Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scaleshombre (talk | contribs) at 17:26, 26 December 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Jesus. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 25 December 27 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. By about 2 to 1, people here think that this theory should not be covered in its own article. As concerns the strength of the arguments made, I think that it is not very high on both sides. The "keep" side rather perfunctorily asserts that sufficient sources exist, but mostly without discussing them or their merits. The "delete" side mostly argues that the theory has no merit, which may well be the case, but is not relevant for its notability: we have many articles about notable pseudoscience or fringe theories. This seems to be a bit of a borderline case. But I'm most persuaded by the comments by Buidhe, who it seems has been one of few editors to examine the sources in some detail. They first advocated keeping this article, and then, after some reflection, advocated deleting it, concluding - without being rebutted - that "sources discussing this aren't even talking about the same thing, making it very difficult to write an article". On that basis, I think we can find consensus to delete both on grounds of numbers and strength of argument. Sandstein 09:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Jesus

Palestinian Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe theory with no support among scholars. Might be worthy of a line or two in the main article on Jesus. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irreparable rubbish. The whole article and many of its "sources" rely on the false assumption that one can't be both Jewish and Palestinian at the same time. This is not the view of any major Palestinian organization past or present. Actually the claim "Jesus was a Palestinian" means "Palestinians have deep roots here", which is exactly why the claim is upsetting to people who deny that Palestinians exist and have a past. As it stands, this article is just an attack on Palestinians sourced to their enemies, without any sign of balance. A lot of the sources are unreliable opinion pieces presented as facts. Zerotalk 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Buidhe has added some decent sources. Merge would probably be better if someone can find a good target. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not like it but Keep -- If this is the propaganda that prominent Palestinian politicians are propunding, it needs an article, which should end off with a rebuttal explaining the orthodox Christian response.
Galilee is part of the area claimed by the Palestinians as Palestine and was so called for many centuries. Some of the Galileans may not have been ethnic Hebrews, but converted under the Maccabees. However the testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus was a Jew and descended from King David. In saying anything else, those Muslims claiming otherwise are propounding an unhistorical view.
The view ultimately depends on how you identify someone as a Palestinian in the period when there were still Jewish states in the region. This is perhaps derived from an ancient Muslim equivalent of WP:OR. I may add in passing that Palestine is cognate with (and perhaps derived) from Philistine, a pagan nation occupying the southern coastal plain of Palestine/Israel, including Gaza. The expansion of the scope of the name is probably a result of the removal of the Jewish population after the last Jewish rebellion in about AD 135. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've checked all the sources that had links, but only one source actually had the term "Palestinian Jesus". It was Will Stalder's source from Google books. I need special access to Fishman-Duker, Rivkah source (I think it was written by Susannah Heschel), so I can't verify it. The article seems to be built mainly upon a compilation of different news sources that basically argue the ideal Jesus was a Palestinian, but it never discusses the term itself, history or its use etc. Rather, some of the sources are supporting different events under the "Proponents" section of the article, but Wikipedia is not the news per WP:NOTNEWS violation. And WP:HEY is neither policy or guideline. Jerm (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is not about the term, it is about the theory or idea about Jesus' nationality. buidhe 00:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a theory, then it would have been supported with reliable sources. Or even better, mentioned @Jesus. Not some stand-alone article being supported by a bunch of news articles. It still violates WP:NOTNEWS and now WP:NFRINGE for not using reliable sources from mainstream views. Jerm (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, not fringe. Even if scholars don't support this, other notable people do. And don't worry, soon enough some Islamic "scholar" will come along. Some names come to mind. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Litvak, Meir (2009). "Constructing a national past: the Palestinian case". In Litvak, Meir (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. Springer. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-0-230-62163-3.
  2. ^ Stalder, Will (2015). Palestinian Christians and the Old Testament: History, Hermeneutics, and Ideology. Augsburg Fortress. pp. 235–237. ISBN 978-1-4514-8214-0. Based on a 2012 PhD dissertation at the University of Aberdeen.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  3. ^ Fishman-Duker, Rivkah (2009). "Nazis for Jesus/Jesus for Nazis". Jewish Political Studies Review. 21 (3/4): 208. ISSN 0792-335X.
But these are two books on modern Anti-Zionism (Meir Litvak and Gershon Nerel [the latter is being quoted by Stalder]), and one junior lecturer in a book review? For this to be a credible article, we need to use scholars of Jesus (e.g. Jesus#Bibliography) and scholars of the name Palestine (e.g. Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Bibliography). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that the topic isn't a notable facet of biblical scholarship. The debate is whether it's a sufficiently notable part of modern Anti-Zionism. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RaiderAspect: agreed. Per footnote 1, it's entirely normal course to use the term Palestinian for Jesus in biblical scholarship. This article however appears to be entirely focused on attacking Anti-Zionism, as are the proposed three key sources, such that all three neglect to mention the normal course nature of the term in biblical scholarship. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: you're right about the usage of Palestinian in biblical scholarship as shorthand for "First-century Levant". But that's not a difficult problem to fix; we can hatnote it, or footnote it, or mention it in the test, or rename this article. The question is whether the underlying topic discussed in the article is notable. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not enough support for this fringe theory to justify an article. I also have to bang my head at lines like "Some Galileans may have been converts under the Maccabees". Besides the fact that this would contradict the Davidic descent of Jesus documented in the New Testament, it also strikes me as confusing ethnicity with a much more modern idea of race. Jesus may well have had some ancestors who only coverted to Judaism at the time of the Maccabees, he does have documented convert to Judaism ancestresses (Ruth and Rahab). However even if 90% of his ancestry converted to Judaism under the Maccabees that would not change him from being a Jew. This is a new variation of antisemitism, and while it might be a documentable phenomenon, it is clearly not one that merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a Fringe theory. In the time of Jesus, residents of historic Israel were described as Galileans, Samaritans, Romans, Jews, Greeks and so forth - but there was no evidence of anyone being called a "Palestinian" in that era. Occassionaly, FRINGE political activists and anti-Israel politician do use this phrase. But I agree with User:Johnpacklambert that There is not enough support for this fringe theory to justify an article. NotButtigieg (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NotButtigieg: see Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Roman_Jerusalem_period. Many of Jesus's contemporaries, including Jews (Philo and Josephus) used the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have demonstrated only that Romans used Palestine and Palestinian to refer to a geographical region. This is NOT the same as using it as an ethnonym, as is done in the term "Palestinian Jesus."NotButtigieg (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ovid is recorded using it more than once as an ethnonym around 8 AD. Later Greek authors did too (e.g. Zosimus, and the great Suda encyclopedia). None of this changes the underlying debate here; I am setting this out just for the record. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ovid, like other writes in the Roman period, used Palestinian to identify the geographical region of origin , not the ethnicity of individuals.NotButtigieg (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ovid, Metamorphoses: "Latin: occidit et Celadon Mendesius, occidit Astreus matre Palaestina dubio genitore creatus" (translation: "There fell also Mendesian Celadon; :::::::::No, because there was no Palestinian ethnie; all that Ovid states here is that , too, whose mother was a Palestinian, and his father unknown") in Book V, 144-145
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there was no Palestinian ethnie; all that Ovid states here is that is that Astreus' mother was form Palestine. It is as though I stated that your mother was European. Such information would accurately tell us where your mother is from, but not whether she is Pomak, Fleming or Catalan, Roman Catholic or Lutheran.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are off topic, but for the record, the language and grammar used by Ovid is exactly the same as that used by classical authors to describe all ethies. And ethnies (modern or classical) are imagined communities; to use your example, some people do consider themselves to be of "European ethnicity", just as members of the same family could reasonably choose to consider themselves "Yoruba" or "Nigerian" or "African". You seem to be applying double standards to Palestine. And we have strayed well into WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is hardly novel or original to state that a Palestinian ethnie first came into existence in the 20th century. And that there is zero evidence of such an ethnie in the 1st century, when the Roman province of Palestine had Samaritans, Jews, Greeks, Romans - but no Palestinian ethnie.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion specifically about whether the proposed sources are sufficient for notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NotButtigieg (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributors to this discussion have mistaken the geographical descriptor "Palestinian" for an ethnic descriptor.NotButtigieg (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestinian Jesus" is an incoherent term that has been used intermittantly by activists and politicians to claim that "Jesus was an Islamic martyr" [5], that Jesus was a Muslim Palestinian [6], or that he was in some sense an ethnic Palestinian (although "Palestinian" is an ethnonym and ethnic identity created in the 20th century.) These claims are ill-defined, contradictory, and lack historical support. Scholars of early Christianty regularly use phrases like "the Palestinian Jesus movement." This sort of reference dominates wearches for "Palestinian Jesus". NotButtigieg (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Palwatch is a racist website that can't be trusted for the time of day. Zerotalk 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, it confirms my assertion that sources for "Palestinian Jesus" are very low quality.07:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotButtigieg (talk • contribs)
  • The topic barely even exists. I'll take the topic as defined by the first sentence: "Palestinian Jesus is the idea that Jesus was not a Jew, but instead a Palestinian Arab." The first thing to make clear is that neither the article as it stands, nor any of sources given in the article, actually quote anyone claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish. In other words, the article hasn't even established that it is about a topic that exists. The actual story is that some people deny that Palestinians can be Jewish, so when Jesus is called Palestinian they claim that his Jewishness is being denied (even when he is explicitly called a Palestinian Jew). Of course there probably have been people making the stupid claim that Jesus wasn't Jewish, but by now someone ought to have found at least one example significant enough to support notability. Zerotalk 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NFRINGE, even though I strongly disagree with this nonsensical theory. It looks balanced enough with both proponents and criticism sections too. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section called "proponents", but no proponents are given there. Zerotalk 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. Also, in source #2 ( Litvak, Meir (2009). "Constructing a national past: the Palestinian case". In Litvak, Meir (ed.). Palestinian Collective Memory and National Identity. Springer. pp. 118–119. ISBN 978-0-230-62163-3.), leading source for this page, "Palestinian Jesus" as a phrase, "Palestinian Jesus" does not even come up in a word search on this book or in the pages that I am able to accessonline. What does come up is a discussion of the several ways in which various political actors and activists have produces unsupported historical narratives involving Jesus and the inhabitants of the area in the 1st century in and attempt to deny "the present Jewish-Zionist claim of descent" from the ancient Judean people, efforts that include assertions tha tJeesus was a Palestinian. A page about a WP:NEOLOGISM requires sources that actually use the NEOLOGISM at issue.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounded plausible so I gave that page a careful read. Race and appearance of Jesus is a pretty rational discussion of race and appearance, focused on things like skin color, beards, and depictions that show East Asian features. It is not about claims of ethnic identity as this mess of a page is, and it is well sourced, not a farrago of inchoate assertions, as this mess of a page is. I just do not see material on this page that belongs on page Race and appearance of Jesus.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article would need to be cut down in order to fit there, but it seems a waste to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at al clear what you are agreeing with. My point is that nothing here belongs on a page about Race and appearance of Jesus, which is a rational page whereas all that we have here is an array of unsupported assertions.NotButtigieg (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Malone

Nigel Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Has not appeared in a professional game and has not received significant coverage in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (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. No substantiated "keep" opinions. Sandstein 06:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australasian boxing champions

List of Australasian boxing champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, the Australasian title isn’t a very notable regional title; as the lead of this article says, it’s not even listed on BoxRec. Secondly, the list is unverifiable and is incomplete. The only hopes of a list of champions I could find was this from the ANBF website, however, the list in question is only current champions...and the page is "under construction". 2.O.Boxing 06:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 06:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 06:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable in Australia and New Zealand maybe not the rest of the world but it's here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.68.2 (talk • contribs)

It's not even a notable title in Australia and NZ. You look at the biggest names coming out of that part of the world at the moment – the Moloney brothers, Jeff Horn, Michael Zerafa, Joseph Parker, Junior Fa – all opt for regional titles from the four major organisations. Regardless, the list is terribly inaccurate and there isn't much hope of updating it, which isn't very encyclopaedic. – 2.O.Boxing 03:53, 9 January 2020 (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. MER-C 03:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabvest Limited

Sabvest Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company failing WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Plus, the nature of the creator's edits give the impression he has a close relationship with the subjects he writes about. ZXVZ (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a publicly traded company in South Africa. It has significant media coverage. I have no relationship to the subject whatsoever. I disclosed all conflicts of interest on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Machetazic (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 2 January 2020 (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. Tone 19:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windatareflector

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

The only sources cited on this article are the developer's web site, a couple unreliable blogs, and a couple indiscriminate software download directories. I've looked and I could only find more of the same. I believe this does not meet either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and so should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (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. Yunshui 雲水 16:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arien

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

Arien is not a significant character, let alone one who has enough coverage to justify an article. Not even every major character in a significant work needs an article. Except Arien is a minor character, hardly even that, in the Silmarillion, which is not a major work. The fact that we only have the primary sourcing to the fictional work she appears in is telling. The fact that this article dates back to August 2003 shows how super focused early Wikipedia was on the minutia of fantasy works. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2019 (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 nomination withdrawn. JIP | Talk 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha

AfDs for this article:
Bantha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a Star Wars topics, so Rescue Squadron and affiliated fanboys, get ready :> Anyway, it's a minor Star War species that seems to fail GNG/NFICTION. As everything related to SW, there are mentions in passing - several reliable sources are present, but they don't discuss this fantasy race per se, only mention in passing in one sentence or so. Then there is a news piece about the real elephant used in original Star Wars movie dying. Now, since I did mention the Rescue Squadron (and it's not like I mind saving articles, if it can be done), I'll point out to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Bantha#Behind_the_scenes - this section is the essence of what can be said about this that goes beyond PLOT. But in the end, this is IMHO Star Wars trivia - the film wanted an elephant-like monster, they did with a real elephant, a cute little story about filming of the original movie, but it does not make the fictional race notable. This incident can be discussed perhaps in some article about making of the SW original movie, but do we need a separate article for this prop (because the fictional race clearly fails GNG, so let's face it, it's about a prop, not a sf creature)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#Bantha. Of the available sources, they are either heavily 'in-universe' type sources, or else extremely trivial/passing coverage. There is not nearly enough to offer standalone notability, and there is a perfectly logical redirect option. Hugsyrup 08:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw the AFD I assumed this article would be all plot summary, as is usually the case in situations like this, but not only is it from a real-world perspective, it is cited by verifiable secondary reliable sources, which speak to the subject's notability. I also suspect the article could be expanded upon and fleshed out further, so I think it's worth keeping. It's also worth pointing out there was a previous AFD for this subject that resulted in a keep after the article was revised to reflect its notability and a consensus was reached to keep it, and although that certainly doesn't mean we can't discuss this again in AFD, I'll just note that notability is not temporary, so if the subject was notable back then, it's still notable now. — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say, though, that there are some very strange referencing issues with this article as it stood when the AFD was announced. I'm planning to make a few edits/improvements and will try to clean that up. I've fixed the referencing issues now, and I've started some expansions to the article, including the addition of "Biology and appearance", "Concept and creation", and "Reception" sections, as well as expansions to the Production section. I'll add that in my brief amount of editing here I've seen there are many more reliable sources out there that could be used to expand this article. I honestly haven't even scratched the surface yet. I'll try to expand it a bit more before this AFD is through, but my keep vote stands, and if anything I feel even more strongly about it. — Hunter Kahn 16:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • HK, whether it's kept or not, I have to say this looks MUCH better than what I nominated a day ago: [7]. I will have to review the sources etc. when I have time so consider whether this should be withdrawn or not, right now I have no opinion except it is much longer (and with refs). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I have plans for further additions, and there are some other books and offline source I'm hoping to hunt down at some libraries and/or bookstores eventually. If the article is kept, I might try to keep improving it up to GA status... — Hunter Kahn 18:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I am not a Star Wars fan. The nominator seems to equate fans of anything as a lower breed of editor going by his adhoms when the reality is that much of Wikipedia was built by fans whether they be fans of classical music, James Bond films, European history, the renaissance and so on and so on. In this case there is plenty of real world content reliably referenced and the article is being actively improved as described above so to delete it would be dogmatic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, While the article has a plethora of sources, they are either only brief mentions, are not independent, or are 'top x' lists. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk 07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not entirely accurate. Only a few are lists and only one (the StarWars.com source) could be argued to be non-independent, and many if not most of the other sources (among the books and news articles) go well beyond brief mentions. — Hunter Kahn 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was surprised to discover an article on such an arcane piece of popular culture, but even more surprised that it was actually half-decent, and actually somewhat informative on the use of animals in cinema. I've not checked the sources, but prima facie they seem reasonable. (Full disclosure: I cannot reasonably dispute the charge that I am a Star Wars fan.) —PLUMBAGO 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hugsyrup. Miniapolis 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The topic deserves to be mentioned somewhere, but the reception is quite weak for a stand alone. List of Star Wars creatures is currently a very poor article in itself, but I think it could be heavily refocused into a more real-world based topic discussing only those that have enough real world attention. Some of the sources would be worth including there. TTN (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope it's been noted that the article has recently been undergoing expansions since this AFD began, and that I've committed to continuing those efforts if it's not deleted, hopefully to GA status. I also want to note that I haven't put much focus on the Reception status yet; I wanted to start with the other sections because I think they are a better indication of the subject's notability. Anybody could fill an article like this with a lengthy Reception section just by quoting review blurbs or whatever. I expect the Reception to be expanded as part of my efforts, as well as the rest of the article... — Hunter Kahn 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to Hunter Kahn's well-sourced and interesting additions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#Bantha, since it already exists there. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show they pass notability criteria.Onel5969 TT me 12:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Evidently some scholarly and journalistic interest; it's not just fanzines and blogs. Discussion in The Science of Star Wars and the various respectable newspapers cited are both good. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Star Wars creatures per TTN and others. It would be much more appropriate as part of the list, which is potentially notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as a redirect but I was asked to reconsider by some editors involved since the article has been expanded since the nom. Relisting in order to get a further input and to stay neutral on my side regarding the final outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Better than most. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of references found. JIP | Talk 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Hugsyrup.--Darwinek (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for those voting to redirect: As I've indicated, I've done some substantial edits and additions to this article compared to how it looked when this AFD began. Some of it is about the fictional character, but much of it is also real-world perspective, such as concept/creation, design, filming/production, critical reception, etc. If this were to be redirected, what do you suggest happens to all this new content? Should it be merged with the list article, or simply deleted altogether? It seems to me that neither options makes sense, as the latter would be the unnecessary removal of content cited by reliable sources, and the former would make the Bantha's entry on the list too long and would warrant a WP:SPINOFF back to the main article anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to just keep the article where it is? — Hunter Kahn 02:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These sorts of articles are often just WP:FANCRUFT. But this article is actually quite solid, and built on a whopping 82 sources. There is a lot of real world refs, not just in universe stuff. I reject the trivia argument, and see no other good reason to delete it. I also think that redirecting is a poor choice, as that would make a WP:COATRACK. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excessive merge could lead to a coatrack, although given that WP:COATRACK is primarily concerned with pushing POVs, it’s rather hard to imagine the same problem arising by simply merging content about a Star Wars creature to a list of Star Wars creatures. But that’s by the by, because we’re talking about a redirect and I simply don’t see how you can argue that a redirect creates a coatrack article. If, subsequently, the list has excessive Bantha-related content added to it, then that can be dealt with on that page, in the normal way. Hugsyrup 08:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Hugsyrup, Oops bad wording on my part, I meant to say merge not redirect. But I also think a redirect would be poor. This article is currently well written and sourced, and I believe meets GNG. The proposed redirect is to a paragraph that is quite questionable. I don't see how redirecting to something that is of worse quality helps to improve the encyclopedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if and only if a corresponding section is included somewhere.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever it’s state at the start of the AfD, this article has developed into a well-written article with many reliable sources. A solid keep per WP:HEY. —{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. That's how to write about fictional content. My hats off to HK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 30 December 2019 (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. The "keep" opinions are weak: one does not address the issue of sources at all, and another refers to two texts that are clearly barely disguised press releases. Sandstein 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autocerfa

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search turns up nothing for news coverage. ZXVZ (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search returns some news coverage in industry specific sources: (e.g. [8] and [9]). It may be notable based on 1700 companies using the software. Given that, and that the software has implications for EU bureaucracy and was promoted by the French government, it may be notable according to WP:PRODUCT rather than WP:COMPANY Machetazic (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that Google search results aren't the only things indicative of notability and striking the article as not notable because of a Google search doesn't show an accurate scope of notability. Furthermore, American/British companies have a heavy bias on Wikipedia because they are much more represented on localized Google searches. Autocerfa has French government sponsorships, and the specialized nature of the company tailored toward specific enterprises (not the broader consumer market) means that there isn't coverage outside of industry specific sources.BeeTheBestThatYouCanBEE (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure PR. Sources linked above are press releases. 1700 customers? What's special about that? What French government sponsorships (not that that would make it notable)? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 16:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. I am involved but I highly doubt anyone will dispute this closure. (non-admin closure) Happy New Year! // J947 (c) 21:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Sherman

Janette Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college professor whose claim to fame is vague and does not satisfy the stringent requirements of WP:GNG. The sourcing is mostly hagiographic entries (eg an obituary) and may violate WP:BLP1E as well as WP:RS. When conducting a search for better sources I found very scant references to her work but nothing that establishes her as more notable than any other low tier academic prior to her death. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Santa Barbara cast and characters#Main characters. Sandstein 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCormick (Santa Barbara)

Mark McCormick (Santa Barbara) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soap opera ficitonal bio, fails GNG/NFICTION. No references, BEFORE fails to find anything outside few mentions in passing like in the (not very reliable even) further reading ELs in this entry. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 26 December 2019 (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. Yunshui 雲水 14:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D. Castelli

Anthony D. Castelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG. A google search turns up few reliable sources at all, and less significant coverage. The article has a lot of content, but most sources are either not reliable or don't mainly cover Castelli. Also seems to be a direct copy of his everipedia page. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2019 (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. Yunshui 雲水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mriganka Singh

Mriganka Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But this makes no other claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacies, and is not referenced to any significant or substantive coverage about her for the purposes of establishing that her candidacy was special: seven of the eight footnotes just glancingly namecheck her existence in the process of being about other things, which means she isn't their subject, and the only one that is "about" her is just a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself and her political opinions in the first person, of exactly the type that every candidate in every election always gets, which means it isn't enough to make her candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real reason why she might be notable. The article kept on referring her as the daughter of Hukum Singh, who until his death was a successful politician. This is really a case of WP:INVALIDBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hirokazu Nema

Hirokazu Nema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

beats me how an assistant coach in a B league sports team is considered a notable individual on a world scale. Are we opening pages for assistant bank branch managers? Sports enthusiasts are perfectly entitled to be enthusiastic in recording every nuance of every sporting activity worldwide but Wikipedia is for recording matters of note, not satisfying all the needs of sports hobbyists 12:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on the notability of this, but for what it's worth, B.League is Japan's top basketball league and the team he is the assistant coach of is in its top division. "B.League" here does not mean "below A League". Dekimasuよ! 13:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a rather poorly reasoned AfD. Firstly, the nominator seems to mistake the 'B' in the name of the league for it to be some kind of a second-tier league when in fact the B.League is the top-tier professional basketball league in Japan. Secondly, the nominator focuses on the subjects current job, that of an assistant coach, and overlooks the fact that the person is a former professional player who has worked as a head coach. Now, the article is very poorly sourced and it may very well be that Mr. Nema does not pass WP:GNG but this kind of a shoddily done AfD irks me. On a further note, a proper procedure would be for the nominator to do a WP:BEFORE, including a search in the subjects native language, and then display his findings, or lack of them, in the AfD. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2020 (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. Yunshui 雲水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jehona Sopi

Jehona Sopi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2019 (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. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Association of Psychoanalysis

Ukrainian Association of Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (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. Yunshui 雲水 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Stanford-Kristiansen

Debbie Stanford-Kristiansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businesswomen. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 10:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that most of the categories apply to her company not her is a key sign she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Most sources in the article are contain no coverage of her aside from interviews, and the other ones are obviously not independent or presumably not given the promotional nature of the article. I can't find anything better than that save for a trivial mention. The claimed award doesn't come close to meeting ANYBIO#1 given it isn't even mentioned somewhere else in the encyclopedia. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll change my !vote to redirect to Novo Cinemas as that is where all her coverage stems from. Also I've stricken an incorrect part of my statement but she still doesn't meet ANYBIO given that the award doesn't have an article. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was created by an undisclosed paid editor that is now blocked, in what appeared to be a series of articles created in such a fashion. I think most are now gone. Per the subject itself, she fails GNG in that all coverage is in relation to the company and independent quality coverage about her doesn't seem to exist, therefore she would appear non-notable. As for a redirect, I would advise against it given what I previously described. It would feed the spam machine, so to speak. Don't give the PR spammers any credit. PK650 (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think a redirect can feed spam. If it does give them credit then that is not our problem as if they do anything about it then it should just be reverted straight back to the redirect. If we do give them credit inadvertently then that's fine and all it does is causes their satisfaction, and doesn't result in any sort of problem for us. Happy New Year! // J947 (c) 21:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect would be ideal if there was some level of usefulness was present. However she is completely non-notable and more so, completely unknown, so any kind of dud redirect won't be searched on. It is useless and more so, they is no value in it. scope_creepTalk 22:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    She has been the focus of quite a few interviews; she is non-notable, but there is a fair chance that someone will search her up on Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap and dud redirects are searched on (many examples at RfD when you look at their page views). Happy New Year! // J947 (c) 23:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very instructive, thanks! PK650 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwaseun Babalola Bamiro

Oluwaseun Babalola Bamiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a Run of the mill businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The little coverage about him are just mere interviews, which does not show why he is really notable. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (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. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asiana Peng

Asiana Peng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT: No senior results, in particular, no results at all at the international level; compliance with WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (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. JIP | Talk 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to cooperative learning

Introduction to cooperative learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive WP:COPYVIO issues (see copyvio report) that are beyond repair. I wanted to gather consensus vs. speedy. Snowycats (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (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. Yunshui 雲水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Feminism

Everyday Feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable website. Only two sources not published by the website are used in the article. One is simply MetroUK reposting cartoons that were originally posted on Everyday Feminism without much coverage of Everyday Feminism itself, and the other is a multi-person blog called Ravishly. While they do have a verified Twitter, that doesn't automatically confer them notability and many websites/people with verified Twitters aren't notable. Same here. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:54, 26 December 2019 (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. Tone 21:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fa11out

Fa11out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simmeringer Had

Simmeringer Had (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Difficult English makes it hard to determine if there is a claim of significxance, but there is certainly no evidence of notability. The two sources are directory style mentions and nothing more. Fails WP:GNG. Searches reveal some other mentions (in German) but nothing of any substance.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article on 1. Simmeringer SC says their stadium is called 'Sportplatz Simmering', supported by this. What is the 'Simmeringer Had'? Is it the same thing? Is it different? GiantSnowman 14:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: There maybe some miss-interpretation, it not about a single geographic entry but the history of the Had (ground). The article is trying to course the history of where Simmeringer is playing. Surprisingly the ground has change a few different venues and really the article shouldn't be deleted but merged to 1. Simmeringer SC for which it is about. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 04:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Tiwari

AfDs for this article:
Jitendra Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a mayor, which just states that he exists and then reference bombs his existence to six short blurbs and a primary source that do little more than verify and reverify said existence. As always, mayors are not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist -- even in large cities, the notability bar for mayors requires the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article about his political career: specific things he did in the mayor's chair, specific municipal projects he spearheaded, and on and so forth. Articles which just state that the mayor exists, the end, are not what we're looking for when it comes to establishing that he warrants an encyclopedia article — and one of the sources here indicates that Tiwari was selected, not elected, as mayor, raising the question of whether this city has the directly elected executive kind of mayor who can be notable, or the ceremonial kind who cannot (that distinction being, in and of itself, one of the core reasons why an article about a mayor has to be able to say and source a lot more than just "Jitendra Tiwari is a mayor who exists".)
Note that the first nomination appears to have been about a different person with the same name, so this is not eligible for G4 speedy. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2019 (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. Yunshui 雲水 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Brown Man in Russia

A Brown Man in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted, per this discussion. A year later, a Google, JSTOR search and on News does not appear to have anything that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Snowycats (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. I grieve in stereo (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Search notes at least two credible publications reporting on the book including a recent feature in the Moscow Times linked on the wiki from about one month ago.[1] That alone should meet the first criteria of WP:BKCRIT ("the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself"). I'm also seeing the book and related articles cross-referenced in multiple academic settings & journals, including as curriculum matter at multiple American universities (MIT, Stanford, UCLA), meeting another WP:BKCRIT criteria ("The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country"). Seems to meet notability criteria for WP:BKCRIT on two standalone criteria. [2] Formosachang89 04:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/11/02/a-brown-man-in-russia-lessons-learned-on-the-trans-siberian-a67990. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://misti-russia.mit.edu/resource-guide/book-brown-man-russia. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Please do not take signings of other people and trying to impersonate them (like Dream Focus' one in this case). Note: this is also the article's creator. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The keep voter should have read the sources in the article first (Moscow Times that he/she mentioned is already there). The first one is an interview with the writer, and the only non-interview part was "“A Brown Man in Russia” is also a great chance for any reader to take an honest look at your own Russian experience – whatever ethnicity you are – and compare how you first behaved to how you are now.". Not WP:SIGCOV. The second source is just a word by word copy and paste of the book's Chapter 11. Nothing else comes up besides an unreliable site a Jordan Russia Center blog. I also failed to find the info that it was the subject matter on the universities directly (the MIT link just offers an interview and nothing else indicating the coverage on MIT itself and it wouldn't make much sense as the book is "relatively" new). Doesn't meet WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent sources to be found. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olitiau

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

Article is sourced entirely to fringe cryptozoological sources and firsthand accounts of sightings that have not been covered by reliable sources. A Before search returned only fringe sources; it is not notable as a potential species or as a mythological figure. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. origin in Animal Treasure comical. A redirect to Ivan T. Sanderson would not be neutral.—eric 20:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take Fat

Take Fat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable tribute band. Nothing here shows notability and only reference are IMDb and their own website. Article mostly littered with unreferenced gossip and trivia. Egghead06 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 26 December 2019 (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. User:Dennisthe2 asked for reliable sources and was provided by User:Vejvančický who is familiar with the region and also a long standing editor. Taking aside User:Dennisthe2 Delete vote, there's consensus to keep and thereby I'm closing it, since it does not need another relist. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edvard Schiffauer

Edvard Schiffauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Not credible claim of notability and lack of significant coverage. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am still working on improving this article but I am not sure how to bring it to a level that it will not be deleted. This composer has large number of musical works many of which have links to websites in Czech language. Can you please help me as to how to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmedraj (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living former members of the Australian House of Representatives

Earliest living former members of the Australian House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The basis of this list appears to be original to Wikipedia, and it appears that no one has made such a list before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. The basic structure of this article was partly modeled on similar articles like Earliest serving United States senator. These articles contain very similar information and have not been nominated for deletion. Again, with the respect, as I said in deletion discussion of the inverse of this page, obviously not enough research was done to establish the sources of information I used to create this page; of course it didn't fully originate on wikipedia. Using the automatically generated find sources template that searches for the title of the page is obviously not going to find anything useful; this information is rare, and if it did exist in this form, it is highly likely that the title would not be the exact same. I'm sure you used other sources, but simply searching from the title is not enough to assert that it fully originated on wikipedia. I used hansard lists, the individual pages of MPs listed, the trove archive, and 'https://australianpolitics.com/parliament/house/surviving-members'. I agree, this information is hard to find elsewhere. I was honoured to be thanked by Ivar the Boneful (talk) after creating this page. This user has been contributing countless useful contributions to Australian politics articles for several years, and has become a well-established authority on Australian politics pages. Although I don't want to speak on his behalf, I believe his thank was a sign of approval from another Australian politics editor. I put lots of work into this article and its twin Senators article; I humbly ask that if deletion does take place, the information is moved elsewhere, I do believe that some researchers or people who need to find related information can quickly use this reliable source. SpaceFox99 (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I honestly can't make head or tail of how to interpret what's in this article, and the explanation by the creator above isn't very helpful. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nick-D (talk), I see this may be another issue with the article. The articles nominated for deletion list surviving MPs with the earliest date of election

(eg if there were two former MPs living in Australia, one MP [A] elected in 1950, and another [B] elected in 1960, A would be listed in the pages, because she was elected earlier than any other living former MP. I did find it difficult to find the right wording for these pages)

The second table is much simpler and lists living former MPs by date of election.

The third table is also simple and lists the last members of government ministries who were alive.

This article is useful for determining the oldest living former MPs and is hard to find anywhere else.SpaceFox99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

•tenure records for politicians,
•historical information on Australian politics,
•the oldest living Australian politicians (eg in one source rather than individually checking each page of elected MPs.
•who is living from particular governments
•who is living from particular ministries
•who is living from particular elections
•former MPs who are living

This data can be used by researchers, casual readers, political researchers, publishers (in conjunction with other sources). It could be repurposed for key information (eg XX was the last surviving member of the XX parliament) or transformed into another data source (eg similar table)
The second and third tables are very simple to understand and far from convolute. I can see the difficulty behind the first table; however, other pages have this list for their respective countries. I believe the first table has justification for deletion, however I believe the last two tables (especially the second one) should be moved if this occurs. SpaceFox99 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but sorry again, but what do they do with knowing who is the last surviving member of a ministry? Why is the last surviving member any more important or interesting than any other member of a given ministry? This still looks like random statistical trivia to me? Also, what is so special about the "40" in 'who were elected over 40 years ago'? Why not 30 or 50? Also, what is so special about "50" in 'ministries up to 50 years ago'? Why not 40 or 60? This all seems rather arbitrary? Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoziwe, they are all fair points. Im sorry to keep relying on the American article, but is that article justified if this one isn’t? It seems that the US and UK have vast arrays of political and tenure data that are considered ‘trivial’ by Australian editors; there is a much lower (I won’t use the word lack) amount of data about MPs, classifications and tenures in Australian pages. If you are the last living member of something (especially political), you are notable (Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to the last living members of events). Also, if the individual pages of these MPs state they were the last living member of X, why are those statements not trivial and deleted?
The reason for the particular number of people listed is not very strong; it’s simply because the closer you get to the current date, the more MPs there are to list. This being a new article, I expected some time in the future that some user would help me expand on it and possibly bring the list closer to a closer date if not the present; this article isn’t even a week old. The amount of MPs elected at the 1969 election is far less than those who were elected in 1980, for example. SpaceFox99 (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Sorry but I have gone for delete below. Aoziwe (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If making the list requires you to set up and code a spreadsheet on your own, because the list hasn't already been compiled by outside sources, then by definition you're doing original research — and the US list should most likely be deleted as well on the same grounds, but per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that it hasn't already been deleted does not justify this list in and of itself. The reason such information tends to be hard to find is because it has no inherent value in the first place — identifying who was the first holder of any given political role to still be alive today is not a thing people need at all, because "earliest living" confers no special status on former politicians over and above other former politicians. If the information had any value at all, then the list would have already existed somewhere, and could have just been copied wholesale without having to fire up Excel to figure it out yourself — the fact that such outside sources don't exist is because people don't need the information at all. Speaking as a Canadian, we've ended up with a lot of pointless content that had to be deleted, solely because somebody decided that Canada has to comprehensively replicate every "List of X" that the United States has, even if the topic has no actual meaning or relevance or applicability in Canada at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Bearcat, the data exists, already compiled, here: ‘ https://australianpolitics.com/parliament/house/surviving-members’. Being the most senior or oldest does matter; nearly all major Prime Minister/leader pages list ‘former XXs’. I believe the data does have relevance , as I was thanked by another Australian user, but that seems to be one part of the crux of the issue of deletion of this article. SpaceFox99 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 2 January 2020 (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. Tone 13:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest living former members of the Australian Senate

Earliest living former members of the Australian Senate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The basis of this list appears to be original to Wikipedia, and it appears that no one has made such a list before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. This article was inspired by articles similar to ones like Earliest serving United States senator, which list the oldest and earliest serving politicians. These articles have stood the test of time with no backlash. Furthermore, with the utmost respect, obviously not enough research was done to establish the sources of information for this page. The basic information comes from Hansard lists of newly sworn in MPs/senators and https://australianpolitics.com/parliament/house/surviving-members, which has many related articles. Using a spreadsheet I determined the living and non-living former politicians and who is/was the most senior. On nearly all the pages of the senators listed, it says somewhere ‘they were the last senator from the reign of (insert PM or parliament)’; this is what first inspired me to create the page; to create a source with a proper place and further information on the most senior former politicians. This exact information is hard for researchers to find; this page provides a clear source for use. As for the list of senators elected over 40 years ago, I can see further grounds for deletion; however, if this article is to be deleted, I politely ask that all data is moved to a page like List of longest-serving members of the Parliament of Australia, as I put several hours of work into the page and believe the information does serve a purpose. SpaceFox99 (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If making the list requires you to set up and code a spreadsheet on your own, because the list hasn't already been compiled by outside sources, then by definition you're doing original research — and the US list should most likely be deleted as well on the same grounds, but per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the fact that it hasn't already been deleted does not justify this list in and of itself. The reason such information tends to be hard to find is because it has no inherent value in the first place — identifying who was the first holder of any given political role to still be alive today is not a thing people need at all, because "earliest living" confers no special status on former politicians over and above other former politicians. If the information had any value at all, then the list would have already existed somewhere, and could have just been copied wholesale without having to fire up Excel to figure it out yourself — the fact that such outside sources don't exist is because people don't need the information at all. Speaking as a Canadian, we've ended up with a lot of pointless content that had to be deleted, solely because somebody decided that Canada has to comprehensively replicate every "List of X" that the United States has, even if the topic has no actual meaning or relevance or applicability in Canada at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bearcat and nom. Onel5969 TT me 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN nothing out there that discusses this (even partially) as a group, also WP:NOR - article creator admits to doing their own research to compile this information. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the editors claiming this is "original research" - it is not original research and doesn't violate the Wikipedia policy on that topic. Go and read it. Wikipedia prohibits the synthesis of material to put forward an original argument. This article doesn't do that. This material all has verifiable sources (the parliamentarians' dates of exiting Parliament and their dates of death) and is a list that has been put together of longest lived parliamentarians after leaving Parliament. I agree the article is badly organised and does not have inherent notability as a list, but it's NOT original research. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - none of the sources used explicity state that the people listed are the earliest serving living senators. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's compiling the dates in a table. Dates are a piece of factual information, not a "conclusion". Arguments about it being original research are complete nonsense. Bookscale (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gage Daye

Gage Daye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NHOOPS guidelines for notability. Also probably a copyvio, although I am not sure from where. Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:19, 26 December 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic Future Party

Psychedelic Future Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable one-candidate party which has put up unsuccessful candidate in two local elections and 2019 general election. Sources provided are statutory listings only: no indication of notability. Full list of registered UK political parties is provided by the Electoral Commission: Wikipedia does not need an article on every party in that list. PamD 00:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PamD 00:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PamD 00:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:20, 26 December 2019 (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. Since participation was minimal and it doesn't appear that anyone engaged to look for foreign-language sources, but also no one specifically favored keeping, I'm treating this one as a soft deletion. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Jaunpuri

Raza Jaunpuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a "noted poet of the Urdu language". However, a quick search online doesn't come up with any sources in English. The article only links to a results page on worldcat, from which it's apparent that there are four publications by him, each held by at most a dozen libraries. This user review mentions an award (one that I haven't been able to verify). It's quite possible there might be more substantial sources in Urdu. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_26&oldid=932538565"