Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 30

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      November 4 (Mon)      November 3 (Sun)      November 2 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Wong Kay Poh (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)

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. The best I could find is listings in google books that he competed but nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Singapore. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The decline reason for the PROD was basically WP:NEXIST but I haven't seen evidence of such yet. I left a message at the talk page of User:Somebodyidkfkdt who should be made aware of this discussion. Reconrabbit 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's 75 kg: I removed the PROD because I thought I'd found SIGCOV here but after taking a closer look I'm pretty sure there's nothing more than passing mentions. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nobel Prize in Physics (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)

We do not have any examples of other individual Nobel Prize in Physics entries and a recent one is underdeveloped and not more notable. Efforts are still needed in many laureates and contribution articles including this year laureates. Nobel Peace prizes have individual prizes because nomination is vastly public which is not the case of physics prizes. Wiki articles like this are mostly a collection of WP:RECENT news buzz. The merge discussion above suggested that we should discuss the deletion of this article. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton, Ldm1954, MYSKaoi, Jähmefyysikko, Quondum, and Sushidude21!: courtesy ping because you participated in the previous conversation.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessary, already covered in List of Nobel laureates in Physics

  Johnjbarton (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. Note that an AfD is appropriate as an earlier PROD was rejected. Ldm1954 (talk)
• Delete – Not appropriate to have a separate article: the minimal facts are notable but already more suitably covered in a list article as noted by Johnjbarton. There is no reason why this award should be treated any differently than the other physics Nobel prizes. —Quondum 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to there simply not being enough to say about the awarding of the prize itself, as opposed to the work it was awarded for. The only thing we could possibly say about the award itself is the kerfuffle about whether the work belongs to physics proper, but Nobel Prize controversies#Physics already covers that in a sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please do not make articles merely for the sake of making articles. The fact that the Peace Prize has its own page doesn't mean this one does. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unwarranted as a stand-alone article, and no unique referenced to content to merge to List of Nobel laureates in Physics. Klbrain (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, support nomination per the rationale and other commenters' arguments. Mekomo (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is literally no way this can make an actual article when there's nothing special about the "2024" prize. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:37, 5 November 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, while I respect the reasoning behind the proposed deletion of Vafaei’s page, I believe the sources cited provide independent and impartial information. I see that he has been featured in many Turkish and global sources. Yashar Vafaei’s work, particularly his contributions in sustainable investment and economic development, holds significant value for society. The sources are not for promotional purposes but rather drawn from credible global sources that illustrate his impact in the business world and beyond. If there are sections that seem biased, I would be happy to assist in making necessary adjustments. I recommend preserving the page to continue offering valuable information to the public. Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Youtuberhakankeles, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributing to the discussion. I was wondering if you happen to know this individual in a personal or professional context? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheJoyfulTentmaker, thank you for reaching out and for the warm welcome. Yes, I do know Yashar Vafaei and am familiar with his work. I’m here to contribute to this discussion to ensure that the article remains neutral and informative, following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I understand the importance of unbiased representation and would be happy to make any necessary edits to keep the content aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you for your guidance and feedback! Youtuberhakankeles (talk) 20:30, 31 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]

• Redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five - might possibly be notable, but right now it's too small to merit a separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: I have started and plan to continue expanding the article. I cannot do it in one big step as my time is limited. So how would I be able to improve a short article on a notable topic if redirect became consensus? Such an approach, if made general practice, would in effect forbid the creation of stubs as an intermediate step for notable topics, which clearly is not borne out by policy. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the general case, the answer would be "outside of mainspace until it is ready". On a somewhat related note, I often add {{Under construction}} to articles I am working on, which usually has the desired effect of making other users not do anything too quickly based on the current state of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It wouldn't really forbid the creation of stubs. Tralfamadore has a clear potential redirect target, where much of the info is already stated, so it's different than a stub that would have no logical place to redirect, like a new book or video game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It shouldn't redirect to Slaughterhouse-Five, because Vonnegut didn't only use it in Slaughterhouse-Five. It's at least as prominent in The Sirens of Titan. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a recurring motif, noted as such by commentators on Vonnegut. The sources provided up a ways would be enough for a small but decent article that describes the variations Vonnegut played on the motif. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Zxcvbnm (though Kurt Vonnegut may be a better target). There isn't much here, and the WP:PLOT appearances are already mentioned at the book articles. I appreciate good faith efforts to find sources, but it's hard to reconcile claims of WP:SIGCOV with the difficulty of finding any reception or analysis. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, did you read the sample paragraphs I lifted from multiple-page academic journal articles analyzing the topic? I just don't see your feedback here is congruent with the reality I demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shooterwalker and Zxcvbnm: As another secondary source which deals with the overall topic of Tralfamadore, Breaking Down Vonnegut p. 84 has a paragraph of analysis, as well as more commentary on individual variants in other parts of the book. As an intermediate state consisting of publication history, commentary, and the plot summary necessary as context, we are already beyond the fuzzy 250 word size of a stub. So do you still see it as the best solution to remove from view the sourced content collected so far and vote against further expansion here based on all the listed sources by turning this into a redirect? Daranios (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. There seems to be enough here to write a meaningful article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Ismay (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:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions but nothing in-depth that focuses on him. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability for GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing anything to meet WP:PROF here. There's a moderately cited textbook with academic publisher with a single coauthor, but we'd really be looking for at least two such to make it worth searching for reviews to support notability under WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One book isn't going to pass WP:AUTHOR as above. Neither his citation record nor the other biographical details in the article suggest a pass of any of the WP:PROF criteria. That leaves WP:GNG but none of the sources in the article are the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of Ismay needed for that, nor did my external searches find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and criterion for the inclusion of an author page. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sorry, but we almost never keep untenured college teachers. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Highly partisan piece sourced to blogs and other partisan sources. Not suitable for mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: this needs reworking... We're not even given the date it happened until about half way down and it's missing information. Seems to be sourced to RS, but this reads like a half-translated article that someone gave up on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources for the words 'October Betrayal' are the headline of an online news site and a youtube video with 8 views from 3 years ago. While many of the sources in the article seem to be RS, it is not clear what this is an article of and, therefore, what is being sourced or needs to be sourced. It is also unclear what would be being rewritten if this was redrafted. With that being said, charges of 'partisan' levelled at sources in the article are not useful in nominating an article for deletion. The information in the article, while unbalanced, is not necessarily partisan. None of the cited sources seem to be blogs. Thudinspecies (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: need rewriting and elaboration as well. UzbukUdash (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if a topic is notable and has some reliable sources, we reserve the right to delete very badly written articles and those whose point of view is so tilted as to be written as if a screed screamed from on top of a soap box. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 5 November 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 [1], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [2], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [3], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [4]. 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 [5]. 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) _{Non-EC users may not vote, per WP:GS/AA. Grandmaster 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)} .[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that while deletion can be used to address NPOV violations, it is only done in extreme cases where the article is unsalvageable. If the topic is notable, and POV or WP:UNDUE can be fixed by stubifying, then deletion is not the appropriate approach. Editors are encouraged to trim down the article to remove POV and UNDUE violations while this AfD is open, and discuss the notability of the topic based on sourcing, rather than reject the current content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- While taking into consideration the relisting comment- the article is written with such a great deal of bias that it is hard to decipher fact from bias. Imo WP:TNT may be the only optimal solution here. Any WP:N content not riddled with bias can always be merged into Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Archives908 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you support a selective merger with Azerbaijan–Iran relations, then? It's not clear from your !vote. Alternatives to deletion, if possible, are almost always preferable. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I still support deletion, I think a selective merger is a fair alternative to deletion. I don't think it's notable enough to warrant its own article imo. Whatever can be salvaged can be merged into Azerbaijan–Iran relations, while the biased pov can be TNT'd. Archives908 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thank you very much, Owen×.

I would like to reiterate that the person who nominated the article for deletion is biased against the article and its subject, trying to protect the interests of a regime that persecutes, kills, and has imprisoned people for years in a Sharia state. Therefore, I feel regret.

• Let’s move on to the article. The events described in the article are real. People have fought for days and months, resulting in arrests, beatings, and persecution. Many have been subjected to insults in front of their relatives and family members, and have received lashings to humiliate them. These facts have been confirmed by reputable news sites such as "Voice of America," "Radio Free Europe," "BBC," and by international organizations like "Amnesty International" and the U.S. Department of State.

• The user who nominated the article for deletion is unhappy because I referenced a certain organization’s site only twice, despite the fact that the article has a total of 246 citations. The overwhelming majority of those citations are from the reputable sites and organizations I mentioned above.Even if the user insists on removing those 2 citations, I would not object, yet they remain dissatisfied for some reason.

• The user also claims that the phrase "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" is inappropriate. At the same time, I have no objection to "Iranian Azerbaijanis" being used. In fact, I have considered this in the later sections of the article as well.Yet the user is still not satisfied. Why?

• Furthermore, the individual is also upset about my translations of the articles into other languages. I have translated many of the articles I have written into various languages that I know, and I enjoy doing so. This not only enhances my foreign language skills but also supports the Wikipedia movement.Why does this activity bother this user?

• Later, the user claims that this article reflects the position of Aliyev. I would like to reiterate to other users that neither Aliyev nor any other members of the Azerbaijani government have made any statements, opinions, or speeches on this topic. Naturally, there is no discussion of this in the article either. Anyone who claims otherwise should provide their evidence.

• For some reason, this user seems to be trying to hide the actions of the repressive mullah regime, tarnishing the article with unrelated topics, exaggerating minor errors, and disregarding reputable sources and statements, including reports. I hope the community makes the right decision. It is not acceptable to delete such an extensive article and important events due to just one or two minor errors.--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are only allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. Also, casting aspersions on other participants will not sway the decision your way. Please stick to policy- and guideline-based arguments about the topic and sourcing. Owen× ☎ 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just WP:REHASH of your earlier comment with a even bigger sprinkle of WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These events received coverage in the international media. For example, in Deutsche Welle, RFE/RL, Al Jazeera, so the notability is obvious. NPOV concerns are not the reason to delete the article, they can be addressed by improving it. Grandmaster 11:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not think notability is an issue. A quick glance at the article shows it draws heavily on reliable sources, such as Voice of America, BBC and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. The event is definitely well covered. Branding the text as "Aliyev-ruled regime propaganda" is not very reasonable given that a great deal of the Azerbaijani sources cited in the article actually represent Azerbaijani opposition (Meydan, Musavat). Some references probably do need double checking, but notability is definitely not an issue. I am also not sure when "irredentism" became an argument in favour of deleting an article on Wikipedia, considering that Republic of Artsakh, the very article the nominator refers to in their deletion rationale, essentially conveys an irredentist concept. Parishan (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of the article is a notable, there are many reliable sources mentioned by other users.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutty Professor (character) (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 reliable sources cited ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX. But sources about the character exist. See GBooks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (Had missed the page about the franchise)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Nutty Professor (franchise) - This article is just brief plot summaries and links to each of the movies, which is exactly what is present at the main Franchise page, making this a redundant Fork. Rorshacma (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rorshacma. There's a lot of overlap with the franchise article, and the latter is more complete. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rorshacma. I agree that this is already covered at the franchise, which is a more proper article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:HEY, as I have added a large amount of sources and content that prove the Nutty Professor is notable as a standalone character. That is only the tip of the iceberg as there appear to be a huge amount more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, as there are now sources that show notability in the article, and more can be added. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Good job. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism (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)

Since a large amount of people have expressed concerns about whether this article meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I will boldly start an AfD discussion to see what the community thinks, since the talk page discussions have gotten nowhere. I have also seen opinions that this is a content fork of Trumpism, which is valid. I will clarify that this is on behalf of several other editors who expressed concerns, as their opinions do also matter. I personally have no opinion on this. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense). It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality. :To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• it is a shame for wikipedia to loose neutrality, the page must be deleted Fasil H. (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve. I think this article certainly deserves to exist because it is a common topic of discussion, and has been for at least 3 years (after January 6) but I think a lot of improvements could be made. The article kinda makes it look like only silly conservatives are uncomfortable with the term 'fascist' being applied to Trump, but some scholars have resisted the term as well, and I think that should be given more weight in the article. As far as I can tell, even scholars with a negative view of Trump sometimes think that 'fascism' is too far, seeing him as an opportunist, or, most commonly, not politically astute enough to have a real ideology. And so we should mention that in addition to the slightly different conservative defense (that the word is thrown around too much or is a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome). Birdsgeek (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are a lot of studies, commentators, political analysts and politicians who have rightly compared Trump to a fascist. And a legitimate topic should not be removed from Wikipedia just because it's hurts the POV of a section of the populace. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for violating WP:SYNTH and being irrevocably NPOV. I mean seriously, what next? ‘List of lies told by Rishi Sunak’? ‘Comparisons between Joe Biden and Joe Stalin’? This is absurd. Riposte97 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not American but I follow American politics from my native Africa and what I see is that, over time, Wikipedia has become a strong bastion of the Western far left. This kind of article is just a direct attack on a right-wing politician. An article that takes up all the rhetoric of the far-left. And as luck would have it, this article was written the same day THE GUARDIAN published an article "Is Donald Trump a fascist?".

• Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:

  If this shifts to a merge discussion, I would strong oppose that; the {{refideas}} at the top of this page shows a wealth of academic and book sources comparing Trump's views to fascism. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  charlotte ^👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article pretty clearly does not have a NPOV. The 'Criticism' section, by comparison, is quite sparse and measured. Jehorn (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.

Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" Gremlin742 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term Fascist and Communist is thrown around so loosely these days without any experience or knowledge of what those words mean. It is sad and amusing to hear people say Joe Biden is a Communist or Donald Trump is a Fascist simply because its an easy trigger word to discredit them. These arguments are being made by uneducated people who would not know Communism or Fascism if it hit them in the face and broke their nose.

_

I would love to hear stories of people who truly suffered under the horrible Fascist Trump Regime of 2016-2020, or the tyrannical Communist Biden Regime of 2020-2024, it must have been so horrible, probably more so than Romania where during the Communism regime where women couldn’t have abortions, and if they got pregnant they would be jailed or killed so they would be forced to undergo at home abortions, risking things going wrong and never being able to have children again. Artem P75 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" George Orwell in Politics and the English Language Wizmut (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a discussion of Trump and the "concepts" that swarm around him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

Wikipedia's habit of reflecting what mainstream sources choose to cover means that it has an unhealthy fixation on Donald Trump. We have Donald Trump and handshakes, we have Donald Trump and golf, we have probably a hundred separate articles about every single aspect of the guy and his life and his views and everything about him. It is extremely unusual, even for someone who is the President of the United States -- we do not have this level of obsessive coverage of Obama or Bush or Biden. I get that he is a very visible public figure, and also a very silly guy, and he does a lot of notable stuff, but Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I cannot wait until the year 2029 when I get to fire up the hedge trimmers and merge a bunch of flash-in-the-pan news cycle articles about Donald Trump's opinions on Tabasco sauce and nobody will follow me around to gripe about how this means I am obviously a paid shill for the Republicans and/or Democrats and/or Whigs and/or pushing an agenda for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Diode and Big Capacitor.

See, okay, there is this very long and convoluted argument for how this article doesn't call him a fascist, it's just a list of every time anybody has ever called him a fascist, which we are assembling in a lovingly made gallery of quotes in an encyclopedia article, which inherently suggests that these utterances are worth paying attention to and that they indicate something useful about the state of reality, also for some reason we do not really spend much time explaining that they are opinions and not factual statements -- okay. I get it, whatever. This will win arguments on Wikipedia. I don't think it is going to convince anybody outside Wikipedia, by which I mean the readers of our project, by whom I mean the only actual people who matter when we make decisions about content.

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG _chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment Rob Roilen (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be heavily rewritten so it is not bias propaganda against one side, but if that doesn't happen then it should be deleted Gremlin742 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether or not it happens, its about whether or not it CAN happen. If the issue with an article CAN be fixed, deletion is entirely unnecessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

As for WP:NPOV, the article could definitely use a good touch-up, but it is practically impossible to compare X to Y without readers noticing a visible or perceived bias towards whether the comparison is appropriate, warranted, fair, neutral, etc. Neutrality certainly isn't helped by the fact that "fascist" and "communist" have been adopted into the repertoire of insults for a lot of people, but I believe the article is worth keeping. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - The article is more a propaganda piece for the USA election than a WP article. It does not have a NPOV. Most (majority) of the sources are from strongly biased organizations: The definition of neutrality should take the population into account, rather than the left leaning legacy media. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]

  Neutral point of view issues are not grounds for deletion on their own. This article is not solely an attack page, and can be edited to be from a more neutral stance. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Labeling Donald Trump as a "fascist" is legitimate.

Generally, fascism is a far-right authoritarian ideology that promotes;

1. Racial and ethnic nationalism
2. Centralization of power
3. Suppression of dissent, and often the identification of enemies within society to rally the populace.

So we continue to debate whether Trump fits this label due to his authoritarian rhetoric, attacks on public institutions, divisive rhetoric against perceived "enemies," and his apparent disregard for established norms.

However, while Trump has exhibited some behaviors associated with authoritarianism (e.g., undermining the press, rejecting election results), he has not instituted a fully centralized, authoritarian state with absolute power. So that his actions fall short of full-blown fascism.

QalasQalas (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from this appearing to be AI generated (according to 10 different detectors), I don't see the point you were attempting to make here. Everyone could spend an eternity comparing person X to fascism, communism or any other ideology

Make no mistake, I also believe Donald Trump is very comparable to a fascist. But we cannot undermine WP:NPOV just because we have the impression he is comparable to one. Millions disagree, making it a view at the end of the day, not a factual statement. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "millions disagree" how Wikipedia determines a factual statement? Millions believe the moon landing was faked. To stay within the realm of US politics, millions believe that Trump won the 2020 election. 2601:600:CB00:B0F0:949B:4319:E991:38C1 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion and is it happenstance that the first edit you make calls for the deletion of a page concerning trump and fascism by attacking & name calling liberals. Wikipedia is not a rw echo chamber. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia rule books as many who have commented here are. I am just a regular user of the website. In my opinion, it would be wise to delete this article. When it comes to comparison between two ideologies (in this case fascism and Trump's beliefs and actions) it would take an unbiased person to deliver a satisfyingly neutral summary of the situation due to the potentially endless angles from which the comparison could be made, all of which are important in understanding the issue. This page is almost destined to be stained by bias, whether intentionally or not, and there's no reason the readers of Wikipedia who are interested in this subject cannot/would not simply use this website to research fascism and Trump separately in order to make their own comparison and analysis. That's my two cents at least. 66.177.187.250 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete

1. This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
   
2. The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
3. Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
4. Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
5. NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.
   
   
6. Lack of Reliable Sources:
   

• Many of the citations used in the article are attributed to opinion pieces. Regardless of whether the source uses the term, "analysis", "opinion", "editorial" or other words, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Just because person X says "Donald Trump is a fascist" doesn't make it so. It also fails to make it so when person X writes an opinion piece analyzing Trump's actions themselves and claims Trump to be a fascist. Whether Trump is a fascist or not should not be left for Wikipedia's editors to determine, but for the individual voters themselves.
  
• The poll cited by ABC news in the Lede is also highly unreliable, particularly since ABC is under extreme scrutiny for bias in terms of how they conducted themselves in the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. When you go through to the actual information of the poll itself, you can see that the data is highly massaged and twisted to produce the misleading results published on the wikipedia page. 49% of Americans do NOT think "Trump is a fascist", for example, only 44% think Trump is a facist. 5% think BOTH Harris AND Trump are fascists, however this key detail is left out, as is the percentage of Americans who think Kamala Harris is a fascist.

To summarize: This article is not written with a neutral point of view, even when it contains a small section of "criticisms" of the point of view, is poorly timed in concert with the upcoming election, may put an individual or individuals in physical danger, and thus needs to be speedily deleted.Steven Britton (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is AfD the place to debate neutrality of an article? It's sourced mostly to RS... There's a "story" here, not sure why this needs to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG _chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep (with exceptions) Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG _chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree the amount of opinion or "newsy" articles need to be trimmed back, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, I'm sure even more of them not used here. Also, a lot of peer reviewed studies are not inline citations but merely "further reading". Except maybe for since mid 2024, studies generally take a long time to compile and many former administration officials calling him fascist is obviously noteworthy enough on its own. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.

Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my comment above:

So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.

_

I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.

_

It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims

_

Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW keep This is clearly a very notable topic that has been reported on by innumerable reliable sources. If the article is biased or should be at another title, those are fixable problems not requiring deletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • That can be brought up in AfD in 2044 I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:

_

If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.

_

Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG _chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable topic.Andre🚐 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not agree that titling an article "Comparisons between ________ and fascism" and then packing it with examples of sensational language describing the person as a fascist is meant to, in essence, call the person a fascist?

The lede contains the claim that "49% of American registered voters see Donald Trump as a fascist", which immediately primes the reader and skews the framing of the article. This claim comes from an online poll of only 2,392 people, conducted by Ipsos, a company with a recognized left-of-center bias. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nomination is 100% politically motivated. Great Mercian (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination wasn’t politically motivated, my reasoning is on behalf of others. I’m a democrat. :) SMG _chat 12:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool. I'm a Labour voter. Great Mercian (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point he is putting across is that you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS. o Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify for a week to 10 days, and then reconsider. Surely that would assuage accusations that this page intends to sway votes. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Biased articles like these is why many reasonable people hate Wikipedia. Nuke it. Amin (Talk) 07:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this seems a widely covered topic in WP:RSs and, I think, the article does a good balancing the major viewpoints in those sources (which is what WP:NPOV actually says to do). You may disagree on that last point, but that is the sort of dispute worked out through normal talk page discussion and not at and AFD (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). We are WP:NOTCENSORED for the benefit of a political campaign (or the feelings of Elon Musk). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many RS, maybe cut down on opinion pieces. Also, move peer reviewed studies from "Further reading" to inline citations. The title is good as it is, "Donald Trump and fascism", which is what it was before, is too vague.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• NPOV is not a reason to delete an article unless we are dealing with an attack page or a BLP violation. There's more than enough coverage over the last few years on the matter for it to pass WP:GNG; I don't think that WP:LASTING is in question here either, on the same grounds. While I do agree with JPxG's views above that we have too many articles on Trump that are probably not of lasting significance (the golf article stands out to me, for instance), I disagree that this article falls into the same category. Keep. JavaHurricane 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. NPOV violations can be fixed with through enough editing. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It may not be an original take, but to reiterate, this is an encyclopedia. We document what is written and spoken in culture as well; this means that this article has a very warranted merit to exist because the word of mouth and political discourse around Donald Trump has heightened towards a discussion about him and fascism. It may have just bounded to the mainstream now, but for the past couple years, this has been happening too. The article has a place here. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sourced to RS, could perhaps use a re-write, but that's not a reason to delete it. I see no issues with notability nor with the sourcing used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If this was an exercise in baseless, political name calling, I would be calling for a speedy deletion. However, the article puts in context many of the things that Trump himself said that he believes, plans to do or has done. The article has been careful not to include many of the superfluous "examples" littered throughout social media, most of which is clearly politically motivated. As a libertarian, I support Trump's right to believe and say what he wants but I also support the author's right to aggregate the numerous, informed examples which support the overall thesis of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skish3 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)— Skish3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subjective, politicized, unqualified opinionated analysis by political opponents, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There's probably more I could add, but not much more than what's already been said about this process. Atsme 💬 📧 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is simply remarking on a well-publicized and non-fringe controversy, which does not come from political operatives but the media itself (and a full half of the American people). I see nothing POV about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The only way to violate WP:NPOV here would be to state bluntly that Trump is (or isn't) a facist. The article is well supported by WP:RS, and a criticism section is included so both POVs are represented.estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The article has WP:RS supporting them, and I don't see any uncivil name-calling or any other bullshit in the article. There is no valid reason to delete the article. If election related articles were speedy deleted for "swinging opinions to a certain side", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to write a single modern election article. No matter how much there is an attempt to follow WP:NPOV, someone will end up finding a way to criticize it, just like how Wikipedia has long been criticized for bias. This AfD is just stretching unnecessarily to allow room for more ANI threads over personal attacks, and simply is an uphill battle of pushing the snowball up with more ANIs until the snowball melts and it's all over. I really don't like how this AfD is heading to the drama tunnel. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  TL;DR - WP:NPOV issues aren't usually solved by just deleting everything, and I don't see how this article is an attack page or anything. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "name-calling" is referring to a person as a fascist, though. And then using blatantly biased sources to cite the claim.

  There have been numerous examples of commentators comparing Democratic candidates to socialists or communists - should they all have their own Wikipedia articles? Rob Roilen (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would depend how widely, and persistently, discussed such claims were in WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, such as reliable newspapers, academia, etc., (and not primarily opinion pieces). If you think such coverage exists write it. However, the existence of other articles on similar topics of an article is not a reason to keep or delete (per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (updated) Comment - we have 31 for keep (including 2 WP:SNOW), 13 for delete (not including the since-blocked user and duplicate vote), 2 for merge, 1 for draftify.
  Arguments made for deleting: NPOV
  Arguments made for keeping: NPOV is not a deletion issue and not present, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
  Arguments made for merging to Trumpism: 'WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK' and Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article Superb Owl (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AFD is not votes, so the amount of arguments made for keep or delete isn't relevant -Samoht27 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks - updated summary to focus on arguments made, not votes/# of comments Superb Owl (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. While I agree with the person above who said wiki has a strong left wing bias; I also think this is a signifiant aspect of a major politician, a former and possibly future US president. MisawaSakura (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment PLEASE NOTE:

Wikipedia:Deletion process: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes." AND WP:DCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Artem P75 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Does this really need its own page? It's WP:NEGATIVESPIN that will very difficult to balance WP:BLPBALANCE and protect from becoming an attack page. The title violates WP:NPOV & WP:BLPSTYLE opposed to a neutral title like Political ideology of Donald Trump or something similar to that. -- BaomoVW (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plainly not NPOV Rob Roilen (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of the above comments identify issues that can be fixed by editing. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Trumpism This article’s topic is framed in a way that ensures that the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. When writing articles that deal with contentious subjects (and doubly so for contentious BLPs), I think we do need to be careful that our article topics don’t essentially lock out reliable sources from one side of a controversy. I believe that merging this article into the Trumpism article is most in line with our policies on NPOV. (For the record, I’m worried about the precedent that keeping this article up under its current title could set for other, unrelated articles. My vote is in no way motivated by support for the former president). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spirit of Eagle: the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. Citation needed on that - many of these sources are also considered to be quality reliable sources as per past discussions at WP:RSN, as tabulated at WP:RSP. JavaHurricane 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A source that compares a 21st century politician to fascists is a source that takes an extraordinarily negative view on that politician. My issue here isn’t the reliability of the sources within the article, it’s that the article’s very topic means that the vast majority of relevant sources are going to take an extremely negative position on Trump. To be clear, I think that many of these sources are reliable and should be cited in an article about Trump’s ideology. However, this should be done in a way that doesn’t give them undue weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's obviously notable: for example, there is an entire debate on this topic in the academic journal Fascism. Although I don't personally think that fascism makes a good analysis, I do not find most of the delete/merge !votes to be consonant with our policies. Too much has been said about it to make a good merge into another article, since it would be UNDUE there. CRYBLP does not mean we should delete articles on notable topics. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This topic isn't just a news or social media thing, it has been also extensively covered by political scientists, with fruits of their work being published in various journals. In Google Scholar and JSTOR, there is a sizable portion of journal articles describing comparisons between Trump's ideology and fascism. Some of these sources can be integrated into the article to make it more based on objective facts. Antitransphobe (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Hundreds of high quality sources talking about this issue. Sir MemeGod deserves a trout for wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Very surprised to hear that, especially from someone that I look up to. MemeGod _chat 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you actually have a look at the history of this discussion you will find that SMG raised the issue on behalf of many due to a large amount of requests on the talk page. They have stated that they remain impartial on the issue and that their political views are democrat So I do believe they remain impartial on the issue, and they have certainly not wasted anyone's time, if you again take the time to review the history of the topic. I think you will also find that while these sources in themselves are generally WP:RS, you will also find that politically motivated news stations who caries a bias are far from reliable. Comparing Donald Tramp to fascism, or on the other hand Biden or Harris to communism is sad, uneducated, and done in ignorance of the real weight that those words historically carry. Anyone claiming either political parties are fascist or communist are also uneducated and ignorant on the historical weight of those words and are obviously using them as strong trigger words to discredit someone or associate someone with something so horribly negative and showing a clear and obvious bias against who they are claiming to be those things. "But some actions meet the dictionary definition" or "there has been academic study on this" If we wrote articles exact to every dictionary definition Wikipedia would be more of a mess than what it already is. Dictionary definitions are not perfectly exact or specific and should be considered in light of the history to understand them properly. Academic studies, especially on political topics, often carry a strong amount of bias and will use specific sources to support their own view points - unless the topic of the academic paper is something of real research like the discovery of a new sustainable fuel source for example - matters such as this are purely opinion pieces. Artem P75 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Short summary, the two main reason are that the article is just so far away from being neutral that its beyond saving and that the timing, this close to the election makes it hard to believe that the person that wrote it even tried to make it neutral, so clearly it is conflict of interest.

I have spent pretty much time on this topic and it has been an interesting journey. I first went to read through the abstract on the first page of results from google scholars, surprisingly it was very hard to find these academic people that call Trump a fascist, many was talking about the Trump movement and his rhetoric, but not about Trump himself. It was on the other hand very easy to find the opposite, sources that said he was not a fascist. for example a here: "Discussing whether Trump himself is a fascist may not be the most fruitful endeavour. Trump may be many things; a narcissist with a grandiose sense of self, a compulsive confabulator, a populist charlatan, but there is not much to indicate that he is politically conscious, or even interested enough to have adopted an ideology of any sort, including fascism" Mattias Gardell, Professor at the Centre for Multidisciplinary Studies on Racism, University of Uppsala. source so for me the first sentence of the article "There has been significant academic and political debate over whether Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, qualifies as a fascist" is really far from what I found, after reading all these abstracts.

Next step I went through the sources from this quote of the article "During his 2024 presidential campaign, a growing number of scholars, historians, commentators, politicians, former Trump officials, and generals have described Trump as a fascist". This was really surprising, because very few of the sources said that Trump was a fascist, it was similar as with the google schoolar articles, many called his rhetoric fascist, but very few said that Trump himself was a fascist. According to me Wikipedia should write what the sources says and I think this is not the case here. One funny thing was that one source doesn't even mention the word "fascism", it talks about "Authoritarian", for me it is a hell of a stretch to say that it is the same thing.

So now we come to the main problem with this sort of article. If you compare someone with something that is both pretty vague defined and something that literally no one will say that they are themself, we will easily get a bad article. Most people that will edit this sort of article are those that already agree that Trump would be a fascist, I think that is one reason it will be almost impossible to make this article neutral.

Last thing, that poll is just so ridiculous, quote: "49% of registered voters consider Trump to be a fascist", for me that has to do a lot with that fascist is not only political term, it's also an insult. /Bro (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’Speedy Keep’ and i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds. This is obviously a notable topic whether you agree he is fascist or not. The fact that it is an “attack” is such a spurious reason for removing scholarly research and information that has been exhaustively covered in the news media. We have pure political attack pages like the canard that Obama is from Kenya; Trump’s fascism has received even more coverage, especially scholarly attention, and has the benefit of actually being true, in addition to its indisputable notability and widespread academic and public attention. Please retire from the project if you voted delete. You do not understand what an encyclopedia is.68.196.5.168 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)— 68.196.5.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't get to attack other people or ask to block them because they disagree with you or !vote differently than you do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1. I promised I’d stay away from this discussion, but words like these shouldn’t be said about others. IP clearly isn’t assuming good faith (which I suggest you read). MemeGod _chat 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this statement and others, "i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds" Fantastic Mr. Fox is violating Polemic policy and also using wiki:bullying (https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:WikiBullying). The reply should be deleted by an editor. And they should be reprimanded. These replies that lack neutrality and don't check bias don't facilitate informed discussion. Stono rebellion (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, @Fantastic Mr. Fox did not write the above statement, they only added a note to the IP's comment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that statement can be qualified by saying that "in X poll, Y% of respondents said that ....". And adding one or two other polls with different figures would be NPOV. Lamona (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Trump's association with, support from, imitation of and idolization of both historic fascists and modern-day self-identifying fascists is well documented. Although Trump has not yet achieved the authoritarian power to be "fully" and indisputably fascist, numerous historians and scholars of fascism have noted that Trump's rhetoric and image projection are a strong fit with aspiring fascist rulers of the past. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Largely Legible Layman: well said and so true.MisawaSakura (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - This article clearly does not have a WP:NPOV. The highly controversial opinions about such deeply contentious, divisive, and subjective issues are inappropriate for what should be an impartial and unbiased encyclopedia. It engages in WP:NEGATIVESPIN of a political figure and should most certainly be deleted. --Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article clearly covers a notable topic that's been covered by both the media & academics. I'm personally unimpressed by the delete votes I've read as most seem to be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or broadly pointing at WP:NPOV with little else of substance. I'd also like to point out that WP:NEGATIVESPIN is not a reason for deletion & specifically states that it doesn't inherently make something an attack page. Any concerns regarding neutrality can be worked on, but currently does not warrant outright deletion. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but change the name. My initial sense was that this violated WP:NOTESSAY based largely on the article title, but after more review (and looking for other similar articles) I think this is an encyclopedic topic which passes GNG, but is in desperate need of a name change. Fortunately that's already under discussion, which I only realised after the fact... SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rationale for deletion is flawed, even if some content is forked there is such large and global coverage of the subject that it could easily be expanded and made different (have not checked how similar this and Trumpism are). It is expected that Trump sympathizers can be distressed by this inflattering comparison, but these is nothing to do about it as even reputable academics are involved in this public debate about Donald Trump's relation to fascism. Lappspira (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Keep either to Trumpism or Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. This does mean reducing the content, but I feel that would reflect the proper perspective on this. This article is too long to merge to other articles, and could be listed as "further info" in the Trumpism and the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Of course, there may be much more to say after the election, should he win, but that would then be best in an article about his presidency. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This political topic is getting a lot of coverage in reliable sources, has long-term historical importance, and is important for voter decision-making now and in the future. I just listened to a half-hour with Jason Stanley on the topic [6], who also has a whole book on the subject. Some interesting historical correspondances aren't mentioned in the article, so if anything, it seems like it could be expanded. A lot of "delete" votes seem to be knee-jerk rejections of any mention of widespread criticism of a favored political leader. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think referring to either party leader as a communist or fascist is uneducated and ignorant of the history of what those words mean and the people who experienced real communism or fascism. It is sad that people genuinely think Trump is a fascist or Harris or Biden are communist. Those words seem to have entirely lost their historical meaning and are just thrown around as insults to discredit a candidate that someone does not like - both candidates have their faults, both have their positive attributes - but neither are communist or fascist. If everyone claiming these things looked at the historical suffering under communist or fascist regimes, a lot more people would laugh at these claims. Trump has already been in power, where was the fascism? Who suffered under his horrific fascist reign? Where was the terrible suffering under Biden's horrible communist government? I have no doubt people suffered hardships under both government's terms - but to claim that either was communist or fascist is a mockery of those who have truly experienced and suffered under fascism or communism. Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that. Artem P75 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Artem P75, your opinion on Trump's four-year presidency are irrelevant, and likewise your opinion on Biden. I'm not sure if anyone is claiming in the article that Trump is a fascist (and "comparisons between DT and fascism" is not the same as "DT is a fascist"), but your comment, "Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that", profoundly misunderstands the entire academic publishing industry. No, an academic book or article is NOT an "opinion piece", and if they are academically published then they are likely not "ignorant". And if they are academically published then they are exactly the kinds of things we should base our articles on. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies The ignorance comes from the fact that there are claims that either politicians are communist or fascist. In this case comparing trump to fascism or to Hitler. It is a mockery, and yes, very ignorant of the history of the reigns of power that they are actually drawing comparison to and the immense suffering that people went through under those reigns. If you go and look at real fascism, not just the word that people throw around to discredit or insult someone, you would surely understand the point that I am trying to make. Sure, I will agree with you that my opinion regarding either leader is irrelevant as it is purely just an opinion, what i do not think is irrelevant is the fact that the words "fascism" and "communism" have become so widely used as political arrows that the definition is becoming so diluted that they may as well nowadays be synonymous with "that person is very bad," which is sad. And yes, I do still believe that academic publishings on such topics are opinion pieces - just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion. It is very, very easy to take on an opinion, do your due research and find supporting evidence to substantiate one's hypothesis - and, when done by capable authors, will likely be published as a welcome contribution to the academic literature. It does not however change the fact that it is someones opinion on the matter, regardless of how well researched or written it is, otherwise we may as well regurgitate every point of view that can be found as published in an academic journal onto Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Artem P75, "just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion"--sorry, but you don't understand how such publications work at all, and clearly don't have much experience with academic publishing. Please see WP:CIR. And I'll just add that comparing Trump's policies and claims to fascist expressions is actually a thing that apparently a bunch of academics have done, as well as seasoned scholars and commentators, and if the publications are there, in peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources, it's possibly a valid topic, your opinions and ideas notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Drmies I have quite a significant amount of experience in academic publishing and academia in general thank you. An opinion is an opinion regardless of how well written or researched it is, including the fact that it was published or not. A comparison can be drawn either way, for either side of the argument - the fact that there can be more than one side of the conversation quite literally means that it is an opinion. It is not as simple as factually stating, for example, "To those without color blindness, the sky appears blue." Just because a paper may use suggestive, rather than conclusive terminologies such as "drawing from the evidence discussed it can be concluded that Donald Trump could potentially have fascist ideologies" does not make it any less of an opinion. Tip-toeing around, and using different phraseology to make a statement of which an entire publishing is based around, does not change it from a matter of opinion. Artem P75 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Artem P75: I encourage you to listen to the half-hour with Jason Stanley linked above, and you can hear for yourself how well-researched such comparisons can be. While it's true a lot of people use the word "fascist" as an insult or just to mean "horrifically bad", Stanley points out a lot of specific correspondences between the Nazis and Trump, such as discrediting the media, calling minorities "vermin", complaining that the blood of the country is being polluted by immigrants, controlling the movement of non-Christians (with the Muslim Ban), targeting LGBT people, controlling women's reproduction, etc. A "fascist" (when used in a well-informed way and not as a diluted insult) movement is a particular type of right-wing authoritarian political movement. It does not need to commit crimes against humanity, nor even actually take any sort of political power, to be accurately described as such. Our article Fascism goes into much more detail about the attributes of fascist ideologies. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think your well-reasoned argument points to somthing that is probably lost on a lot of people: Reliable sources are not calling Trump a fascist just to engage in name calling, there is a substantive and emerging body of well-researched work that shows these tendencies. There is no corresponding body of work showing that Harris or Biden or literally any other democrat up to and aincluding Bernie Sanders, is trying to move the country toward communism, because they are not and there is no credible evidence that they want to coming out of their own mouths or their campaigns. That actually is just name calling. You can't "both sides" every single issue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Just Step Sideways Thank you, I was more including the mention of Biden and Harris to convey that I try my best to remain impartial on these matters and am not taking my opinion because of my political ideologies. @Beland has raised some good points in his comment above that I have overlooked / not considered and will now have a look in to Artem P75 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Beland You raise good points, perhaps I have been too quick to dismiss this matter given the excessive use of the term "fascism" and the way it is so loosely thrown around. I will give the interview with Jason Stanley a listen, it may broaden my interpretation and perspective on the topic Artem P75 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Close Strong consensus for keep and discussion is getting dreadfully messy. Great Mercian (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the 'strong consensus' to which you refer. Riposte97 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No strong consensus on either keep or delete IMO. I would personally maintain the status quo and leave it up. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and close per WP: SNOW This was an obvious keep from the beginning. the fact that anyone suggested that a well-established topic of academic research and popular media attention should be deleted from the encylopedia raises WP:Competenceisrequired concerns for all 'Delete' voters, especially the nominator. Nomination is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is high time that Wikipedia stopped kneeling to overly conservative editors who raise spurious concerns of this kind and abuse process to try to remove obviously notable information as "biased." This is not the place for you to debate whether Universities or the popular Media are "biased." Go become a university professor or journalist if you want to claim it is "biased" for notable academic sources and respected newspapers to discuss the topic of Trump and fascism. Notability is obviously met. We must stop pandering to bad-faith abuses of process like this deletion nomination. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a "bad-faith abuse" of the AfD process? I clearly said that I have no opinion on the issue, and filed the AfD on behalf of others who couldn't due to EC restrictions. Yet I still get called "biased" or an "IDONTLIKEIT" editor. (Sir MemeGod here, I went through a rename about an hour ago). EF⁵ 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obviously highly notable topic. This deletion nomination is as if I nominated Super Bowl for deletion because I don't think sporting events are encylopedic or notable. This topic was always clearly not going to be deleted. No more than a handful of people, many of them trolls, voted to Delete. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling 11+ people "trolls" seems to be a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS. Comparing this to the Super Bowl is only partially relevant, as the Super Bowl isn't a potential WP:CFORK of anything. EF⁵ 19:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the "reasoning" givenn in the delete votes? One of them claimed that using pronouns constituted a conflict of interest. Even reading them charitably, the responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!" and never dispute the fact that this is a widespread topic in mainstream media discussion and has received significant academic attention and hence has met the bar for notability. There is really no point to further discussion here as no delete vote raised an actionable cause for deletion. At most these claims are reasons to edit the content of the page (if they were even true); certainly none of the delete votes gave any reason for deleting the page. This whole discussion was a clear waste of time to appease bad faith arguments that never offered a justification for deletion or dispute of the notability of the topic. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the primary issues of the article is not what happens in the next 5 minutes, it is what happens only the dust has settled. The article will be firmly in the trenches for a very long time regardless of the outcome as it will have a tendency to drift to non-WP:NPOV view. Il also remind everyone here that WP:ONUS exists.

On a different note: To illustrate my current view, imagine a lone see-saw in a truly massive playground (in this case the millions of articles on Wikipedia). The article is the see saw. Currently, everyone here is balancing the see saw, utilizing it to ensure that it remains verifiable and the most neutral it can possibly be. But inevitably, there are other things to do in this playground, and the see saw is left alone.

This particular see saw has a problem though. Due to it's construction, it's centre of gravity with result in it resting on one side. Consequently, when left to it's own devices, it will inevitably become little more than a WP:ATTACK page. This means this article will need to be watched like a hawk for non-neutral content arrising. If Donald Trump wins the election, since most of us aren't necessarily in the mindset of a Trump supporter, monitoring this page is gonna be fuuuunnnn.

Now I wouldn't mind that if the article was of incredible importance, like Barrack Obama or any election article, but the article right now, to be honest, reads like the leftover of some really unnecessarily complex Youtube Shorts video idea brainstorming session. I don't see it getting much better than that either from it's current state, because it can only really be presented that way.

Even right now, the temptation is real to add an obligatory "So what do you think? Is Donald Trump a fascist?" to the tail end of the article.

That's just my view. I felt the need to explain it more detail. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters. This is a topic that has a considerable academic literature and a considerable literature in the popular media-- by definition, these are the reliable sources upon which an encylopedia relies. There was likely enough of a literature on this topic in 2016 prior to the 2016 election to warrant an article. Its omission reflects an unfortunate conservative bias in this encylopedia resulting from abuse of process by bad actors like the present deletion discussion, which is absolutely without merit and should have been closed immediately as Speedy Keep under WP:Snow when the delete votes offered no possible basis for removing the article. This is a clearly extremely notable topic. It is one of the most notable aspects of Trump's political "career. We have articles on controversies on other political figures that could far more reasonably be read as attack pages, such as Birtherism or other pure political smears that were never serious academic topics of debate. No offense, but your position is palpably absurd. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the question of deletion or provides an actionable ground for deletion. This article is not based on a You Tube shorts section; it's written about in scholarly works and reliable newspapers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you actually read the discussion you will notice that there are substantially more reasoning to your claims of "The responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!"" Maybe take some time to put your own obvious biases aside and try and look at this from a NPOV with a rational mind. Artem P75 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the majority of delete arguments are complaints claiming NPOV, bias, propaganda, or some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with most of those arguments lacking evidence to support their claims. They are also importantly, not policy based arguments.

Neutrality issues are not a reason for deletion, they're a reason to fix the article. The deletion process is for analyzing the topic's legitimacy, not the content's. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please please just stop. You're only demonstrating my point of how messy this discussion has gotten. Great Mercian (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is a policy based argument. Just because you don't like it or agree with it, doesn't mean that it isn't rational and valid - see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I believe that the framing of this topic is a POV violation, if not the contents. It may amount to a WP:POVFORK. Anyone can slant an article by positioning it in such a way that it excludes balance. For example, the article 'Accusations that Barack Obama is a Communist Spy' would have a bunch of crackpot claims from the Limbaugh crowd by its nature, and relatively few direct refutations, because of the very specific framing.

As a sidenote, the current title is nonsensical, as one cannot compare a human to an ideology. One might accuse a person of adhering to an ideology...but that's a fight to have if this thing survives.

I see a bunch of editors above so convinced of themselves that they're comfortable attacking the competence and motivations of others. Aside from coming across as nasty people, they're sure to land themselves at ANI with that attitude. Riposte97 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my comment under the mindset of 'this IP will respond with "So how is this relevant?", then not read WP:ONUS and bring up a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST point'.

I was wasn't too far off from that assumption. If I were hypothetically to adopt the IP's line of arguing (not discussing), I could simply say "if it didn't look like YouTube Shorts brainstorming session, why would I say it is?". This might be fine in a political interview, but it falls flat here.

If someone can't make even an attempt to understand an opposing article without calling them 'palpably absurd' (i.e personally attacking them) they shouldn't be participating in an AFD. Is their a contentious topic label for US political articles? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain very slowly one more time so that even you might understand. I stated very clearly that the article clearly meets notability guidelines as it is a major topic of academic discussion and debate in reliable media sources. You repeatedly failed to raise a single germane point in opposition and babbled aimlessly to distract from the embarassing lack of substance or even a point to your argument. Please just stop unless you are going to address why you think the extensive scholarly and popular literature on this topic cited in the article fails to establish notability. Whats that? You can’t? Thought so. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't see anything here other than WP:IDNHT material from someone wanting to 'win' a debate (completely wrong attitude). It would be neat of you to withdraw the personal attack earlier. And perhaps, consider trying to edit an article other than a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97 I meant specifically it is not a policy based argument for deletion (I was also referring to !votes that didn't back up their claims & only called NPOV), apologies if my phrasing seemed misleading. I don't understand your meaning behind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT though, as I haven't really been arguing here, with half my comments being minor clarifications to others.

In regards to the title however, I don't agree with it either. it was originally just "Donald Trump and Fascism", but was moved against consensus to the current title. It has momentarily stuck due to this deletion discussion.

Finally, I agree that the discussion here needs to be more civil. Name calling & insults are pointless impediments to meaningful conversation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a blatant violation of POV is a reason to delete an article. We are an encyclopedia, not a thread on Twitter or X nor a blog on Balloon Juice or Daily Kos. I actually agree with the intent of this page - Trump is a Fascist - but this is absolutely the wrong place. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn’t . It is a reason to edit an article. Nor have you pointed out what these alleged violations of NPOV in the article even are. Oh what’s that? There aren’t any? Thanks for playing. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is very extensive, serious discussion of this subject. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete it. --Tataral (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Trumpism looks like a good place to include this content! That way, all of the well-sourced material (duly noted by the keep voters) is kept in the project and reused there and concerns from keep and delete voters – sources, PoV, onus – are resolved. Historyexpert2 (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Don John's Public Image page - I did a page search for the word "couch" to make sure no JD Vance hoaxes involving rubber gloves were mentioned here. I am very impressed, en Wiki! However, while Trump may be a cheat who has been convicted on tax evasion, for his -"because a prostitute is someone who'll love you, no matter who you are, or what you look like"- business with Stormy Daniels, and God knows what else, op-eds about Trumpty-Dumpty don't need to be taken encyclopediacally. Did Germans call Hitler evil until some hindsight opened their eyes? No! Hell, Trump rambling on about "they're eating the cats" and whatever else didn't need its own article, it felt right under the larger Springfield pet-eating hoax article. Not to say this doesn't belong, but it needs a home. BarntToust 00:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles about a POV are not necessarily POVforks, depending on whether they have been written to inform the reader rather than just proselytize the position that some editors want to give undue weight to. This article for one does a pretty good job at demonstrating that this POV is a significant topic of dicussion among several reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If not Delete, then Merge/Redirect to Trumpism or perhaps better Rhetoric of Donald Trump, per WP:FORK; it seems that the content of this article could well fit into either one of these articles. Piccco (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a WP:POVFORK. If reliable sources state Trumpism is a fascist political ideology, then describe it as such at that article. And/or describe Donald Trump as a fascist at the Donald Trump article. (Potentially something such as "Donald John Trump is an American businessman, fascist, racist, and neo-Nazi politician who is the president-elect of the United States"?) If consensus can't be reached to describe Trumpism as a fascist political ideology at Trumpism, and consensus can't be reached to describe Trump as a fascist at Donald Trump, that would prove this is a POVFORK which by its existence gives WP:UNDUE weight to a particular viewpoint. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has plenty of sources that discuss how there is a perception of, and comparisons to, fascism. It doesn't matter whether that perception itself is neutral, only the article itself has to be balanced with NPOV. A couple of people mentioned how we should have equivalent pages for other political figures; we should IF it's being discussed to the same degree, with RS etc., but we're not discussing those pages here. Even if the page itself was NPOV, it's not so far gone that it needs deleting - WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article never states that Trump is a fascist, it only presents comparisons that allows the reader to draw the conclusion if he is or not. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynch (rioter) (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 don't believe this person meets WP:BIO notability standards and is has only received media coverage for WP:ONEEVENT. Orange sticker (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Events, Politics, and Terrorism. Orange sticker (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are hundreds of these people, this specific one is not unique. This isn't even one that is close to being notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually redirect to section mentioned below PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PARAKANYAA technically you have !voted twice - please strike one. Done. ResonantDis_tortion 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteRedirect. Per WP:ONEEVENT, as mentioned by Orange sticker: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it." There is already a section on Lynch in the larger article at 2024 United Kingdom riots#Peter Lynch, and the sources have little additional biographical detail that would be out of the scope of that article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orange sticker (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLP1E to the above linked article - no need for a seperate article on the subject. ResonantDis_tortion 11:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect A section on that page is already dedicated to him. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not convinced that the section about this person in 2024 United Kingdom riots will stand the test of time, as the only remarkable thing about his conviction and sentencing is that he passed away while imprisoned. Orange sticker (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a classic example of one event. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant coverage anywhere with the exception of database websites. Also, the club existed only for 4 years. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough coverage and GNG is not met in any case. --Tone 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Team played in the top-level Slovenian league, which receives significant coverage in the national media. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? Provide that "significant coverage" that covers HK Alfa then, and as you have been told at some other AfDs, playing in a league does NOT guarantee notability anymore since the notability system was overhauled in 2022, they simply need to pass WP:GNG regardless of which league they play in. If the league receives "significant coverage", it would only make the league notable, and not all of its clubs, especially not some random amateur clubs that only existed for 4 seasons. And there is no second division anyway, so "top-level" doesn't mean much, they didn't need to climb to this division, Slovenian ice hockey only has like 6 teams, of which only 2-3 are professional while other are "hobby clubs", including Alfa. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Action (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)

Album not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia's approach to album notability used to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and an album now has to have its own standalone notability claim (e.g. charting, awards, etc.) supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it.
But the only attempted notability claim here is that one song on it is asserted as being the band's "most popular", with no attempt at either sourcing the claim as accurate or even quantifying how their songs' relative popularity was even determined in the first place, and the sole source in the article is a deadlink that didn't even provide the correct title of the content for recoverability purposes — and a Google search for better sources only turned up directory entries, label PR and streaming platforms rather than GNG-worthy coverage about the album, while a deeper ProQuest search found a couple of album reviews, but nothing that verified the purported most-popularity of "L'Aventurier", and not enough reviews to claim that this would pass the bar on "volume of coverage" grounds alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The_Kingpins_(Canadian_band)#Discography -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The_Kingpins_(Canadian_band)#Discography: Fails WP:NALBUM, a redirect would not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée naval (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)

There were no refs on the page until I added one earlier. On further reflection I am not seeing anything else and I don't think this is sufficient to meet the GNG. fr.wiki is of no real help as the only substantive sources there are from the French government. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and France. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is also the unsourced Brest Naval Training Centre and the barely-sourced École navale and École de maistrance. Probably sourcing is too thin for individual articles but some merger would be preferable to deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brest Naval Training Centre, or possibly merge both to Brest Arsenal. I don't see sufficient coverage about this high school; my French isn't good enough to determine if there is sufficient coverage of the training center. For the Arsenal itself, the current government sources (and 200 years of historical records) are enough, even though the sourcing in that article is sub-par. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Brest Naval Training Centre or else keep. - This one is made tricky by my lack of access to possible sources, because at least one of the sources I found seems quite confusing, but would tend to confirm notability. I am leaning keep, but coming down on the side of Merge because French wikipedia tells us that Brest Naval Training Centre is located the buildings of the former Naval school, and now hosts two training schools (écoles de formation) and this lycée. That is, the Naval training centre is a combined naval training and education facility that would be a good home for this article content, and could be expanded. However, WP:MADRENAME is required. This page should correctly be either Lycée naval de Brest or its English name Brest naval high school. Those would be how this is searched for, and the current name would make a poor redirect.
  Now as to why I would be leaning keep, and think this should be at least a merge, I have found extensive mentions, although, without full access to the books, have not proven SIGCOV. Some examples:

• Le Monde de l'éducation (in French). S.A.R.L. Le Monde. 1994. - Le Monde is a French paper of record and these mentions are in a published collection. I cannot verify the indpendence of these mentions, as they are in an educational supplement, but likely are independent.
• Gautier, Sébastien (13 July 2016). Une si belle journée (in French). Les Éditions du Net. ISBN 978-2-312-04548-1. - Mentions in a book about diving.
• Bouvier, Claudia (23 March 2022). Codename Corvus Thriller: Band 1 Die Iskander - Verschwörung (in German). tredition. ISBN 978-3-347-47148-1. - Mentions in a German work of fiction.
• Lormier, Dominique (4 May 2016). Histoires extraordinaires de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (in French). Cherche Midi. ISBN 978-2-7491-4084-1. - This book is about extraordinary :stories from the Second World War. It mentions this school, which would be very signiifcant, except it is apparently impossible - the school was started in 1968. I do not have the book, and I cannot see enough of the preview to unravel this. It may be, however, that the prior school is what is meant.

In addition to these there are very many news articles and other links (lots of books that are self published - so I ignored those). But it is a particular school in a historic building, one of just a few such schools and hosted in a nationally significant naval training centre. It should be kept in some form. But per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think the merge is appropriate (at least unless and until enough information is found for a spinout). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates Corner, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another short-lived rural post office elevated to a settlement. There's nothing there and I find no mentions of it. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Delaware County, Indiana. The unincorporated town was already merged into the county. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the discussion is that it apparently isn't and wasn't a town at all, so I don't see the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reforj (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)

Lack of Detail writing UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and classify as stub. Article from what I can tell reaches notability criteria. Mockapedia (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about which notability guideline you believe it meets @Mockapedia? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Got a flurry of coverage, none of it substantial. Classic WP:TOOSOON article for a game that will probably be notable some years from now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 4J Studios. I definitely considered keeping the article and classifying it as stub, but redirecting it to 4J Studios until the project has came far enough in development for WP:TOOSOON to be not be applicable is a better choice. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meet GNG --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i've expanded it significantly, should be let go now and the nomination for deletion can be removed Doktor"74 (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 4J Studios and/or draftify it until the game receives better coverage closer to release. WP:TOOSOON if there's not even a release date and the article itself is saying any features are subject to change. Not seeing why this can't be dealt with on the developer's page for now. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:ATD. There is legitimate potential for this to become notable, with good sources. But those sources don't exist yet. A redirect is the best way to remove an article without sufficient sourcing, while respecting credible evidence that this could one day be expanded. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: You have in-depth coverage from Gameindustry.biz covering the game's engine and the studio's approach to development, as well as standard coverage from RPS, PCGamesN, GameSpot, and Eurogamer. It may be a bit too soon but there is enough for a proper article. OceanHok (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be converted to stub. Passes WP:Notability 201.13.76.212 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Profile is notable and ascertains Wikipedia:NPRODUCER. Additional citations flag can help in finding and citing more sources in article.

144.168.11.31 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to align with Wikipedia criteria, with indications of notability within their field. While the article could benefit from further citations to strengthen its reliability, deletion may be premature. Applying an 'additional citations needed' tag would encourage improvement and enhance the article's quality without losing potentially valuable information.

94.20.88.143 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Article creator has now been blocked as part of a UPE sock farm duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the comments of the nominator and believe this article should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The LA Times article is the strongest source here. Most of the others are brief mentions or possibly not independent. This might turn into a "keep" if her book (not yet out) gets significant reviews. It's a shame about the creator - draftify would otherwise make sense. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inalugartuut (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'm not seeing anything at all in searches, can't even WP:V that this is a thing, never mind that it meets the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Greenland. JMWt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Inâluartût and Inalugartût Iluat. This might be a transliteration issue. Secretlondon (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's nothing I would want to use as a source. Secretlondon (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German wiki has a disambiguation page with two redlinks for Inalugartuut (mountain) and Inalugartuut Iluat (bay). OpenStreetMap has an entry for the bay, sourced to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (United States). The bay is at 73°37′11″N 55°46′33″W / 73.619710°N 55.775700°W / 73.619710; -55.775700, and is surrounded by rugged terrain. Geonames has Inâluartût (peninsula) just north of the bay at 73°39′N 55°54′W / 73.65°N 55.9°W / 73.65; -55.9. The Cebuano wiki has a robot-generated page for Inâluartût, referencing Geonames. None of this establishes notability even in the weakest WP:NGEO sense. I suppose it could be merged into a list entry in a parent, giving the coords, but I can't see a suitable parent. Nutaarmiut is the nearest settlement, but has nothing to do with the mountain / bay / peninsula. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to its limited content and lack of substantial sources establishing notability. --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaap-se-Hoogte (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. I see brief mentions but not the substantial coverage in independent RS needed to reach the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and South Africa. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are minimal sources on the internet, but none of those sources are convincing. I suggest a Redirect to R577 (South Africa).

GeographicAccountant (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to R577 (South Africa). Park3r (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar (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 significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
  • Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
  • Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
• I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.

RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by comment) This Forbes article is not reliable. It was written by a "Contributor" which is equivalent to user-generated content. See WP:FORBESCON. C F A 💬 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The duck test only applies to sockpuppetry and copyright violations. Not to article content like original research. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I don’t believe Forbes, especially “contributor” content from Forbes, is a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I think this article is very good for what it does and its more rare than a tornado emergency, meso-gamma is basically a small area so that just makes sense for the name meso-gamma mcd ModdiWX (You Got Mail!) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:

1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.

2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).

Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".

In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.

But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The first nomination was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions; the article was retitled to fix its dash very shortly after the first nomination closed. (No opinion or further comment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Environment, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note quickly, the reason the first nomination of this article for deletion ended with arguments roughly stating that it passed notability guidelines due to secondary sourcing and that more sources would be added. However, if you look at most of the secondary sources, most are for the ratings of tornadoes / wind events themselves, not at all the meso-gamma discussions. The meso-gamma discussions are hardly notable in themselves, nor is sourcing for the meso-gamma designation easy to come by directly without interpretation much more volatile and subjective than WP:CALC was intended for. This is also why I'm not fully in support of reworking the article to specific tornadoes, and why maybe the article shouldn't have survived that first AfD discussion. OR and notability of the meso-gamma discussions themselves is the debate, not the notability of the events they're linked to. Departure– (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – in that case, my original delete !vote remains valid. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to completely change the direction of the page shouldn't be discussed here. If the article gets deleted, it gets deleted, and the new list can be WP:BOLDly created and challenged independently. See also WP:HIJACK, which, although not as blatant as the examples there, and guided by contributor's consensus, it's still better to make the page seperately. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said @Departure–; my !vote to delete ain’t changing. I just threw out the move as an “acceptable alternative” that would solve the OR problem. Nothing will solve the LISTCRUFT problem. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, I can understand @WeatherWriter‘s desire to keep the article. After all; he’s the one who created the article. I too would probably be passionate about keeping an article that I created. And would probably be real quick too !vote keep on the list of West Virginia tornadoes or the 2022 Appalachian floods article for that reason. But that still doesn’t change the fact that this is a potential OR violation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]