep going back to the statement by saying my !vote is null and void. I have stated (twice now) why the statement by an admin is not consensus. As far as the reference you provided above, it is NOT significant coverage. It is about one of the actors and mentions the show. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But in your source analysis you said the reference said nothing about the show now you're saying it isn't WP:SIGCOV. No offense but your analysis doesn't seems to be reliable to me. And reference just doesn't mention the show, it gives out detail as to main character along side other cast and characters. Reshmaaaa (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, I said "series," not "show." And yes, I stand by that statement - "Nothing "about" the show" (quotation added to the "about) - It is about Feroze Khan and his role, not about the serial itself. This is becoming ad nauseam so I will ask one final time - are you able to demonstrate why the sources are reliable? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, 1, 2, 3 are covering WP:SIGCOV, you've agreed with one of them being WP:SIGCOV as well. Secondly, it does meet WP: Notability (TV). You still think it is not notable as it meets WP:Independent, WP:Secondary, WP:Notability (TV) and WP:SIGCOV. Keeping in mind show aired sometime back, if it still meets these guidelines than it should stay. Leaving it to closing admin now, don't want to further stretch it anymore, Thanks.Reshmaaaa (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────────┘
I endorse the source assessment done by CNMall41. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reshmaaa:, do not put words in my mouth. I said it was the closest to significant coverage. Significant coverage says "directly and in detail." In addition to the first source not being in detail, it is also not reliable under NEWSORGINDIA, at least for the purpose of establishing notability. The second we have already addressed as being the "closest to significant coverage" than anything else avaiable. The third is no where close to addressing it in detail. It is mentioned with the actor in a series they are in. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I concur with CNMall41's convincing source analysis. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Mirza (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 whole article reads more as a press release and resume to PROMOTE the subject and covers the works he has appeared in only briefly with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, using loaded language such as "celebrated" in reference to some of those works. A general overreliance on unreliable sources such as IMDb and some profiles of British-specific sites, this subject does not appear to have had any significant coverage or major roles in multiple significant media he has partaken in, failing WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACTOR. The four sources citing how he is "widely known" all relate to the same Tesla report, and brief stints such as a Minecraft collab and refs simply noting what he has reported on do not prove the notability of the subject himself. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, News media, Film, Television, and England. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThe subject was an actor in Beyond Belief - Talking to the Dead (2021) which won two awards however unfortunately, he was not the recipients of this awards. Hence he does not meet the notability guide for an actor Tesleemah (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete The subject fails WP:NACTOR Afro 📢Talk! 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage in any independent sources about the subject. Many thousands of totally non-notable people have IMDB pages, including my domestic partner. Stories on BBC News are not about him, but either by him, or about other people and topics. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources (Turkish is my mother-tongue, so I examined all of them.) are promotional. The page needs to be deleted. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Iran, and Turkey. Kadı Message 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the nomination rationale. The references are dated closely together, are similarly worded, and do not seem to reflect independent journalism. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems to satisfy WP:GNG, seen coverage in numerous sources. Some recent ones do seem to be around the same timeframe but from what I can see is from reputable and acceptable news websites. There seems to be older articles as well which aren't necessarily referenced in the article, but still demonstrate notability. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rob. H. Brodie, please read this policy. Promotional content is not allowed on Wikimedia projects. Best, Kadı Message 13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. I have read and I don't find this applicable to me especially on the 'paid contribution'. If there are promotional texts in the article I'm happy to go and correct it. I'm even happy to add things that would be deemed negative to the subject if that's important and there are sources from it. But from what I have gathered and seen I don't think the article should be deleted on the basis provided above. It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to maintain articles that have acceptable sources, which I am confident this article has. Best Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stanislavjevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable boxer. Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Canada. Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With 8 wins in 29 fights, it's clear he fails WP:NBOX. The article has only one source and it's to a database. My own search found some fight results and announcements plus some database links. None of that is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List most reviewed places in ASEAN (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:LISTN, no evidence that being one of the "most reviewed places" on Google Maps in the ASEAN region is a notable grouping of characteristics, no reliable sources about this combination. Fram (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and Asia. Fram (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Most reviews on Google Maps" is not the same as "most reviewed", nor is it a notable topic. Looks like Indonesians particularly enjoy using this site to review their shopping malls and attractions, but I'm not sure why anyone is supposed to care about this presentation of data. Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No evidence this specific criterion for this specific grouping of countries meets LISTN, especially with nearly no secondary coverage. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:LISTN no evidence that most reviewed on Google maps in ASEAN is notable and it lacks reliable sources for this combination.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the title is not plain english, the subject is not actually ASEAN (one Singapore item), but actually Indonesia, the notion of a list of review is specifically what WP:NOT and WP:ABOUT are at pains to discriminate content, the style of lists as being not what wikipedia is about, Google Maps is not in any way a reliable source, the lack of third party references is glaring, and the added clarification (after the page was moved from the first Prod, and this Afd was put up) of notions of what the components of the reasoning provides about reviews and the assumed validity (which goes back to WP:NOT) simply exhibits that there is no clear understanding of what wikipedia is about.JarrahTree 02:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reywas92. The concept is strange. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020) (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 poorly sourced, heavily POVish, irredentist, COI looking, non-notable article, basically meant to portray Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and Iran as the "big bad", a common rhetoric spewed by the Aliyev-ruled regime in Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijani nationalism, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, all well sourced and which go into more depth). Refers the Republic of Artsakh as a "separatist regime in Karabakh", not even referring to it by name [13], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [14], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [15], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [16]. If this is so notable, I'm sure high-quality WP:RS in English can be found about this, but there isn't. The Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish versions of this article was also written by the same person, who was amongst the many people mentioned in this pretty large COI thread about several Azerbaijani wiki users [17]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per nomination. The article is filled with bias and unscholarly sources. Not to mention the major WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:PROPORTION violations. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Unfortunately, there is bias against this article I wrote about the actions of a regime that disregards human rights. I kindly ask as many people as possible to participate in the voting and to familiarize themselves with the facts I will present. Additionally, I request you to review the article yourself and know that I have not yet fully finalized it.

I am writing sequentially regarding the individual's comments about the article.

• The article is about the protests that took place in Iran in 2020. Hundreds of news articles have been prepared in various languages (including Persian and Armenian) about those detained during these protests. Books have been written, and research papers have been published. Amnesty International has expressed its concern regarding those detained. Several protests have taken place on different dates in more than one Iranian city. Hundreds of people have been beaten and persecuted. Elderly people, women, children, and even disabled individuals have been beaten and insulted during these protests. The person suggesting the deletion of the article refers to it as a "non-notable article." I can only express my regret toward this request.
• Contrary to what the individual claims, nothing has been written against Armenia in the article. On the contrary, even official Armenian websites have been utilized.
• Regarding the topic of the "separatist regime in Karabakh," regardless of how you write its name in the article, that territory is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and there are four UN resolutions regarding its occupation. So how should a regime established in an actually occupied territory be named? Moreover, I have only written the expression in that section. In another part of the article, I referred to that entity as the "so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Therefore, you can mention that entity in whatever way you wish in the article. It does not affect the subject or essence of this article.
• There is also no problem regarding "Brenda Shaffer" and "Günaz". If you do not accept those references, you can delete them.
• It is very interesting that for some reason you are trying to inflate the references to "Günaz", which were used only twice in an overall article with 246 references, to make the entire article appear weaker. Those references also confirm the same fact. You can delete them as well.
• Regarding the expression "Southern Azerbaijan(is)," that region has been referred to in several historical sources and books related to dialects, territory, and population as "South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan." It does not matter to me whether people living there are called "southern Azerbaijanis" or "Iranian Azerbaijanis." As far as I can see, you have made corrections related to this in the article. Thank you for your efforts.
• Other users who will vote should know that a total of 246 references in five different languages have been used in the article. The references include reports from Radio Free Europe, BBC, DW, Iranwire, Voice of America, and reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. I do not understand what other "reliable sources" the individual wants.
• There are dozens of video facts, photos, and reports related to these events. You can familiarize yourself with them through external links.

The facts I presented show how biased this individual is towards the topic. I hope the community makes a correct decision. If you need any further assistance or modifications, feel free to ask! --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just that you even used the racist and irredentist Gunaz says more than enough about you and this article, whether you used it 1 or 10 times. I find it rich that you accuse me of being "biased", when your article reads like a Aliyev tabloid. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why you are showing such an aggressive attitude.

What is the difference between writing “Günaz” or “GünazTV”?

On the other hand, about Aliyev topic, there are not any statements or reactions neither at the government, nor president level. If there is no such statement then what’s the point of mentioning Aliyev?

Why didn’t you show any reactions toward other parts of my article? Do you have any other issues toward the references other than “Günaz”? Why don’t you talk about them? Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, read up above. It also doesn't directly have to be government issued statements for it be in line with their rhetoric, that goes without saying. This article is taking a heavy pro-Aliyev stance - as you said yourself, others can review the article for themselves. Read also the policies that Archives908 posted. Meanwhile, I'll use the rest of my time to look more into the COI concerns that were brought up about you and the other users. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, it looks like a notable phenomenon and it's not based just on Azerbaijani sources, Voice of America is used 34 times. It's true that Azerbaijani sources might be biased, so I would support trimming the article or balancing it if other sources do not support these claims. Alaexis_¿question? 22:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is WP:UNDUE and is in breach of WP:NPOV. It includes a large list of subpar low quality sources and reads like a propaganda work. The article should be deleted. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for obvious WP:POV violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.211.50 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for more than 4 years. I don't speak Turkish but there are no useful sources on tr.wiki. I'm not seeing notability outside of Batman Petrolspor JMWt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Turkey. JMWt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Batman, Turkey, two football clubs play there. Maybe better off on the city page, it's mentioned there. Govvy (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistory (fictional science) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly unsourced or sourced to the author himself. This appears to be a split of the Foundation universe and describes similar subject matter with less references. It could be a useful redirect but there is otherwise very little sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Either trim down ruthlessly or delete; this article has become massively overgrown, and its material belongs in either the Foundation universe article or the articles about the individual books. — The Anome (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Jontesta: There seem to be quite a few hits in secondary sources on first glance. Could you please comment on the results of the WP:BEFORE search? Or was there a main reason other than notability for the deletion nomination? Daranios (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My main rationale is that this is a WP:FORK of Foundation universe. My WP:BEFORE search only offered limited material that is already covered at Foundation universe or the individual books. (Or sometimes Hari Seldon.) The creator of the article agreed to deletion or an WP:ATD associated with the universe article. Jontesta (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regardless of whether this is notable, the current contents—being almost entirely (excessively detailed) in-universe information—do not warrant a stand-alone article as opposed to covering the relevant bits in related articles on the works themselves, as suggested above. If the article is not expanded with other kinds of content during the course of this discussion, it would seem like a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation at the moment. I would also question whether the extremely lengthy excerpts/quotes in the "Asimov on psychohistory" are okay from a copyright perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Foundation universe#Technology where what it is and its role in the plot of the series is already described. As it is a core component of the plot of the franchise, I agree completely with TompaDompa that this is a WP:NOPAGE situation where it is best covered as part of overall discussion of the series and has no need to be spun out as a separate article, particularly when that separate article is just ridiculously overly detailed plot information. Rorshacma (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I've now created a "Psychohistory" sub-section within the Foundation universe article, as the concept is so central to the plot of the series. But it needs nowhere near the level of detail in this article, which is quite excessive. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice! I would recommend Foundation universe#Psychohistory as my updated recommendation for a Redirect target, then. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No before articulated, a brief search shows Journal of Psychohistory exists, so we need to have a clear delineation of why this isn't that--that is, I understand the differences, but those arguing for deletion own the burden to demonstrate why <2 of all RS citing psychohistory might apply to this topic. Much per Daranios, but this needs to be a bit more forceful. "This article sucks" is a great argument for cleanup, to which I have no objection, but not a valid argument for deletion. I am glad that Rorshacma and others understand that this must at least remain a redirect, but it is not clear to me why BLAR was not tried first. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you see the delineation between Psychohistory the real science discussed by the Journal of Psychohistory and Psychohistory (fictional science)? WP:AGF, I am trying to understand why you are bringing up a journal about a different topic, covered by a different article, which is not up for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow me to rephrase: Since there is both a real science and a fictional science, there's a lot of BEFORE to go through, none of which has been demonstrated, to assess that there's nothing with which to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, improvement need not necessarily happen at this title. If the current contents would be better covered at a different article (or several) per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there's nothing stopping us from doing that and splitting those contents into a stand-alone article if and when improvement/expansion has happened to a sufficient extent that doing so would be motivated. TompaDompa (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also think it's rather peculiar to simultaneously argue that the article should be kept and that it would have been better to WP:Blank and redirect the article than to bring it to WP:AfD. Those seem like contradictory positions to me, but maybe there's something I'm missing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all; both are process-based critiques: 1) BEFORE wasn't attempted based on the confounding similarly named real science, and 2) if all that was desired was BLAR, why was BLAR not done editorially before bringing this needlessly to AfD? Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you are aware that WP:BLARs are frequently contested and editors told to take it to WP:AfD. Some editors even consider WP:BLAR without preceding AfD to be an inappropriate form of "stealth deletion". AfD is one way to build consensus and get a mandate for redirects and merges expected to be potentially controversial. WP:BLAR says An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. and WP:CONRED, which is part of WP:BEFORE, says that If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.. For that matter, WP:BEFORE says to Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability—but the stated reason in the nomination is not a lack of notability but being a needless split. You seem to me to be overly focused on process to the detriment of actually determining what the best course of action for dealing with the article and its contents might be. Remember that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was there any indication that this was controversial? I didn't see one, but I clearly could have missed it. I'm not a huge fan of unannounced BLARs either, but I've learned a while ago that we've developed a process that's a cohesive whole, even the parts I don't prefer, and that running the process in good faith is the best way to achieve encyclopedic results. That's not bureaucratic so much as it is a series of checks and balances. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if there was any such indication here specifically, but I also don't think it really matters—it's not unreasonable to expect something like this to be potentially controversial. Saying that this is not bureaucratic so much as it is a series of checks and balances sounds like a distinction without a difference when your argument for keeping this article is entirely on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the article, its contents, and its topic. TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Has someone done a BEFORE yet and I missed it? Jclemens (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per this: yes. More importantly however, it is not required: if the rationale in the nomination is not a lack of notability, a search for sources to ascertain notability is not required per WP:BEFORE (the specific instructions are If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. and Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability). Likewise, using WP:AfD to discuss potential redirects is encouraged in some cases per WP:CONRED: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. So no BEFORE has been done that even acknowledges my concerns. Not sure why you felt necessary to point out that it is expected but then say that it isn't, but the fact remains that no one seems to have addressed the overlap in RS coverage between the fictional and real disciplines besides me. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can explain to you again that searching for additional sources is only required if a nomination is based on a lack of notability and that this isn't the case here, but it's probably easier if you just read what I wrote previously. I reckon the reason nobody other than you has brought up the real-world discipline psychohistory is that it is a red herring. Your concern is about matters external to Wikipedia, namely the coverage in the sources, whereas the larger discussion is about matters internal to Wikipedia, namely the best way to cover the topic (specifically, WP:PAGEDECIDE). These questions are orthogonal to each other, which I'm sure you understand if you think about it for a moment. TompaDompa (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Foundation universe#Psychohistory per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rorshacma. This is already described at Foundation universe and there isn't much sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Editors can further merge if needed, but I agree that sources discuss this overall as part of the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Foundation universe#Psychohistory per WP:ATD. — The Anome (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per other voters. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Warfare 2: Ghost (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)

Tie-in promotional comic series that fails the general notability guidelines, with practically no sourcing outside of "look, this exists!" and trivial mentions in my WP:BEFORE searches. There is no critical reception, or significant coverage to speak of. Even if it was notable, I'm pretty sure that it fails NOPAGE as it's near entirely unsourced plot summary. I tried to redirect it to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 a while ago, but it got undone recently for being a "poor excuse" and an "unreasonable deletion". I suggest restoring that redirect. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Comics and animation. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom to the game's page. Appears to fail GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - IGN seems to be the only site that has reviewed the comic: [18], other sources show only announcements, lacking any meaningful analysis and so don't qualify as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 lacks coverage fails WP:GNG for a standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect IGN counts for something, but it's not enough by itself. This is best treated as a WP:NOPAGE, where the comic is described in context as a promotional tie-in with the game. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laiba Khan (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 draftified this BLP, but the creator Gopikakaa (talk · contribs) reverted my draftification and bypassed the AFC review. I asked on their talk page if this was a WP:UPE, but they haven’t responded. But their editing suggests it may be UPE, as they’re trying to create a BLP for a ROTM actress who clearly fails GNG and has only had minor roles in a few TV dramas, which means she doesn’t meet NACTOR either. The BLP relies on unreliable sources and this is Gopikakaa's only article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom fails NACTOR and GNG. Sources are also unreliable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikibear47, As you mentioned above, sources are unreliable, you should clarify which source is unreliable and why? Because Saqib has not mentioned any source. Also, you need to see WP:ATA. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Libraa2019, Majority of the sources cited in the article are unreliable. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles (not minor) in notable productions. At least some of the coverage on the page is proof of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mushy Yank, You often claim that the actor has significant roles, but you never provide evidence. Please do so in this case. Also, existence does not prove WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting the closing/relisting administrator/user to advise nom to avoid general ad hominem remarks that could be ill-perceived; any good faith contributor can generally check the roles through the articles about the productions any given actor plays in, and verify it is a lead/recurring/main cast role or not, and I !vote accordingly when such verifications are easily feasible with a little good will; in the present case, I indicate this clearly in my !vote. For example, at random, in Kaisi Teri Khudgarzi; https://www.thecelebrays.com/kaisi-teri-khudgarzi-drama-review/: notable production+significant role; Do Bol, https://thefridaytimes.com/19-Feb-2023/rapid-fire-with-laiba-khan; notable production+significant role; Tarap https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1158812; notable productions+significant role. And so on, and so forth. Please note that the sources are mentioned to verify the significance of the roles not to directly prove the notability of the actress. But claiming she only had minor roles is obviously completely inaccurate and the requirement of the applicable specific guideline are met imv. Thank you very much.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I apologize if my comment came across as an ad hominem remarks. Now first things first, the sources, except for The Friday Times, aren’t even RS. Second, I still don’t see the evidence that the subject has the significant role you’re claiming. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Significant roleS, not minor. Even if sources are so-so, they allow to check and verify that. Mera Dil Mera Dushman: notable production+ significant role https://www.thecelebrays.com/mera-dil-mera-dushman-drama-review/ (or https://dailyausaf.com/en/life-style/laiba-khan-clarifies-controversial-statement-against-rabeeca-khan/ or The Friday Times again) etc. Other users can !vote not to retain the page, if they wish, but not by arguing her roles in notable productions are not significant, imv. Also see: https://www.siasat.com/top-trending-pakistani-actress-to-say-goodbye-to-showbiz-soon-3103174/ or https://www.siasat.com/fastest-pakistani-drama-to-enter-prestigious-1-billion-views-club-3106324/ for example (but Kaffara has no page yet, on this WP, if I am not mistaken) Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep received significant coverage in country's reliable english newspapers and native language,

• The Siasat Daily [19]
• The Friday Times [20]
• Daily Ausaf [21]
• The News International [22]
• The Siasat Daily [23]
• Dawn (newspaper) [24]
• Minute Mirror [25]
• Dawn News [26]
• Aaj News [27]
• Daily Jang [28]
• 24 News [29]
• 24 News [30]
• Daily Jang [31]

Easily passes WP:GNG through above sources and passes WP:NACTOR through major roles in Kaffara and Baylagam. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m stating for the record that GNG cannot be satisfied based on the coverage provided, as it is mostly trivial, interview based and often just name-checking. If the closing admin wants me to create an assessment table for the sources, I can do that, but it seems pointless given the keep votes arguing that the subject meets NACTOR. I still disagree with their reasoning, @Libraa2019, wrote passes WP:NACTOR through major roles in Kaffara and Baylagam but neither of these TV series has its own WP article, which indicates they are non-notable, but I don’t want to argue further, as that could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I looked through the sources provided above and nothing can be used to establish notability. Interviews, mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and articles which are reporting what she said on social media do NOT count towards notability. Also, having a major role (I don't care if it was the leading role) does not guarantee notability. The guideline says "may" be notable, not "is" notable. Some of the sources in the list above are obvious as being non-reliable, but there are some that appear to be on their surface but are not. An example is this from the MinuteMirror. Bylined but the publication accepts mass contributor submissions which this appears to be by the byline of the submitter. No editorial oversight involved. The closest to establishing notability would be this, but she is listed in an article with others as someone on a list. If the person was notable, she would be worthy of notice and shown by significant coverage outside of paid media, churnalism, press releases, mentions, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tralfamadore (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)

Concept without significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Article is basically unsourced with nothing to WP:PRESERVE, and WP:BEFORE does not show enough reliable sources to build this article essentially from scratch. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question @Jontesta: What about "Tralfamadore is America: Cultural History in Slaughterhouse - Five" and the chapter dedicated to Tralfamadore in The Vonnegut Encyclopedia as secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick look at the first source would seem to indicate that it's not really about Tralfamadore as such but about themes in Slaughterhouse-Five? I can only see part of the second source, but it seems to mainly contain in-universe information and notes that it is not consistently portrayed across works. Maybe there's something I'm missing as I haven't taken a close or in-depth look at either source, but they do not strike me as obviously useful for a stand-alone article on Tralfamadore. What's more, if our article is correct in stating that Tralfamadore is the name of several fictional planets in the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, then it's very questionable if this is even a single topic in a meaningful sense in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  TompaDompa describes it better than I could. As far as I can tell the sources describe the story of Slaughterhouse-Five. The rare use of Tralfamadore is as a metonym for the novel. Jontesta (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still non-trivial coverage in a reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was able to access at least two peer-reviewed pieces. These are both over 35 years old

  Mustazza, L. (1986). Vonnegut’s Tralfamadore and Milton’s Eden. Essays in Literature, 13(2), 299–312.

  Whereas Milton ennobles his "divine shapes" by making them superior to human beings, Vonnegut presents the otherworldliness of the Tralfamadorians comically, at.once letting us share in Billy's wonder and, as Klinkowitz says, undercutting that otherworldliness.'<<Yet, like Milton's angels, the Tralfamadorians are far superior intellectually to their human guests, for the space creatures also reason at a higher level. They are able to see in four dimensions, and they pity Earthlings for being able to see only in three (p, 26).>> Moreover, having no voice boxes since they communicate telepathically, they must make accommodations so that Billy can communicate with them, the accommodation being "a computer and a sort of electric organ" to simulate human sounds (p. 76), Again, Vonnegut's portrayal of these creatures relies upon machinery—the instruments of the twentieth century—and again, Vonnegut, unlike Milton, uses these familiar gadgets to compel us to look from dual perspectives: from the mythic perspective (Billy's point of view), the Tralfamadorians are no more or less bizarre than the mythic shapes that people the works of Homer or Dante or Spenser; from the literal perspective, they are ridiculous and Billy's creation is pathetic.

  Parshall, P. F. (1987). Meditations on the Philosophy of Tralfamadore: Kurt Vonnegut and George Roy Hill. Literature/Film Quarterly, 15(1), 49–59.

  At root, the Tralfamadorian philosophy suggests adopting a detached stance from the problems of the world. To some readers, it might seem that Vonnegut accepts this view, since he has written his novel (according to the title page) "somewhat in the telegraphic schizophrenic manner of tales of the planet Tralfamadore," and has filled it with endless repetitions of "so it goes," the Tralfamadorian reaction to death.⁴ With a little more thought, it is evident that Vonnegut is using the philosophy of Tralfamadore ironically. It is true that the "telegraphic schizophrenic manner" of narration emphasizes the illogicality of events and the helplessness of characters, producing a Tralfamadorian fatalism. But if we, like Billy, come "unstuck in time," the final result is a deepened sense of human commitment as we become aware of the universality of human suffering.

And those are merely two of the first four scholar hits I reviewed--the two others were an undergraduate paper and a masters' thesis, neither as suitable as journal-published papers to conclusively demonstrate the inadequacy of the nomination. While a nominator can be forgiven for not having access to these sources, they are both from the first page of a Google Scholar search on the article name. The WP:BEFORE search articulated by Jontesta appears to be either fictional or sufficiently incomplete as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. I AGF that there's a somehow a better, if nonintuitive, explanation. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: The nonintuitive thing about this is that the article is (ostensibly) about Tralfamadore generally in Vonnegut's oeuvre, not the Tralfamadore of any individual one of the works—because they are apparently very different. If the sources do not treat them collectively, this article is in effect a variant of creating a WP:FRANKENSTEIN. In that case, the scope of this article is inherently invalid—the alternative being having articles like Tralfamadore (Slaughterhouse-Five) and Tralfamadore (The Sirens of Titan) and so on, or else covering it at the articles for the works themselves (Slaughterhouse-Five, The Sirens of Titan, and so on). Another way of looking at it is through the lens of WP:NOTDICT: if the different Tralfamadores are not meaningfully part of the same topic (as per how the sources treat them in their coverage), it does not matter that they share the name "Tralfamadore" because On Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. Both sources you quote seem to be specifically about Slaughterhouse-Five: the first describes Tralfamadore as being from that work in the abstract and is tagged with "Slaughterhouse-Five" as a keyword but not any other work, while the second discusses the book and its 1972 film adaptation. TompaDompa (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not treat them collectively They do: The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places article "Tralfamadore" (specifically the versions from The Sirens fo Titan and Slaughterhouse-Five) referenced in the article and The Vonnegut Encyclopedia (for all of Vonnegut's works) listed above both talk about differences between the versions but treat them as one entity. So if those secondary source cover various versions under one heading, it is not original research if we do, and therefore not WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right, and the reason I brought up WP:NOTDICT: covering all Vonnegut planets called "Tralfamadore" under the same heading is not the same thing as treating them as one and the same planet (again, grouping things by what they are called versus by what they are, or the dictionary approach versus the encyclopedic approach). If Wikipedia is to cover them under the same heading, they need to be the same (in the sense that applies to fictional elements). What's more, you are misreading The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places (which is also a rather marginal source that takes a very in-universe perspective, though it can often be useful for in-universe details): it explicitly says A later report of Tralfamadore—which might have been illusory and almost certainly referred to a different alternativerse [...]. In other words, it explicitly states that they are different entities. If anything, that source is evidence that the article scope is invalid. But maybe the consensus among the sources is that there is one true Tralfamadore and the different appearances should be considered as referring to one and the same fictional entity—in which case our article is wrong and needs to be fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Deciding what the best course of action is would be a lot easier if we had somebody familiar with the topic and what sources there may be. Pinging a couple of editors I know to be knowledgable about science fiction: @Mike Christie and Olivaw-Daneel: what do you think? In particular, is this meaningfully a single topic? TompaDompa (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the Deciding what the best course of action is would be a lot easier if we had somebody familiar with the topic. Even if the versions are quite different, secondary sources, both those already listed and others, recognize that those versions are very much self-referential: Unstuck in Time, p. 133: the Trafalmadore from Slaughterhouse-Five "that we recognize from Sirens of Titan"; Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five, p. 110: "Tralfamadore [from Slaughterhous-Five] - the distant world ... from which the flying-saucer pilot Salo had come in The Sirens of Titan; Sirens, p. 63: "The Sirens of Titan and Slaughterhouse 5 play with time through their main character's engagement with a fictitious planed named Tralfamadore, which plays a central role in both novels"; Heimatländer der Phantasie on Hocus Pocus: "and Tralfamadore is back again, too"; Satire und Roman, p. 333: ..."the planet Tralfamadore, to which the protagonist Billy Pilgrim feels transported, first appears in The Sirens of Titan; Visions and Re-visions, p. 164: "Back to Tralfamadore: Hocus Pocus"; Study Guide to Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut: "reappearance: object is to trace the recurrance of Vonnegut's places, characters, objects in different stories; e.g., Pilgrim's Tralfamadore first figured in The Sirens of Titan". Daranios (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, recognizing that reusing the name "Tralfamadore" for a planet is a form of self-reference by Vonnegut is a rather trivial observation. Is there a good reason to cover all appearances on the same page? Is there a good reason to even have a stand-alone planet article in the first place? My impression from the sources I've looked at (briefly, admittedly) is that content about Tralfamadore in The Sirens of Titan benefits from the context of that novel and content about Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse-Five benefits from the context of that novel, but that content about Tralfamadore in The Sirens of Titan does not really benefit from the context of Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse-Five nor vice versa. I would love to be proven wrong about this, but it doesn't seem to me like we have much hope of writing a cohesive article on Tralfamadore à la what I did for the Mesklin article where there actually is good reason to cover the planet separately from the works it appears in. If it is the case that the shared name "Tralfamadore" is fundamentally incidental, simply noting on the Kurt Vonnegut article that the name was used for various stories might be the best option, in which case we could redirect this title to an WP:ANCHOR there. It's not like the current content of the Tralfamadore article is worth preserving, seeing as it's all unsourced apart from a lengthy excerpt from Slaughterhouse-Five. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: The secondary sources do go beyond "the name was reused" to a degree: The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places has "what the two races of Tralfamadore had in common was that they both regarded human beings as..." and so forth. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five, p. 110, directly puts three variants of Trafalmadore in relation to each other, even though I cannot see a direct conclusion drawn from that. Heimatländer der Phantasie draws the comparison between the variants in Sirens and Hocus Pocus, both having the same function of messing up the history of humanity. Study Guide to Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut considers it a worthwhile exercise of textual analysis to trace the variants throughout Vonneguth's works. So without deciding yet if this is the best way to present things, yes, based on that I believe putting the variants in context to each other is beneficial and is what secondary sources do, i.e. not WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, I suspect Daranios is being overly charitable here. The question before us is "Does Tralfamadore have enough RS to write a decent encyclopedia article about it?" which I have demonstrated conclusively to be affirmative. What is to be covered in that article is beside the point, as that is an editorial decision not requiring--or even benefiting from--an AfD discussion. Your arguments here are both wrong (one title can indeed cover two distinct uses of a fictional term) and out of order.

The secondary issue is nominator conduct, by representing that a BEFORE had been conducted and found nothing usable when my cursory look at scholar shows plenty of sources--again, this is either falsehood, mistaken or intentional, or simply a lack of competence. For example, since BEFORE D.1. states Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. it is plausible for the nominator to assert that the topic was not understood to be a topic of academic interest, but such an assertion would itself be ridiculously lacking in literary awareness despite that plausibility, hence my CIR comment. Regardless, it brings us into SK #3 territory, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE is a question routinely considered at WP:AfD. The content of the article matters for that, as does the scope—we obviously cannot decide whether a stand-alone article should exist if we do not know what it is to be about. I'm sure you remember that this was a key question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against superheroes back in August. There, one important question was whether the scope of the article as it existed accurately reflected the coverage in the sources or whether there was a problem of WP:SYNTH. There, the article was ultimately not kept but a very small fraction of it was merged. The situation for this article is not entirely dissimilar, seeing as the scope of the article is in question (more specifically, whether it is even appropriate to consider it a single topic). TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And one title can indeed cover two distinct uses of a fictional term, but then we are at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If the scope of this article is supposed to be "Tralfamadore" as a word, then we need sources discussing "Tralfamadore" as a word (and the article would need to be rewritten to reflect that). Otherwise, covering different topics that are called the same thing—even if both are fictional—at the same article violates WP:NOTDICT. As an example: if there were, hypothetically, a Star Trek planet called "Tatooine", it would not be appropriate to cover it at the article for the (obviously different) Star Wars planet Tatooine. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a detail, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five on p. 47 does have to say something on the word, that it is an anagram of Fatal Dream. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge and... disambiguate? listify? Like Jclemens based on what has now been found the nomination is flawed in WP:BEFORE does not show enough reliable sources to build this article essentially from scratch. There may be the question how to best delinate, organize and contextualize the content, as discussed above.

A theorectical article Tralfamadore (Slaughterhouse-Five) in itself would be a notable topic based on how much discussion there is in secondary sources. The same is at least likely for Tralfamadore (The Sirens of Titan). As I have said above, secondary sources do connect those, so they would benefit from being presented together. But what then of the other variations, e.g. in Hocus Pocus. That one is likely not notable as a stand-alone article, but is still commented on in secondary sources. So such content would need to be covered in a parent article in accordance with WP:ATD-M, i.e. be covered here under Tralfamadore (no brackets). The different variations could also be presented each in the context of their respective novels, and that may also be beneficial. But then they are initially cut off from the context of the other variations. So on solution would be to have the commentary in both places based on WP:NOTPAPER. Not a WP:CONTENTFORK then, because it is in a different context each time. Or we could transform this into a disambiguation page linking to the variants/works they appear in, merging content there which we have here now. Or we might bring together all those suggestions together, treating/transforming this into a list of the variants of Trafalmadore, which gives enough definition and publication info to know what they are and presenting the commentary referring among the different variations. And presenting the (more extensive) commentary for each variant referring to the larger plot of their respective works to those works, or even stand-alone articles on the variants in case such commentary becomes too much for the novel article. I guess the latter is my preferred way to go, meaning keep with some spinout/transfer to the novel articles, and ideally some expansion from the secondary sources collected. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Set index article? TompaDompa (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess Dodge Charger seems pretty comparable to me. Similar to a disambiguation page, but allowing for a reasonable amount of commentary. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps work. I'm mostly worried about a WP:SYNTH mess arising if editors aren't careful enough with source use. TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, a WP:Set index article (or indeed any kind of properly-constructed article) is not what we have now. The current article is based entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources (which is the charitable interpretation—the alternative is that it's WP:Original research) in direct violation of policy. If this is kept as a stand-alone article, it will be necessary to start over from scratch. Given that the article is over twenty years old and still in this unacceptable state, kicking the can down the road on bringing it up to acceptable standards (even if it would remain relatively poor) is not a particularly enticing prospect—experience has shown that far too often, the necessary improvement does not materialize within a reasonable amount of time. If nobody commits to fixing the article, what do we think should happen then? I would suggest committing to some other approach to resolving the issues, such as for instance revisiting the discussion about what to do (presumably on the article talk page) in e.g. 6 or 12 months. We could also move the discussion to the talk page immediately, I suppose. Other options include adding a bunch of maintenance tags and reducing the article to a single-sentence stub. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've looked them up now, I would be happy to add the discussed bits of commentary connecting variations if this is kept, given time. (I still did not get around to finish my part in an earlier project, though.) I am not familiar with the primary sources, but so far don't have a reason to suspect that the current content is original research rather than plot summary. I can look a bit into what the secondary source which is given but not used in-line can reference. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll remove the unsourced content and the WP:PRIMARY excerpt to make way for properly sourced content. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X637Z-43 (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 brief and non-notable hoax. Barely mentioned in any reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep: I will do a more thorough look soon, but I think this meets GNG. Cremastra (u — c) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: SigCov in Snopes, Politifact, and Seattle P-I. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Snopes debunked it, so per se notable. No objection to covering it in (i.e. merging to) a list of hoaxes as an editorial decision, but it shouldn't be an AfD-enforced mandate. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you perhaps elaborate upon it shouldn't be an AfD-enforced mandate? TompaDompa (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's notable. Notable things can be merged editorially when it makes sense to do so, but there's no policy-based reason for an AfD discussion to compel a merge of a notable topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's WP:CONSENSUS. If there is consensus that it makes editorial sense to merge a notable topic, coming from AfD in no way makes it invalid. There is a case to be made that it is even more valid when it comes from AfD than when it comes from the article talk page, as the former is a higher-profile forum. Discussing WP:Alternatives to deletion is one of the functions of WP:AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. An article that doesn't meet a DEL#REASON is subject to speedy closure, because unless it's deletable, it's not an AfD topic. Thus, for a discussion of a merger to happen, that goes on the talk page. AfD is not Articles for Discussion, WP:PEREN#Rename AFD is that way. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. It is not subject to speedy closure if there are any arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection per WP:SKCRIT. The number of arguments that would support at least one of those three outcomes is vast. For one thing, even if many editors dislike rationales that amount to "the article is terrible", that is in fact a coherent argument for draftifying as "terrible" can reasonably be interpreted as "not ready for mainspace". For another, WP:DELREASON#14 is Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia, which is extremely broad, not least because interpretations of WP:NOT vary significantly. It may very well be the case that "this does not belong on Wikipedia" is a bad argument in a given case, but it is nevertheless an argument. We shouldn't focus on process to the detriment of actually determining the best course of action, because WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Whether or not you think discussing WP:Alternatives to deletion should be the purpose of AfD, it is nonetheless a function it serves—and this is a case in point. For that matter, we have an entire Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion that demonstrates this. TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  SK Criterion 3 applies if no DEL#REASON does. Your hypothetical reading of WP:NOT is untenable, and I'm glad you acknowledge that, but bringing it up was a waste of time. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So for the record, WP:SKCRIT#1 is when there is an Absence of delete rationale, which is what I was referring to above. WP:SKCRIT#3 is when there is The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. The latter is a much, much stronger condition than simply "applies if no DEL#REASON does". For instance: consensus can determine that WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) does not apply in a particular case, but if the argument was made in good faith the burden is on anybody arguing for a WP:Speedy keep closure to demonstrate that the argument was "completely erroneous" (not just "not supported by consensus"). Conversely, consensus can determine that something does indeed violate WP:NOT even if there is no precedent whatsoever for that particular kind of thing being regarded as an instance of WP:NOT. That's not an idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NOT, that's how new things come to fall under that heading—there has to be a first case (obviously, but it's worth stating outright anyway). What's more, both WP:DELREASON and WP:NOT are explicitly non-exhaustive. This is a feature, not a bug—it allows us a degree of flexibility in determining the best course of action as WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For all these reasons, a good-faith invokation of WP:NOT basically means that WP:SKCRIT 1 and 3 simply do not apply (absent some underlying factual error in the reason WP:NOT is invoked) even if consensus ultimately determines that it was not an instance of WP:NOT. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of hoaxes. Not the greatest merge target but Planet X637Z-43 is literally two sentences. There is no need for a Stub when this information can be covered far more adequately at an article that covers these subjects in significantly greater depth. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the List of hoaxes as it is not ready for the mainspace due to a lack of sources to establish notability, insufficient information, and unclear content. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has sufficient sources that demonstrate notability, but could be expanded. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge For now, unless someone expands the article it's better off as part of the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Pokelego999. Two sentences isn't enough to establish notability, but this can easily be covered somewhere, per WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is determined by sources, not article length @Shooterwalker. But merging can still be supported if the article can't be expanded so much, or if it duplicates another article. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I wasn't clear, the sources don't say very much. Yes, that is reflected in the article length, which also fails WP:NOTDICT. Even with deletion as an option, we should work towards WP:ATD compromises like redirect or merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens et al.; notable enough. A merge might be considered but it is an editorial decision I'd prefer to see discussed separately.--cyclopia^speak! 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasculaghju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. There appears to be another archaeological site in Corsica called Vasculacciu which could be an alternative spelling, but I'm unable to confirm it is the same place, and therefore cannot add any of the sources which refer to it. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Google Maps can't find it under either name. DuckDuckGo fnds nothing for Vasculaghju other than a link to this Wikipedia article, but several entries for Vasculacciu. Apart from the u at the end Vasculacciu looks Italian, but Vasculaghju looks Corsican (and the final u looks Corsican in both). I suspect that both refer to the same place. Athel cb (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The map on p261 of this academic journal article New data and provenance of obsidian blocks from Middle Neolithic contexts on Corsica (western Mediterranean) puts Vasculacciu in south Corsica. The current coordinates in the article put Vasculaghju in north Corsica (of course that is not to say that those coordinates are correct!), but is interesting that both words occur in the source. This web page France - Coffres de Vasculacciu - maybe questionable reliability - has Vasculaghju as an alternative name for Vasculacciu, and the coordinates match that on the map in the first source. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heisner (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)

Biography of a Christian pastor and martial arts practitioner. While he was without any doubt an very worthy person who did good things for his community, I do not think he meets any notability criteria, neither WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:NATHLETE. The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable per WP:RS, or brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Martial arts, and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable"

My response: How are ~60 newspaper articles not reliable? How are newspaper articles not secondary sources. Heisner did not own any of the newspapers. How is Robert Heisner's involvement in giving the key to the city of Niagara Falls, NY to Shihan Hironori Otsuka (founder of Wado Kai) not notable?

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the nomination rationale. The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. You may also have missed the part where I referred to the specific notability criteria that must be met. Being involved in giving the key to a city to a notable individual is not grounds for notability. (I will not bludgeon the discussion by responding to everything, but I thought the misunderstanding should be cleared up.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers."

My response: I don't misunderstand. ~60 newspaper articles and mentions is definitely notable. Newspapers are secondary and reliable sources (at least as I read the Wikipedia policies.)

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heisner was not just a martial arts practitioner. He developed a new style combining seven different martial arts in which he was black belt ranked and instructor certified. He also launched a Christian martial arts ministry. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While he may have had a positive local impact, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner, failing to provide the significant, independent coverage required. Most of them are mentions of him doing a performance in a local area. One sentence per article is not what we are looking for. Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral WP:NPOV and reads more like a tribute than an encyclopedia entry. User:Bushido77, who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest WP:COI, further compromising the article’s neutrality and reliability. This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail, violating WP:UNDUE, and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability WP:RS. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP - the majority is NOT always right.

  Absolutely! I admitted right from the beginning (as a Christian I am an honest person.) Even though I admitted it, I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was approved.

  So, the majority will remove a valuable article from Wikipedia. The Heisner page has had more than 800 visitors in the last 30 days, which is more than many other martial artists pages on this platform. Bushido77 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner..."

  My response: none of the newspapers are "affiliated with Heisner". He did not own or work for any of the newspapers.

  You said "Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral..."

  My response: I worked on that to the point that the article was approved. Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to continue working on the tone, rather than deleting the article?

  You said "who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest "

  My response: I honestly admitted that from the very onset of the article. I read the documents you cited and none of them forbade creating the article. It was encouraged against, but not forbidden. I am one of very few who knows the details of the founding of the karate system better than nearly all others. Someone should have told me I could not write the article, rather than let me waste 4 or 5 months working on it and getting past 5 or 6 rejections before it was finally accepted.

  You said "This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail..."

  My response: in this case, would the proper response be to rewrite the article rather than delete it?

  You said "and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability"

  My response there are very few primary sources in the article, and there are many secondary sources that validate the few primary sources.

  All in all, deleting the article is the wrong course of action. Improving the article is the appropriate steps to take. Bushido77 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bushido77, We all appreciate the effort you’ve put into the article. Wikipedia’s standards focus on notability and reliable sourcing, not personal impact or page views. Yes, you disclosed your connection to Heisner. Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality WP:NPOV. We recommend that editors with close ties to a subject let others take the lead to maintain impartiality WP:COI. I believe the best course is to let this article go. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - " Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality..."

  My response - I am not even suggesting that the article is completely neutral. I said I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was accepted.

  You said - "I believe the best course is to let this article go"

  My response - I completely disagree and your approach seems contradictory to Wikipedia editor guidelines. Somewhere I read (I have to find it) that the first response from editors should be to improve the article. But in this case the first response is to try to delete the article. Bushido77 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bushido77, honestly, this whole discussion feels like it’s veered off track. It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward. At the end of the day, the purpose here isn’t to win an argument—it’s to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia based on clear policies, not personal feelings or effort spent.

  We get it—you’ve worked hard on this, and that’s commendable. But dragging out this discussion with repetitive justifications isn’t going to change the reality that articles need to meet notability and sourcing standards, and this one just doesn’t. No one is out to get you, and this isn’t personal. It's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and every editor here is trying to do that in good faith.

  If you’re serious about contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, maybe it’s time to step back, look at the broader picture, and accept that not every subject fits. There’s no shame in that—what matters is learning from this process and applying it to future contributions. But we’re not going to make progress if this stays stuck in a loop of defensiveness. Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - "It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward"

  My response - a productive path forward does not include deleting a good article, about a notable individual, about a notable individual who contributed heavily to the martial arts, his community, Christianity, and via himself and others he impacted, the world.

  If you have a productive path forward I will listen. So far all I have heard are self-justifications to delete (not go forward with) the article.

  ____________

  You said - "Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles"

  My response - I am all for it. But civil is not deleting an article based on what I believe are biased conclusions. Give me a constructive path forward... not a path to the trash heap.

  I am listening. Bushido77 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest Nswix (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest"

  My response: where do Wikipedia rules forbid someone who knows the subject from writing an article? i wish someone would have told me that it was forbidden before I put 4 or 5 months of work into writing the article. Bushido77 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Deleting it appears to be a wrong response to some issues that can be corrected with rewrites and positive edits. Bushido77 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77, please remove the bold from one of your "keeps". You are not permitted to !vote twice. (I strongly recommend moving bold text from your discussion except for your single !vote, since it makes the discussion hard to follow. Italics can be used to express emphasis.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to edit or delete a comment. Is there a way? Bushido77 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 just press edit and change your text. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only see "edit source" no edit. I use the visual editor.  :-(

I am really sorry that I tried Wikipedia. It seems very biased. Bushido77 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I reviewed each of the very many sources, and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:RSSM and other outlets. There is very little evidence that Heisner was discussed with WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. However, three sources do appear to get close to WP:SIGCOV, although one is short and it and another seem to be based solely on an interview with Heisner. They are two articles in the Buffalo News (here, here) and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette. I am truly on the fence so I'd submit these for Bonadea, Ktkvtsh, Nswix and other editors' consideration as to whether they qualify toward WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Even if the outcome is ultimately "keep" or "no consensus," this article will still need to be WP:TNT'd because the vast majority of it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said "and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES "

  My response: not possible. Heisner did not write those newspaper articles. He did not work for any of those papers.

  You said "and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette"

  My response: there are several (I count 18 links) articles in the Niagara Falls Gazette.

  As for blowing it up and starting again, that is unlikely. I spent 4 or 5 months writing, correcting, making it more neutral, etc. It was rejected 5 or 6 times before it was finally accepted. It is unlikely that I will be spending more time in what seems to me to be a biased atmosphere.

  Why did the other editors accept the article?

  I am all for improving the article, but deleting it after it has been published and after over 1,000 page views in such a short time, seems to me to be short-sighted and a biased (non-neutral) decision. Bushido77 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, please stop once and for all using bold text in the visual editor. It is disruptive formatting in a deletion discussion. The vast majority of the news stories you added are trivial mentions--a single quote from Heisner or a mention in a community section that he was going to teach a class at the YMCA. Often the mentions were his own ads, which yes, are primary sources, as are all the links to websites associated with him. There was only one Gazette article that got close to "significant coverage," which is what is required for a source to count toward a notability guideline. Finally, this is a rather counterproductive response to the only editor in this discussion thus far who has identified any sources that might support a "keep" decision. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - " Often the mentions were his own ads"

  My response - Not true! His ads comprise three or four of the 60 newspapers and that was only to establish his schools under Park Jong-soo. One of those articles was put in the Toronto Yellow Pages by Master Park Jong-soo, not by Robert Heisner. Thus a secondary source, and one of the 12 original tae kwon do leaders.

  I am not desiring to be counter-productive, but one of your comments was blow it up and start again. That is not the right approach. Bushido77 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's. I don't have any more to say on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You said - "Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's"

  Copied from Wikipedia about primary sources:

  "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study."

  My response - almost nothing in the Robert Heisner article is a primary source (the only exception that comes to mind is the book we wrote and a couple of advertisements he placed in local newspapers.)

  Artifacts - possibly Master Park Jong Soo's 1970's Toronto Yellow Pages article

  Nothing else appears to fall into the primary source category (that I can think of.) Bushido77 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see where your confusion comes from! It looks like you have been basing your understanding on the first couple of sentences in the Wikipedia article Primary source. Instead, you need to read and understand the Wikipedia policy page WP:PRIMARY. (It is also linked from the very top of the article you quoted from.) Wikipedia's definition isn't much different from the one used by historians, but the WP article doesn't mention all different kinds of primary sources in the introduction, so that's another reason to go straight to the policy page which is written with a different purpose in mind. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Dclemens1971! I truly appreciate the work you did – I still don't think the sourcing is at all sufficient, though. As you say, one of the Buffalo News pieces is primary, so that's no good; the other one and the Niagara Falls Gazette are only slightly more substantial than all the trivial mentions in other papers. Added to the fact that both papers are hyper-local, I just can't see it. I'm not sure if I should go ahead and remove all the stuff that would have to be removed if the article were to be kept, just so we can get a better idea – as Ktkvtsh also pointed out above, there's tons of unencyclopedic detail in there. Am a little hesitant to put more time into an article I don't believe meets any notability criteria, though.

Bushido77, you say above that you are not sure how to remove the bold formatting from your comments. Would it be OK if I or some other participant went ahead and did that for you (except for one "keep")? --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep thing is fine by me.

According to the Wikipedia articles I have/am reading, the vast majority of this article is secondary sources. Yes, there are some primary sources, but they are not the majority. Bushido77 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - if four of us are in a room and I have $100 and the other three come to the consensus that I should give it to them... then they take it... that does not make the consensus right.

I believe this attempt to delete this article is biased and not neutral. Bushido77 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have removed all superfluous bold formatting from your posts. Each of us gets to make one single bolded "keep"/"delete" comment, and you have already been asked several times not to add emphasis by using bold formatting. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 20:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article that I read said that some bold was acceptable. What article says no bolding? Bushido77 (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked more than once not to use bold for emphasis in this AfD discussion, and have been asked the same thing in other discussions. Please show your fellow editors the courtesy of adapting your preferred formatting style when we ask you to do so. There is another thing as well: you had bolded the word "delete" at least four times. In an AfD discussion, we all get to make one bolded "keep" or "delete" comment, to show what our preference is. I hope this makes it clear. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE according to WP:GNG standards. If nothing else, it could maybe be put into draftspace for further work. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said - "agree with bonadea. much of this is just passing coverage of a person. there is nothing particularly WP:NOTABLE "

My response - 60+ newspaper articles are not notable? How many articles are you in?

You offer a biased and skewed opinion.

I wish Wikipedia offered an unbiased mediation option. Bushido77 (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this work? Do I have to file a Dispute Resolution before you guys delete the article? Or does a dispute resolution need to be filed after the decision has been made? I don't want to miss my opportunity. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 No, you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That looks like the page to go to after the page has been deleted. Correct?

Is dispute resolution an option before the page has been deleted? I would prefer to avoid deletion if possible. Bushido77 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRN is not appropriate for an AfD which is itself a community discussion. It would be turned down if you tried. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any type of dispute resolution available in a case like this? Bushido77 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is the dispute resolution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said - "This whole discussion is the dispute resolution."

My response - It does not seem like a dispute resolution. It seems like a democratic vote to keep or destroy the article. Resolution implies resolving the problem, this appears to seek to destroy content (rather than fix it.)

That seems very unfair. A bunch of people band together against an article with:

• four or five months of work
• tons of research
• 60 + links to newspapers
• ~1,350+ page views in less than two months
• Better and more complete content than many similar pages I have looked at (including one of Heisner's instructors)
• a person who developed a new martial art style

But, if there is no other dispute resolution options, I guess that is that. Bushido77 (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why the editors who approved the article and subsequently worked on the article are not involved in this discussion. Bushido77 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido admits to writing a book with Heisner."For example, I took the photo of his Wado-Kai certificate and all of them are copyrighted in the book that Mr. Heisner and myself wrote". He does say he sold it at cost to students.Doug Weller talk 06:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book. If there is any notability in here this hierography hides it under a pile of mundane. Someone without a coi may give it a try later but this needs to go. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought Wikipedia had a policy to assume good faith? Your comment does not appear to assume good faith. You said "Promotional puff piece which over exaggerates the trivial, fakes verification and even provides a commercial link to try sell this pages authors book."

  As previously discussed with regards to the book, all of the photos on this page are in that book which Heisner and myself hold the copyrights to. So the book was added for two reasons. 1) It is part of Robert Heisner's legacy (which I have seen on other pages. 2) It validates the copyright owner ship of the photos. I added both the book itself and a link to the copyright office to the article in good faith.

  Thanks for admitting that there may be notability in this article. In light of the possibility of being notable, I think deleting the article is the wrong decision. Fixing the article would be the correct approach. Bushido77 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I will recuse myself from !voting delete, but as the original reviewer who declined the draft article, my original opinion on article quality, notability, and NPOV grounds still stands, even though article is in mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am curious, why did you not delete it originally? Bushido77 (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Deletion and keeping it as a draft are two different things. I am leaning toward draftification (the article is not published and easily available for the public to see) if you promise the community of editors not take this page back to the mainspace (where published articles live) until multiple experienced editors tell you that the article is suitable to be published and give you advice.

It is unlikely the article will ever be published because there are very few high-quality sources about Heisner but I think that in the far future, with the help of many editors, it could be published. I cannot promise that this article will not be deleted, but this could be a reasonable compromise if you stop moving this page back into the mainspace. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a newbie, I think I moved it back once, because someone told me that was a viable option. I would prefer that to throwing it in the trash. But how do we know the same thing won't happen again?

• the article was moved to the mainspace by an editor (not me)
• after an editor moved it to mainspace, another eidtor tagged to be deleted
• what would prevent that from happening again and again?
• would it be again possible that I and others continue to work on it for many more months.
• One or more editors approve to move it to the mainspace.
• And then one editor tags it again for deletion?

Would your recommendation possibly be repeating that cycle? Bushido77 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards Draftify. There are several stories (primary sources) about the subject over many years in the local Western New York media. So he approaches notability, but isn’t obviously there. The problems are (1) there are zero secondary sources - as any librarian or legal scholar would define the term - and (2) it’s written very poorly, violating several major rules of The Elements of Style, almost to the point of deleting and starting over. If one of my students in my legal research and writing class at Bryant & Stratton College had written this, it would be covered in Red ink. I have reached out to an expert on this area, and need some time to research it. From a procedural standpoint, there are tendentious arguments to keep that, from my perspective, are weakening their position. If you don’t know the difference between primary and secondary sources, or how to write well, or how to argue in good faith, then perhaps you should not be editing an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your feedback. I have read the primary and secondary source article two times fully and partially a third time, and honestly I don't see how most of the links would qualify as primary. (There are some primary references added for specific reasons, such as demonstrating copyright ownership.) I will read the primary/secondary sources again.

  I will also review the elements of style page. Bushido77 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’ve tried to come up with an alternative to deletion, but the arguments to keep, keep getting worse. I reached out to former colleagues who are from the Niagara Falls area, and they have never heard of him. I tried to drop hints, but they were ignored. If you don’t understand what we are not, and you refuse to learn about basic research that a two-year college graduate would know, then I can’t fix it. I’ve saved over 120 articles over the years, and based on my experience and research, this is unsalvageable. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He awarded the key to the city to Hironori Otsuka via Mayor E Dent Lackey. I have no idea who you know in Niagara Falls, NY but many people knew him.

I thought one of the rules were to assume good faith - you said "basic research that a two-year college graduate would know"...that does not sound like an assumption of good faith to me. Bushido77 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe legislator Jesse Gooch would be a good person to ask (amongst many others.) Bushido77 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign state, municipal, sub-state, and local officials endorsements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's perhaps because I am not an American, but what is the point of an endless list of Republican politicians who support the candidacy of the sole remaining Republican candidate for president? Isn't it completely trivial that the "Prosecutor of Macomb County", a Republican, supports Trump? Seems like excessive detail about an election which is very important and gets lots of attention (and articles), but where not every bit of completely predictable minutiae needs to be recorded for posterity on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep we just discussed split because the old article was far too long, now deleting the subpages would just revert it back to one mega-article Braganza (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or one could just not include this anywhere on Wikipedia of course. Fram (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think the americans would approve this, there are always very long endorsement pages Braganza (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What information do they actually convey? Hundreds of Republican officials endorse the Republican presidential candidate (or Democrats for Democrats of course), in what way is that informative? What would be lost by not having this page? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same with Democrats, its tradition Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also used to maintain infinite updates about cable and satellite lineups before we all realized it was stupid, promotional, and the providers themselves updated them better. 'American' Wikipedians can easily change consensus when we realize how WP:LAME it is to care about what infomercial networks DirecTV carries, just like the opinions of 'ward captain 534' on the election are wholly irrelevant. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to just "state and local officials endorsements". Municipal is considered local so I don't know why this is duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i wouldn't mind renaming it Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid page split. The information is verifiable and would be appropriate on the main endorsement page. But, since the size of the endorsement page is high, a page split is appropriate. Name change would make sense too, but that is an editing decision. --Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Republicans supporting a Republican isn't notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: inconsequential subject. Not notable. Even if "tradition" (tradition where? Wikipedia? The American-verse internet?) is in favour of keeping this list, Wikipedia policy is not. Cremastra (u — c) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cremastra: List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign state and territorial political endorsements is pretty much the same and it was included in List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements, until we agreed to split it and now suddenly its a problem and not notable Braganza (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Endlessly-expandable list that borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As for it being split from another article, just delete it all as per Fram. Delete the Democratic endorsement articles, too. Do we really need to archive the fact that a random Republican county commissioner endorses Trump? That a Democratic mayor of a ROTM suburb endorses Harris? Who cares? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If a list is getting way too long, the first solution is never to split it off and then just double down to the finite alderperson and school board endorsement level; this is getting to "list of reruns carried by the rerun channel in 1979" or "List of toys Ryan's Toy Reviews liked" levels of inanity; endorsements should be limited to elected federal and state officeholders and whatever non-pink slime journalism newspapers still do endorsements, no further. The pictures of officials in the article also are a large breach of MOS:IRELEV and after awhile, they just blur together into nothing (Ray Garofalo isn't in office, why does he need an image here?). Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge back into one list. We list the endorsements that news sources list, so it isn't INDISCRIMINATE, and newspapers don't cover the opinions of random aldermen. The topic of "endorsements of Donald Trump" meets LISTN, and we have a tradition of including these. Also, we have already had AFDs for these kinds of articles more than once in the past few months and they ended in an overwhelming Keep result. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Our tradition never included state assemblypersons, irrelevant and retired political figures, and true shockers like Giuliani being listed and are all recent additions. This is cruft for the sake of WP:POINTy cruft in a 'we have more than the other side' kind of way, which we're non-neutral and some basic guardrails need to be applied to articles like this (the criteria somehow allowed Richard Petty in this article because he had a county board seat decades ago!). Nate • (chatter) 00:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  comment where do these articles come from then Trump 2020 and Obama 2008 Braganza (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter has only had <3,400 views all time since 2018, the former <7,200, and none have ever topped over 100 views for a day. The only thing these articles prove is that a small group of political editors get all wound up about how important these pages are somehow, when they can't even get anywhere near the almost 150,000 views that America's lowest-rated cable news channel has received. This page is currently at 204 views all time; nothing would be lost if we just focused on endorsements the vast majority of the public actually listen to, from elected officials with interests in the results. A lot of light, but very little heat. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its a completly different discussion, you claimed that we "never included state assemblypersons ect." which is wrong. A discussion about the general inclusion of sub-national politicians should be hold as a RfC like @QuicoleJR said and not the random deletion of an article by people who didn't even participate in the discussion about how to handle these very long articles, where a consensus was reached Braganza (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have so many of these articles, and a tradition of keeping them, that getting rid of these kinds of lists entirely would IMO require an RFC, since a mass AFD for every single list like this that we have would be way too large. Also, I agree that the list could probably be trimmed and merged, but I can't think of any way to do that other than going by the endorsements that reliable sources care about, since anything else would arguably be OR. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a tradition of keeping them, but going by the numbers above who is actually reading them? We're at WP:ITSUSEFUL, but to whom exactly outside of terminally online Twitter users who think the mayor of Clearwater is the one who tips the race either way? Going by the above it really feels like the efforts made by the editors on these articles should be going elsewhere by a mile. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm torn on this one, so I'm not going to !vote, but if we do decide to delete this article then we should absolutely not merge it back, as it makes the parent article way too large. In fact, I would suggest modifying the language of that page (and the counterpart pages for other US presidential candidates) to specify that it is only a list of endorsements from Federal officials and nationwide organizations. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements was already part of an AfD involving seven other articles under three months ago that closed as a SNOW Keep. and this is not the only standalone attempt to delete a single article of this type in the last three months. This article has been freshly split from List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements due to size issues, which seems to have led to this AfD. This list follows the guidelines at ENDORSE as managed by WikiProject Politics. All individuals listed are presumed to be NOTABLE, which meets LISTPEOPLE and the first bullet points of CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.

Personally, I think it would be better to either have an RfC regarding endorsement lists or nominate every article like this at AfD instead of just one or two. Otherwise, there may arise a scenario where multiple consensuses form due to too many separate discussions.

Additionally, to address some comments, this list includes endorsements from Democrats along with Republicans. Yes, there are only a handful of Democrats that endorse Trump, but they exist. There are no Ward Captains listed or, more to the point, nothing with a similar theme so far as I see. Mayors are all notable as noted above and a quick check I did seem to have them be mayors of areas with a population of over 100,000 or more in the surrounding area, which does not seem to be a 'Run of the Mill' mayor. If this does get merged, I would suggest considering that it should go to the support section of the Trump 2024 campaign as that looks to be the main article for the lists. Finally, I do endorse removing the images from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While the people on this list may be notable in their own right (there are some red links), I don't see how most of their endorsements are notable. I don't think a Republican in a strongly Republican state endorsing the Republican presidential candidate is important or going to sway anything. Many of the sources used on here are local news or, worse, Twitter, which is used for 19 people. Though, I agree that there should probably be an RfC on these things and what should and should not be included in them. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Tito Ortiz endorsement...does anyone in WPP know how terrible MMA sourcing is and the edit wars in that section of the project (and we have multiple SEO blogs cited here that are otherwise disqualified if we put them in a BLP)?! And somehow this page has gone this long with no talk page added...these are elementary things you learn for your first article, not something like this. Again, we're talking about pages here the vast majority of readers avoid which have been proven by pageviews. We've killed walled-garden pages for much less egregious editing standards. Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "adding" talk page is not the first thing you do, with what even? what do you expect there to be?

  people who have questions or maybe want to connect it to projects can create talk pages, but you don't do it for fun Braganza (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also as a reminder the article was created by splitting, so the article "has [not] gone this long" but was roughly of the size when i created it. I really don't understand your points here

  To be clear i would support a RfC, i would personally not even mind to remove local/state politicians but this should be done properly and not by the deletion of one single instance where local/state politicians are listed. Braganza (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Academies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no intro, details just a table UzbukUdash (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This list is not about academics or educators.

  The intention is that it pulls together an up to date and easy to navigate list of national academies such as those listed (poorly) on National Academy. With the intention that this list could be removed from National Academy once this list has been created.

  If you're really unhappy. Can we at least move it to draft space so that I can add the other national academies? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It should also pull together those listed on the academy of sciences page as well. Again cleaning up both of these pages and creating a single listed resource which both pages can link to. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this sort-of shared name agglomeration. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to National academy and Academy of sciences or draftify. I think this should be worked on in the main articles and split later when appropriate. I agree with cleaning them up but right now it's just duplicative and making this separate page first doesn't do that. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to national academy, an existing and far more complete article that provides a similar listing. Incidentally, I removed the listing of this AfD from "list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions" because that deletion sorting list is for biographies of professors. The nominated article is not a biography of a professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't currently have a strong opinion on merge, redirect, or draftify. There's also the National Academies category [32] to help in the goals here. Regardless of the outcome, I would also really appreciate this information being listed together somewhere as TheResilientEngineer added. I am currently working on updating scientists elected to the American NAS, but in the long term and I hope to move onto other academies after this. Cyanochic (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm currently working on engineer bios @Cyanochic which is why I started this list as the list in its current form in national academy is not good enough. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does this list actually just belong on the national academy page then? I can go and edit that one so that it is actually useful and well formatted if that is the preference. However, I was sure I read somewhere about there being a preference for lists being separate pages, hence why I created a new page. Let me know and I can go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResilientEngineer (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  From the above comments, I believe that consensus says to Merge or Redirect (mentioned both as it is not closed yet), because the current article is not complete, and is also not cleaned up. After expansion on main article, it can be split. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to National academy. Not redirect, because the table like format with Founding year and Specialism will be nice to have there, if proper sources and description is provided. Bunnypranav (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]