Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11

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

The result was Draftify. Should not be returned to mainspace until the issues identified have been corrected, preferably through submitting to WP:AFC.‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article with multiple iterations of press releases as sources. No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC) I support a decision to Draftify. JTtheOG (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Photography, Companies, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is one of the best combined PR, advertising and marketing campaign here. This looks like Wikipedia is their company website. All sources cited are completely unreliable and there is no need to list and Analyse them one after the other. The sources are distributed paid for articles. Mekomo (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Mekomo, sorry for the trouble! Since I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months now (I initially started out of curiosity without being registered) and this is one of my first pages (see, for example, the one on Mario Orfeo), could you explain better why these sources are not acceptable? I understand that some sites are business directories, but others are from independent outlets, and they don't seem to be paid articles to me. Jerabotto (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JTtheOG and thanks for the feedback. I'm new to Wikipedia, and of course, before trying to create a page, I spent some time exploring the portal. While editing pages like Martha Production, Indiana Production e The Gunther Corporation I tried to follow the same style to make as few mistakes as possible. Could you help me understand in broad terms the differences between those pages and the one I proposed? Jerabotto (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerabotto: Hello there. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The only sources with significant coverage of the company are press releases. This one is even published directly onto PRnewswire.com, while exact copies are blasted onto topvideoproduction.com and Yahoo Finance. The IndieWrap article is clearly not independent either, as it uses the same kind of promotional language and ends with a link to the company's social media. Everything else are passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, I think I understand now. If I were able to find third-party and more reliable sources, could that change anything, or is the decision taken at this point? Jerabotto (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources which cover the subject directly and in-depth, yes. See WP:GNG for more detail on this. And no, no decision has been made. This discussion will be open for a week but could be extended beyond that. JTtheOG (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I've already made some corrections after your suggests. In the next days I will try to add new references if I can! Jerabotto (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only mentions of the company name in short articles about projects. Nothing substantial that I can find. As this article has few edits beyond those of the creator it may be suitable for a move to draft, and perhaps to be taken through WP:AFC. Lamona (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Lamona, thanks for the suggestion. I’m continuing to add more sources and refine the text as much as possible. A question: is the move to a draft requested by the admins, or should I proceed with it myself? Jerabotto (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You should allow this AfD to complete first. Then the info here might help you WP:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. (I've never done a move to draft, but if you need help, the WP:Teahouse is the go-to place.) Lamona (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Barring that, Delete. An editor involved in creating the article says they are working on improving the article and finding more appropriate sources for it, so I feel like turning it into a draft would be an acceptable alternative. If it continues to fail notability as a draft, then it won't be approved and will fade out of existence to my understanding. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address any of my points. There are no rules on Wikipedia about when a party is notable or not. And you didn't go after any of the other examples of parties that are as small as this one I showed you as an example to get them deleted either. So what really is your point here? -- Ermanarich (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs some more civil discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. I do not know the particular requirements for notability about political parties on Wikipedia, but I am not sure their share of the vote is a consideration given other articles I have seen accepted from draft status. They seem to have been covered multiple times by news in Iraqi Kurdistan and they participated in their parlimentary elections. I even found this source which is not currently used in the article[1] which google translate tells me describes their break from the Kurdistan Islamic Movement for at least a paragraph or so.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator has not provided a source analysis to demonstrate why this topic fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT in relation to the cited sources. Given that these are in Arabic, any good faith nomination would require the nominator to engage with the sources in relation to ORGCRIT. We're not just going to assume here that this hasn't met WP:THREE without a source analysis; particularly when we are dealing with a topic cited to exclusively foreign language references. Additionally, the nominator has largely based their deletion opinion on a statistical analysis not connected to any WP:SNG, WP:GNG, or WP:ORG policy, and in a way that seems unduly prejudicial. There are many nominal political parties that get SIGCOV even when they don't usually get many votes within elections.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ersel Göral (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)

BLP of a successful businessman who has had a career in airport management. Nothing here indicates notability. A draft also exists. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: There seems to be some coverage in the Turkish media, sufficiently spread out in time, and can be considered above the WP:SIGCOV threshold: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contra TheJoyfulTentmaker, these sources are routine coverage (often press release-based) of hiring or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of him in the context of significant coverage of an airport where he works. I don't see any evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable business executive. All four references in the article are from primary sources. Google search returned nothing of significance for their notability. This no doubt fails WP:GNG and WP: ANYBIO regardless of their career success. Mekomo (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Dclemens1971's argument.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

unreferenced, notability?, (been tagged for cleanup since 2011) RJFJR (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Completely unreferenced article + no notability.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. zero Google News results. Less than 210 Google Search results. No articles in other languages. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable community radio. Searched Google for sources but found nothing related to this, perhaps the reason it has been left without sources since 2011 it was marked for lack of sources. Mekomo (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find anything about it. The news search on google literally returned no results. It seems to have had essentially 0 independent coverage, as the google results I do find are all from the University that hosts/hosted it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garfi (surname) (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)

Only contains one person with the surname. GilaMonster536 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The nom's statement is true, but I don't see why that requires the page to be deleted. I removed the claim that it is "primarily Tunisian", which seems to have been an incorrect assumption based on the one person listed being Tunisian. It is a surname, but other than "links to non-notable people with that surname" I don't have a source. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no non-WP:ROTM sources for this name, nothing showing notability. At this point it is essentially a useless disambiguation or set index with only one item. I would vote to redirect to Elyes Garfi if it weren’t for the parenthetical disambiguator. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Might want to take into consideration that there are no other topics with the same name, so Garfi can still redirect to Elyes Garfi if you want it to. GilaMonster536 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no use for this as disambiguation, and surnames aren't notable by default. Geschichte (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the West Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Neither the English language article nor its Chinese equivalent have in depth coverage in independent sources. Sources may exist in Chinese but on current showing this title isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and China. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a well-known online comic in China, the source is sufficient. Wtf35861887 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I added some sources and updated the content. Wtf35861887 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but those don’t help. They are just more sites selling or distributing the title. Please see WP:BOOKCRIT. To show notability we need independent sources discussing the work in depth. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. According to the source, 28,029 people rated this webcomic, giving it a score of 9.9. Another large Chinese rating website gave it a score of 9.6. For a recently completed short-to-medium BL themed online comic, this is no small feat.

According to the source link, 5.55 billion people have read this online comic with a niche theme. If this is not well-known, then what does it mean to be "well-known".

Of course, this comic cannot be as famous as a classic work like Shakespeare. Wtf35861887 (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I recommend not deleting it, but keeping it and waiting for people to improve this entry. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we have articles about other webcomics that are discussed in independent sources. Has this one been discussed in independent sources? That’s what is missing. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t ACGx and Douban count? ACGx is a company that studies the ACG market and Douban is a rating website where users give voluntary ratings. They will not gain any revenue or benefit in any way. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the content of ACGx’s news articles, ACGx is researching modern Chinese comics, not promoting or touting Beauty and the West Chamber. More than half of the entire article mainly talks about Chinese opera rather than introducing Beauty and the West Chamber. ACGx simply stated that Beauty and the West Chamber is one of the excellent examples of the combination of traditional culture in new entertainment media, and also mentioned Beauty and the West Chamber has some advantages in subject selection. Wtf35861887 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACGx talks about the use of traditional culture in modern entertainment media, and by the way studies some manifestations of traditional culture in Beauty and the West Chamber, while many other news columns simply introduce Beauty and the West Chambe or promote Beauty and the West Chambe. These differences It can be easily seen from the text and the writer.

To be sure, there is no news column for promotion and praise in the source link.

I don’t think this article reaches the level that needs to be deleted. It needs improvements and updated content, but it's not worth deleting. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACGx mentioned in the article that Beauty and the West Chambe had 1.35 billion people watching it when it was serialized for 69 episodes. Isn’t this enough to prove that Beauty and the West Chambe is an online comic with some popularity? This popularity is obviously One of the reasons why Beauty and the West Chambe caught the attention of ACGx.

According to Tencent Animation and Comics, a large comics reading platform, Beauty and the West Chamber's score has increased from 9.0 two or three years ago to 9.9 now, which is almost a perfect score. Beauty and the West Chamber's popularity is obviously on the rise.

Why are you in a hurry to delete the entry? This comic has just been completed...

There is still a lot of information that has not been put here, such as the author's thoughts, readers' discussions, and comments.

This entry is worth keeping. Wtf35861887 (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another new media company specializing in the ACG market, 3wyu, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled? Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth.

Apparently there are a number of independent sources talking about this. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3wyu, another new media company specializing in the ACG market, listed Chinese comics in 2019 in their article titled "Comics, comics exhibitions, and stores are all losing money, and American entertainment companies are also exploring business models" In the popularity ranking, Beauty and the West Chamber ranked tenth. Wtf35861887 (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other sites that mention the anime? Do any news articles say "Wow, 69 million people are watching this and that is unusual because [reason]"? Because that could indicate notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Would defer to anyone who can read and evaluate these Chinese-language sources. From what I can tell, these are mostly sourcing to the comic itself and pages from comic archive sites that note that the subject exists. Not bad but not indicative of notability. What this article needs is sources that show that the comic is important: Critical reviews of the comic. Scholarly works that mention or discuss the comic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Just did a very cursory source-check myself. Google gave "Beauty and the West Chamber" no first-page results of the type we'd need. Google Scholar gave no hits at all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In all of my searching I could find only one news article[7] and it is just a reprint essentially of the ACGx. While it might be true that the comic is wildly popular, until there is a source that substantiates it, it isn't verifiable. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched in Chinese and did not find anything other than ACGx, and other than that one source the rest of the sources in the article are all WP:USERGEN and/or trivial coverage and not reliable. Jumpytoo Talk 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeewa Hulangamuwa (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)

Only a local councillor, does not qualify under WP:NPOL. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: local politician and insurance person that never married, this is not a notable individual. Wiki is not a necrology for people that have passed away; this appears to be another working person, not much different than anyone else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NPOLITICIAN - just a local government elected member/local businessman - no distinguished achievements. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Island Kea (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)

Stub article, doesn’t meet threshold required by WP:NSPORT. Is about a potential rugby league team but way below the standard of other similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerlayheh (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enter article is crystal of a team that could exist at some given point. Mn1548 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way, way WP:TOOSOON. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Suonii180 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahir Ali (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:BIO, has no notable achievements under WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT, completely unsourced, has never advanced beyond stub status in its' 15 years of existence. MSportWiki (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Indonesia, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Name is too common to find anything about this person. Does not appear to have ever won any races, nor done much of anything notable. Sourced only to a database, which is a long way from showing notability. No updates in 15 or so years this article has been up, doesn't help show notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, found some sources but not sure if they are good enough to establish notability for him. See sources [8][9][10]. Mekomo (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first two sources simply verify the stub text that's already there, they don't add to the article. MSportWiki (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Socialist Party (France)#Factions. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aubryists (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 indication of notability. Short mention under Socialist Party (France)#Factions is more than enough. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Socialist Party (France)#Factions. No Google News results for "Aubryist" or "Aubryists". starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I won't support redirect as this article has zero citation/reference to pass WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tesleemah: [11] [12] mention the term. Though indeed this is a rare term. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only see External links here, also there are no inline citations Tesleemah (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh OK!

    You were referring to WP:BEFORE. Not bad then Tesleemah (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge with Socialist Party (France). I do not support redirect because this is already mentioned in the party's main article as a faction. Mekomo (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Socialist Party (France)#Factions: Because this is already mentioned in the party's article as a faction is more reason it makes sense to redirect it there. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Socialist Party (France) (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)

Unnecessary split off article stub from Socialist Party (France). No indication of particular notability of this caucus. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has no notability beyond the mention it already has in Socialist Party (France). Athel cb (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royalists (French Socialist Party) (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)

Unnecessary stub that is in practice just a list. This can be easily merged into the Factions section under Socialist Party (France), where it already exists in part. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Yes, it's just a list of some people who supported Ségolène Royal in 2007. It has no stand-alone notability. Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm changing my vote to delete, because there is nothing to merge: it's already covered as far as it deserves at Socialist Party (France). Athel cb (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already discussed on the main page for the party. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing here to merge and no reason this precise formulation would be a search term for the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. asilvering (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is not notable and fails notability. Article has almost 0 or bare minimum name citations from some museum name and content written is no where cited or source . Should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hajpo (talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article has four sources below it, they aren't used in inline citations, but that's a formatting issue, not a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Invalid deletion rational per WP:NEXISTS. McYeee (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Before proposing deletion, it’s important to consider other relevant notability guidelines specific to the subject matter, not entirely depend on GNG. The article is WP:POORLY, citations need to be properly formatted and placed where they belong. Improving the article's structure and tidying up the formatting will significantly enhance its quality. That's said, I don't see a reason to delete.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no particular rationale for deletion provided; [13] is a good reference. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Checkuser note I've blocked the creator of this AfD as a confirmed sock. This can probably be snow closed.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no ground to delete. Sources are ok and the formatting on the page can be improved. RangersRus (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil & Gas Company. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karak Oil Refinery (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)

Construction never really started. Based on couple of news reports. Looks like a case of TOOSOON. Article is also GNG tagged. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or merge to the parent, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil & Gas Company per WP:ATD. It is definitely a notable topic with a lot of media coverage but as of now the project is still a proposed project. I personally think we should keep it in draftspace and once the construction starts we can move it back to mainspace. 2A01:E0A:274:4420:E553:3AB4:B5BC:EBCA (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Oil & Gas Company: As a sensible ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This was PRODed in good faith as there was no notice of the previous deletion on the talk page. I almost speedy deleted it per WP:G4, as clearly those issues were not adressed in the intervening seventeen years, but instead I'm just going to copy the PROD resoning over here:

"Article has no substantive references, and I have not been able to find decent reliable sources to establish or support the subject’s notability. A previous AfD consensus was to delete. (proposed by SunloungerFrog)"

I'll add to that that a WP:BEFORE search of my own turned up nothing we would consider a relaible source. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as noted above, the article has no references, only a link to an IMDb page, and I haven't been able to find any decent sources with significant coverage of the subject to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Substantive, non-user generated sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. Reconrabbit 20:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can provide references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this actor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I wasn't able to find any reliable source. --Gilc (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being on screen isn't enough for notability, you need major roles. Zero sources that show notability and nothing comes up when I search in Gnews. Was deleted almost 20 yrs ago and nothing has changed since then, notability-wise it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as noted above. I also note that many of his roles have no names and/or are red shirts. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Reminds me of a situation a few years back where this person nobody could indetify was listed as part of the cast in nearly every episode of Star Trek: Voyager. Turns out he was one of those guys who stands around in the background on the bridge pretending to work at a station. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't know how this article has gone on existing in such poor state for over 13 years. During searches I couldn't find anything that demonstrates that they are notable. TarnishedPath^talk 03:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing to establish WP:NACTOR here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown, Allen County, 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)

According to this Georgetown was one of a bunch of prospective towns that popped up in the canal craze and promptly fizzled with it. There's certainly nothing there now. Mangoe (talk) 19:55, 11 November 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) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found, nothing to say. GNIS is not an indicator of notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Based on Google Maps, does not even seem like a town, seems like a few homes. There are several Georgetown in Indiana which complicates searching for information. starship.paint (talk / cont) 12:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical itinerary of Gasparo Cairano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a very poor translation of it:Itinerario_critico_di_Gasparo_Cairano. It appears to be a historiography of the titular architect, and how his standing has changed over the years. That type of information can be worthy of a standalone article sometimes (see Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music), but only if high-quality secondary sources can be found. Unfortunately, this article is in large part original research from primary sources. For example, the only citation for the statement that There is no mention of Gasparo Cairano in Elia Capriolo's chronicle is the centuries old text itself; no indication is given about why this omission matters at all. The only properly used secondary source comes from one "Vito Zani", where multiple should be cited to preserve independence of content. Zani is also covered heavily in the § Studies and debates of the 21st century section, which makes me wonder if a conflict of interest exists. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Italy. Mach61 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft: so the translation can be sorted out? It appears that there's a story here to be told, the article is too long to be hokum. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b Woulda done that, but the article was actually just approved from AfC Mach61 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was the AfC reviewer. While reviewing, I didn't fully comprehend the translation errors. That being said, I don't think WP:DRAFTIFY would prevent it from being moved back to draftspace for translation correction, unless there would be any objections.
  Interestingly, the AfC review process says nothing about when an article is a poor translation, or the prose quality in general. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 02:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on TNT grounds. Functionally incomprehensible confirmed machine-translated version of the Italian Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Manoru007 an I can review the translation and improve it. We work at OKA and we use translation softwares. After translating, we review and proofread the article (all according to our community validated guidelines), so the final text meets wikipedia's criteria. Sometimes we let some things pass and some parts don't reach a native level of English, since we are not native speakers. Usually we expect AfC and internal revisions to point out flaws and improvement gaps. If there are specific topics and problems in the translation that we can improve, let us know. Regarding references, we can improve, but we are not able to find references for the whole text, since it's a big article and we are not the original author.

Sintropepe (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very poor machine translation, WP:TNT as noted above. Sandstein 20:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mazeroski's 1960 World Series home run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK for a baseball play that isn't notable outside of the 1960 World Series, where it happened. Some details in this article have no relevance to it (the Yankees trading for Roger Maris and Maris's 1960 season, for instance). Other relevant details can remain at other relevant pages, like Bill Mazeroski and 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates season. The broadcaster calls are non-notable WP:CRUFT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is one of the most iconic baseball moments in history and still receiving significant independent coverage. mlb.com, history.com, rumbunter.com, Baseball Hall of Fame, Society for American Baseball Research, and WTAE to list a few recent sources.--User:Namiba 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• How exactly is this particular baseball play not notable outside of the 1960 World Series, where it happened? Bare in mind, that Bill Mazeroski hit the very first home run to conclude a World Series. Other than Joe Carter in 1993, no World Series in the now over the 120+ year history of the event has concluded with a walk off, game winning home run. The bottom-line and point is that Bill Mazeroski's home run is not only one of the most iconic moments in baseball history, but it's one of the most iconic home runs in the history of all of sports. There's a lot of significance independently from the rest of the 1960 World Series. And yes, the broadcaster calls are at least from my perspective, notable because keep in mind that the original NBC telecast of Game 7 of the 1960 World Series was long thought to be lost, until September 2010, when a kinescope was discovered in the old wine cellar of Bing Crosby's (who was a partial owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates). BornonJune8 (talk) 1:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, as previously mentioned, there are numerous articles about Bill Mazeroski's home run, including on the official websites of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Major League Baseball. And here's an article about the recently passed 64th anniversary of the home run. And here's one about the 60th anniversary back in 2020. History.com has an article on it titled The Most Dramatic Home Run in World Series History. Furthermore, here's an article on the Mazeroski home run from talkers.com entitled The Greatest Home Run. This article from ktvb.com called it the "greatest World Series walk-off of all time." And here's how Sports Illustrated documented the home run and the events leading up to it shortly after it first happened back in October 1960. BornonJune8 (talk) 2:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: passes WP:NEVENT. In addition to the coverage shown above by Namiba and BornonJune8, from a basic Google Books search there's a chapter of this book discussing the event, a chapter of this book, and up to 18 mentions in this book. Left guide (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments made hitherto and sourcing. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Me to You (Crunchy Black album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per the first discussion, no evidence that this album is notable, and since the artist's page is just a redirect to the far more notable group he is a part of, this doesn't even serve a purpose as a redirect. No chart positions, no certifications, only one review that really goes in-depth about the album (the AllMusic writeup is more of an overview of the release, while the XXL piece is an interview so not independent), no evidence of notability to pass WP:NALBUMS. My attempt to have the page speedy deleted per WP:A9 (see the last discussion) was declined. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is tougher than it looks because the album received a couple of pro reviews though they were pretty short. However, the rapper was declared non-notable outside of Three 6 Mafia in this recent AfD, so it's tough to justify an album article. The album's existence could be mentioned briefly at the Three 6 Mafia article, especially because Crunchy Black is still with them, at least intermittently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Thin, thin reviews for this album, in RS, but still just not enough. That's all I can find as well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme leader (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)

Dicdef. No evidence that this term was scholarly discussed anywhere. There do exist several cases when the term was used as a formal title, Supreme Leader (disambiguation), but each of them has their own article and no sources for this "ummrella" article. Therefore I suggest to REPLACE it with Supreme Leader (disambiguation), i.e., to make it a disambig page. Also, ho referemces for 95% of the listed persons that they were called "supreme leader". --Altenmann >talk 17:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

• Withdrawn User:My very best wishes made a good point of regarding it as a list; They also removed OR from the lede. --Altenmann >talk 21:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a list page, and it is consistent with requirements for lists. A lot of historical figures have been described as a "supreme leader" or a "great leader" ( the latter is currently a disambig. page), rightly or wrongly, but can be easily sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a proper list page, because the concept of "supreme leader" is not well-well-defined political concept. President of the United States is also a supreme leader, King of Ethiopia is a supreme leader, and so on: they have supreme power. --Altenmann >talk 00:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It only matters if the criterion for inclusion to the list was clear. If the subject was widely described in sources as a Supreme Leader, then yes. As about USA presidents, no, it was common to say that the "President is not a King", but just a hired civil servant, at least until the recent decision by SCOTUS. Well, perhaps Donald Trump will be known as such. If so, he will have to be included to the list. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for fixing the lede. Now it remains to further improve it to exclude kings, emperors, chieftains, and the likes. And probabkly rename the article into "List of ...". --Altenmann >talk 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Shows no signs of notability. Found this article in Billboard, but nothing else. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's also an AllMusic review ([14]) and a very short Goldmine (magazine) review ([15]), but that's not enough to establish notability. toweli (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep due to more sources being presented toweli (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: The article given in the comment/nom above and this [16] are trivial coverage. I just don't find enough we can use to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The band also released All A View in 2021, which gained significant coverage [17] and a review [18] in American Songwriter, a review in Audiophile Review [19] and some other reviews of varying gravitas: [20] [21]. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Has anyone seen the sources, and that the band has released one album more than what the article claims? Geschichte (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This passes WP:NBAND to an extent, especially with source provided by Geschichte above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discusion such as Billboard, AllMusic, Goldmine magazine, American Songwriter and others that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Duncan (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)

Subject appears to fail the WP:NBIO due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article had a 2017 PROD removed with no reason provided so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. Let'srun (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Last comment since 6 November. There’s no consensus to delete, keep, merge or redirect this article at this time. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article, separated from Nebraska, gives the impression that the album was an actual record that was shelved and is sitting in the vault, which is not the case. Springsteen felt these recordings, which were the Nebraska songs in "electric" renditions with the E Street Band, did not capture the mood and feelings of his initial demos, which became Nebraska. I am currently rewriting the Nebraska article in my sandbox and there's only one paragraph on the "electric" version. Yes, there are quite a few sources that cover the "electric" recordings, but these renditions will be covered in the new expansion, and are already partially covered in Born in the U.S.A.. They do not warrant their own article, especially in its current state, which gives the impression that they were considered for release in 1982. (Springsteen, very briefly, considered combining the acoustic and electric stuff in a double album but decided to release the acoustic ones on their own to give them "greater stature".) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now—Zmbro, you really love your massive rewrites and wholesale publishing overrides of Bowie and Springsteen album articles, instead of choosing the collaborative method of making smaller or shorter edits, allowing stuff to breathe, and having other editors weigh in. This is the second AfD that I can recall where part of your rationale seems to be "I'm rewriting this" or "I intend to rewrite this"—you seem to often just skirt OWNERSHIP issues with these DB and BS articles. I read the Hyden book when it came out, and confess that I forget how many pages he spent discussing the electric sessions (and the Marsh and Heylin books were years ago). But at the risk of turning this into a general comment, you may want to reevaluate your editing mindset... Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Slightly hurtful... but I'm certainly not the only editor on WP to rewrite articles soon their own before publishing. When I do rewrite, I try to keep as much of the old content as possible as long as it's useful. In the case of the Nebraska article in its current state, quite a bit of it has non-encyclopedic writing, on top of being sourced by entire books and not specific pages. In those instances I'm basically forced to start anew. Furthermore, it's best to write these articles wholesale so everything flows organically and there is a consistent writing style; obviously, WP is a collaborative place but quite a lot of articles actually read like they were written by 20 different people. I will admit, I did have ownership issues when I first started doing this, but I do think that has gotten better. To me, this is a much easier process than sitting around waiting for other editors to try to chime in, especially for artists like Elvis Costello, who has much less fans than Bowie or Springsteen, or even Duran Duran. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nebraska (album): coverage is minimal, scope is limited, target article already has a significant amount of information on this and plenty of room for more. Zmbro's draft/future edits to the page should be outside the scope of this AfD, and I have no opinion on them. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nebraska (album) - I have no idea why it's necessary to rewrite that entire album article, which has been honed over many years by dozens of competent editors. But for Electric Nebraska I agree with the previous voter. There are only fan rumors that this collection of songs may someday be released as a distinct album, and an album article in WP should be based on a distinct item for current or near-future purchase, or a fully prepared album that was totally cancelled. Here we have session recordings that didn't make it to the album, just like outtakes and leftovers that occur at any recording session. The saga can be covered adequately at the main album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not rewriting the ENTIRE thing; as I stated above, I try to keep as much content from the old versions as I can when I start these projects. In this album's case, however, much of the recording content and such were sourced using entire books rather than specific pages; when I don't own the sources in question, I basically have to restart from there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at your sandbox version of the Nebraska article, I can say that you're certainly doing informative and well-cited work there. The problem is that the easiest way to move your content to the main article is lots of copy/pasting, in which case you would erase a lot of work by previous editors that merely needs to be improved rather than eradicated. If you're planning much more intricate updates and additions to the existing text, that would be a more community-oriented strategy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article sources don't verify that a "Kurdish mafia" exists. Yes, across history some Kurds have been involved in organized crime but the article wrongly suggests that there is a connection between these criminal groups that does not exist in the cited sources (or others I can find). (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Turkey. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the term is readily found even in the US govt. reports. Today the term "mafia" has become generalized to denote any larger-scale organized crime, nit necessarily tightly knit. --Altenmann >talk 17:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because there is a term in use, does not mean there is an encyclopedic topic. What this article does is gather together crimes whose only commonality is (not sources that connect them—most of the sources don't mention "Kurdish mafia" at all, and would need to be removed in any case per wp:nor), but the fact of being committed by people of the same ethnic group. If this were permissible encyclopedically, we would be like Breitbart and have an article on "black crime" where various offenses committed by African Americans are listed. Instead, this term redirects appropriately to Race and crime in the United States, which is an encyclopedic topic. (t · c) buidhe 02:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe So comparing with the beginning of Turkish mafia, do you think that if Kurdistan existed as a country this topic would be encyclopedic? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "Organized crime in Turkey" is probably a better subject for the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: an easy Google search reveals that dozens of sources mention the Kurdish mafia. Perhaps the presence of some books (cites) in the relevant article may not be correct, but in the end, there are many quotations that directly and/or indirectly address this issue. I am in favour of keeping the article, provided that content unrelated to the 'Kurdish mafia' is removed. Acratopotes (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I feel like someone wrote this just to say that Kemalists and the Iranian Pahlavi regime civilized the "criminal Kurds." The article is quite disrespectful to the diversity of Kurdish history, which included both nomadic and settled lifestyles. Even if many sources mention the Kurdish mafia, that alone should not justify keeping this article. We should remove bad articles, and this one, from beginning to end, is poorly written. Even when I reviewed some of the sources, it's clear that there is cherry-picking in them.

185.187.78.251 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I emphasise this statement again:

I am in favour of keeping the article, provided that content unrelated to the 'Kurdish mafia' is removed.

Acratopotes (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A legitimate subject, just as most other pages in Category:Organized crime by ethnicity. It is sourced, and a lot more can be retrieved by Google searches (see above). Not a disrespect to any culture. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there are problems with the content, this should not lead to deleting the article, because this article doesn't violate Wikipedia's notability policies. A better method is to intervene in the content and add or remove content. I've argued for this above and there are users who agree with this. With my regards, Acratopotes (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

39 Minutes (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)

Nominated per Album notability and WP:NALBUMS. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure why this page has been marked for deletion - it certainly needs expanding which I will do when possible, but Microdisney is one of the most highly regarded bands of the 1980s, and the subject of more than one documentary, and this is their final release on a major label. I have added the stub tag. Verlaine76 (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete: An album of a highly regarded band is not a sign of notability. rather expand enough at sandbox or draftspace, then create.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a whole BBC documentary that discusses this album amongst others. The album is definitely notable. Verlaine76 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @KEmel49 kindly unbold your delete !vote; you are the nominator and, unless otherwise stated, nominators of pages for deletion are considered ”!voting” delete and, as you know, double !votes are not permitted. Thank you. Mushy Yank (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have just under a week to improve the article then. With the sources you say are out there, it shouldn't be difficult. As is, a redirect is likely. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 11 sources, including the BBC, the British music press of the time (Melody Maker, Hot Press), and academic published work. Is that enough? Verlaine76 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given recent expansion and establishment of notability via high quality sources. Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The critical reception sources are enough for me to think this passes WP:NALBUMS now. Ss112 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per recent expansion + refs - Alison ^talk 18:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:HEY applies; the album meets the general and specific requirements for notability. (Note to nominator: A better BEFORE should have been performed given the notability of the band. Thank you.) Mushy Yank (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to WP:Notability (music)#Recordings a recording is notable if:

1. The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. (The album was the subject of reviews in the music press of the time and has also been discussed in subsequent magazines and papers of record as referenced here)
2. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. (the album was discussed in the documentary The Story of Microdisney: The Clock Comes Down the Stairs, broadcast nationally on BBC television, as well as the radio Documentary "Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove" which was broadcast nationally by Newstalk FM in Ireland.) Verlaine76 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Nagpur Muncipal Corporation election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Future Event, not yet organised, nominated per WP:FUTUREEVENT as no reference present. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources for notability. James Tensky (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nominator. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longwood Crossing, 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)

The references say this was a post office, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Isn't that how settlements were established back in the day? Having a post office established usually gave more credibility. Obviously not a good argument today for WP:GEO but might explain why the article was created. – The Grid (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Most formal settlements in that era were "platted", that is, someone laid out lots and streets and got people to settle there. These have a characteristic grid pattern which appears all over the midwest. Post offices popped up in response to the need for people to come and get their mail, and they were placed pretty much anywhere: stores, railroad stations (as a rule), and even peoples' homes. The further west one goes, the more likely they were to be isolated, and the4y often moved when the postmaster changed. If you look particularly in Indiana there are a lot of post offices which have short lifespans at the end of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th, when RFD made them superfluous. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is hardly anything there from Google Maps. It's only mentioned in passing in effectively one article on Google News (those are all duplicates). starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a record label, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for record labels. As always, record labels are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:CORP criteria -- but except for a couple of reliable source hits that briefly glance off the record label's existence while being principally about the overall music scene in Cambodia, which aren't substantive enough to pass NCORP but don't add up to enough to claim that it would earn any sort of "a high enough volume of shorter sources can still satisfy GNG" pass, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, such as YouTube videos and blogs and Bandcamp and its own self-published content about itself.
As it may have better sourcing in Khmer that I'm not linguistically equipped to find, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Khmer is able to find more coverage in that language than I've found in English, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Cambodia. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Globalgeschichte/Global History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article "PRODded" with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON." Article dePRODded by its creator with reason "Hello, the journal is indeed very new. In my opinion, however, it deserves attention on Wikipedia because of its concept of bilingualism, which sets it apart from its purely German predecessor journal. English-speaking authors who might want to publish their research findings in ‘Globalgeschichte/Global History’ can quickly get an idea of the journal. For example, five out of seven articles in Volume 1 are in English," while adding a reference to an English-language article from the journal as example. None of this answers to the PROD concern, which therefore still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harrassowitz Verlag, see Jahrbuch für europäische Überseegeschichte IgelRM (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To begin with, this journal has published 3 issues so far, so it is quite premature to state that it is academically significant. All of the sources for the article are from the journal itself or its publisher. I looked up some of the listed editors and they seem to be legit (as opposed to fake ones on some phoney journals). However, an editorial board of four members is pretty thin for an academic journal. I couldn't find a web site that would give submission information. I also note that one of the editors has published in the journal (not fatal but also not a great practice). As Harrassowitz has a good reputation, time will tell, but this is too soon. Lamona (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to point out above that this is the successor to "Jahrbuch für europäische Überseegeschichte", which was published since the 2001. I assumed it had some relevance, hence redirect for both. IgelRM (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no WP@en article for "Jahrbuch" so that doesn't help. Lamona (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As previously said no third party sources in the article and I can't find any on Google, etc., which of course is not surprising with only three issues. This is more of a book series than a magazine and at least WP:TOOSOON. If you argue like the page creator with "it deserves attention on Wikipedia because of its concept of bilingualism", I recommend to carefully read WP:N. This justification is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia. By the way, the page creator Historian1208 also created the German version of this article but using a different account Historiker1208 and given the username this could be WP:COI. Killarnee (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Panda Fighter (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 do not believe this rip-off film is notable enough for inclusion. The article has 7 sources; however, sources 1 and 5 are merely lists of bad rip-off films where it is briefly mentioned, source 2 is an IMDB equivalent, source 4 is an amazon listing, source 6 and 7 are youtube videos about the film, and source 3 is about the studio and doesn't once mention the movie.

This film fails WP:NFILM as I can't find any more reliable sources out there. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. CoconutOctopus talk 10:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it should be deleted because I tried to make another article about another rip off film called Chop Kick Panda and it got denied for creation and when trying to fix the article and resubmitting it, it later got the ability to resubmit it disabled. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete insufficient coverage for notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources on the page+https://www.topito.com/top-plagiats-dessins-animes https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-2000s-ranked-letterboxd/ https://collider.com/animated-movies-2000s-worst-ranked/ and even https://collider.com/worst-animated-movies-letterboxd/ https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/26648/7-hollywood-ripoffs-titles-and-posters-and-plots-you-wont-believe + https://www.avclub.com/don-t-look-directly-at-these-horrifying-children-s-movi-1798257240 + https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/animated-mockbusters-list-94032.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160410042024/http://news.nster.com/1079-funny-and-ridiculous-rip-offs-of-famous-movies.html At the very least a redirect to List of Brazilian films of 2008 or to List of animated feature films of 2008 or to the 'original' film seems warranted in my humble opinion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've alreadt explained how I don't believe the sources in the article are notable or significant; none of the sources you link above appear to me to be significant coverage but mostly "fun lists" which aren't enough for inclusion. I also don't think the article title is notable enough for a redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And you have every right to, I'm merely stating my case as to why deletion is correct. We'll see what the consensus is. CoconutOctopus talk 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vídeo Brinquedo#Filmography as per Mushy Yank. Honestly all they sources they gave don't indicate WP:SIGCOV - they are all passing mentions in a list and the only things I could find specifically about it are ugi like IMDb, Rotten Tomato, Fandom so clearly doesn't qualify for its own article, but, evidently the studio does so I don't see harm in redirecting it to a place in the studio's article where it is listed Keep per Mushy Yank's work. WP:SIGCOV states that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", and the sources are about cringe-y films, not the movie, but they do discuss it in detail - with WP:NFILM describes as not being a "plot summary with no critical commentary" (these sources do add critical commentary) and WP:SIGCOV describes as ensuring "no original research is needed to extract the content", which is very clearly evident as they describe the both the film's plot, the context in which it is made, and add critical commentary. Concerns are raised by other users about reliability, but, one of the sources is Colliders, which is considered a reliable source per WP:RSN for films [22]. MolecularPilot 22:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For example, do you consider the following paragraphs, taken from the sources above, non-significant? (It's a real question) From my understanding of significance on WP, they are not passing mentions:

  How does it compare to the original? Take Kung Fu Panda, render it in MS Paint, then take the MS Paint version and render it on an Etch-a-Sketch. We’re not done yet. Put that Etch-a-Sketch version back into MS Paint and color it using the paint bucket tool and…jeez, that still looks way too good. Any way we can do this all on a Commodore 64?The Little Panda Fighter is about a world inhabited by bears that all look like someone punched a jar of Play-Doh in the face. One particularly perverse panda spends an unsettling amount of time in his dank basement, but instead of begging others to put the lotion on the skin, this panda dreams of becoming a ballerina. Unfortunately, he is forced to become a kick boxer (typical panda struggle). Will he find a way to bring these two worlds together? The movie probably cares less than you do. Also, the panda falls down a lot. Because he’s fat. Comedy!

  (MentalFloss)

  The Little Panda Fighter follows the story of a clumsy panda named Pancada, who works at a boxing club and has big aspirations of becoming a professional dancer. After a strange miscommunication error, Pancada accidentally ends up being a combatant at his club's upcoming fight, being mistaken for a legendary panda fighter who challenged the club's champion. Pandaca now must train for his upcoming battle, and finds that his dancing skills may just be helpful for him in the ring.As far as animated rip-off movies go, it's hard to get more blatant and obvious than The Little Panda Fighter, which is attempting to leech off of the success of Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda. While Kung Fu Panda was filled with exceptional and groundbreaking visuals, fun characters, and exhilarating battle sequences, The Little Panda Fighter features none of these positive aspects. Its minuscule budget resulted in a film with primarily lackluster dialogue sequences and dated animation quality, with a plot that only resembles Kung Fu Panda via having a Panda main character.

  (Collider A)

  A major trend that persisted throughout the 2000s was the abundance of cheap ripoff films that were released at the same time as more popular animated films as an attempt to siphon business from blockbuster titles. While this trend was just as prevalent in live-action as it was in animation, the cheaply animated examples more egregiously show the variance in quality between these poor excuses for films and the actual films they're ripping off. One of the most comically inept examples is The Little Panda Fighter, a blatant ripoff of Kung Fu Pandathat is unabashed in its copying. The Little Panda Fighter is a culmination of all the trends and facets that made these ripoff films both so terrible in execution and abundant and unavoidable in bargain bins of the era. While it's blatant to anyone with eyes just how much the film is using the likeness of Kung Fu Panda, the actual film itself couldn't be any more dissimilar, following a story of a panda who doesn't want to fight, but instead wants to dance. Especially when the original Dreamworks film exists, there's little reason to ever give The Little Panda Fighter the attention it so deeply craves.

  (Collider B)

  The Little Panda Fighter follows. the story of Pancada, a panda who works at a boxing club and has big dreams of becoming a world-famous dancer. After an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, Pancada accidentally gets caught up and is scheduled for an upcoming fight at his boxing club, and begins to train for what will be the fight of his life.It's clear from the get-go that The Little Panda Fighter 's primary purpose and reason for existing is to leech off of and scam unsuspecting viewers who mistook the film for Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda, released the same year. Although, unlike the masterful animation style of the Dreamworks film, The Little Panda Fighter's cheap animation style leaves much to be desired. The film also features a hilariously strange plot, further amplified by the vocal performances.

  (Collider C)

  This movie could be a “Kung Fu Panda” spin-off about an unknown brother who managed to survive, but was separated from Po. And yet it’s just a trashy uninspired rip-off with a similar plot and lower budget. Besides, the panda on the poster doesn’t seem like a normal animal. It looks more like a host for some crazy fitness show for toddlers. Just kidding..

  (NSTER, Archived)

  I consider significance to be a threshold, and I would tend to think that it is reached here. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (sorry for the late reply, I forgot to add this page to my watch list) - after reviewing the policies at WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV I think the coverage you've provided does count as "significant". Specifically, WP:NFILM says that plot summaries do not count - but these also include critical comments. I think, together, they create significant coverage. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 03:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as overall there is enough critical commentary from independent reliable sources identified in this discussion such as Collider, NSTER, and Mental Floss to enable the pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree some of it's sources needs to be removed, especially the Amazon order because Amazon is (what I believe) 100% not reliable for referencing on Wikipedia because it's just a shopping website that won't educate Wikipedia editors or readers that much. Furthermore, Amazon is somehow a target for spammers and advertisers to spam URLs on websites, which means Wikimedia and Wikipedia admins do need to remove Amazon links from articles on Wikipedia. A reliable website does need to make articles about this knock-off movie so we can cite a reliable source. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford High School shooting (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)

Sadly, incidents like school shootings aren't that uncommon, we simply can't document every single one on Wikipedia. Cyber the tiger (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is no valid policy basis for this nomination. It has been covered by many reliable sources and has high notability considering it is a first, according to this text from the article: "James and Jennifer Crumbley were the first US parents to be charged with having responsibility for a mass school shooting by a child." - Fuzheado | Talk 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For the legal issues, this event is newsworthy and Wikipedia-notable. David notMD (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was a widely-covered event... even if we cannot cover "every" such incident, this incident is notable enough for Wikipedia. Casinator (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Did someone draw a line in the sand that put an exact number on how many is too many, or not enough? Re how many, please have a glance at the article's two bottom nav boxes, as well as the large lists of categories of the same subject. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some aren’t notable, but some are. If it gets significant, analytical and continued coverage it is. Trying to judge based on our own opinions how important it is instead of going by how covered it was by sources is dumb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Known shooting that was significantly covered. I don't even have to explain why to keep it into detail, as it is one of the pretty known shootings. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wide international coverage in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - there is detailed coverage for this event, from the day it occurred, through the manhunt for the parents, and through their trial. This tragic event is a legal landmark case, and there wasn't any valid reasons given for deletion. This should be closed immediately. It was a very misguided nomination. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that there are probably some school shooting articles that are marginal, but this definitely isn't one. As far as importance goes, this event is up there with Columbine, Parkland and Sandy Hook in the vital coverage of school shootings. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event that should be archived. All shootings should be documented until they ARE uncommon again. JustCopewithit (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - No valid reason given for deleting this well-sourced and lengthy article. I see no reason for continuing with this nomination. Scs52 (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydes (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 WP:SIGCOV in RS. Recent coverage is in non-RS, e.g. WP:SPORTSKEEDA and no-byline content mills like The Express Tribune. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:SINGER, non-notable per WP:CRIM. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 15:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  keep the wiki 83.98.52.238 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Jaydes could arguably pass WP:GNG and WP:SINGER even without considering the coverage stemming from his recent arrest. Prior to his arrest, he received in-depth coverage from Pitchfork: [23], [24] and coverage from The Fader: [25] with both sources being considered reliable by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE. Concerning The Express Tribune, although it might appear questionable, it should be noted that it is not considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards and could be substituted or further supported by this primary source confirming his arrest: [26]. It should also be noted that Jaydes was signed and released 2 albums heartpacing and ghetto cupid: [27] under 10K Projects: [28] whose parent company is UMG, a major record label. With that being said, he would satisfy criteria 5 of WP:SINGER having 2 albums released under the label. Given the despicable nature of his acts and his position in the underground music scene, it is undoubtable that Jaydes will be of high interest. Furthermore, given that there was enough information coming from reliable sources and that I believed Jaydes passed the notability requirements, I sought to create this article to serve as a base for reliable information in a time where misinformation could be prominent. Célestin Denis (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: More reliable sources have been included, see Célestin Denis' comment above for notability. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ditto re: Célestin Denis. beyond sufficient coverage for WP:SINGER, not to mention recent criminal details, which would merit further consideration for those factors. 100.15.137.165 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Policy-based arguments establish a consensus that, per WP:ONEOTHER, a topic with (at most) two entries needing disambiguation does not need a dab page. Sandstein 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page only disambiguates between two articles which is easily dealt with by hatnotes on those articles. Other articles listed under see also have no relevance to the DAB and just pad the page out to make it look like it should exist. WP:ONEOTHER suggests that DAB page is not needed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure, there is an RFC occuring at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#RfC: Cultural Marxism DAB discussing whether the hatnote at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory should be changed to redirect to this DAB page. TarnishedPath^talk 08:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No need for disambiguation between only two topics. Talk page discussions at the associated articles have repeatedly reached consensus that the term just needs to redirect to the primary topic (Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory) and those few that were looking for Marxist cultural analysis will find it via the hatnote. - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MrOllie and OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That the keep votes appear based on sources espousing the conspiracy thoery, only shows that there should not be a disambiguation page. Peterson, Braverman, they might say "Cultural Marxism" but it has nothing to do with any real subject. They are espousing the conspiracy thoery. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a good faith attempt to mollify the people who kvetch about Cultural Marxism redirecting to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory but it won't work and we don't need to do that anyway. There is only one other definition so a hatnote is sufficient. The only thing this brings to the party is the See Also but I'm sure that the articles already cover that. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't it "work" if the redirect redirected to this dab? I'm curious what you mean there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean that no change to content will stop the kvetching because the kvetching is an editor conduct issue not a content issue. Look at how it has spiralled out of control even on this very page. This happens wherever and whenever "Cultural Marxism" is mentioned. We need topic bans and page protections, not attempts to mollify those who improperly wish to hide the fact that the phrase "Cultural Marxism" refers to the conspiracy theory 95-99% of the time it is used. They will not be happy until Wikipedia supports their POV with no mention of the conspiracy theory at all. Sometimes compromise is a valid approach but not when it is a compromise between neutral coverage and POV pushing. I know it seems tempting to try to fob them off and stop the constant arguments but that's just the first step to the POV pushers gradually getting 100% of what they want, which is to legitimise the conspiracy theory and to promote it in wikivoice. They won't stop arguing until they get that or they are forced to stop. Of course, if there really was a need to disambiguate then we would have to do so, and all add the page to our watchlists to prevent it being wrecked periodically, but there really isn't. It just creates another opportunity for disruptive behaviour. The hatnote covers it. Let Occam's Razor apply. DanielRigal (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's employ the scientific method. We can use the dab page for a year and measure the amount of 'kvetching,' as you call it, before and after. I'm just being a bit facetious, but it would be interesting to see whether the amount of kvetching goes up or down. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But it could "work" in the sense of it could later be the place that the redirect redirects to, since there perhaps isn't a primary topic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are several senses in which the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' has been used. I created the disambiguation with the two I had found, but other senses can be included, and there are many citations for these.

To claim that the term has only been used in one sense is not logically coherent. To put it bluntly, if you are claiming that everyone who has used the phrase 'Cultural Marxism' is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, then you will need your own private suite in the libel courts!

The phrase has become recently uncommon, possibly because of the Wikipedia article. (It is not Wikipedia's task to be defining meanings rather than reporting them, but that is going to happen.) More concerning is if past uses, over the last fifty years or so, are judged by a definition issued later. We must recognise the ambiguity. Samuel Moyn traced usage back a hundred years.

(On Wikipedia it has been decided, for example, that 'Boston' primarily means the city in Massachusetts. You would not then assert that every written reference to the name over a twelve centuries is retrospectively by definition to an American city even when the author meant the town in Lincolnshire. Denying the multiple uses there have been of the term 'Cultural Marxism' is just as ludicrous.)

There are citations aplenty for variant meanings. One analysis is in Zubatiov's article in 2018. The Antisemitism Policy Trust agrees that the term is used by Antisemites, but also "It is often used, without antisemitic intention, to describe liberals, progressive movements and others.": a very different meaning.

Dennis Dworkin used the term in another sense in 1997 in his article 'Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the Origins of Cultural Studies'.

The most popular writer using the term is Jordan Peterson; certainly no conspiracy theorist nor antisemite, who argues that the idea that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory is "completely preposterous". Now, Dr Peterson is a psychologist not a political philosopher, and you can disagree with him, but his works have been seen by millions, and if he means it another way, that meaning is the way millions have received it.

A balanced popular article I have read was by Danny Stone (Chief Executive of Antisemitism Policy Trust) in the Jewish Chronicle in 2023: 'Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic?'. He concludes that it is used in that way, but also with innocuous meaning, and sometimes by Marxists themselves. It shows the ambiguity, that needs disambiguation.

The use of the term in conspiracy theories is well documented (many have referred to the Paternotte / Verloo De-democratization and the Politics of Knowledge: Unpacking the Cultural Marxism Narrative on that meaning, while on the other side, the Libertarian Brian Doherty in 2018 Don't Blame Karl Marx for 'Cultural Marxism' dismissed conspiracies and its even being Marxism, noting it the term to have been used as a synonym for Critical Theory (which can be described as a conspiracy theory: classes and races conspiring to oppress others? Really?)

Professor Jerôme Jamin is cited on the conspiracy theory page: the paper cited though argues that it is ambiguous: the summary states "It tries to locate and identify the exact moment the theory changed itself from a regular and well-known knowledge in the field of cultural studies towards a key element used in multiple books and articles to explain the so-called destruction of Western traditions and values." In short – there is a conspiracy theory, but it has also been a field of genuine academic study. Therefore that very citation contradicts the assertion it tries to prove.

Doherty's argument is persuasive; that much of the use of the term is as a demonising synonym for Critical Theory in which case Critical Theory should be added to the disambiguating list.

All this said, the page could do with a slew of citations for each usage of the term. Howard Alexander (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Jordan Peterson? Really? TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Peterson is using "Cultural Marxism" as it's described in the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article. Using him in a keep argument shows exactly why the disambiguation page should be deleted, as it is simply misleading. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful of what you are saying: you seem to be implying that Dr Peterson subscribes to an antisemitic theory, which is not a wise move. I said that he is not political scientist. However he uses the term, and the sense in which he used the term is one heard by millions. It is not the conspiracy version, and certainly with no antisemitic implication. You may not like his work - I may not like his work, or I might - it does not matter, but language is defined by usage and not by professors. Howard Alexander (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with the function of a disambiguation page, which is simply to navigate to extant Wikipedia articles. It's not a place to WP:COATRACK a bunch of stuff about alternate (that is, WP:FRINGE) definitions, especially not stuff that has been rejected by the community at other AfDs and RFCs. - MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It simply has not been rejected. That is a misrepresentation of history. There have been plenty of people arguing that the lede and the article is contentious and it's been contentious for literally a decade. There is enough disagreement on the talk page and its archives (with plenty of sources) to show that this term is not solely a conspiratorial term. Seriously.

Based on the history of the page, a disambiguation page would at least prevent so much defacing of the lede and so much argument about the lede, because it would be clear that there is a distinction between the term 'Cultural Marxism' and the 'Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory'. As used pejoratively, cultural marxism clearly references Western Marxism, Marxist Cultural Analysis, the Frankfurt School, Postmodernism, Post Structuralism, Critical Theory and its offshoots.

These would all be appropriate topics to link to in the disambiguation page. I am a Leaf (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough disagreement on the talk page and its archives (with plenty of sources) to show that this term is not solely a conspiratorial term. Seriously.

The page has been greatly complained about in the talk page archives for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory - that doesn't mean anything, and is true for most WP:Fringe conspiracy related articles.

ALL of the discussions were resolved as having no ACADEMIC MERIT.

Just because something has been complained about or discussed a lot, doesn't mean those complaints were well founded, let alone well sourced. They weren't. That's why you're complaining about complaints rather than presenting a well substantiated, well documented alternative usage. You are in fact, spraying out a whole list of "possible meanings" without any single one these claims having an academic source to back it... what's more you'd need more than just one source to say it's a notable school of thought, movement, or set ideology.

The fact remains cultural Marxism (lower case, upper case) is just two words together, and has been used sparingly to reference something to do with culture and Marxism. Never a set singular school, or well defined area or mode of academic investigation.

Sorry we can't edit Wikipedia just because people complain. We have to use the sources at hand, as per WP:RS. As I've said to others in this discussion. Please search the talk page archives at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory before trying to present any here. The page has been around and very stable for over a decade now - and that's because we've dealt with each complaint as it's come up. We've done so in line with Wikipedia's policies, and sourcing requirements. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you strike the implied legal threat. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson does actually play on the borders of race science. He has blogged about the problem of Jewish Intelligence, and even does so under the well known anti-Semitic phrase "The Jewish Question". Of course, he does so playfully by using the phrase to reference their intelligence, rather than their extermination (as the Nazis used it).

He's also been tied to well funded pushes to normalize race science in academia, as per this article [29]. This is in part because of his strong affiliation with conservative think tanks [30]... and he has appeared on the podcast of the white supremacist, Stefan Molyneux. These are undeniable facts, which thus, present no legal risk, especially because they're just being stated on talk pages. Talk pages aren't as subject to WP:BLP as they're less likely to be litigated. So your reaction is unwarranted. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson wrote an open letter about the rise of antisemitism in left wing politics, here is the Jerusalem Post's reply[31] in which they point out his points are couched in antisemitic ideas and his misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.”.

So I have no worries that Dr Peterson subscribes to an antisemitic theory, as I'm just a private citizen and if Peterson has an issue with that idea he could go after larger fish. He has not, and the Jerusalem Post's article is hardly a outlier. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's examine all of your sources:

Zubatov - Zubatov is a non-notable author writing an opinion piece for Tablet_(magazine) which is a conservative Jewish magazine. He has no expertise in any relevant field of academia related to the term, and the publication has endorsed views similar to that of the conspiracy theory (eg. that "woke" leftists have taken over society and the media). So no, Wikipedia isn't going to use this as a reliable source on the matter. See WP:FRINGE. We don't use WP:FRINGE sources as if they're authorities on conspiracy theories, truth, and fiction.

Dennis Dworkin - had you looked at the FAQ on the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page, you'd see that on page 3, that book specifically states it's "the first of its kind" and is trying to start the classification of a movement under this title. That's not a good proof that the term is WP:Notable enough for a disambig page.

Is the term 'Cultural Marxism' really antisemitic? - that article which again is just an opinion piece responding to a conservative using the term in the conspiracy theory usage. It doesn't endorse any other usage as having prevalence, the closest it gets is claiming that some leftist use it as a badge of honour. That doesn't mean it's a notable school of thought worthy, large, or well defined enough for a disambig page. Sorry, this article supports the current status quo of not having one.

Reason Magazine - This website is either funded or part of the Cato institute isn't it? At any rate, it's another conservative publication, and another opinion piece. The author once again doesn't have any credentials in any related academic fields as far as I can tell. So once again it's a dud source. It also notes the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as the main usage, and doesn't offer anything substantive in any other direction.

Jerôme Jamin - the text you quote doesn't explicitly reference there being any movement under the term "cultural Marxism". No one has a well defined movement or group under that name. It's at best two words strung together.

In short, your 3 conservative opinion pieces with no credentials, are not enough to justify a disambig. Your 1 leftwing Jewish source (its self also an opinion piece) doesn't support your claims. Nor do your quotes from the one half-qualified academic in this grab bag of sources. Sorry, you have not proven the need for a disambiguation page using these sources... which are mostly conservative opinion pieces. Please search the talk page archives of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory before you even consider trying again with more sources. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are on the topic of academic books, in addition to historian Dennis Dworkin’s 1997 book [32] mentioned earlier, there is also Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology, a 1981 book by sociologist Richard R. Weiner, which is available online for those interested in browsing it. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources may be useful in addressing the content or notability of either Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory or Marxist cultural analysis. In this circumstance the existence of any academic sources neither adds nor subtracts from the fact that the DAB page disambiguates between exactly two extant articles and therefore per WP:ONEOTHER the DAB page is not needed. Proponents of keeping the article would be better off spending their time improving the DAB page so that it disambiguates between more than two extant articles than arguing about academic sources. The fact that they haven't already suggests that there is no option to do so. TarnishedPath^talk 09:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weiner - To quote every description of Weiner's book there is online: "Weiner considers the work of theorists as diverse as Jurgen Habermas, Claus Offe, Alain Touraine, Anthony Giddens and Alvin Gouldner, many of whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement." - so no, this book doesn't define some definitive movement or school of thought. It specifically says that it's including thinkers "whom fall ideologically outside the cultural Marxism movement" - so that's a no go. It wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere, so it's not acceptable here. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, Politics, and Judaism. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You shouldn't be adding it to a sorting page for Conservatism. That would be an attempt at brigading the discussion. It's not a conservative topic, it's a conspiracy theory about LEFT WING academics... not RIGHT WING ones. But at any rate, I suggest any conservatives who come here to debate the point first check the talk page archives for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as this is well trodden ground, and we've dealt with pretty much every source under the sun on this one. I suggest to them, and anyone else, to not waste their time playing the fool here. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WikiProject Conservatism is listed in Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. I added deletion sorting for all WikiProjects listed in that article's talk where deletion sorting existed. But do please tell me more about policies which I'm well aware of. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no reason to have a disambiguation page. The term "Cultural Marxism" almost exclusively references the conspiracy theory usage. RecardedByzantian (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That assertion is clearly contradicted by the very sources cited in support of it. Dismissing some sources because the authors are deemed 'conservative' is not something you should want to admit. Several sources who certainly are no conservative have still asserted that the term has been used in different ways. Howard Alexander (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those sources are discussing the conspiracy theory, as shown by other references. Per the JP[33] misuse of concepts such as “Cultural Marxism.” -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (conditional). This AfD is premature. The disambiguation page was created only a few days ago, giving the community insufficient time to improve it. Additionally, no other articles link to the page, making it effectively invisible to readers, so there’s no reason to rush its deletion. Moreover, the AfD was initiated just hours after an RfC discussion on linking to the dab page began, which the nominator conveniently omits, raising concerns that this AfD may be an attempt to derail or shorten the RfC process. I urge the closing admin to either Keep the page or delay the decision until the RfC concludes, allowing the community time to evaluate the merits of the page and giving editors an opportunity to improve it. I will present my rationale for keeping the dab page in the RfC. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't "conveniently omit" anything. Stating that there is an RFC occurring elsewhere is irrelevant and you have produced zero policy arguments. If the DAB page can be improved such that it disambiguates between more than two extant articles, the time that the AFD runs is more than sufficient time to do so. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed that you edited the body of the AfD to include the RfC reference, which is a good thing. [34] Do you mind adding a timestamp or acknowledging it in some way so that my earlier comment doesn't seem out of context? Thanks 87.116.177.103 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Just to clarify though I didn't "conveniently omit" it, as I didn't even think about it as it didn't strike me as being pertinent. I added it however after your comments because I didn't want to spend any time arguing about it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is the basic premise is flawed, aso the disambiguation page can not be improved. It can only be made into a WP:COATRACK. RFCs are not the correct place to decide on whether a page should be kept, the correct process is this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's been a long standing consensus not to have such a page, and there's ZERO academic evidence the term refers to anything but the conspiratorial usage.

  Yes the two words "cultural Marxism" do appear from time to time within academia, or on book covers, but that's not the same as Wikipedia having multiple articles under that title. We don't. So the more you expand your disambig and try to rope in a wider and wider variety of articles, the more faulty your disambig will become.

  You can't just rope a bunch of articles all with different names into a disambig because of some conservative conspiracy theory about "the woke left". You need ACADEMIC and LEFTWING sources. Not opinion pieces and right wing talking heads. 101.115.128.228 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant and unnecessary. DAB pages are for three or more related subjects, and this clearly fails that measure.

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:D2D. This is the third scenario there where there is one primary topic and one other topic to be "linked directly using a hatnote" without a disambiguation page. The Boston example in the lengthy !vote to keep seems (to me) a good example of why the hatnote should point directly to the other topic rather than a disambiguation page. A reader could go from Boston to Boston (disambiguation) to any of the dozens of the links. With this page, a reader could go from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Cultural Marxism (disambiguation) and then only to Marxist cultural analysis, so it doesn't make sense to have that extra step at the disambiguation page. The stuff listed under "See also" like Cultural Bolshevism is covered in context and wiki-linked in the primary topic's page already. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've worked on many of the pages concerned for a long time, and have become convinced that editors of Marxist cultural analysis are planning on making the page a WP:coatrack for any number of Marxist theorists. The Frankfurt School, The Birmingham School and many of the thinkers on that page, aren't Marxists. They're neomarxists - who were critical of Marxism, and wanted to be critical of BOTH Orthodox Marxism and modern Capitalism. This fact is not respected on that page, and it gives a biased view, and an incorrect set of assumptions about the theorists listed. The fact that the page is looking to expand with a focus on including random Marxists - makes it no longer suitable as a hat note for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (which is about a specific set of neo-Marxists, who became run of the mill social democrats and liberals. Theorists like Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart of The Birmingham School went as far as to burn their Communist party membership cards). So obviously, as I hold this viewpoint - I also don't think that Marxist cultural analysis is an appropriate page to be involved in the disambig. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how relevant this is to the AfD discussion, but the IP seems to put forward the view that because some scholars went as far as to burn their Communist party membership cards, that they aren't "Marxists". The view that "Marxists" and "neomarxists" are mutually exclusive categories is a small minority view, not supported by scholarship, and can't be reflected in either WP article space or for that matter in disambiguation decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've explained to you elsewhere, there are clear sources that back up my point of view, and zero sources that call them orthodox Marxists, despite what the title of the article suggests. That's why they're called "cultural Marxists" because the whole point of these schools is that they were radically breaking from Marxism.

  You can deny that and slap the title "MARXISTS" on them all day - but that completely ignores the historical facts, and leaves Wikipedia in the position of substantiating a false claim about these very modern thinkers. Some of whom are still alive by the way.

  "Hoggart’s political viewpoints were not outwardly expressed until much later in life, and make clear his aversion to Marxism" Source 1

  "The final break with orthodox Marxism occurred with the Frankfurt School’s coming to condemn the Soviet Union as a politically oppressive system. Politically the Frankfurt School sought to position itself equidistant from both Soviet socialism and liberal capitalism" Source 2

  "This is Habermas' basic judgment on Marx: Marx's praxis philosophy is still a kind of subjective philosophy, while behind the concept of “labor” in praxis philosophy is still a single rationality: cognitive-instrumental rationality." Source 3 (hence why we don't say Habermas is a Marxist on his page - because he wasn't.)

  There are plenty of similar sources out there. You're the one without any sources claiming they were regular old Marxists. That's the truth here: it's actually a fact that YOUR position is unsourced. NOT MINE! This is the whole reason why they're called "Critical Theorists" - rather than Marxists (as Wikipedia currently has it). Labeling them as Marxists is ahistoric and leans towards the conspiracy theory rather than away from it.

  101.115.128.217 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete disambig with only two pages is silly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I think, per Howard Alexander mostly. I'm not 100% sure this is the best way to solve this problem, but it seems much better than the status quo ante. The term "cultural Marxism" is used quite a bit, by detractors, to describe a flavor of left-leaning politics/academics focusing on identity-based oppression and a critique of liberalism, essentially what is also referred to by detractors as SJW, PC, CRT (or just Critical Theory), woke, etc. Or at least, vaguely adjacent to those things; rigorously pinning down taxonomies of political rhetoric is probably a fool's errand. I feel like we have a couple of articles about that topic already, so I don't think we need a new one with the title Cultural Marxism! But, since that is easily the most common use of the term, it is problematic to have it redirect to a different meaning of the term, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Here's a problem, though: there aren't a lot of high quality sources talking about this more common meaning of the term: it's a sloppy term, and different labels are usually used for the thing instead (Even Jordan Peterson almost exclusively calls it something else, "postmodernism"), and anti-semitic white supremacy is a pretty important subject of academic inquiry. It's an interesting failure mode of Wikipedias policies/guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As repeatedly noted, there's no reason to have a two-topic disambiguation page. Also, I note that since this AfD was begun, there has been no effort at the subject DAB article to expand or improve it to address this issue, which seems like a tacit acknowledgment that it is unlikely to be expanded or expandable. CAVincent (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true, there's an author on talk at Marxist cultural analysis who is about to throw Trotsky back into what is essentially a page about the early development of Critical Theory. There's also discussions on the talk page that from @Newimpartial about including (in their own words) - "classical Marxist, Orthodox, and Leninist or Trotskyite approaches" on the page. As well as "later developments as Critical Theory (post-Marcuse), Socialist Feminist analysis, and Laclau&Mouffe-style post-Marxist approaches to cultural critique". To this end, editors have already "trimmed" certain founding members of The Birmingham School (because they weren't Marxist enough). So project Revisionist history is well underway at Marxist cultural analysis.

  In short, the plan for the article is to make it a WP:Coatrack that has little relevance to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page. This is a blow for having a disambig... but also means the DAB should probably be removed from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have mentioned my comments while leaving out the point I emphasize the most, which is that we must follow the sources on the topic in making decisions about inclusion. If the sources generally are what you call revisionist, we must follow them. Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your choices for the page give the impression The Critical Theorists were Orthodox Marxists, where are the sources for that NewImpartial? Now you and Patrick are going to put Trotsky back onto the page - so why should the DAB on Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory direct people to Marxist cultural analysis any more? Are there any sources for Trotsky being described as a "cultural Marxist" somewhere? Are YOU going to provide any sources like I have above?

  No of course you're not. Because you're building a WP:Coatrack that won't be related in any way shape or form to the disambig hatnote. We must follow the sources - all the sources say they critiqued Orthodox Marxism, and grew further and further away from that term (Source 4) - so why are we filing them under Marxism, along side Orthodox Marxists like Trotsky, as if they share some resemblance??? Likewise, why does the Critical Theory page happily list Habermas under the sidebar for Marxism. This over emphasis of them as "Marxists" is ahistoric. There's an obvious reason why they were called Critical Theorists, and not Marxist theorists - it's because they were Neo-Marxists, then later, not Marxists at all. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Phil Slater traces the extent, and ultimate limits, of the Frankfurt School's professed relation to the Marxian critique of political economy... ...He shows that, in particular, the analysis of psychic and cultural manipulation was central to the young rebels' theoretical armour, but that even here, the lack of economic class analysis seriously restricts the critical edge of the Frankfurt School's theory." (Source 5)

  "Nothing intrinsicaly Marxist, that is to say, defines "cultural Marxism," save for the evocation or hope of a postbourgeois society... ...The mistake of those who see one position sequeing into another is to confuse contents with personalities." (Source 6, page 10)

  "The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory" (Source 7)

  ...

  The sources say - it has Marxist origins, and uses Marxist principles, but is not its self Marxist. Do we still follow the sources NewImpartial??? 101.115.128.217 (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have noted at the article Talk page, the only sources you have provided in this Gish gallop that actually claim the Frankfurt School to be "non-Marxist" are sectarian, not scholarly ones.

  Also, your statement that I give the impression The Critical Theorists - excellent band name, by the way - were Orthodox Marxists is entirely a straw man. The Frankfurt School writers were unorthodox Marxists and, according to the sources, that was rather the point. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  unorthodox Marxists so you have some understanding that they shouldn't so easily be labelled "Marxists" - and yet you're still refusing to provide any sources for doing so, and are instead agreeing they're not orthodox Marxists?

  ...and all of this, is in defense of an incorrect page title? What? So you can make a WP:Coatrack compendium list of Marxists you like the viewpoints of? Or are "cultural" enough for you to include? Like this is so obviously a fools errand. What you're doing is just as bad as the disambig page. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To answer your question: I deny your premise. Unorthodox and orthodox Marxists have had equal claim to "being Marxists", for as long as there have been Marxisms (in fact, ever since Marx declared that he was "not a Marxist"). In my view, it is foolish and sectarian to maintain that some applications of Marxist impulses are "Marxist" and others are not - we need to follow sources on this, not dogma. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But Marx's Sociology, and his Political views, are two different things. Only the latter is considered to be covered by "Marxist" - the former is just Sociology. Neo-Marxist, and Post-Marxists, can't necessarily or easily be described as "Marxists". Marxian Sociologist, Non-Marxists and people with a noted aversion to Marxism, SHOULDN'T be described as Marxists (to do so, is to fall into the trap set by the conspiracy theory). I've provided sources on Talk:Marxist cultural analysis. We should discuss this there, rather than filling this page up any more than necessarily. 101.115.152.93 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can tell, the clain by thr IP that "Marxism" refers to Marxist political views and that Marx's sociology is a separate topic to which the term "Marxist" does not apply - this is just unsourced WP:OR. The IP has produced a number of sources which support their view if and only if one takes the a priori position that Marxism is a specific (class-based) set of political cores and that anything else based on Marx's work "isn't Marxism". I haven't seen any HQRS presented to support this a priori assumption, so I think we are therefore safe in ignoring any arguments based on it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "[I]t is unlikely to be expanded or expandable" is one explanation. Another is that editors are put off by the AfD nomination "scare" box placed at the top of the nominated page. Why invest time in improving something when your efforts might be in vain? Additionally, many editors may not realize that it's permissible to edit a page nominated for AfD. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Some contributors seem to be suggesting there is a concerted plan for editing - a conspiracy indeed. I think that is more than somewhat unlikely, don't you? (Perhaps we need a page "Cultural Marxism conspiracy conspiracy theory"?)

  I created the disambiguation page simply because the term has, over the years, been used in numerous different ways. Even the sources cited on the conspiracy theory page affirm this. Therefore when a politician or commentator is quoted as having used the term 'Cultural Marxism' it could be in any of several senses - I started off with two, but the source material shows that several others could be added.

  To take a random example, the article on Suella Braverman mentions that she attacked 'Cultural Marxism', but no one could seriously suggest that she thinks that there are bearded men scuttling in a dark room conspiring to overthrow society for malicious ends, let alone that she is anti-Jewish. That would be libelling her, seriously. Then you get actual loonies who do believe that. In the Braverman example - I have never met her to ask, but in the context it is clear that she meant it as a synonym for Critical theory, explained on the basis of swapping Marx's class struggle / oppression dynamic for a supposed struggle between other groups.

  Others later took the term off the web without context and have spun it into the idea of a conspiracy, and conspiracies usually develop an ugly anti-Semitic variant. Previous uses, before the term took off on a dark path, are still there, and when uttered they did not mean what the term may have come to mean.

  The point then is to find the best way to allow Wikipedia links to point to the right concept amongst many, or to ambiguity where we do not know the context, rather than libelling people in the public eye. That seems to me to be the purpose of a disambiguation page. When we have "Boston (disambiguation)", it is not intended that pages actually point to it en masse, but they can be pointed there while the context is uncertain, and then linked to the correct version when that is determined. Doing that in a long, long hatnote is too clumsy. Howard Alexander (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not a dictionary of what politicians may have meant when they spoke (and you'd be hard pressed to find a politician who cites sources). We're an Encyclopedia of WP:NOTABLE ideas and concepts.

  In the case of Suella Braverman, I believe The Board of Deputies of British Jews sat her down and had a chat with her about what she meant [35]. Wikipedia is not here to become involved in such political occurrences, nor should we seek to become involved in them. We are here ONLY to report them when they become relevant/notable. Braverman's case is listed BECAUSE it became relevant and notable. I'm not aware of any other notable usages from her since sitting down with the Board of Deputies.

  To create a page specifically to sort out what we think politicians mean when they use the term - would be a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. If that's your position, you're unlikely to succeed. We're here to report from sources, not perform original research, or construct coatrack articles (or disambiguation pages) because they're politically convenient. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My earlier comment focused on procedural issues with this AfD. Now, I'll present the actual rationales for keeping the dab page. The nominator argues that the See also articles are irrelevant and serve merely as padding, but this is incorrect. Cultural Bolshevism is both topically and historically related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, as both articles explain. Similarly, Western Marxism and Cultural studies are closely linked to Marxist cultural analysis, and all three topics overlap to a significant extent. One unique link not available in any other article is the link to Wiktionary, which is particularly important because the term cultural Marxism is highly politicized and has evolved into a meme. None of the articles directly address this aspect -- nor should they, as this is the role of Wiktionary. In summary, given the politicized nature of the term, the inclusion of the Wiktionary link and the "See also" articles not only aids navigation but also provides readers with an important option unavailable elsewhere, representing a reasonable exception to the WP:ONEOTHER guideline. As with any Wikipedia guideline, exceptions may apply, and Cultural Marxism is one such exceptional case. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, these are nuanced discussions that should be addressed in the RfC, which is why I again urge postponing the AfD until the RfC is complete. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to happen. TarnishedPath^talk 10:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no sources that say "cultural Marxism" refers to anything that you're claiming it does (eg. refers to any of the pages you've listed). That's your problem. You may see them as "relevant" but that only makes them eligible for a "See also" section, not a for the creation of a disambig. 101.115.128.217 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Request A variety of articles on "Cultural Marxism" have been to AFD before (sometimes multiple times) would anyone be willing to track down the previous AFD discussions and provide links to them here? Thanks in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz, at the moment what I can find is:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination), and
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 6

  The fact that there was an AFD with the term "2nd Nomination" in it would seem to suggest that there was at least one AFD prior to that, but when I look at the pages deletion log, I can't find reference of it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Bolshevism. TarnishedPath^talk 09:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Talk:Frankfurt School/Archive 18#Split? for a discussion in which consensus was found to split out material from Frankfurt School to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This occurred after the AFD discussion of Cultural Marxism listed above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#History of "Cultural Marxism" Article/Redirect/DAB where an editor has documented a bit of history. TarnishedPath^talk 09:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a timeline of major developments related to "Cultural Marxism" and its associated articles, including splits, mergers, RfCs, and AfDs. 87.116.177.103 (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. There is simply no need for a disambiguation page when there are only two articles with similar names. To do so will at best slow down and frustrate readers, as Rjjiii describes in refuting the "Boston" example.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 07:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. A hatnote is more effective at getting readers to the other article if they end up in the wrong place. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Either there is a primary topic, or there isn't. If there is, as explained by others, WP:ONEOTHER tells us to delete the disambiguation. If there isn't, the article "Cultural Marxism (disambiguation)" is a content fork because the right place to put the contents of that page is "Cultural Marxism", which is currently a redirect. In either case, the article should be deleted per per WP:ONEOTHER or WP:CFORK respectively.McYeee (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A lot of the discussion on this page seems to have wandered afield of the question of whether this DAB should be deleted, and might be better suited elsewhere. CAVincent (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desserts (film) (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)

Completely unreferenced article about a short film. As always, films are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to be reliably sourced as passing certain specific notability criteria to qualify for inclusion -- however, the only claim of notability even attempted here is that Ewan McGregor was in it, but films do not inherit notability from their cast members, so having a famous actor in it does not exempt a film from having to pass WP:GNG in and of itself.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived British media coverage from the 1990s can find better sourcing than I've been able to locate on the Google, but even Ewan McGregor can't magically exempt short films from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has a BEFORE been performed?? No. " His first short film, Desserts, won the Silver Bear at the 1999 Berlin Film Festival." (https://www.torinofilmfest.org/en/17-torino-film-festival/film/desserts/684/) Plus multiple results on GBooks. Unsourced articles need sources not deletion. Willing to improve this later. (https://www.sansebastianhorrorfestival.eus/1999/ing/desserts.htm http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/desserts for verification) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, a BEFORE most certainly was performed.

Secondly, the source for any film award win has to be journalistic reportage about the award presentation in media, not film festival catalogues. An award has to itself be notable (i.e. pass WP:GNG) before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so the award has to be referenced to GNG-worthy media coverage in order to demonstrate that the award is notable enough to constitute a notability claim, and a film cannot be notable for winning an award that you have to source to promotional content on the self-published website of a film festival in lieu of proper media coverage about said award.

Thirdly, the sourcing for thing else about the film also has to be coverage about the film in media, not the self-published catalogues of film festivals or directory entries. Films always have to be shown to pass WP:GNG regardless of what notability claims are attempted, no notability claim is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt a film from having to be referenced to GNG-worthy sourcing, and film festival catalogues and directory entries are not GNG-worthy sourcing. GNG requires journalistic coverage about the film in media, not indiscriminate-inclusion directory entries and directly affiliated promotional sources. Bearcat (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! So you performed a BEFORE but you failed to mention the short had WON a Silver Bear in your not-so-short rationale? (:D) Sure. You probably forgot that tiny detail. But I'll assume good faith. As for the rest, no. Coverage in books (see page, where one of the sources for the award is a BOOK: can you check it again -since you probably had seen it in your BEFORE?-) and any reliable source are OK for verification. The film has won a notable award at one the most prestigious film festivals in the history of cinema, it can therefore be considered notable. And that is just one reason to keep it. Also, self-published is generally not used with the meaning you seem to think it has; the links are to OFFICIAL websites of notable film festvals, they cannot be described as "self-published catalogues". I don't know what "sourcing for thing else" means. Anything? Sure. Again, not only "media" coverage counts. Just read the guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be interesting to compare the reply to my !vote, by the nominator, with that comment by the same user, at another AfD (where they were in favour of retaining the page....) it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)} (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cluer) Do different standards apply to BLPs of (Canadian) filmmakers? Sourced nominations/collective wins at certainly notable Canadian awards imply "inherent notability" (emphasis not mine) in certain cases but films winning extremely notable awards at international festivals, although sourced with various references, should not be considered notable? -despite W:NFILM stating they can be considered notable if they win a major award-. Food for thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:BEFORE only requires me to scan the results of a search to determine whether there are reliable and WP:GNG-worthy sources available in the pool, and does not require me to manually investigate each link to determine whether there's a hidden potential notability claim — at the time of nomination, the article did not say that there were any awards involved, so it is not my responsibility to have discovered that. BEFORE only requires me to determine whether reliable or GNG-worthy sources are available to salvage the article with, and does not require me to do the salvaging myself.

Secondly, you know what else isn't GNG-worthy support for notability either? Ebooks self-published by their own writers through print-on-demand houses.

And there's no conflict between what I'm saying here and what I said at Sebastian Cluer, either: the difference hinges on reliable sourcing. Sebastian Cluer's Canadian Screen Award nominations and wins were properly sourced to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage that reported the CSA nominees and winners as news, which means I applied the same standards to both topics and said absolutely nothing different there than here. The argument there wasn't that he was exempted from having to have any sourcing because of the award claims, the argument was about whether or not we needed to also find biographical sourcing about him in addition to the properly sourced award claims, which isn't the same thing at all.

By far the majority of winners of the Silver Bear for Best Short Film do not have Wikipedia articles, as can be seen by simply looking at that article. It's not that they can't have articles, obviously, but properly sourcing articles about short films is frequently harder than properly sourcing articles about feature films is, and the films are not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because there's an award involved — even a film with an award-related notability claim still has to be properly sourced. So most of the films in that list don't have articles, because it's a lot harder to find GNG-worthy sourcing that properly supports articles about short films. And again, that's not different from Sebastian Cluer at all, as his award-related notability claim was properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who wrote "The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have)." but the Silver Bear win for the present short is now sourced with at least 4 reliable sources. Properly sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not substantially edit your comments once they have been replied to. It can be at best very confusing. Please kindly remove the added text and insert it below if you wish, per Wikipedia:REDACTED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]