Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 30

< October 29 October 31 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2019 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. It was discussed by the members of the discussion that the page will be redirected. It was also said the general notability guideline was violated. (non-admin closure) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Un-chol

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 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 procedural close‎. AfD does not handle drafts; the correct process is MfD. I'll equally-procedrally start a nomination there. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hurricane Kristy(2024)

[edit]
Draft:Hurricane Kristy(2024) (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Hurricane Kristy(2024)|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)

Wrongly formatted references + theres already been a discussion regarding this needing an article (which was a no.) Insendieum ✉️ 23:11, 30 October 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 Weightlifting at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's 75 kg. Per WP:SOFTDELETE and minimal participation.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Kay Poh

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

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

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 23:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nobel Prize in Physics

[edit]
2024 Nobel Prize in Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

@Johnjbarton, Ldm1954, MYSKaoi, Jähmefyysikko, Quondum, and Sushidude21!: courtesy ping because you participated in the previous conversation.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Discussion of a merge or redirect can continue on the talk page if desired. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tralfamadore

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Jontesta: What about "Tralfamadore is America: Cultural History in Slaughterhouse - Five" and the chapter dedicated to Tralfamadore in The Vonnegut Encyclopedia as secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick look at the first source would seem to indicate that it's not really about Tralfamadore as such but about themes in Slaughterhouse-Five? I can only see part of the second source, but it seems to mainly contain in-universe information and notes that it is not consistently portrayed across works. Maybe there's something I'm missing as I haven't taken a close or in-depth look at either source, but they do not strike me as obviously useful for a stand-alone article on Tralfamadore. What's more, if our article is correct in stating that Tralfamadore is the name of several fictional planets in the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, then it's very questionable if this is even a single topic in a meaningful sense in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TompaDompa describes it better than I could. As far as I can tell the sources describe the story of Slaughterhouse-Five. The rare use of Tralfamadore is as a metonym for the novel. Jontesta (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still non-trivial coverage in a reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to access at least two peer-reviewed pieces. These are both over 35 years old
    Mustazza, L. (1986). Vonnegut’s Tralfamadore and Milton’s Eden. Essays in Literature, 13(2), 299–312.

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

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

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

And those are merely two of the first four scholar hits I reviewed--the two others were an undergraduate paper and a masters' thesis, neither as suitable as journal-published papers to conclusively demonstrate the inadequacy of the nomination. While a nominator can be forgiven for not having access to these sources, they are both from the first page of a Google Scholar search on the article name. The WP:BEFORE search articulated by Jontesta appears to be either fictional or sufficiently incomplete as to constitute a WP:CIR violation. I AGF that there's a somehow a better, if nonintuitive, explanation. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The nonintuitive thing about this is that the article is (ostensibly) about Tralfamadore generally in Vonnegut's oeuvre, not the Tralfamadore of any individual one of the works—because they are apparently very different. If the sources do not treat them collectively, this article is in effect a variant of creating a WP:FRANKENSTEIN. In that case, the scope of this article is inherently invalid—the alternative being having articles like Tralfamadore (Slaughterhouse-Five) and Tralfamadore (The Sirens of Titan) and so on, or else covering it at the articles for the works themselves (Slaughterhouse-Five, The Sirens of Titan, and so on). Another way of looking at it is through the lens of WP:NOTDICT: if the different Tralfamadores are not meaningfully part of the same topic (as per how the sources treat them in their coverage), it does not matter that they share the name "Tralfamadore" because On Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. Both sources you quote seem to be specifically about Slaughterhouse-Five: the first describes Tralfamadore as being from that work in the abstract and is tagged with "Slaughterhouse-Five" as a keyword but not any other work, while the second discusses the book and its 1972 film adaptation. TompaDompa (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources do not treat them collectively They do: The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places article "Tralfamadore" (specifically the versions from The Sirens fo Titan and Slaughterhouse-Five) referenced in the article and The Vonnegut Encyclopedia (for all of Vonnegut's works) listed above both talk about differences between the versions but treat them as one entity. So if those secondary source cover various versions under one heading, it is not original research if we do, and therefore not WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Daranios (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite right, and the reason I brought up WP:NOTDICT: covering all Vonnegut planets called "Tralfamadore" under the same heading is not the same thing as treating them as one and the same planet (again, grouping things by what they are called versus by what they are, or the dictionary approach versus the encyclopedic approach). If Wikipedia is to cover them under the same heading, they need to be the same (in the sense that applies to fictional elements). What's more, you are misreading The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places (which is also a rather marginal source that takes a very in-universe perspective, though it can often be useful for in-universe details): it explicitly says A later report of Tralfamadore—which might have been illusory and almost certainly referred to a different alternativerse [...]. In other words, it explicitly states that they are different entities. If anything, that source is evidence that the article scope is invalid. But maybe the consensus among the sources is that there is one true Tralfamadore and the different appearances should be considered as referring to one and the same fictional entity—in which case our article is wrong and needs to be fixed. TompaDompa (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Deciding what the best course of action is would be a lot easier if we had somebody familiar with the topic and what sources there may be. Pinging a couple of editors I know to be knowledgable about science fiction: @Mike Christie and Olivaw-Daneel: what do you think? In particular, is this meaningfully a single topic? TompaDompa (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the Deciding what the best course of action is would be a lot easier if we had somebody familiar with the topic. Even if the versions are quite different, secondary sources, both those already listed and others, recognize that those versions are very much self-referential: Unstuck in Time, p. 133: the Trafalmadore from Slaughterhouse-Five "that we recognize from Sirens of Titan"; Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five, p. 110: "Tralfamadore [from Slaughterhous-Five] - the distant world ... from which the flying-saucer pilot Salo had come in The Sirens of Titan; Sirens, p. 63: "The Sirens of Titan and Slaughterhouse 5 play with time through their main character's engagement with a fictitious planed named Tralfamadore, which plays a central role in both novels"; Heimatländer der Phantasie on Hocus Pocus: "and Tralfamadore is back again, too"; Satire und Roman, p. 333: ..."the planet Tralfamadore, to which the protagonist Billy Pilgrim feels transported, first appears in The Sirens of Titan; Visions and Re-visions, p. 164: "Back to Tralfamadore: Hocus Pocus"; Study Guide to Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut: "reappearance: object is to trace the recurrance of Vonnegut's places, characters, objects in different stories; e.g., Pilgrim's Tralfamadore first figured in The Sirens of Titan". Daranios (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, recognizing that reusing the name "Tralfamadore" for a planet is a form of self-reference by Vonnegut is a rather trivial observation. Is there a good reason to cover all appearances on the same page? Is there a good reason to even have a stand-alone planet article in the first place? My impression from the sources I've looked at (briefly, admittedly) is that content about Tralfamadore in The Sirens of Titan benefits from the context of that novel and content about Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse-Five benefits from the context of that novel, but that content about Tralfamadore in The Sirens of Titan does not really benefit from the context of Tralfamadore in Slaughterhouse-Five nor vice versa. I would love to be proven wrong about this, but it doesn't seem to me like we have much hope of writing a cohesive article on Tralfamadore à la what I did for the Mesklin article where there actually is good reason to cover the planet separately from the works it appears in. If it is the case that the shared name "Tralfamadore" is fundamentally incidental, simply noting on the Kurt Vonnegut article that the name was used for various stories might be the best option, in which case we could redirect this title to an WP:ANCHOR there. It's not like the current content of the Tralfamadore article is worth preserving, seeing as it's all unsourced apart from a lengthy excerpt from Slaughterhouse-Five. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa: The secondary sources do go beyond "the name was reused" to a degree: The Dictionary of Science Fiction Places has "what the two races of Tralfamadore had in common was that they both regarded human beings as..." and so forth. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five, p. 110, directly puts three variants of Trafalmadore in relation to each other, even though I cannot see a direct conclusion drawn from that. Heimatländer der Phantasie draws the comparison between the variants in Sirens and Hocus Pocus, both having the same function of messing up the history of humanity. Study Guide to Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut considers it a worthwhile exercise of textual analysis to trace the variants throughout Vonneguth's works. So without deciding yet if this is the best way to present things, yes, based on that I believe putting the variants in context to each other is beneficial and is what secondary sources do, i.e. not WP:FRANKENSTEIN. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I suspect Daranios is being overly charitable here. The question before us is "Does Tralfamadore have enough RS to write a decent encyclopedia article about it?" which I have demonstrated conclusively to be affirmative. What is to be covered in that article is beside the point, as that is an editorial decision not requiring--or even benefiting from--an AfD discussion. Your arguments here are both wrong (one title can indeed cover two distinct uses of a fictional term) and out of order.
The secondary issue is nominator conduct, by representing that a BEFORE had been conducted and found nothing usable when my cursory look at scholar shows plenty of sources--again, this is either falsehood, mistaken or intentional, or simply a lack of competence. For example, since BEFORE D.1. states Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. it is plausible for the nominator to assert that the topic was not understood to be a topic of academic interest, but such an assertion would itself be ridiculously lacking in literary awareness despite that plausibility, hence my CIR comment. Regardless, it brings us into SK #3 territory, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAGEDECIDE is a question routinely considered at WP:AfD. The content of the article matters for that, as does the scope—we obviously cannot decide whether a stand-alone article should exist if we do not know what it is to be about. I'm sure you remember that this was a key question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discrimination against superheroes back in August. There, one important question was whether the scope of the article as it existed accurately reflected the coverage in the sources or whether there was a problem of WP:SYNTH. There, the article was ultimately not kept but a very small fraction of it was merged. The situation for this article is not entirely dissimilar, seeing as the scope of the article is in question (more specifically, whether it is even appropriate to consider it a single topic). TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one title can indeed cover two distinct uses of a fictional term, but then we are at WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If the scope of this article is supposed to be "Tralfamadore" as a word, then we need sources discussing "Tralfamadore" as a word (and the article would need to be rewritten to reflect that). Otherwise, covering different topics that are called the same thing—even if both are fictional—at the same article violates WP:NOTDICT. As an example: if there were, hypothetically, a Star Trek planet called "Tatooine", it would not be appropriate to cover it at the article for the (obviously different) Star Wars planet Tatooine. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a detail, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-five on p. 47 does have to say something on the word, that it is an anagram of Fatal Dream. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A theorectical article Tralfamadore (Slaughterhouse-Five) in itself would be a notable topic based on how much discussion there is in secondary sources. The same is at least likely for Tralfamadore (The Sirens of Titan). As I have said above, secondary sources do connect those, so they would benefit from being presented together. But what then of the other variations, e.g. in Hocus Pocus. That one is likely not notable as a stand-alone article, but is still commented on in secondary sources. So such content would need to be covered in a parent article in accordance with WP:ATD-M, i.e. be covered here under Tralfamadore (no brackets). The different variations could also be presented each in the context of their respective novels, and that may also be beneficial. But then they are initially cut off from the context of the other variations. So on solution would be to have the commentary in both places based on WP:NOTPAPER. Not a WP:CONTENTFORK then, because it is in a different context each time. Or we could transform this into a disambiguation page linking to the variants/works they appear in, merging content there which we have here now. Or we might bring together all those suggestions together, treating/transforming this into a list of the variants of Trafalmadore, which gives enough definition and publication info to know what they are and presenting the commentary referring among the different variations. And presenting the (more extensive) commentary for each variant referring to the larger plot of their respective works to those works, or even stand-alone articles on the variants in case such commentary becomes too much for the novel article. I guess the latter is my preferred way to go, meaning keep with some spinout/transfer to the novel articles, and ideally some expansion from the secondary sources collected. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Set index article? TompaDompa (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess Dodge Charger seems pretty comparable to me. Similar to a disambiguation page, but allowing for a reasonable amount of commentary. Daranios (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps work. I'm mostly worried about a WP:SYNTH mess arising if editors aren't careful enough with source use. TompaDompa (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, a WP:Set index article (or indeed any kind of properly-constructed article) is not what we have now. The current article is based entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources (which is the charitable interpretation—the alternative is that it's WP:Original research) in direct violation of policy. If this is kept as a stand-alone article, it will be necessary to start over from scratch. Given that the article is over twenty years old and still in this unacceptable state, kicking the can down the road on bringing it up to acceptable standards (even if it would remain relatively poor) is not a particularly enticing prospect—experience has shown that far too often, the necessary improvement does not materialize within a reasonable amount of time. If nobody commits to fixing the article, what do we think should happen then? I would suggest committing to some other approach to resolving the issues, such as for instance revisiting the discussion about what to do (presumably on the article talk page) in e.g. 6 or 12 months. We could also move the discussion to the talk page immediately, I suppose. Other options include adding a bunch of maintenance tags and reducing the article to a single-sentence stub. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've looked them up now, I would be happy to add the discussed bits of commentary connecting variations if this is kept, given time. (I still did not get around to finish my part in an earlier project, though.) I am not familiar with the primary sources, but so far don't have a reason to suspect that the current content is original research rather than plot summary. I can look a bit into what the secondary source which is given but not used in-line can reference. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'll remove the unsourced content and the WP:PRIMARY excerpt to make way for properly sourced content. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep It's a recurring motif, noted as such by commentators on Vonnegut. The sources provided up a ways would be enough for a small but decent article that describes the variations Vonnegut played on the motif. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Zxcvbnm (though Kurt Vonnegut may be a better target). There isn't much here, and the WP:PLOT appearances are already mentioned at the book articles. I appreciate good faith efforts to find sources, but it's hard to reconcile claims of WP:SIGCOV with the difficulty of finding any reception or analysis. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, did you read the sample paragraphs I lifted from multiple-page academic journal articles analyzing the topic? I just don't see your feedback here is congruent with the reality I demonstrated. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shooterwalker and Zxcvbnm: As another secondary source which deals with the overall topic of Tralfamadore, Breaking Down Vonnegut p. 84 has a paragraph of analysis, as well as more commentary on individual variants in other parts of the book. As an intermediate state consisting of publication history, commentary, and the plot summary necessary as context, we are already beyond the fuzzy 250 word size of a stub. So do you still see it as the best solution to remove from view the sourced content collected so far and vote against further expansion here based on all the listed sources by turning this into a redirect? Daranios (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. There seems to be enough here to write a meaningful article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 23:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Ismay

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

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

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 23:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October Betrayal

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: this needs reworking... We're not even given the date it happened until about half way down and it's missing information. Seems to be sourced to RS, but this reads like a half-translated article that someone gave up on. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources for the words 'October Betrayal' are the headline of an online news site and a youtube video with 8 views from 3 years ago. While many of the sources in the article seem to be RS, it is not clear what this is an article of and, therefore, what is being sourced or needs to be sourced. It is also unclear what would be being rewritten if this was redrafted. With that being said, charges of 'partisan' levelled at sources in the article are not useful in nominating an article for deletion. The information in the article, while unbalanced, is not necessarily partisan. None of the cited sources seem to be blogs. Thudinspecies (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: need rewriting and elaboration as well. UzbukUdash (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. asilvering (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutty Professor (character)

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

No reliable sources cited ―Howard • 🌽33 19:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) ~ Tails Wx 19:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Chistov

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Needs secondary sources about the subject of the article. Demt1298 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 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. There is a strong numerical majority in favour of keeping, and furthermore there is evidence in those !votes showing that this is a topic that is widely covered in sources. This is not saying for definite in Wikipedia's voice that Mr Trump is a "fascist", simply noting what reliable sources have said on this topic. Note also that I'm closing the RM on this in tandem with the AfD, and the article will be shortly moved back to its original title of simply "Donald Trump and fascism".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

[edit]


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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense). It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality. :To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is a shame for wikipedia to loose neutrality, the page must be deleted Fasil H. (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. I think this article certainly deserves to exist because it is a common topic of discussion, and has been for at least 3 years (after January 6) but I think a lot of improvements could be made. The article kinda makes it look like only silly conservatives are uncomfortable with the term 'fascist' being applied to Trump, but some scholars have resisted the term as well, and I think that should be given more weight in the article. As far as I can tell, even scholars with a negative view of Trump sometimes think that 'fascism' is too far, seeing him as an opportunist, or, most commonly, not politically astute enough to have a real ideology. And so we should mention that in addition to the slightly different conservative defense (that the word is thrown around too much or is a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome). Birdsgeek (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a lot of studies, commentators, political analysts and politicians who have rightly compared Trump to a fascist. And a legitimate topic should not be removed from Wikipedia just because it's hurts the POV of a section of the populace. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for violating WP:SYNTH and being irrevocably NPOV. I mean seriously, what next? ‘List of lies told by Rishi Sunak’? ‘Comparisons between Joe Biden and Joe Stalin’? This is absurd. Riposte97 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not American but I follow American politics from my native Africa and what I see is that, over time, Wikipedia has become a strong bastion of the Western far left. This kind of article is just a direct attack on a right-wing politician. An article that takes up all the rhetoric of the far-left. And as luck would have it, this article was written the same day THE GUARDIAN published an article "Is Donald Trump a fascist?".
  • Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:

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

    charlotte 👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.
Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" Gremlin742 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term Fascist and Communist is thrown around so loosely these days without any experience or knowledge of what those words mean. It is sad and amusing to hear people say Joe Biden is a Communist or Donald Trump is a Fascist simply because its an easy trigger word to discredit them. These arguments are being made by uneducated people who would not know Communism or Fascism if it hit them in the face and broke their nose.
_
I would love to hear stories of people who truly suffered under the horrible Fascist Trump Regime of 2016-2020, or the tyrannical Communist Biden Regime of 2020-2024, it must have been so horrible, probably more so than Romania where during the Communism regime where women couldn’t have abortions, and if they got pregnant they would be jailed or killed so they would be forced to undergo at home abortions, risking things going wrong and never being able to have children again. Artem P75 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" George Orwell in Politics and the English Language Wizmut (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

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

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

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment Rob Roilen (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least be heavily rewritten so it is not bias propaganda against one side, but if that doesn't happen then it should be deleted Gremlin742 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether or not it happens, its about whether or not it CAN happen. If the issue with an article CAN be fixed, deletion is entirely unnecessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

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

Labeling Donald Trump as a "fascist" is legitimate.

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

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

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

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

QalasQalas (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from this appearing to be AI generated (according to 10 different detectors), I don't see the point you were attempting to make here. Everyone could spend an eternity comparing person X to fascism, communism or any other ideology

Make no mistake, I also believe Donald Trump is very comparable to a fascist. But we cannot undermine WP:NPOV just because we have the impression he is comparable to one. Millions disagree, making it a view at the end of the day, not a factual statement. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is "millions disagree" how Wikipedia determines a factual statement? Millions believe the moon landing was faked. To stay within the realm of US politics, millions believe that Trump won the 2020 election. 2601:600:CB00:B0F0:949B:4319:E991:38C1 (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion and is it happenstance that the first edit you make calls for the deletion of a page concerning trump and fascism by attacking & name calling liberals. Wikipedia is not a rw echo chamber. Nohorizonss (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia rule books as many who have commented here are. I am just a regular user of the website. In my opinion, it would be wise to delete this article. When it comes to comparison between two ideologies (in this case fascism and Trump's beliefs and actions) it would take an unbiased person to deliver a satisfyingly neutral summary of the situation due to the potentially endless angles from which the comparison could be made, all of which are important in understanding the issue. This page is almost destined to be stained by bias, whether intentionally or not, and there's no reason the readers of Wikipedia who are interested in this subject cannot/would not simply use this website to research fascism and Trump separately in order to make their own comparison and analysis. That's my two cents at least. 66.177.187.250 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete
  1. This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
  2. The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
  3. Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
  4. Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
  5. NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.

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

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

off topic
@Steven Britton: Having they/them pronouns does not constitute a conflict of interest. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please remove that personal attack, those things aren't welcome here. SMG chat 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a personal attack. I worded it very carefully to avoid an appearance of it being a personal attack. The use of the pronouns can, and does, in this politically-charged environment, bring the author's own motivations into question. I am sure that they are a perfectly decent and upstanding person. I am also sure they have a set of opinions that may, or may not, be in sync with the rest of us. That being said, it is very reasonable and objectively true that a specific set of opinions of a certain community is very strongly linked to the use of pronouns. Which is the basis behind the need to call their motivations into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I use gender-neutral pronouns online (despite my name). Does that make me biased? No! SMG chat 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to focus on that one particular point to invalidate every other point I made, I guess that's up to you. The fact remains, there's a perceived link between use of pronouns and political bias. I have never said there actually was a bias, just that there is an appearance of one. Steven Britton (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY RESPONSES. CENSORSHIP HAS NO PLACE HERE. I HAVE REMOVED THE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT LIKE - AS ACCURATE AS IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS STAND FOR THEMSELVES.
Just because you don't "like" or "agree" with something I said in terms of linking item A to ideology B does not invalidate the point that there does exist a link, and that link, even if not true in a specific case, can and does create an appearance of bias and call motivation into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of bias because of their gender identity will not help you. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failing to adhere to Wikipedia's personal attack policy will get you blocked, no matter the context. SMG chat 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Play nice, we don't care how people identify here. Bias can be discussed without the nasty words. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to play nice. I removed this section because it distracts from the rest of this discussion, and I have also removed the part of my above arguments for “speedy delete” that was contentious. The others restored it for some reason. I have my own suspicions, but you will have to ask them why they decided to restore it. Steven Britton (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also did not see my original statement, I suspect.
I think it’s noteworthy that a discussion was opened on the admin page about “personal attacks” (which did not occur, and certainly not intended) as well. The motivation behind that decision is something I am also wondering about. In the spirit of good faith, I leave it to them to share their reasoning - or not, as they see fit. Steven Britton (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Steven Britton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (with exceptions) Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree the amount of opinion or "newsy" articles need to be trimmed back, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, I'm sure even more of them not used here. Also, a lot of peer reviewed studies are not inline citations but merely "further reading". Except maybe for since mid 2024, studies generally take a long time to compile and many former administration officials calling him fascist is obviously noteworthy enough on its own. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.
Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from my comment above:
So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.
_
I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.
_
It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims
_
Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

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

— Duplicate !vote: Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:
_
If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.
_
Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not agree that titling an article "Comparisons between ________ and fascism" and then packing it with examples of sensational language describing the person as a fascist is meant to, in essence, call the person a fascist?
The lede contains the claim that "49% of American registered voters see Donald Trump as a fascist", which immediately primes the reader and skews the framing of the article. This claim comes from an online poll of only 2,392 people, conducted by Ipsos, a company with a recognized left-of-center bias. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PLEASE NOTE:

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

  • Delete Plainly not NPOV Rob Roilen (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the above comments identify issues that can be fixed by editing. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Trumpism This article’s topic is framed in a way that ensures that the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. When writing articles that deal with contentious subjects (and doubly so for contentious BLPs), I think we do need to be careful that our article topics don’t essentially lock out reliable sources from one side of a controversy. I believe that merging this article into the Trumpism article is most in line with our policies on NPOV. (For the record, I’m worried about the precedent that keeping this article up under its current title could set for other, unrelated articles. My vote is in no way motivated by support for the former president). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spirit of Eagle: the overwhelming majority of “relevant” sources are coming from people who hate Trump. Citation needed on that - many of these sources are also considered to be quality reliable sources as per past discussions at WP:RSN, as tabulated at WP:RSP. JavaHurricane 05:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A source that compares a 21st century politician to fascists is a source that takes an extraordinarily negative view on that politician. My issue here isn’t the reliability of the sources within the article, it’s that the article’s very topic means that the vast majority of relevant sources are going to take an extremely negative position on Trump. To be clear, I think that many of these sources are reliable and should be cited in an article about Trump’s ideology. However, this should be done in a way that doesn’t give them undue weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's obviously notable: for example, there is an entire debate on this topic in the academic journal Fascism. Although I don't personally think that fascism makes a good analysis, I do not find most of the delete/merge !votes to be consonant with our policies. Too much has been said about it to make a good merge into another article, since it would be UNDUE there. CRYBLP does not mean we should delete articles on notable topics. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This topic isn't just a news or social media thing, it has been also extensively covered by political scientists, with fruits of their work being published in various journals. In Google Scholar and JSTOR, there is a sizable portion of journal articles describing comparisons between Trump's ideology and fascism. Some of these sources can be integrated into the article to make it more based on objective facts. Antitransphobe (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Hundreds of high quality sources talking about this issue. Sir MemeGod deserves a trout for wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened to WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Very surprised to hear that, especially from someone that I look up to. MemeGod chat 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually have a look at the history of this discussion you will find that SMG raised the issue on behalf of many due to a large amount of requests on the talk page. They have stated that they remain impartial on the issue and that their political views are democrat So I do believe they remain impartial on the issue, and they have certainly not wasted anyone's time, if you again take the time to review the history of the topic. I think you will also find that while these sources in themselves are generally WP:RS, you will also find that politically motivated news stations who caries a bias are far from reliable. Comparing Donald Tramp to fascism, or on the other hand Biden or Harris to communism is sad, uneducated, and done in ignorance of the real weight that those words historically carry. Anyone claiming either political parties are fascist or communist are also uneducated and ignorant on the historical weight of those words and are obviously using them as strong trigger words to discredit someone or associate someone with something so horribly negative and showing a clear and obvious bias against who they are claiming to be those things. "But some actions meet the dictionary definition" or "there has been academic study on this" If we wrote articles exact to every dictionary definition Wikipedia would be more of a mess than what it already is. Dictionary definitions are not perfectly exact or specific and should be considered in light of the history to understand them properly. Academic studies, especially on political topics, often carry a strong amount of bias and will use specific sources to support their own view points - unless the topic of the academic paper is something of real research like the discovery of a new sustainable fuel source for example - matters such as this are purely opinion pieces. Artem P75 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Short summary, the two main reason are that the article is just so far away from being neutral that its beyond saving and that the timing, this close to the election makes it hard to believe that the person that wrote it even tried to make it neutral, so clearly it is conflict of interest.
I have spent pretty much time on this topic and it has been an interesting journey. I first went to read through the abstract on the first page of results from google scholars, surprisingly it was very hard to find these academic people that call Trump a fascist, many was talking about the Trump movement and his rhetoric, but not about Trump himself. It was on the other hand very easy to find the opposite, sources that said he was not a fascist. for example a here: "Discussing whether Trump himself is a fascist may not be the most fruitful endeavour. Trump may be many things; a narcissist with a grandiose sense of self, a compulsive confabulator, a populist charlatan, but there is not much to indicate that he is politically conscious, or even interested enough to have adopted an ideology of any sort, including fascism" Mattias Gardell, Professor at the Centre for Multidisciplinary Studies on Racism, University of Uppsala. source so for me the first sentence of the article "There has been significant academic and political debate over whether Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, qualifies as a fascist" is really far from what I found, after reading all these abstracts.
Next step I went through the sources from this quote of the article "During his 2024 presidential campaign, a growing number of scholars, historians, commentators, politicians, former Trump officials, and generals have described Trump as a fascist". This was really surprising, because very few of the sources said that Trump was a fascist, it was similar as with the google schoolar articles, many called his rhetoric fascist, but very few said that Trump himself was a fascist. According to me Wikipedia should write what the sources says and I think this is not the case here. One funny thing was that one source doesn't even mention the word "fascism", it talks about "Authoritarian", for me it is a hell of a stretch to say that it is the same thing.
So now we come to the main problem with this sort of article. If you compare someone with something that is both pretty vague defined and something that literally no one will say that they are themself, we will easily get a bad article. Most people that will edit this sort of article are those that already agree that Trump would be a fascist, I think that is one reason it will be almost impossible to make this article neutral.
Last thing, that poll is just so ridiculous, quote: "49% of registered voters consider Trump to be a fascist", for me that has to do a lot with that fascist is not only political term, it's also an insult. /Bro (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’Speedy Keep’ and i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds. This is obviously a notable topic whether you agree he is fascist or not. The fact that it is an “attack” is such a spurious reason for removing scholarly research and information that has been exhaustively covered in the news media. We have pure political attack pages like the canard that Obama is from Kenya; Trump’s fascism has received even more coverage, especially scholarly attention, and has the benefit of actually being true, in addition to its indisputable notability and widespread academic and public attention. Please retire from the project if you voted delete. You do not understand what an encyclopedia is.68.196.5.168 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)— 68.196.5.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't get to attack other people or ask to block them because they disagree with you or !vote differently than you do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1. I promised I’d stay away from this discussion, but words like these shouldn’t be said about others. IP clearly isn’t assuming good faith (which I suggest you read). MemeGod chat 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this statement and others, "i propose that all delete votes should get a 1 week block on WP: Competence is required grounds" Fantastic Mr. Fox is violating Polemic policy and also using wiki:bullying (https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:WikiBullying). The reply should be deleted by an editor. And they should be reprimanded. These replies that lack neutrality and don't check bias don't facilitate informed discussion. Stono rebellion (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, @Fantastic Mr. Fox did not write the above statement, they only added a note to the IP's comment. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that statement can be qualified by saying that "in X poll, Y% of respondents said that ....". And adding one or two other polls with different figures would be NPOV. Lamona (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article clearly does not have a WP:NPOV. The highly controversial opinions about such deeply contentious, divisive, and subjective issues are inappropriate for what should be an impartial and unbiased encyclopedia. It engages in WP:NEGATIVESPIN of a political figure and should most certainly be deleted. --Alistair McBuffio (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article clearly covers a notable topic that's been covered by both the media & academics. I'm personally unimpressed by the delete votes I've read as most seem to be cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or broadly pointing at WP:NPOV with little else of substance. I'd also like to point out that WP:NEGATIVESPIN is not a reason for deletion & specifically states that it doesn't inherently make something an attack page. Any concerns regarding neutrality can be worked on, but currently does not warrant outright deletion. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the name. My initial sense was that this violated WP:NOTESSAY based largely on the article title, but after more review (and looking for other similar articles) I think this is an encyclopedic topic which passes GNG, but is in desperate need of a name change. Fortunately that's already under discussion, which I only realised after the fact... SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rationale for deletion is flawed, even if some content is forked there is such large and global coverage of the subject that it could easily be expanded and made different (have not checked how similar this and Trumpism are). It is expected that Trump sympathizers can be distressed by this inflattering comparison, but these is nothing to do about it as even reputable academics are involved in this public debate about Donald Trump's relation to fascism. Lappspira (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep either to Trumpism or Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. This does mean reducing the content, but I feel that would reflect the proper perspective on this. This article is too long to merge to other articles, and could be listed as "further info" in the Trumpism and the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Of course, there may be much more to say after the election, should he win, but that would then be best in an article about his presidency. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This political topic is getting a lot of coverage in reliable sources, has long-term historical importance, and is important for voter decision-making now and in the future. I just listened to a half-hour with Jason Stanley on the topic [1], who also has a whole book on the subject. Some interesting historical correspondances aren't mentioned in the article, so if anything, it seems like it could be expanded. A lot of "delete" votes seem to be knee-jerk rejections of any mention of widespread criticism of a favored political leader. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think referring to either party leader as a communist or fascist is uneducated and ignorant of the history of what those words mean and the people who experienced real communism or fascism. It is sad that people genuinely think Trump is a fascist or Harris or Biden are communist. Those words seem to have entirely lost their historical meaning and are just thrown around as insults to discredit a candidate that someone does not like - both candidates have their faults, both have their positive attributes - but neither are communist or fascist. If everyone claiming these things looked at the historical suffering under communist or fascist regimes, a lot more people would laugh at these claims. Trump has already been in power, where was the fascism? Who suffered under his horrific fascist reign? Where was the terrible suffering under Biden's horrible communist government? I have no doubt people suffered hardships under both government's terms - but to claim that either was communist or fascist is a mockery of those who have truly experienced and suffered under fascism or communism. Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that. Artem P75 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Artem P75, your opinion on Trump's four-year presidency are irrelevant, and likewise your opinion on Biden. I'm not sure if anyone is claiming in the article that Trump is a fascist (and "comparisons between DT and fascism" is not the same as "DT is a fascist"), but your comment, "Just because someone wrote a book on it or published an academic paper does not change the fact that those are opinion pieces, and ignorant ones at that", profoundly misunderstands the entire academic publishing industry. No, an academic book or article is NOT an "opinion piece", and if they are academically published then they are likely not "ignorant". And if they are academically published then they are exactly the kinds of things we should base our articles on. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies The ignorance comes from the fact that there are claims that either politicians are communist or fascist. In this case comparing trump to fascism or to Hitler. It is a mockery, and yes, very ignorant of the history of the reigns of power that they are actually drawing comparison to and the immense suffering that people went through under those reigns. If you go and look at real fascism, not just the word that people throw around to discredit or insult someone, you would surely understand the point that I am trying to make. Sure, I will agree with you that my opinion regarding either leader is irrelevant as it is purely just an opinion, what i do not think is irrelevant is the fact that the words "fascism" and "communism" have become so widely used as political arrows that the definition is becoming so diluted that they may as well nowadays be synonymous with "that person is very bad," which is sad. And yes, I do still believe that academic publishings on such topics are opinion pieces - just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion. It is very, very easy to take on an opinion, do your due research and find supporting evidence to substantiate one's hypothesis - and, when done by capable authors, will likely be published as a welcome contribution to the academic literature. It does not however change the fact that it is someones opinion on the matter, regardless of how well researched or written it is, otherwise we may as well regurgitate every point of view that can be found as published in an academic journal onto Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Artem P75, "just because it is published in an academic journal, or as a book, does not inherently void its status as an opinion"--sorry, but you don't understand how such publications work at all, and clearly don't have much experience with academic publishing. Please see WP:CIR. And I'll just add that comparing Trump's policies and claims to fascist expressions is actually a thing that apparently a bunch of academics have done, as well as seasoned scholars and commentators, and if the publications are there, in peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources, it's possibly a valid topic, your opinions and ideas notwithstanding. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Drmies I have quite a significant amount of experience in academic publishing and academia in general thank you. An opinion is an opinion regardless of how well written or researched it is, including the fact that it was published or not. A comparison can be drawn either way, for either side of the argument - the fact that there can be more than one side of the conversation quite literally means that it is an opinion. It is not as simple as factually stating, for example, "To those without color blindness, the sky appears blue." Just because a paper may use suggestive, rather than conclusive terminologies such as "drawing from the evidence discussed it can be concluded that Donald Trump could potentially have fascist ideologies" does not make it any less of an opinion. Tip-toeing around, and using different phraseology to make a statement of which an entire publishing is based around, does not change it from a matter of opinion. Artem P75 (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Artem P75: I encourage you to listen to the half-hour with Jason Stanley linked above, and you can hear for yourself how well-researched such comparisons can be. While it's true a lot of people use the word "fascist" as an insult or just to mean "horrifically bad", Stanley points out a lot of specific correspondences between the Nazis and Trump, such as discrediting the media, calling minorities "vermin", complaining that the blood of the country is being polluted by immigrants, controlling the movement of non-Christians (with the Muslim Ban), targeting LGBT people, controlling women's reproduction, etc. A "fascist" (when used in a well-informed way and not as a diluted insult) movement is a particular type of right-wing authoritarian political movement. It does not need to commit crimes against humanity, nor even actually take any sort of political power, to be accurately described as such. Our article Fascism goes into much more detail about the attributes of fascist ideologies. -- Beland (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think your well-reasoned argument points to somthing that is probably lost on a lot of people: Reliable sources are not calling Trump a fascist just to engage in name calling, there is a substantive and emerging body of well-researched work that shows these tendencies. There is no corresponding body of work showing that Harris or Biden or literally any other democrat up to and aincluding Bernie Sanders, is trying to move the country toward communism, because they are not and there is no credible evidence that they want to coming out of their own mouths or their campaigns. That actually is just name calling. You can't "both sides" every single issue. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Just Step Sideways Thank you, I was more including the mention of Biden and Harris to convey that I try my best to remain impartial on these matters and am not taking my opinion because of my political ideologies. @Beland has raised some good points in his comment above that I have overlooked / not considered and will now have a look in to Artem P75 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Beland You raise good points, perhaps I have been too quick to dismiss this matter given the excessive use of the term "fascism" and the way it is so loosely thrown around. I will give the interview with Jason Stanley a listen, it may broaden my interpretation and perspective on the topic Artem P75 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Strong consensus for keep and discussion is getting dreadfully messy. Great Mercian (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the 'strong consensus' to which you refer. Riposte97 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No strong consensus on either keep or delete IMO. I would personally maintain the status quo and leave it up. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep and close per WP: SNOW This was an obvious keep from the beginning. the fact that anyone suggested that a well-established topic of academic research and popular media attention should be deleted from the encylopedia raises WP:Competenceisrequired concerns for all 'Delete' voters, especially the nominator. Nomination is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is high time that Wikipedia stopped kneeling to overly conservative editors who raise spurious concerns of this kind and abuse process to try to remove obviously notable information as "biased." This is not the place for you to debate whether Universities or the popular Media are "biased." Go become a university professor or journalist if you want to claim it is "biased" for notable academic sources and respected newspapers to discuss the topic of Trump and fascism. Notability is obviously met. We must stop pandering to bad-faith abuses of process like this deletion nomination. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this a "bad-faith abuse" of the AfD process? I clearly said that I have no opinion on the issue, and filed the AfD on behalf of others who couldn't due to EC restrictions. Yet I still get called "biased" or an "IDONTLIKEIT" editor. (Sir MemeGod here, I went through a rename about an hour ago). EF5 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obviously highly notable topic. This deletion nomination is as if I nominated Super Bowl for deletion because I don't think sporting events are encylopedic or notable. This topic was always clearly not going to be deleted. No more than a handful of people, many of them trolls, voted to Delete. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling 11+ people "trolls" seems to be a lot of WP:ASPERSIONS. Comparing this to the Super Bowl is only partially relevant, as the Super Bowl isn't a potential WP:CFORK of anything. EF5 19:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the "reasoning" givenn in the delete votes? One of them claimed that using pronouns constituted a conflict of interest. Even reading them charitably, the responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!" and never dispute the fact that this is a widespread topic in mainstream media discussion and has received significant academic attention and hence has met the bar for notability. There is really no point to further discussion here as no delete vote raised an actionable cause for deletion. At most these claims are reasons to edit the content of the page (if they were even true); certainly none of the delete votes gave any reason for deleting the page. This whole discussion was a clear waste of time to appease bad faith arguments that never offered a justification for deletion or dispute of the notability of the topic. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the primary issues of the article is not what happens in the next 5 minutes, it is what happens only the dust has settled. The article will be firmly in the trenches for a very long time regardless of the outcome as it will have a tendency to drift to non-WP:NPOV view. Il also remind everyone here that WP:ONUS exists.

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

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

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

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

That's just my view. I felt the need to explain it more detail. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this matters. This is a topic that has a considerable academic literature and a considerable literature in the popular media-- by definition, these are the reliable sources upon which an encylopedia relies. There was likely enough of a literature on this topic in 2016 prior to the 2016 election to warrant an article. Its omission reflects an unfortunate conservative bias in this encylopedia resulting from abuse of process by bad actors like the present deletion discussion, which is absolutely without merit and should have been closed immediately as Speedy Keep under WP:Snow when the delete votes offered no possible basis for removing the article. This is a clearly extremely notable topic. It is one of the most notable aspects of Trump's political "career. We have articles on controversies on other political figures that could far more reasonably be read as attack pages, such as Birtherism or other pure political smears that were never serious academic topics of debate. No offense, but your position is palpably absurd. Nothing you wrote is relevant to the question of deletion or provides an actionable ground for deletion. This article is not based on a You Tube shorts section; it's written about in scholarly works and reliable newspapers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you actually read the discussion you will notice that there are substantially more reasoning to your claims of "The responses in favor of deletion mostly just say "it's an attack page!"" Maybe take some time to put your own obvious biases aside and try and look at this from a NPOV with a rational mind. Artem P75 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the majority of delete arguments are complaints claiming NPOV, bias, propaganda, or some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with most of those arguments lacking evidence to support their claims. They are also importantly, not policy based arguments.
Neutrality issues are not a reason for deletion, they're a reason to fix the article. The deletion process is for analyzing the topic's legitimacy, not the content's. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please please just stop. You're only demonstrating my point of how messy this discussion has gotten. Great Mercian (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is a policy based argument. Just because you don't like it or agree with it, doesn't mean that it isn't rational and valid - see: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

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

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

I see a bunch of editors above so convinced of themselves that they're comfortable attacking the competence and motivations of others. Aside from coming across as nasty people, they're sure to land themselves at ANI with that attitude. Riposte97 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my comment under the mindset of 'this IP will respond with "So how is this relevant?", then not read WP:ONUS and bring up a WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST point'.

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

If someone can't make even an attempt to understand an opposing article without calling them 'palpably absurd' (i.e personally attacking them) they shouldn't be participating in an AFD. Is their a contentious topic label for US political articles? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain very slowly one more time so that even you might understand. I stated very clearly that the article clearly meets notability guidelines as it is a major topic of academic discussion and debate in reliable media sources. You repeatedly failed to raise a single germane point in opposition and babbled aimlessly to distract from the embarassing lack of substance or even a point to your argument. Please just stop unless you are going to address why you think the extensive scholarly and popular literature on this topic cited in the article fails to establish notability. Whats that? You can’t? Thought so. Cheers. 68.196.5.168 (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't see anything here other than WP:IDNHT material from someone wanting to 'win' a debate (completely wrong attitude). It would be neat of you to withdraw the personal attack earlier. And perhaps, consider trying to edit an article other than a WP:CONTENTIOUS topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 I meant specifically it is not a policy based argument for deletion (I was also referring to !votes that didn't back up their claims & only called NPOV), apologies if my phrasing seemed misleading. I don't understand your meaning behind WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT though, as I haven't really been arguing here, with half my comments being minor clarifications to others.
In regards to the title however, I don't agree with it either. it was originally just "Donald Trump and Fascism", but was moved against consensus to the current title. It has momentarily stuck due to this deletion discussion.
Finally, I agree that the discussion here needs to be more civil. Name calling & insults are pointless impediments to meaningful conversation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Don John's Public Image page - I did a page search for the word "couch" to make sure no JD Vance hoaxes involving rubber gloves were mentioned here. I am very impressed, en Wiki! However, while Trump may be a cheat who has been convicted on tax evasion, for his -"because a prostitute is someone who'll love you, no matter who you are, or what you look like"- business with Stormy Daniels, and God knows what else, op-eds about Trumpty-Dumpty don't need to be taken encyclopediacally. Did Germans call Hitler evil until some hindsight opened their eyes? No! Hell, Trump rambling on about "they're eating the cats" and whatever else didn't need its own article, it felt right under the larger Springfield pet-eating hoax article. Not to say this doesn't belong, but it needs a home. BarntToust 00:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles about a POV are not necessarily POVforks, depending on whether they have been written to inform the reader rather than just proselytize the position that some editors want to give undue weight to. This article for one does a pretty good job at demonstrating that this POV is a significant topic of dicussion among several reliable sources. Badbluebus (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not Delete, then Merge/Redirect to Trumpism or perhaps better Rhetoric of Donald Trump, per WP:FORK; it seems that the content of this article could well fit into either one of these articles. Piccco (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:POVFORK. If reliable sources state Trumpism is a fascist political ideology, then describe it as such at that article. And/or describe Donald Trump as a fascist at the Donald Trump article. (Potentially something such as "Donald John Trump is an American businessman, fascist, racist, and neo-Nazi politician who is the president-elect of the United States"?) If consensus can't be reached to describe Trumpism as a fascist political ideology at Trumpism, and consensus can't be reached to describe Trump as a fascist at Donald Trump, that would prove this is a POVFORK which by its existence gives WP:UNDUE weight to a particular viewpoint. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has plenty of sources that discuss how there is a perception of, and comparisons to, fascism. It doesn't matter whether that perception itself is neutral, only the article itself has to be balanced with NPOV. A couple of people mentioned how we should have equivalent pages for other political figures; we should IF it's being discussed to the same degree, with RS etc., but we're not discussing those pages here. Even if the page itself was NPOV, it's not so far gone that it needs deleting - WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article never states that Trump is a fascist, it only presents comparisons that allows the reader to draw the conclusion if he is or not. -Emily (PhoenixCaelestis) (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 2024 United Kingdom riots#Peter Lynch.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynch (rioter)

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

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

Delete per nom. There are hundreds of these people, this specific one is not unique. This isn't even one that is close to being notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually redirect to section mentioned below PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PARAKANYAA technically you have !voted twice - please strike one. Done. ResonantDistortion 11:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect. Per WP:ONEEVENT, as mentioned by Orange sticker: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it." There is already a section on Lynch in the larger article at 2024 United Kingdom riots#Peter Lynch, and the sources have little additional biographical detail that would be out of the scope of that article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 delete. Procedural close due to G5 deletion‎ by Izno. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Colendi

[edit]
Colendi (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)

Seems quite promotional in nature and does not satisfy WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - there are a few sources discussing this, many of which are fintech or startup-focused blogs and news sites. The one source I do recognize, Bloomberg, is also only reporting on the same $65MM that the company was able to secure, as well as a reported valuation, which is only a single topic and does not indicate notability. I can't assess WP:SIGCOV as Bloomberg is paywalled and blocks the internet archive, but I think this would need to demonstrate better WP:SIGCOV coverage in WP:RS to stand a chance. Turkish sources -may- exist with more info, but for now it looks like yet another tech startup trying to use its funding to build PR, to which I will give a resounding "no thanks" ASUKITE 17:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, Internet, Turkey, and England. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. From WP:SIRS a Fortune article wouldn't count towards notability. So the other sources in the article wouldn't as well besides maybe the Bloomberg. But even then that's just one source
Earlsofsandwich (talk) 18:00, 3 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chibuike Emmanuel Onyekachi

[edit]
Chibuike Emmanuel Onyekachi (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:NBIO. Non-notable award. I don't believe the press pieces are independent of the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The press pieces are independent of the subject and they can be verified too. If you feel or think they're not, I think there should be more research on the sources. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be allowed. I have seen notable publications made about him. By going through the links, you will see they are verified. I also checked with real estate practitioners and confirmed that all information provided is accurate. Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)— Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Can you share some of these publications you've seen? That's what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/08/experts-calls-for-crackdown-on-quacks-in-real-estate-sector/
2)
https://dailypost.ng/2024/09/06/powell-homes-md-architect-onyekachi-earns-global-recognition-for-ethical-leadership-in-real-estate-development/
3)
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/09/onyekachi-wins-client-centered-approach-and-sustainable-housing-solutions-award/
4)
https://journalist101.com/2024/09/09/powell-homes-and-shelters-md-wins-award-for-client-centered-approach-sustainable-housing-solutions/
5>)
https://dailypost.ng/2024/09/14/we-are-focused-on-providing-affordable-housing-to-nigerians-arc-chibuikem-powell-homes-md/
6)
https://independent.ng/we-are-focused-on-providing-affordable-housing-to-nigerians-arc-chibuikem/
7)
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/10/economic-hardship-youths-urged-to-embrace-sustainable-skills/
8)
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/10/meet-architect-chibuikem-onyekachi/
9)
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/10/why-you-need-to-invest-in-nazareth-city-layout-neke-ulo-enugu-mama-g/
10)
https://independent.ng/powell-boss-calls-for-uniform-ogbanecheagu-levies-to-curb-extortion-in-seast-real-estate/
11)
https://journalist101.com/2024/09/26/powell-md-calls-for-uniform-youth-levy-to-curb-extortion-in-southeast-real-estate/
12)
https://thesun.ng/mbahs-anti-land-grabbing-law-a-masterstroke-real-estate-developer/
13)https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/09/arch-onyekachi-receives-ethical-leadership-award/
14)
https://corenews.com.ng/2024/09/08/powell-homes-and-shelters-md-wins-award-for-client-centered-approach-and-sustainable-housing-solutions/technology/
14)
https://newsflash.ng/powell-homes-md-architect-onyekachi-earns-global-recognition-for-ethical-leadership-in-real-estate-development/
An so on.
I took out time to search for his name. All these are notable sites. Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)— Sebastine Chukwuebuka Okafor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcutter

[edit]
Dreamcutter (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 game only has one full review from a RS; the Digitally Downloaded piece just paraphrases the official announcement, Collectors' Editions is more of a database source without significant coverage, and Analog Stick Gaming is run by two people with limited industry experience and qualifications. QuietCicada chirp 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately the review coverage as others have said is non-WP:VG/S, or of the type that typically wouldn't be seen as reliable. This tends to be a common issue with indie games that are getting coverage on self-published / blog / small review sites - it's sadly not enough to substantiate notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:20, 3 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Riptides (Canadian band)

[edit]
The Riptides (Canadian 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)

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass specific criteria supported by reliable sourcing -- but the strongest potential notability claim being attempted here is touring, which is not an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about the tour. But this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, and a ProQuest search only found glancing namechecks and short blurbs rather than substantive coverage that would get them over WP:GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 30 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make Trade Fair (album)

[edit]
Make Trade Fair (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)

Article about a compilation album, not properly sourced as passing WP:NALBUM. Once upon a time, the only notability claim a compilation album had to make was that it had notable artists on it, and no sourcing was required beyond listing the tracks -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and albums now have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability regardless of who was involved in them.
But there are no footnotes here at all, and a search for better sourcing came up empty: even with highly specialized search terms (i.e. just "Make Trade Fair album" wasn't enough) to filter out hits on Coldplay's involvement in Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign, I found absolutely nothing about this album but a few primary sources that aren't support for notability.
The mere fact that an album exists is no longer "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 30 October 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 The Kingpins (Canadian band)#Discography. ✗plicit 23:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Action

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

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

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 14:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtia Polytechnic Institute

[edit]
Kushtia Polytechnic Institute (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:NSCHOOL as it meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Searches in English and Bengali found only passing mentions and routine police blotter coverage such as [8], not the significant coverage required to justify a stand alone article. Previously redirected to supervising board, Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but editor মোঃ সাকিবুল হাসান removed the redirect. Worldbruce (talk) 12:22, 30 October 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. Support for a rename isn't so unanimous that I'll do it unilaterally; suggest opening a WP:RM. asilvering (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil JoJo

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lil JoJo (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)

Recreation of previously deleted article, lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:NOTABILITY. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article has dozens and dozens of independent sources and a variety of such. Proves notability by showing how his death and influence caused major effects in the gang war in Chicago. RowanJ LP (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm personally undecided but will point out that the article might be viable if reconstructed around his murder and his status as the victim, because that received a lot of reliable coverage in Chicago news as a symptom of gang violence. That might require re-titling the article as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman or something similar. His musicial achievements as Lil JoJo are minimal and not notable enough for a musician-based article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename - I am a major contributor to this article. I think there is definitely a justified argument for keeping the article because his murder was a significant event that received major coverage and discussion. His music is foundational to the Chicago drill subgenre, but there is an argument that that alone may not justify designating an entire article for it (given the lack of references about it). I agree with Doomsdayer520's comment above that the page should be re-titled as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebrality (talk • contribs) 24 October 2024 (UTC)

natemup (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more support for the move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, how can it be moved without keeping? I have seen AfDs closed with a "Move" consensus in the past. I assume Admins can see the forest for the trees. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 31 October 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. There's consensus that the reviews of her book is enough for WP:NWRITER. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Avivah Wittenberg-Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [11], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [12]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:41, 30 October 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. I can provide a draft if anyone wants to draftify this article for further expansion if/when her book comes out.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Neal

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

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

Keep: Can be converted to stub. Passes WP:Notability 201.13.76.212 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Profile is notable and ascertains Wikipedia:NPRODUCER. Additional citations flag can help in finding and citing more sources in article.
144.168.11.31 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: The subject appears to align with Wikipedia criteria, with indications of notability within their field. While the article could benefit from further citations to strengthen its reliability, deletion may be premature. Applying an 'additional citations needed' tag would encourage improvement and enhance the article's quality without losing potentially valuable information.
94.20.88.143 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inalugartuut

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

No refs on the page for more than 4 years. I'm not seeing anything at all in searches, can't even WP:V that this is a thing, never mind that it meets the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Inâluartût and Inalugartût Iluat. This might be a transliteration issue. Secretlondon (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's nothing I would want to use as a source. Secretlondon (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German wiki has a disambiguation page with two redlinks for Inalugartuut (mountain) and Inalugartuut Iluat (bay). OpenStreetMap has an entry for the bay, sourced to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (United States). The bay is at 73°37′11″N 55°46′33″W / 73.619710°N 55.775700°W / 73.619710; -55.775700, and is surrounded by rugged terrain. Geonames has Inâluartût (peninsula) just north of the bay at 73°39′N 55°54′W / 73.65°N 55.9°W / 73.65; -55.9. The Cebuano wiki has a robot-generated page for Inâluartût, referencing Geonames. None of this establishes notability even in the weakest WP:NGEO sense. I suppose it could be merged into a list entry in a parent, giving the coords, but I can't see a suitable parent. Nutaarmiut is the nearest settlement, but has nothing to do with the mountain / bay / peninsula. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 R577 (South Africa).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaap-se-Hoogte

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see brief mentions but not the substantial coverage in independent RS needed to reach the notability standards for inclusion JMWt (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There are minimal sources on the internet, but none of those sources are convincing. I suggest a Redirect to R577 (South Africa).
GeographicAccountant (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jairam Kumar Mahato

[edit]
Jairam Kumar Mahato (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:NPOL even WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections. If he does win a seat on November 25, then that will become the time that an article about him can be created, but he does not get to have an article just for being a candidate — so it's not "create an article now and hold off on deleting it until after we know whether he wins or loses the election", it's "he has to win the election before an article can be created in the first place". Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 1 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayHT

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

Non notable product. Spam that smells of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about it. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 30 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEMMCO

[edit]
NEMMCO (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 could find reliable multiple sources and coverage per NCORP. 美しい歌 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 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! 06:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureCash

[edit]
SureCash (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)

Outside of the usual WP:CORPROUTINE, I could not find any coverage of this company. The Bengali name (শিওরক্যাশ) returned similar results, for example, about seeking partnership and closing. Unlikely to have enough sources to write a proper article. Would not object to finding a suitable redirect target, but my mind is blank on that so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 30 October 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) 16:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JZyNO

[edit]
JZyNO (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 charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,[4] and here,[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.[6][7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).[8] This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So he has won an award, and went on to lead the nomination list with 7 nods, that's amazing. dxneo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed any of the concerns brought up in my last reply. Once you are able to do so I will be happy to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.

  1. In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
  2. Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
  3. Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
  4. Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.

All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. dxneo (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References

References

  1. ^ Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
  2. ^ "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
  3. ^ "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
  5. ^ DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  6. ^ "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  7. ^ "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
  8. ^ "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How's it not reliable when it was never assessed at WP:RS/N? dxneo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDistortion 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question] dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
  • All Africa, this is a churnalism piece that was reprinted from FrontPage Agrica (see below).
  • FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
  • BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
  • Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
  • Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
  • Official Charts, again, just shows chart positioning.
  • BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
  • FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You forgot IOL. Product of WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, WP:ANYBIO does not say a person "IS" notable for meeting one of the criteria. It says "LIKELY." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, stop nitpicking and commenting on every single post. You cannot refute the fact that the subject had a song chart on multiple prominent charts. Charting is major criterion of MUSICBIO. You do not have any evidence to support the claim you're making about some of the sources being "paid placements". You're speculating and making false assumptions in an attempt to justify your position. For your info, Front Page Africa is a major newspaper outlet in Liberia, one of only three in the country. The fact of the matter is that this particular article is independent of the subject. Although it does contains weasel words, there are zero quotes from the subject.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I am allowed to respond despite you saying not to. I am discussing, in good faith, both mine and other's contentions in the discussion. If you don't like it, ANI is that way. I never said he didn't chart so don't infer that I did. As far as the reference you shown, it is in fact churnalism. If you want to see the rest of it, you can go here, here, and here. While Front Page African may be a reliable source, that particular source is a churnalised press release so it can't be used for notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have reviewed my !vote in the light of what appears, for no obvious reason, to be a rather strident AfD discussion. The article subject has had a significant segment on national level radio, has charted in multiple countries, and has also been nominated, or won, awards at a national level in 2 countries. All of these are "ticks" per WP:MUSICBIO that are verified by sources which are very much independent of the subject, and are cited in the article. We appear to have, at minimum, enough for a Start-level article. Consequently a presumption of notability may be made and I stand by my keep !vote. ResonantDistortion 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect you taking the time to go through everything. I just want to say that "presumption of notability" is not notability. We have presumed notability based on those ticks but I still do not see the significant coverage (only verification sources). MUSICBIO says "may" be notable for these things, not that they "are" notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 30 October 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 Santiago de Veraguas. asilvering (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Uvito

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

Fails WP:GNG; all 1 references are census data Pitille02 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should be updated. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - changing vote as I found the offical map of the province that's its in, Veraguas, made by the "Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censo" - see here: [14]. The highest level of town that it legally recognises is Santiago (which El Uvito is in as a smaller subdivision), therefore I support a redirect to Santiago de Veraguas as it's not legally recognised and per WP:NPLACE would require WP:SIGCOV to deserve it's own article - which I cannot find. MolecularPilot 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Santiago de Veraguas. There's no evidence El Uvito is a Populated, legally recognized place per WP:NPLACE (contra the nominator, there's not even census data cited in the article). It is verifiably a populated place without legal recognition that does not automatically qualify for an article. I don't see any evidence of this neighborhood passing WP:GNG though, but a redirect to the city it's part of is a valid AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:47, 4 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! 06:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springs Toledo

[edit]
Springs Toledo (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 RS evidence satisfying WP:AUTHOR. No secondary RS coverage of his work or impact. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 30 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Vũ Minh

[edit]
Mai Vũ Minh (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 was deleted under the title Mai Vu Minh (log). The statement "In 2016 he was elected as a people's deputy to the National Assembly of Vietnam and served in the economics committee" in this article is not correct, this name does not appear in the list of deputies elected to the National Assembly of Vietnam in 2016. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not reliable to begin with for any claim, even if it was actually in the blog post. This is one of the entrepreneur contributor blog posts ("Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own")- a favorite target for UPDE scammers similar to the forbes contributor blogs. Perhaps we could look at the other blogs that the "author" posted to the site, like "How to Sell Feet Pics & Make Money: 10 Simple Steps". Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ג'ימיהחיה: Can you supply some of those that post-date the euronews piece? I was unable to locate anything even remotely reliable. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tried to clean up this article, but I haven’t changed my vote. Independent sources like Euronews aren’t enough to write a biography, and others repeat his unreliable claims. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The pre-2020 sources are useless given that they're part of a hoax per the Euronews source. There is an unbelievable amount of known, fake, blackhat SEO garbage blogs that are running PR pieces on him. Previous incarnations of this article (Draft:Mai Vu Minh and Mai Vu Minh) have used similar junk sources - fake forbes sites, paid advertorials, blackhat blogs and more. Clearly, there's a lot of SEO/paid editing in play. I can see the Mate Sam99 (talk · contribs) UDPE socks were at work at one point. This leaves us with no source for any real notability, a lot of fake sources, and one passing source showing that he's an interesting scammer. Not enough for a WP:BLP. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are very different opinions of this article. User:Jiaoriballisse and User:ג'ימיהחיה can you identify the sources you think are reliable? Because those arguing for Delete says that most of the coverage of him is fake and even the article that you reviewed asserts this, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fake millionaires could be notable I suppose, but this doesn't seem to be. I'm not sure why Croatian and Serbian media are interested in a person from Vietnam. Meeting with xyz form Bosnia doesn't get you notability here either. I don't see this person as passing criminal notability over the alleged fake photos, so this isn't at all notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 30 October 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 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

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

Fails GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 30 October 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! 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Jacob

[edit]
T. J. Jacob (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 inherent notability in the highest position attained, deputy Inspector General. The police medal may add to notability but it appears to be only covered in primary sources. His swimming achievements do not meet WP:ATHLETE. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage by secondary coverage past trivial metnions. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 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! 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monal (software)

[edit]
Monal (software) (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)

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any coverage for this chat client at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any coverage. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

[edit]
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether this article should be Deleted, Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 30 October 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. asilvering (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Canada

[edit]
List of cultural icons of Canada (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Previously existed for ~a day before being converted into a redirect to Culture of Canada. However, the target page does not contain the word "icon" or any mention of cultural icons, much less an entire list of them. Does not seem suitable to be a redirect, but also doesn't seem suitable to be an article, either. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT. Seems like a random collection of terms. Not encyclopedic. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are a very few random lists of so-called "cultural icons", the term is so vague and subjective as to be useless. For example, in the Globe and Mail article The Canadian cultural icons who made the arts better in 2022, I (as a Canadian) only recognize three of them (Joni Mitchell, James Cameron and Neil Young). Cultural icons should be practically universally known to merit that status. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same previous as the AFD for Australia and 10 other countries there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the record, it's really quite silly and unnecessary to revert an ancient redirect from 2011 back into a bad article that existed for all of a day before being redirected, just so that you can force it through an AFD discussion — we also have the RFD process for unnecessary redirects, so why wasn't this just taken there instead of being "restored" into an article that the restorer wants immediately deleted?
    But regardless, all the reasons why this was redirected in the first place are still applicable either way: this is subjective, unreferenced, and misleading — "cultural icons", to me, implies people, not symbols and concepts and institutions and folklore: Neil Young and Joni Mitchell and Gordon Lightfoot and Leonard Cohen and Margaret Atwood, not food and political parties and universities and sports. This, as constituted, isn't a list of Canadian "icons", it's just an arbitrary list of random Canadian stuff.
    Which is not to say that converting this into a list of celebrities would be desirable either, mind you: we already have more objective lists to cover off the specific things celebrities got famous for doing (List of Canadian actors, List of Canadian musicians, etc.), and as noted above "icon" status is far too subjective, far too prone to personal interpretation, to serve as an objective grouping — though for the record, I as a fellow Canadian am at least passingly familiar with 11 of the 13 people in that Globe and Mail list, not just three. Though to be fair arts/media/culture is my area of expertise, so it would be rather expected that I'd know more about that subject area than some other people would. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Hello! I frequent RfD, and the general consensus there is that if a redirect has suitable history as an article, and especially so if a page gets BLAR'd without consensus (even if BLARing was possibly the right call at the time), that the article should be restored and sent to AfD to be discussed on its merits as an article instead of as a redirect. Having a redirect called "List of cultural icons of Canada" would be entirely inappropriate targeting Culture of Canada if there's no list of icons (and there's not), so this would not be kept as a redirect in an RfD discussion. From what I've personally seen, this type of title would've likely been snowed out with requests to restore and discuss as a standalone article at AfD with its own merits, where it might inevitably meet the same deletion fate.
It should be noted, the "sister pages" for Italy and Netherlands have much deeper history than this one. But for the sake of convenience, it feels like it would be more appreciated to hold all three discussions within the same venue, instead of one or two at AfD and the other(s) at RfD. If sent to RfD, the articles for Netherlands and Italy would have certainly been restored and AfD'd instead due to the 14 years of history between 2008 and 2022. This one for Canada may have been a bit different and was BLAR'd much closer to its initial inception, but I felt it would still be useful to consider all three at once in the same venue, i.e. as pages with the potential for content, and not as redirects. To that end, fmpov it was proper to restore Italy and Netherlands (from my understanding of RfD practice) at the very least, and from that point, it'd be easier for editors to include Canadian icons discussion here alongside it if the other two were also here (a bit of a gut call on my end), so I nommed this one here as well. Hope that helps. Utopes (talk / cont) 11:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it so that this hopefully doesn't happen again in the future, but in the here and now I think the WP:SNOWBALL clause would apply. Since reverting this back to a redirect only to start a new RFD discussion about that redirect would get us to exactly the same place anyway, there's not much point in wikilawyering about it now, and the only reason I mentioned it was "user education" in the "how to handle similar situations correctly in the future" sense. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are too reasonable, i want to create a firestorm of debate sometimes. Fine have it your way. :) --Milowent • hasspoken 18:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect This was un-redirected after over a decade in order to send it to AfD. Redirects for discussion is a better forum, since we don't want this to become common practice. Since wikilawyering has been brought up, it should still probably be deleted either here or at RfD. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment: Note that even if the WP:BLAR was ages ago, there was no discussion when it occurred and I'm contesting it now in 2024. Per a 2021 RfC described at the page for WP:BLAR, it is said that Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.. This title should not be a redirect, and it will (likely) not be kept as a redirect at RfD if there is no list of cultural icons at the former target, and there is not. There IS history of an article here though, so AfD would be the venue to investigate histories of articles, and especially so as I'm seeking deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 11:55, 2 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. asilvering (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Italy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cultural icons of Italy (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)

As per the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. This has been recently restored from targeting Culture of Italy, but the page contains no such list of "cultural icons". It is not suitable to be a redirect, but it also does not seem suitable to be an article, either, so we arrive here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:26, 30 October 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. asilvering (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Adamson

[edit]
Joanne Adamson (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 5 of the 6 supplied sources are primary. The supplied third party source merely quotes her making a statement and is not WP:SIGCOV. A search could not find any indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 30 October 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 procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions of articles in draftspace go to WP:MFD, not AfD. No prejudice against a refiling over there. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 00:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election

[edit]
Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election (edit | [[Talk:Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election|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 was declined four times at WP:AFC. After the last decline, the creator -- who is busy creating a lot of mayoral election stubs -- went ahead and added it directly to mainspace.

I'm concerned there is not enough non-WP:ROUTINE WP:SIGCOV to support a standalone article on a suburban mayoral election. Of course, there's certainly coverage in the way that any election gets coverage but - from that perspective - that coverage will be ROUTINE by definition. My WP:BEFORE is unable to find any coverage of this event other than one reference in the article (there are two refs in the article, but only one is about the election). Chetsford (talk) 00:02, 30 October 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. asilvering (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Schmitz

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

A graphic artist who has worked on a number of significant games, but the sources presented and available don't focus on the person, or show compliance with WP:ARTIST Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_oculus_by_cory_schmitz_mackey_saturday_and_nicolaus_taylor.php No No No graphics are not visible ✘ No
https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-conversation-with-cory-schmitz-graphic-designer-for-playstation-oculus-indie-games-and-more-526/ Yes Yes No interview ✘ No
https://thefoxisblack.com/2013/09/03/cory-schmitz-brings-bold-contemporary-design-to-the-world-of-video-games/ ? ? ? dead link ? Unknown
https://famicase.com/17/softs/033.html ? ? No promotional listing ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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.