THC Science

< March 19	March 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Sock nom. Any editor in good standing is welcome to bring a nomination if this can't be handled editorially by possible Jars of Clay integration. Star Mississippi 01:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give to the Winds Thy Fears (neé God Will Lift Up Your Head)[edit]

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

Not notable. Gaetr (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - unsourced since 2016? Yikes. Mention on the album page is enough, this didn't do anything worth speaking of. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my input to redirect - Give to the Winds Thy Fears appears notable. A short mention of the Jars of Clay version there is probably more appropriate. User:Uncle G has already combined the two, it needs editing, but I find that to be fine. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable song. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced since 2016 is nothing. The song is from 1653. The original title is "Befiehl du deine Wege" and Wesley's words were "God shall lift up thy head", although the first line that you'll generally find it listed under is "Give to the Winds Thy Fears", if you want to find it. The current article does give clues to this, but you do have to know that this is completely the wrong title for the actual well-documented subject. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an interesting point. Should this possibly be a redirect instead? Something to consider. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is an article about the remix, not the original, and unless you can convince me other, I'd go for delete CT55555 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read who Jars of Clay are and what they did here. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be easy to change my mind if you put an argument forward, but this comment isn't helpful. CT55555 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it is. Read the first sentence of Jars of Clay and read Redemption Songs#Overview. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious keep. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is how one starts. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a sock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oude Rode Ogen[edit]

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

Probable hoax. See the talk page for another editor's attempt to verify the existence of the single cited source. A similar article by the same author (User:Spankees) has also been deleted as a hoax. As with that one, I can't find any sources for Oude Rode Ogen that pre-date the creation of the article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having looked around I can't find any references to it prior to the article's creation in 2009 so agree that this is very likely a hoax article. AtFirstLight (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AFL. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juris Graubergers[edit]

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

paid for pr spam - the MTV it stuff is actually ugen and even if it weren't, it's not coverage (see the history at Urbanstep). As of yet non-notable DJ with no meaningful coverage and has only received a nomination for an award. CUPIDICAE💕 20:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADMASQ fails WP:GNG Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I strongly believe the artist meets the criteria (WP:MUSIC),

1. He has been featured on Forbes Magazine (30 Under 30)
2. Nominated for a national award.
3. The MTV PR was used to source his album.

~~4. He was a production crew for Eurovision 2021 - Latvia~~

Platznium1 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)--sock strike CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of what is said above is a part of WP:MUSIC. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement How doesn't the artist meets none of the criteria in WP:MUSIC? The artist is featured on a major publication "Forbes" Secondly, nominated for a major national music event "Annual Latvian Music Recording Awards and was invited to Eurovision 2021. WP:MN states may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.Plus the sources are verifiable by reliable sources (Press Releases). I've digged more about Juris, I've confirmed that he has charted #1 in iTunes previously too. Final: The artist is a notable subject for Wikipedia. Platznium1 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)--sock strike. CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Forbes is not a RS if the article is credited to "Contributor." Those are the equivalent of blog posts. The link does not take one to the article to verify. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not an article. The DJ was featured on Forbes 30 Under 30. Platznium1 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist looks notable enough (UNDER WP:MBIO). As per the author, some sources can be verified by reliable sources. I've researched about Award nomination and Forbes 30 Under 30 Feature, the sources seems true and are verifiable. Pretty much a notable subject {WP:MN} for Wikipedia. Zapfrommars (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)--sock strike. CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @User:Praxidicae @[User:Timtrent]], Sorry for the ping, but, could you guys please mention the articles which seems like "spam pr"? I'd try to improve the article to avoid it from AfD. Also, The articles cited are completely different plus It doesn't seem like a paid spam pr release to me. At least if it was, there would be multiple publications with same content on Google, but didn't find anything similar. Shouldn't have placed a deletion for WP:ADMASQ. Can you please research again quickly? I know you guys are super busy administring other collaborative projects, but please do another research. Thanks. Platznium1 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)--sock strike CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep per the significant coverage and notability. Meets WP:MBIO. Plus, Updated the page according to NPOVNot chickenNugget (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)--sock strike. CUPIDICAE💕 17:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Praxidicae. Additionally, the fact that 2 brand-new editors immediately came to this page to vote to keep does give me some concerns of either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Pelae[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think he doesn't meet NFOOTY, certainly not by his later play in the Swiss lower leagues. More importantly, lack of coverage means he does not pass GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL per this. Giant Snowman 12:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No appearances in FPL, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL Josey Wales^Parley 09:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. The only article outside of passing/routine mentions I could find is this one. GauchoDude (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Wollo University professors[edit]

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

Semi-procedural AfD following this RfD that ended in restoring the article. However, the only accessible source cited in the article that actually mentions a lynching of profefssors, [1] is not reliable. I was not able to find additional coverage in an online search when looking for the names of those killed according to that one source, and note that the article creator was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and WP:ARBHORN disruption. Deletion seems like the way to go unless someone can find coverage in Ethiopian languages. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another one of Rastakwere’s spurious inventions that have taken up far too much time at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not cite reliable sources. Ue3lman (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple, Mumbai[edit]

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

Lack of detailed coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBUILDING. Search only gives promotional press statements. This temple fails WP:NORG. No asserted notability or indication why this temple is notable to have its own article. Lack of detailed coverage in reliable media. Unsourced promtional article, part of ISKCON spam on Wikipedia. (See similar recent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISKCON Temple, Salem and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISKCON Temple, Ujjain) Venkat TL (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBUILD and WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 26 March 2022 (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 and protect against creation as repeated recreation of AFD-deleted content and as advertising. This has been deleted under those criteria several times before and every re-creation of the article has been by PRFitzrovia (talk · contribs) which is clearly someone with a conflict of interest, given that the PR company named in the article used to be in Fitzrovia. This time, it was roughly a month after the immediately preceding deletion in 2015, with almost exactly the same content, bar some obvious copy and paste errors. There have been almost 7 years of editing since, but it turns out that every single actual content contributor has had a screamingly obvious conflict of interest as bad as PRFitzrovia (talk · contribs) has. I'm not going to give names, but every account that I checked has a direct and obvious correspondence with a person working for the PR company named in the article at the time that the edits were made, and they are all single-purpose accounts. The rationales in the first two AFD discussions apply, and this is without question persistent paid PR editing that should be expunged. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Even the create protection has happened before. It was create protected by Chrislk02 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Edwards (publicist)[edit]

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

Recreation of an earlier removed article. Looking at the name of the author created by a PR-firm, so COI/paid-editing is a possibility. Questions about notability since 2015. The Banner talk 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, already removed twice. Does this qualify for a speedy removal under G4? The Banner talk 16:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources given seem tangential/mentioned in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sotiel-Migollas mine[edit]

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

Possibly doesn't fall into the guidelines of WP:N, or needs more information/sources. Mazzua24 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Mazzua24 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry in the Quran[edit]

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

It is not clear from reading the sparse non-primary sources presented in this article, or from scanning google scholar for anything related to it or, tangentially, pertaining to numerology in Islam that this is a topic covered in sufficient reliable, secondary sources in depth to constitute a worthwhile encyclopedic subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum Award for Medical Sciences[edit]

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

There are no RS cited in the article and there is nothing to indicate that this is a notable award. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gnews merely confirms people that won the award. There is a lack of coverage about the actual award to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab A. El-Buri Foundation[edit]

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

This has been tagged for notability and orphan since its creation. There doesn't appear to be any substantive RS coverage of this organization since its first year (there was some RS coverage about the death of Rehab A. El-Buri, which led to the establishment of the charity). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-literate society[edit]

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

This is a concept coined by Chris Hedges in one of his books. It's not a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment McLuhan was writing about it in 1962 (the article says so, and I've just checked – he did) when Hedges was only six years old. And if you mean Hedges' Empire of Illusion, someone here was trying to get this article deleted as a neologism before that had even been published: WP:Articles for deletion/Postliterate society. I think a revamped nomination would be in order. And, by the way, we do have articles about concepts, see Category:Concepts and I'm not sure any of them are "things". Thincat (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the term was mentioned in The Gutenberg Galaxy and is important to that work, then it can be covered in the The Gutenberg Galaxy article. Currently, that article makes no mention of 'Post-literate society', which raises questions as to the importance of the concept to that work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not mentioned on page 69 anyway so if you follow McLuhan you'll maybe think that's all that matters.[2]

Keep. There is coverage of this concept outside of Hedges' books. Palladium Magazine has an article about it titled "America’s New Post-Literate Epistemology" here; the Prindle Post has an article titled "What Does a Post-Literate World Look Like?" here; author Michael Ridley explores the concept in one of his books, as covered by the American Library Association here; the Schools Catalogue Information Service has an article titled "Libraries for a post-literate society" here; and there are a number of op-eds concerning the topic (examples here; here; and here). --Kbabej (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Kbabej, for going to all this trouble. The nomination didn't seem to me to be raising issues of notability so I hadn't tried to counter such suggestions. I wondered if the nominator was making some kind of abstruse joke based on the idea that a post-literate culture has now swamped Wikipedia. Perversely, the issue raised seems to be that the topic is not original research because Hedges wrote about it earlier. AFD has degenerated into such a sorry state. People come making arbitrary remarks in the expectation that others will turn up and vote delete. Thincat (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2022 (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. The WP:ATTACK arguments for deletion are poorly substantiated: if somebody is portrayed unflatteringly in reliable sources, reporting this in the article about them is not an attack, but a requirement of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Attack pages are to be speedily deleted by admins, but this is in my view as an administrator so far from being an attack page that I would not seriously consider deleting it (and apparently neither has any other admin chosen to do so).

This leaves us with the question of notability, and in this regard there is no consensus here, because discussion focuses mostly on whether this is an attack page, not whether there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. A renomination focused on this question is possible. Sandstein 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Diesen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to have been created primarily as an attack page. (Redacted) See VRT Ticket 2022031910000677. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted private information. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Norway, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an article that only smears, and all nuance is deleted Gead1979 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)— Gead1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a highly profilic and high-profile commentator on RT who has received widespread media attention[3] in multiple countries for his activities in what the sources describe as the "Russian propaganda machinery".[4][5] Another source notes that he "has an important role in RT as the Western expert, which gives legitimacy to what clearly appears to be the Kremlin's version"[6]
On the other hand he is a professor at a third-tier university (recently upgraded to university) with a very low number of citations in Google Scholar[7], so he would hardly be notable for his scholarly pursuits alone. Hence, the article's current focus is WP:DUE. However, the Putin-affiliated Valdai Discussion Club does list him as one of their "experts."
The article accurately discusses him based on how he is usually portrayed in mainstream Scandinavian reliable sources and duly focuses on the notable aspects of his biography (his RT career over the past couple of years) based on that RS coverage (that also spans a couple of years). Alas, the nominator has made it impossible for editors to take this nomination seriously with his false claim that the page is an "attack page" (defined as an "unsourced or poorly sourced" article when the article is in fact meticulously sourced based on a substantial number of accurately represented mainstream RS that discuss him in depth).
The fact that an article accurately describes an individual who is notable primarily for his role in the Russian propaganda effort (over a period of several years), based on a respectable number of accurately represented mainstream RS, is no reason to delete that article. Neither is the fact that RT would disagree with the article. Also, mentioning that someone so intimately involved with RT has been described as promoting Russian propaganda is hardly controversial from a mainstream perspective; for comparison, this is how RT's editor-in-chief is described: Margarita Simonyan. --PetterLøkd (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PetterLøkd. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a BLP that fits the definition of WP:ATTACK. As an author, he would not pass GNG for all the reasons the article creator, Petter Løkd, states above; therefore, to create a BLP for the sole purpose of desparaging them as a propagandist based on allegations by opposing views makes this BLP a candidate for G10. The reasons presented to keep actually state that the individual is only notable because of the accusations against him, primarily by Norwegian media (which I am unable to confirm as RS). Putting the allegations aside by what may/may not be politicized or biased media, this BLP would probably not pass GNG as written. Atsme 💬 📧 16:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Atsme's comment above. MarioGom (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC) ^{underlined words added for clarity 04:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep The fact that sources paint a subject in bad light and might be disparaging against the subject, that does not mean the article is an attack - as long as it is with due weight in regards to the subject in question and based on reliable sources, which this seem to be. Checking the available Norwegian sources, I feel this passes at least GNG. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This page only publishes smears to present Diesen as an propagandist. While all articles criticizing these attacks are deleted by the same editors. Diesen is a professor who has published 9 books, developed important concepts in political economy and has been praised widely by both politicians and academics. In this "biography" he is presented as a "propagandist" with all articles repudiating this view are deleted by the same editors who attempt to smear him. Gead1979 (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)— Gead1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He is cited 299 times in Google Scholar and works at a former vocational college that has recently become a university. Despite that he has received significant media attention for his prominent role in promoting Russian propaganda in Scandinavia. Virtually all mainstream RS coverage of him (excluding RT of course) discuss, extensively, his "important role in RT" and Diesen "as a part of the Russian propaganda machinery" as sources note (see the article). This is how the Norwegian Helsinki Committee's Russia advisor Aage Borchgrevink describes him: "He has an important role in RT as the Western expert, which gives legitimacy to what clearly appears to be the Kremlin's version [...] His writings are unreliable, its factual basis is doubtful, and characterized by the content and form of Russian propaganda, as expressed in RT and Sputnik"[8] (the source here, Forskerforum, is the magazine owned by the Norwegian Association of Researchers, the main trade union for academics) The "sources" that allegedly "repudiated" his portrayal in mainstream sources were low-quality "sources" including far-right blog no:Resett that is known to publish factually inaccurate content and racist material, and Russian propaganda outlets; but even those "sources" took as their starting point that he is widely described as a Russian propagandist by mainstream media, organizations and experts in Scandinavia. --PetterLøkd (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are what's helping to substantiate WP:ATTACK, along with your apparent attempt to RGW and expose this academic as whatever you consider him to be which is clearly POV. WP is NOTSOAPBOX. Please allow the process to work w/o further desparagement which may result in you being blocked, especially considering there is a VRT ticket that must be considered by the admin who closes this AFD. Atsme 💬 📧 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in personal attacks. Whether you feel RT's commentators have been subjected to "great wrongs" by mainstream sources, this is not the place to right it. We accurately describe the world based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is a discussion about the merits of this article. Your personal attack on me, and ludicrous comments about my appropriate discussion of the article's merits, is disruptive and unrelated to this AfD and further disruption may result in you being blocked. --PetterLøkd (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the PA you're referring to, and provide a diff. Atsme 💬 📧 02:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your false accusation[9] that I have engaged in any form of "desparagement" in my reasonable and on-topic comment[10] that discussed the merits of the article and the sources used as well as the DUE/UNDUE concerns relating to whether he is really more notable as an academic (he clearly isn't), constitutes a personal attack on me and disrupts the discussion on this page. Please only offer commentary that is relevant to the merits of the article. --PetterLøkd (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but so far, 6 editors consider this BLP to be in violation of WP:ATTACK - An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; You created the article, contributed approx. 78% of the text, are attacking me for explaining why it's a violation of BLP, and arguing with me & others over our delete iVotes. What I'm doing IS relevant to the merits of the article, and doing so is not a PA against you. Atsme 💬 📧 06:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. There is no attack page anywhere for the reasons explained by multiple editors. A Wikipedia:Attack page is a page that is "unsourced or poorly sourced", not a meticulously sourced article that accurately reflects the coverage of the subject in mainstream Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and that is really no different from the coverage here of RT (TV network) and other Russian propaganda efforts in numerous other articles, including the one on RT's own editor-in-chief which is in fact even more critical. Your complaints about this article appear to be based entirely on disagreement with the (mainstream, high-quality and reliable) sources themselves and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The claim, on the other hand, that the subject has been "praised widely" etc. was based on fringe sources such as no:Resett. Note that this article has also been created independently by four different editors in four different language editions, that include the same criticism of his prominent and active role with RT, a broadcaster that is banned in the European Union and described as "a major propaganda outlet" in the English Wikipedia's article on it. In fact, false claims that accurate reporting in mainstream, Western reliable sources about Russia's propaganda efforts is an "attack" is something many journalists, experts and human rights activists focused on Russia are quite used to. --PetterLøkd (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an attack page. G10 likely also applies, but since we're here... Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Atsme, Gead1979, and Jip Orlando. GregJackP Boomer! 23:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note how the editors most vehemently opposed to this article engage in BLP violations e.g. here[11], seemingly as revenge for Borchgrevink's critical comments about Diesen. For the record, Borchgrevink, the Helsinki Committee's expert on the human rights situation in Russia, has never been accused of "spreading propaganda for Washington" by any reliable sources. The only source to ever criticize him, the far-right fringe blog no:Resett (for an English article, see RW[12]) (that the editor who felt the need to "vote" multiple times above also attempted to use as a source in this article), was denied membership in professional journalistic associations and is regularly criticized by Norway's fact-checking site Faktisk.no (owned by the large media companies in Norway). This article on the other hand is based on mainstream sources such as the Norwegian equivalent of CNN, so it's simply a matter of mainstream, credible reliable sources offering a mainstream perspective (as seen in this article), versus pro-Kremlin fringe sources (cited by opponents of the article). --PetterLøkd (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Borchgrevink is widely known to spread propaganda on behalf of Washington under the guise of "human rights", and Bogen has written an article for the Atlantic (The Kremlin's Trojan Horses) in which he blacklists Norwegian journalists, politicians and academics who are not sufficiently critical of Russia and who have criticised NATO. These are propagandists smearing opponents and is now repeated on Wikipedia. Gead1979 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)— Gead1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Gead1979 While you can comment as much as you like, you only get to !vote once. I've struck your second and third delete !votes. GregJackP Boomer! 10:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — WP:ATTACK is being thrown around, especially at the editor who created said article, yet not one editor has gone through with G10 and/or few have attempted at rewriting offending aspects of the article. How curious. WP:DOITYOURSELF, no? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Jonatan Svensson Glad's rationale, with pertinence to GNG. Using non-English sources is fine, per WP:NOENG (albeit, I do not speak Norwegian); yet, a quick Google search on the subject returned a piece published in Asia Times (2021), which describes the subject as "[a] leading pundit on Russia" and proceeds to quote the subject's work. Furthermore, assuming this is the same subject — there is a Radio National interview (2014) between Diesen and journalist Waleed Aly, which was released whilst the subject was a lecturer at Macquarie University (might be useful in building the article). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushma Adhikari[edit]

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

Deleted in AfD 14 months ago. Declined multiple times in AfC over the past six months or so, and draftified after it had been moved to mainspace. The draft creator chose to move it back to mainspace. No sign of added notability since the previous AfD discussion.

I have cleaned it up pretty drastically, removing sources that are blatantly inappropriate in a BLP, as well as non-notable awards – in some cases "sourced" to sources that didn't mention the award. Here is the pre-cleanup version. bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unsure if the Nepali and Bhojpuri sources on the article establish notability or not. I did find an english-language article on the kathmandu tribune which gave info about her birthplace and schooling, but I couldn't add it because the site is blacklisted (couldn't find out why and there's only this discussion at RSN). So that leave me unsure on notability Mujinga (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address the very valid question about Nepali language sources, here's a quick assessment. For the non-English sources I have relied on auto translators, and since those translations are always full of errors, I have been as generous as possible in my evaluation. --bonadea contributions talk 08:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bonadea
https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2016/04/417829	Probably independent, but not primary (interview)	~ per User:Usedtobecool/PSN		✘ No
https://nagariknews.nagariknetwork.com/photo-feature/79616-1435621066.html	?	? Probably, per User:Usedtobecool/PSN where myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com is listed as generally reliable	One paragraph and a bunch of photos	✘ No
https://www.news24nepal.tv/2021/09/22/818391	I'm not 100% convinced it is independent: it reads like a press release, but on the other hand I find no other signs that it is a PR	per User:Usedtobecool/PSN	~ The best source of the lot, but not really sufficient	~ Partial
https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2017/10/633095	Press release	~ per User:Usedtobecool/PSN	Very brief text accompanying pictures from a photo shoot	✘ No
https://rajdhanidaily.com/id/56132/	Press release	per User:Usedtobecool/PSN	very brief	✘ No
https://zeenews.india.com/bhojpuri/dinesh-lal-yadav-aamrapali-dubeys-nirahua-chalal-london-gets-a-humungous-response-from-the-audience-2181147.html	Press release. Compare with this.	per WP:ICTFSOURCES	Her name is listed in a list of actors who appear in the film	✘ No
https://ratopati.com/story/226448/2022/3/14/movie	Press release	? per User:Usedtobecool/PSN	very brief	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

weak keep - The subject has acted in notable Bhojpuri movies and can see many sources in TOI and other news. TOI

ABP NEWS News18 hindi --Khagendrawiki (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those would be used in a biography about a living person, and none of them indicates notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:UPE. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:28, 24 March 2022 (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. and I don't see one forthcoming in this three week old discussion Star Mississippi 01:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington)[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill local park with no claims to non-local notability, thus not likely to meet GNG and NGEO. Can be easily merged into the local city's article. Sounder Bruce 06:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington. It's hardly even a park, more just the lawn of some admin buildings. Reywas92^Talk 17:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I have 30 minutes for dinner on my 24 hour shift until I have to go back to the last stragglers of "Covid isn't real" patients. Let's do this!

1. The park has existed for 114 years with many interesting historical stories one would expect of something this old.

2. The park has undergone several revisions and purposes over the course of its history.

3. The park was important to the residents of the city since it was donated and is a crucial part of Chehalis' operating infrastructure.

4. All of this is mentioned and ref'd in the article.

As to the dismissiveness towards Henderson Park :

1. The park is hardly "run-of-the-mill". 114 years old? Funny aside that the city forgot about the park immediately? A connection to a now defunct Chehalis park? It houses several city government departments including as a disaster preparedness site in a city that often suffers from flooding?

2. Article passes the WP:GNG test...GNG does not require that CNN or the NY Times write about the park. Article is sourced and reliable.

3. As for WP:NGEO, "'...sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."' Passed! Again, no requirement that the BBC or the LA Times write about it nor that the location has to reach some sort of statewide, nationwide, or worldwide recognition.

4. "It's hardly even a park, more just the lawn of some admin buildings."...Come on, dude...delete 'cause I don't see a swing set? You gotta come with more than that.

This article cannot be redirected and "easily be merged into the local city's article". The nominator disliked the park system being discussed in too much fashion on the Chehalis page. Disliked the parks being discussed in too much fashion on the Parks and rec page for Chehalis. Now dislikes the park having it's own page.

This notion that small city/small town USA can only have things written if it is already known to some wide audience (or reaches an undefined target of vague notability) is laughable (and liberals like me wonder why rural USA feels unheard and forgotten!). Who in a holy monkey's name in Miami, or Chicago, or Austin is ever going to know about Chehalis or Henderson Park unless some unfortunate disaster strikes it or a celebrity gets in trouble with local law enforcement? But we have to keep those readers in mind when we type...not the Wiki users who are looking based on their own personal curiosity or educational growth. The entire premise of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge to all looking for it, regardless of what led them to begin their discovery. Who is arrogant enough here to deem that Henderson Park, at 114 years old, deserves nothing but a boring, truncated sentence or two, lacking nuance and substance, as if that's enough? How will the nominator be satisfied when he has repeatedly held that the Chehalis page and parts of it's story must be limited by these vague rules?

Kinda odd, huh? Since people don't know Chehalis, let's not write about it!

Goofy.

As an example, I direct you to Mayfield, Kentucky. I visited the page after the terrible loss of life during the December 2021 tornado strike...and I walked away from that page wanting more. More about the city, the schools, it's economy, and YES!!!, it's parks! My husband wanted to know more about Mayfield's minor league baseball history. And we couldn't because we can't, based on this wayward thinking of what Wikipedia should be - an encyclopedia, run by a volunteer effort that holds sway that knowledge must be intentionally curtailed because...is this important to the people of anywhere else??? Mayfield was in that moment, if those 275,000 visitors to their page the week after that tornado is any indication.

And Mayfield, Kentucky had a moment, a disastrous one, yes, but a moment via Wikipedia to announce itself, to speak to the reader what the city is, what it means, what it offers. It had a chance to provide knowledge of itself to 275,000 over the course of one week alone. But the nominating editor, and editors like them, doesn't think that way. Henderson Park is a small area in a small city that the average person would never know of. So, let's keep it that way...?

Goofy.

Henderson Park is being forgotten. It is overlooked. Despite 114 years, it may be lost to history. Because it is a small part of a small city known by a small percentage of the larger world. But it doesn't have to be. Wikipedia has been a massive success story to the common reader. Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers of mine since Wikipedia first started have mentioned time upon time how they discovered something - something local - in their own small towns and cities thanks to reading about it here. A co-worker in January mentioned to me she discovered a park that she never knew of, a mile from her home here around the Puget Sound...and she's lived there for 10 years! The article was just three, four sentences long. Needs to be expanded because the park history is just too cool to not write about. She found that by coming to Wikipedia. She and her husband go there every Sunday for coffee now, rain or, well, since this is the PNW, rain.

She wasn't a resident of St. Louis, Toronto, or San Diego. She's never been to the eastern seaboard much less lived there. She was a local resident who discovered something new about her neighborhood from coming to Wikipedia. And what in the name of Susan Lucci is wrong with that?!

That's how Henderson Park can matter. That's what people in and around Chehalis can experience. Learning something new about something old in Chehalis. Motivating them to explore more of Chehalis, its parks, the surrounding communities, western Washington...a real Wiki-rabbit hole! Henderson Park isn't some gated community common area, accessible only to residents, patrolled by moms and dads who will sue everyone west of the Rockies when their precious angel skins their knee on the slide. It's a park open to all, existing before the Titanic went down and (my husband wishes to add this...my sincerest apologies for some upcoming baseball boredom...) donated the year the Cubs last won the World Series before the "blessing" (really?) of the 2016 championship. If I can just wait it out until I can legally put him in a home...

I stand by the article, obviously, because I believe delisting the article, and therefore the history of this park, is a complete disservice to spreading knowledge. Yes, Henderson Park is not in Seattle, and it's not Lake People Park, nor is it Louisa Boren Park, and though the park may not mean much to the editors above, nor should it, why should it cease to matter to others, even if those others are just the good people of a small city of "only" 7,000.

For the record, I believe that the editor of origin for this deletion nomination is not an impartial party due to his documented negative interactions with edits at Chehalis, Washington as well as towards my attempts to broaden the scope of what is written about said city and local communities. While I am not a great editor, I had hopes that his lack of following my edits around lately meant he was finally going to leave me alone but alas, he persists.

Shortiefourten (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion discussions; but in any case, a major park in a smaller city can be notable if it's covered by non-local sources or part of a larger system. Also, hounding is a strong accusation and one not made in good faith. I'm simply doing my part in housekeeping and pruning to prevent articles on non-notable things from proliferating and creating an increased maintenance burden on the project. My interests happen to cover the state I live in, which is not territory owned by any one editor. Sounder Bruce 06:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did not argue a single point I made to defend the article, so I'll take that as a win.

So, let's go off on the tangent of your own making...'cause tangents always bring consensus! You will need to support this - "a major park in a smaller city can be notable if it's covered by non-local sources or part of a larger system". First, there is no WP citing this, thus making this deletion request an opinion, not an AGF effort. Second, you do remember the Chehalis Park and Rec article I built that you stamped with a huge citation box after it was barely a half-day out of AfC space, yeah? The whole page of a "larger system" of the city of Chehalis' park, uh, system?

I did not use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument...I'm not even sure after all I wrote how it's that with which you came away with. What I attempted to achieve was a realistic call to use Mayfield, Kentucky as an example as to how we are failing in bringing knowledge to readers simply because the article is about a small, not widely known topic. Using personal stories to show how Wikipedia is far more reaching at a LOCAL LEVEL, which should be a bonus not a burden, but thusly overlooked (or laughed at?) by using over-interpreted rules which prevent rural areas their due. This whole, "it's only notable if it's widely notable", using an undefined target of vague notability, is harmful, especially for smaller communities who can't realistically compete with Seattle, Tacoma, or Olympia in wider coverage and writings.

Furthermore, for someone who openly accused me of WP:OWN in March 2021, and then to write here that your interests to protect WA articles from what you believe to be burdens and non-notability because you live/have an interest here, seems, well...can you not see this, honestly? I have 4 decades of being a Washingtonian on my resume, born and raised, loving this state...why can't I use that as an excuse to hide behind AGF, too?

My writing that you are not impartial is therefore a valid AGF statement to make based on your very statement above, and your following me is backed by your repeated, and disturbingly immediate, edits over my own throughout last year. Your dismissive edits to the Chehalis page in August 2019 motivated me to become an editor. I suspect nuance may not be your bag, so to be clear, this is not a compliment. My feelings on this matter are clear and there are no ambiguities - I find your editing and behavior towards me controlling and threatening and I reiterate my March 2021 statement - do not contact me and leave me alone.

Shortiefourten (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per User:Shortiefourten. --Doncram (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reminder that wp:gng states: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." That does not affect this article, but does appear to be relevant for some articles linked from Parks_and_recreation_in_Chehalis,_Washington. Lamona (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy GNG. Other stuff existing and people liking the pretty park aren't reasons for it to be kept. – DarkGlow • 15:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met despite assertions to the contrary. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree that it probably is just over the bar for notability but having reviewed the topic area I'd still tend to merge it to Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington. It's a 1-acre park in a conurbation of 7,500 people that's less than 150 years old; apparently Americans call Chehalis a "city" (if you heard a strange noise then, it was my mind boggling). There are about ten other parks in the same ~~vill~~city so having individual articles on each is a little too granular for my tastes.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. No reason why we can't use local sources to establish notability. I don't think a merge would be beneficial as where would the additional information go? There's no room in the table at Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington. NemesisAT (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's not exactly difficult to expand a table, is it?—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not difficult to stuff three paragraphs into a table, sure, but it would be unweildy and especially hard to read on mobile devices. I think the information is better presented in its own article. NemesisAT (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That table ought to be converted to prose anyway, per WP:WHENTABLE.—S Marshall T/C 17:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roxi Copland[edit]

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

Alleged to be G11, however there is some claim to notability here in the awards section which - while questionable to meet - makes this in my own eyes a better candidate for AFD. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Texas, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I debated AFDing it but thought it was overwhelmingly promotional. In any case, aside from the advert issues, I don't see any evidence of notability, most of her coverage is hyper local (including from NPR which spotlights local musicians from all over the country and it isn't a big deal.) She's won some local contests but nothing to the extent that would qualify her for WP:NMUSIC. In addition, most of the sources are lackluster, black-hat SEO, interviews or PR. CUPIDICAE💕 13:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards seem non-notable, I find nothing to support notability, hits in Gbooks are about a male with her last name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IranPress News Agency[edit]

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

Alleged to be db-spam, however the article does suggest some measure of notability. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Iran. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is xwiki spam, with no notability as evidenced by teh fact that it's been deleted 6 times on FA wiki and is currently in the process of being deleted there which indicates that the fa sources, as well as the english sources are insufficient to establish notability. CUPIDICAE💕 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This is a news agency which some people might use as a source for other articles; I believe it is important that most possible news agencies, which have the potential of being used as sources, have an article about them, in order to give people a general view of what that news agency is, and which party it supports.
My second reason is that IranPress is part of the IRIB world service, it is basically part of a governmental agency. A l l o t h e r I R I B c h a n n e l s a l r e a d y have an article about them, so it would be very nice if we could just complete the list by keeping this one too. Viral weirdo (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched google news, google scholar and google books before commenting. I saw nothing notable. One link is a primary source and the other is a student book club. A complete failure to prove notability here. CT55555 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Limits[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes; no suitable or reliable sources or reviews were found to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not looking like a notable film. Doesn’t realise policies for films or the generic policy of WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references Rlink2 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GEO-LEO[edit]

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

No references or clear claim of significance. Reads like an advertisement and was created by a user with no other edits and "Geo" in their name. Used to be much more promotional, but appears to have since been whittled down to a stub. Bsoyka (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bsoyka (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bsoyka (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Geography, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be just an online repository. It could be included in a list of online libraries, but there doesn't seem to be anything distinctive about this one. Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just another online repository, agree with Sean on it. Artem.G (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significance. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Knowledge Societies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, there is an issue with WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. However, if anyone can update the page and bring it to WP:HEY level, then they are most welcome. - Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a small group of consultants with a defunct website. There are a few passing media mentions but no significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zapr Media Labs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Citations are WP:ROUTINE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marketing material. So many sources that are not WP:RELY. Not realising the WP:NCORP policy, as rightly pointed out. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Navi Group[edit]

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

End-to-end promotional article. Fails WP:NCORP because most of its citations are WP:ROUTINE/WP:ADMASQ. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Also, the page is created by a WP:SOCK. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Companies. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only routine and promotional coverage found, both within the article and through a wider search. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2022 (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. Editors are encouraged to make some improvements in the article and add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selena ¡VIVE![edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources that discuss this event, the DVD or album. I was excited to find https://www.allmusic.com/album/selena-%C2%A1vive%21-dvd--mw0001015820 but it is only a track listing, not a review. Passing mention in https://books.google.ca/books?id=BBUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22Selena+%C2%A1VIVE!%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=fxxoH7VY-Q&sig=ACfU3U2yLt-jNxMWFud-ect0hmV4J39Frg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicot-9s5f2AhVhFzQIHUKNBcU4MhDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=%22Selena%20%C2%A1VIVE!%22%20-wikipedia&f=false and apparently an ebook, but otherwise only sales sites. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources used, could be a section in the Selena article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. I didn't even think that Selena could be a logical target for a this search term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Television, and Events. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a source about the viewership...and there was also a source in the talk page that's been waiting to go on there for ten years. I would think a special which broke viewership records about a beloved singer would be easily sourced, and I'll do my best to find a few more, but I don't think deletion is a remedy here. Nate • (chatter) 10:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I listed the Billboard reference above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Besides the viewership record that the event achieved as noted by Nate, there's 377 unique mentions on the event on newspapers.com (membership required to access sourced materials) in English and Spanish newspapers. The only reason why the article is in a dire state is the lack of editing activity and the vast majority of sources for the event are housed behind paywalls. This doesn't warrant a deletion, let alone a merge to the singer's page as there seems to be more about this event than what a Wikipedia article on the subject currently has. – jona ✉ 20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, just found the soundtrack to the event debuted on Billboard chart page 48, under Top Latin Albums of the week. – jona ✉ 20:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Entering the Latin Albums chart has not really garnered much more press for the work. It, may be notable, but clearly, with lack of other press, it is not. All of these details can be supplied in a two short sentences in the subject's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the strangest argument I have seen. GNG is clear that a subject may be notable if "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is not one piece of significant coverage anywhere to be seen. IF you want to argue it may be notable because it meets some other criteria, go ahead, but it in no possible way meets GNG. If you think it does, show the significant coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep arguments not addressing policy. Please evidence the claims to meet GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this was relisted. I already provided Walter with the "significant coverage" he is seeking. The sources, as I mentioned above, are housed behind paywalls which GNG states: Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. not sure why this rule seems to be dismissed when presented with the sources that clearly shows "significant coverage" in newspapers from that time. As someone aligned with the Latin Music Wikiproject, I already know firsthand that articles pertaining to Latin music are scarce, and the vast majority of them are behind paywalls. Not sure why he thought a subject, with primary interest from Spanish-speaking communities, from 2005 would be widely available throughout a simple google search in 2022. However, since my specialty pertains to Latin music, searching in google would be my last desperate option to locate any coverage for Latin music-related articles. Didn't know that 377 newspapers.com matches is unsatisfactory and fails GNG. – jona ✉ 18:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- First, because two editors have voiced concern about lack of coverage and, no you have not provided significant coverage. You have suggested that there may be significant coverage. It could be 337 passing mentions in a TV guide listing, or it could be an entirely different topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: have the sources been proven to actually exist? Paywalled is a red herring, they need to be proven to exist as indepth and independent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment additional sources: Houston Chronicle, Hispanic Magazine/BanderasNews, El Universo, Elsalvador.com.-KH-1 (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round to analyze the sources indicated above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are some hits from the proquest database:
- "'Selena: Vive!' out on DVD this month: The sold-out Selena tribute concert that drew 50,000-plus fans to Houston last April will be released June 28 on DVD. John Powell Metz. Corpus Christi Caller - Times; Corpus Christi [Corpus Christi]. 01 Aug 2011.
- `SELENA: !VIVE!' CELEBRATES A MUSICAL LEGACY: [CONEXION Edition] Burr, Ramiro. Conexion; San Antonio, Tex. [San Antonio, Tex]. 14 Apr 2005: 26A.
- 'Selena-Vive!' honors star's life, music legacy Fans regret the absence of singer, who broke barriers: The brightest stars of the Latin music world will unite and pay tribute to the Queen of Tejano, Selena Quintanilla-Perez, during Univision's "Selena-Vive!" Tribute Concert on Thursday at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Hinojosa, Cassandra; Caller-Times. Corpus Christi Caller - Times; Corpus Christi [Corpus Christi]. 01 Aug 2011.
- SELENA TRIBUTE PERFORMERS: The performers for the "Selena Vive!" concert in Houston include: Thalia is burning up the charts in her native Mexico as well as the Billboard Top 10 Latin Charts. Cavazos, Mary Ann; Vasquez, Tina; Caller-Times. Corpus Christi Caller - Times; Corpus Christi [Corpus Christi]. 01 Aug 2011.

That's just the top hits - there are others, although so far I don't see any beyond Corpus Christi Caller, the San Antonio Connexion, and the Houston Chronicle. Most of the ones I've reviewed are announcements (ticket sales, headliners). I don't know if that is enough to make this notable. jona, if you could give more information on the articles you have found that would be more helpful than a simple number of hits. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: Here is what I was able to find. The event was the most-watched Spanish-language program in American television history, highlighted by Houston Chronicle which makes the article pass WP:Notability. Neilsen ratings of the event said it was the most-watched television special by Latinos, more than that of the Super Bowl that took place that February. Early stages/plans of the concert on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, according to the The Monitor, Houston mayor Bill White appeared in a news conference along with Edward James Olmos and Bobby Pulido. The newspaper goes into detail about the controversy of the lack of more Tejano/groupo acts in the program and the proceeds that will benefit the Selena Foundation. The Fresno Bee announcement of more performers. Music executive Jose Behar of Universal Music Group announces the CD of the event as part of a larger release, an "unprecedented" amount for the company during an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News. Emilio Estefan and Gloria Estefan's involvement of the event and interviewed on The Courier (Iowa), another interview of the Estefan's The Monitor. Music engineering and mixing for the event commences Sacramento Bee, ticket giveaways on radio stations and interviews with those who won on Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Spanish preview and commentary, a reporter believes "millions more will watch the show on TV" and name of the event's sponsor Austin-American Statesman, according to people "it's not only radio stations talking about it, it's everyone" Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the event marked the first time her band performed together since 1995 San Angelo Standard-Times, 20 performers were to take part before it was cut down Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a list of all performers and a review for each one of them Corpus Christi Caller-Times,

red Carpet of the event The Sacramento Bee, a review of the red carpet taping Associated Press, another review of the red carpet taping Austin American Statesman, a review of the show by Corpus Christi Caller-Times, a review of the show by San Angelo Standard-Times, two-page review of the show by Austin American Statesman, two-page review of the show by The Fresno Bee, the show was the fourth most-watched television show in Los Angeles, California it was watched by 664,000 people according to Neilsen ratings The Los Angeles Times, a review of the show by Tuscan Citizen, broke Neilsen ratings Corpus Christi Caller-Times, a review of the show by Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a review by Leila Cobo The Fresno Bee and Arizona Republic, the show broke Neilsen ratings records and another review by The Fresno Bee, a review of the show by Ventura County Star, a review of one of the performances Corpus Christi Caller-Times, a review of the show by The Times News (Idaho), a review of the album which debuted on Billboard Latin Albums chart by The Fresno Bee, the album peaked at number two on the Latin Pop Albums chart The Fresno Bee, announcement of a DVD release Fort Worth Star-Telegram. This is all from a search on newspapers.com only looking through January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2006. I did not want to exhaust my time searching, there are plenty more newspaper articles on the event. Elsewhere, I was able to find a reenactment of the show that took place in Mexico City by drag queens in August 2005, a review and interviews of that performance by Deborah Vargas spreads three pages in her 2012 book Dissonant Divas in Chicana Music. – jona ✉ 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Houston Chronicle and El Universio sources are not paywalled and fully comply with GNG requirements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 25 March 2022 (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 and draftify to Draft:Japanese mythology in popular culture. There is a pretty clear consensus to delete in this discussion. The notability concerns are not particularly convincing, and most participants agree that an article on this topic could exist. However, there does appear to be agreement that a list format may not be the right approach for this article, and therefore the article should be blown up and started over from scratch. The reason I'm draftifying the article is a bit IAR since no one really asked for that, but I'd like to keep the article visible to non-admins for two purposes: first, in case anyone wants to merge any good content to other articles, and second, in case anyone wants to take a stab at rewriting the article, they'll have access to the 14 citations in the article as well as the other good sources brought up within this discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese mythology in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A pure indiscriminate list and example farm, fails WP:LISTN. Potentially notable topic, but the article is entirely unsalvageable and has seen no improvement since previous AfD in 2011. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability of the topic was established in the 2011 AfD. While the current article may indeed suck, nothing is preventing any editor from cleaning it up. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NEXIST implies there isn't somewhere else for the information to go and therefore there is no point deleting the article. However, any reliably sourced info can easily be added to Japanese mythology without this article having to be there, that article is not even that large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST as hopelessly broad. The topic might be suitable as a general article, but not as a list of examples. (Same applies to Greek mythology in popular culture and other mythologies.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete not appropriate for a list. Notability concerns. an interesting topic for an actual article, but we can’t list every single instance of something common like, I dunno, a kappa or an oni in popular culture. If this list was actually going to be maintained do you know how many anime and manga alone would have to be listed? Dronebogus (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draft. Title of the article is not "list of" and no need for it to be a list. Just cut everything without a source, and what is sourced put into paragraph form instead of a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a mere 15 sources for this huge list, and they’re all mediocre or terrible. Keep what? Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you cut out all the garbage and only used what MIGHT be salvageable, the article would look like this:

Extended content

{{more citations needed|date=August 2009}} Elements from '''[[Japanese folklore]] and [[Japanese mythology|mythology]]''' have appeared many times in popular culture. ==[[Akaname]]== * The ''akaname'' has been depicted in various media, including in the [[anime]] and video game franchise ''[[Yo-kai Watch]]''.<ref name=paste>{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/04/8-videogame-characters-based-on-japanese-folklore.html|title=8 Videogame Characters Based On Japanese Folklore|last=Yarwood|first=Jack|date=27 April 2016|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]|access-date=7 August 2019}}</ref> ==kitsune== *Neil Gaiman's novella ''[[The Sandman: The Dream Hunters]]'' is about a Buddhist monk and a kitsune who fall in love.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Callahan|first=Tim|date=2013-04-17|title=The Sandman Reread: The Dream Hunters|url=https://www.tor.com/2013/04/17/sandman-reread-the-dream-hunters/|access-date=2021-02-10|website=Tor.com|language=en-US}}</ref> == See also == * [[Shinto in popular culture]] *[[Japanese urban legend]] * [[Kitsune in popular culture]] * [[List of legendary creatures from Japan]] * [[Namahage]] * [[Yōkai]] ==References== {{reflist}} {{Japanese folklore long}} {{Jmyth navbox long}}

clearly no reason to keep a fat ~~three~~ two entries Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If cleanup shrinks it that much it'd get to an easy place to merge. Or draft, either way. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is there if you want to move it to a draftspace. Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nowikid the code above, it was messing stuff up.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very notable topic, but this list is pure WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTTRIVIA in needs of WP:TNT. Ping me if this is rewritten into prose, with sources, and I'll reconsider my vote. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, trim, improve, or merge for the time being: As has been said, the notability of the subject is hardly in doubt here. In addition to the sources mentioned in the first deletion discussion, look a sources like this paper, the whole book Japanese Mythology in Film, this book chapter, this paper, The Bloomsbury Handbook of Japanese Religions and Mythology and Gods of Japan by Hirafuji Kikuko it refers to. Therefore, it's just not correct that it fails WP:LISTN! So why focus on deletion rather than improving what we have by added references where appropriate before removing unsuitable examples? I think the cut-out section by Dronebogus falls short of what's actually sourced already. E.g. why not to include the ki-rin entry by slate.com? Also, the Paste magazine article alone, while maybe not a high-tier magazine, could support eight entries, as the title says. If after such an improvement round (or before, if the majority should be so much bothered by a temporarily imperfect state) this should remains so short that it easily fits into Japanese mythology as a section, then sure, let's merge it there until such time that someone expands it more. As the sources show, such an expansion would easily be possible. If it becomes too broad, this can be an navigational aid and overview of sub-topics like kitsune in popular culture. If a list-form or prose from is the end result can be determined by what editors want to do here, and is a topic of clean-up, not a deletion discussion. That the broad scope is not exclusion critereon is shown by the existance of Greek mythology in popular culture as cited by Clarityfiend themselves. Daranios (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed bits I’ll admit. I didn’t even notice Slate. Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Another case where the article's title is on a notable topic, but the actual contents of the article would require a complete and utter rewrite, and is too full of inappropriate material (i.e., non-notable, unsourced and/or WP:OR) to remain in the main space while any kind of rewrite is underway. I am completely fine with the article being moved to Draftspace to help with a rewrite, of course, just opposed to it remaining in article space. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG due to a lack of third party sources, completely composed of WP:OR. The WP:OR is so pervasive that the article is loaded with western bias, focusing on random examples instead of giving due weight to how Japanese themes are represented around the world. If you were to write a proper article about the topic, there would be nothing here to WP:PRESERVE, as it's all sourced to primary sources, none of it in prose as per WP:MOS, and none of it in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE weight. This is another case like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction where there might be a notable topic, and a proper article would preserve nothing from the current form, which fails almost all of our policies and guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:GNG and therefore WP:LISTN specifically refer to the topic, not the current state of the article. Such sources about the topic exist, even if you are not satisfied with those which are present in the article. Daranios (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of @Jclemens:, @Hyperbolick:, and @Daranios:. This is a comment to the closer of this discussion if that page is deleted, I ask that all entries are transferred to the pages of the Japanese mythology creatures in question. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely per WP:G4. Just shuffling junk around to game the system. Dronebogus (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an unhelpful and unencyclopedic attitude. Individual content that meets V and has an appropriate home in a notable topic should indeed be kept vs. deleted. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely have no idea how you see that as WP:NOTHERE. I said it was junk because 99% of it is junk— i.e. WP:OR and fancruft. Dronebogus (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude of dismissing arguments you don’t like as “NOTHERE” is far more disruptive and inappropriate. Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dronebogus You demonstrated both a poor attitude towards another editor rather than good faith, and you did it by citing a policy, WP:CSD#G4, in an entirely wrong manner. G4 does not apply to adding deleted content to notable pages, only to substantially unchanged recreation of deleted pages, and anyone citing it--especially in such a dismissive manner--has an obligation to represent policy correctly, which you failed to do. Such WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior--this is junk and must be eliminated--is not what Wikipedia is about. If you don't want to be tagged as WP:NOTHERE, start AGF'ing, reducing win-or-lose outcomes and look for solutions that satisfy everyone, and have empathy for people who don't see things your way. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue you are assuming bad faith by suggesting I deliberately misinterpreted policy instead of accidentally misinterpreted it. I was not assuming bad faith with the other editor— I was trying to explain what I believed was a application of policy. You still seem like you are mining for reasons to needle me. Dronebogus (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when the incident happened 6 days ago. Dronebogus (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I feel the instances (if notable) would be much better presented in prose on the pages of the Japanese mythology creatures in question. It isn't considered pure trivia if there is some context behind the appearance, and the information is valuable if presented in the right way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate aggregation of fancruft; Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. The topic is almost certainly notable, but would need a full rewrite based on secondary sources into a prose article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination) for how this is done). Sandstein 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TNT applies. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Jiancheng[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has multiple references. An act of bravery like this might well earn a soldier of the United States or United Kingdom one of their country's top awards for bravery, and recipients of the George Cross, Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honor are always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good amount of coverage on Chinese websites, and he was given the "Flood Fighting Hero" title (the PRC's military honours system is very ad hoc, but this sort of title ranks very very high). Atchom (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as WP:PROPAGANDA, only Chinese media sources given, poorly written and not NPOV: "He loved study as a child. He was an outstanding student", "He was awarded by the Air Force several times" and "After his death, his mother sent his brother Gao Jianmin to inherit Gao's career." Seems like an attempt to create a new Lei Feng. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact of life that most coverage of a PRC person is going to come from the PRC; that itself isn't disqualifying. Atchom (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is disqualifying when its propaganda from a country without media freedom. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you think Wikipedia should not cover most of the world at all this is clearly a ridiculous position. Atchom (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you think Wikipedia should be an echo of Chinese Communist Party propaganda it is clearly not a ridiculous position. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep I have cleaned up and rewritten the page to describe his role as a Chinese Communist Party propaganda icon. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats for all of us. Even when Gao was a propaganda icon, I think he is still more realistic than many superheroes of Marvel Universe. I have just found a comics book about him at https://www.abebooks.com/Flood-fighting-hero-comics-Series-flood-Gao/8873430185/bd . Another successful propaganda icon, it could help improve rescue operations and save more lives in future. Leemyongpak (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you said he was "neither Commercial nor Political character" when he clearly was a "Political character". Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, let me rephrase my words "neither Commercial nor Political character" clearly. We can modify our opinion during the consensus, someone just rephrase a few words to clarify their mind, others even change their vote from Delete to Keep :) Leemyongpak (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My change of vote was due to the provisions of RS (Guardian and SCMP), that's how AfD works. Mztourist (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A hero who sacrificed to save his teammate and people. He was the "Flood Fighting Hero", neither Commercial nor Political character. Recognized by Chinese government and Admired by million of Chinese persons is notable enough. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gittings, John (1998-09-01). "The amazingly good soldier of Yangtze: John Gittings in Beijing on the rise of a hero from China's floods". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-03-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  Gao Jiancheng was swept away on August 1 in a disaster on the Yangtze River which has been reported only sketchily. The first day of August happened to be national Army Day.Named by China's president, Jiang Zemin, as a 'hero of flood resistance', Gao has become a posthumous propaganda icon. His unfortunate wife has also been swept up in what amounts to a media flood. She has been shown studying an over-lifesize statue of her late husband, knocked together hastily by some sculptors in Shanghai. 'It's just like him,' she was quoted as saying: 'I feel as if he is still alive.' There is a well established convention for the writing up of heroic deeds which dates back to the 1949 revolution. Though China has changed greatly in recent years, this politico-literary style remains absolutely the same.
2. Ho, Andy (1998-08-18). "Rescue lessons lost in party line". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  The article notes: "A new national hero has been created as part of the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to transform the most devastating natural disasters of the decade into a patriotic campaign to unite the nation. The late Gao Jiancheng, a 32-year-old PLA lieutenant, was hailed by the Central Military Commission as a 'flood combat hero' - the first and only such title conferred by President Jiang Zemin for PLA officers. Supervised by the party central, the People's Daily accorded front page coverage to Gao's gallantry. As political instructor of an anti-aircraft company, he had insisted on being in command of a mission in protecting a dyke in Jiayu County, Hebei Province, even though he had been suffering from a fever for days."
3. Xinhua News Agency sources:
  1. Sun, Maoqing; Zhaoquan, Jia (1998-08-30). "China holds forum to praise "flood-combating hero"". Xinhua News Agency. ProQuest 450124896. Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
    The article notes: "Gao Jiancheng was the political instructor of a certain air force artillery regiment. On 1st August, he heroically sacrificed his life while trying to rescue the masses and his comrades-in-arms during his unit's emergency and rescue operation in Bizhouwan, Hubei's Jiayu County."
  2. Sun, Maoqing; Zhaoquan, Jia (1998-09-07). "China: Military leader Zhang Wannian praises President Jiang's flood leadership". Xinhua News Agency. ProQuest 450107835. Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
    The article notes: "At the meeting, Zhang Wannian presented a heroic model medal, first grade, and a certificate for martyr Gao Jiancheng to his wife Lu Pei. Prior to the opening of the meeting, Zhang Wannian also met Lu Pei and extended lofty greetings and warm comfort to the family of comrade Gao Jiancheng on behalf of Chairman Jiang Zemin."
  3. Sun, Chengbin; Qu, Wei; Hu, Xiaoguang (2002-10-11). "Chinese agency hails party achievements over past 13 years". Xinhua News Agency. ProQuest 449930664. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
    The article notes: "Li Gang, a press photographer, still can remember till this day the scenes on the flood-fighting forefront in 1998: When the body of Gao Jiancheng, a CCP member and a young servicemen, was retrieved from the water, his left hand was still held high. ... Four years have passed, yet these words coming straight from the depths of the hearts of the masses still can make his blood boil today."
  4. Li, Shengjiang (1998-08-19). "China: Report on flood control efforts". Xinhua News Agency. ProQuest 453966905. Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
    The article notes: "The long list of heroes who have sacrificed their lives in the arduous battle include Gao Jiancheng, an air force officer who died while attempting to save the life of a comrade. Gao's septuagenarian mother, a resident of Hunan Province, learned of her son's death and decided to allow her three remaining sons and two grandsons to join the effort."
4. 1998 article. Foreign Languages Press. 1998. Retrieved 2022-03-23 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "On August 1, 1998, Gao Jiancheng, a soldier of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, died of fatigue after he had rescued several of his comrades-in-arms from a flood. Lu Bei, his 28-year-old wife, made a present of the more than 100,000 yuan donated to her and her daughter by soldiers of the unit in which her husband had served
5. ""抗洪英雄"高建成生前所在部队纪念17烈士牺牲18周年" ["Anti-flood hero" Gao Jiancheng's army commemorates the 18th anniversary of the sacrifice of the 17th martyrs] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2016-08-05. Archived from the original on 2022-03-23. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Gao Jiancheng (Chinese: 高建成) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and South China Morning Post articles you have quoted just confirm my earlier comments that this is WP:PROPAGANDA by the Chinese Communist Party attempting to create a new Lei Feng. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard's sources. We would cover an American or European war hero even though that is also likely propaganda, and not covering a Chinese one because of "propaganda" is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Questionable claims can be resolved with attribution: "According to state-run media..." Jumpytoo Talk 17:20, 24 March 2022 (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. After a full rewrite by TompaDompa (thanks!) to make this an actual article rather than a list of fancruft. Sandstein 15:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genies in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been example-cruft and an indiscriminate list ever since it was split off the main article in 2008. Fails WP:LISTN, these are the sorts of popular culture articles that are a detriment rather than benefit. (It was AfD'd previously by TTN, and some voted "Keep" as "the topic is notable", but has seen no improvement to convert it into a decent article). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom fails to articulate why the article fails LISTN. Sufficient sources were brought up in last AfD to demonstrate notability. The fact that it hasn't been cleaned up is something that can and should be addressed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason any potentially notable info cannot be in the existing Jinn#In popular culture instead of here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has no possible way of fitting there. I exported the most recent version of the article over to https://cultural-phenomenons.fandom.com/wiki/Genies_in_popular_culture to preserve it. Couldn't do a full history important because the file size was too large. Dream Focus 06:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably notable topic, but this list is pure WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTTRIVIA in needs of WP:TNT. Ping me if this is rewritten into prose, with sources, and I'll reconsider my vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC) PS. Changing to keep due to a total rewrite by TD. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - While the actual title of this article is notable, the actual contents of the article is not. I would not be opposed to having this being sent to Draft if someone felt that would actually be helpful to have while doing a complete rewrite (which is unquestioningly what would need to be done), but the completely inappropriate material (i.e. the unsourced, non-notable, and/or WP:OR material) that is almost the entirety of the current content should not remain in the main space during this process, just because it happens to be under a notable topic title. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent article rewrite that addressed the previous issues, and removed the problematic material. Rorshacma (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my opinion is the same than in the last nomination: The nomination in my view is not correct in that this fails WP:LISTN, because the topic is discussed in secondary sources like "From Jinn to Genies" and the The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters' several-page entry about "Djinn and Genie". That means it can be improved through normal editing rather than deletion, which is the suggested way to go according to WP:AtD. "but has seen no improvement to convert it into a decent article" is an argument specifically to avoid in deletion discussions according to WP:IMPATIENT: Wikipedia is a volunteer project, there is no time limit, and noone in particular is required to do an improvement at a specific time. As usual, I am wondering why those most bothered with the current state are not the first to work on its improvement. If anyone were to pay me for it, I would be happy to change my priorities and spend my Wikipedia time on improving this rather than other articles. Lastly, while there is a lot to improve here, there are also a number of entries supported by secondary sources already, so I don't think WP:TNT applies here. Daranios (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argumentation is obsolete due complete overhaul of the article, so I am still !voting keep but now as a case of WP:HEY. Also pinging @Piotrus:, as the article now been rewritten into prose as requested. Daranios (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Rorschacma. As is, this fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG, as there are no reliable third party sources. The entirety of it is a list of examples which is out of step with WP:MOS. Even if you were to rewrite this article, there is virtually nothing to WP:PRESERVE, as it is entirely original research. I believe on some level there is a notable topic here for Genies in fiction. But what little good content is actually in the Jinn article, and not here. If you were to start a notable article, you would start by spinning out parts of that. Nothing here meets our content policies, and we absolutely would delete this and start over, as seen with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:GNG and therefore WP:LISTN specifically refer to the topic, not the current state of the article. Such sources about the topic exist, even if you are not satisfied with those which are present in the article. Daranios (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That largely applies to things where a page about them should probably exist, even if it's not up to snuff. As far as this topic goes, it really only needs to exist if the article about it isn't poorly written. In fact, per WP:REDLINK, the continued existence of the article will actually discourage people from making a new and well-written article because they assume it's complete. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: "As far as this topic goes, it really only needs to exist if the article about it isn't poorly written." This seems directly opposed to "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." from WP:N and "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". Always assuming it can be improved. And I think it can be, just look at this change which addresses a very small part of the flagged problems. If the improvement in the end is done by such incremental improvements or a rewrite into prose is up to those editors who volunteer to work on it. WP:REDLINK encourages the creation of links to notable topics which don't have their own article yet. I have seen nothing there which advocates for the deletion of imperfect existing articles. If there is, could you please point it out to me? As for motivation, a red link makes us aware that an article is missing. Here we already have something, and the tags at the top tell us that it's imperfect. They are the tool to motivate us for improvement. In my view, deletion in itself brings us not one iota closer to a good article, it only looses us the what we already have, some of which is encyclopedic. Daranios (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument to the fact that Japanese mythology is notable. That is "the subject" you are referring to. "Japanese mythology in popular culture" is an unnecessary split from that subject. Argue for a merge into the main article if you believe there is encyclopedic information here; I have no qualms about that either. The main issue is that this massive list doesn't need to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Now this has gotten mixed up with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese mythology in popular culture (2nd nomination), but the arguments are very similar anyway: No, "the subject" I am referring to is not genies, it is what we actually have here, genies in popular culture. And I have seen no explanation so far why this topic, genies in popular culture, should fails WP:LISTN in spite of the fact that secondary sources have been found. If you are instead arguing that this list should not be kept separately because it fits into Jinn#In popular culture, why are we leading a deletion discussion rather than a merge discussion? If that were the case, the condition would be "If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time". The amount of already sourced material here is beyond "one or two sentences", and the suggested secondary sources could be used to expand it significantly if someone wanted to. Daranios (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. That said, it is deletion and not a merge discussion as there is nothing to merge. The entire article is a list without context that would have to be wholly rewritten from scratch. It's clear that any attempt to convince you is spinning wheels and getting nowhere, though, so I will give up this particular argument and stand by my original assertion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: The explanation that there should be nothing to merge has nothing to do with the original claim, that this fails WP:LISTN. And why should already sourced statements, like Kelly's commentary on The Thief of Bagdad not be WP:PRESERVEd? Daranios (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded and sourced the lead a bit, so that the list is not without context, even if it isn't very long. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good reason to not WP:PRESERVE the sentence According to English studies scholar Kathleen Coyne Kelly, the genie in the film represents colonized peoples, specifically of the British Empire, who here are subservient but upon whom the success of their ruler depends. is that that's not actually what the source says. What Kelly actually says is Justin, one might say, stands for the British Empire: stoic in the face of adversity, expecting others to behave as honorably as he does. Justin/Prince Ahmed has no strength of his own, but depends upon the muscle of colonized peoples to help him win back the Princess and destroy Jaffar. The thief Abu is played by Sabu, a young South Asian (who would go on to play Mowgli in Korda's 1942 The Jungle Book), and the Genie is played by African American actor Rex Ingram (ubiquitous as a generic African in early Tarzan films) in sparkling green face paint. TompaDompa (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And goes on to say: Ahmed can only regain his throne and win his beloved Princess by relying on the help of Abu and the Genie. We are supposed to give the content in our own words. So the sources says Justin/Ahmed stands for the British Empire, Abu and the Genie stand for the "colonized peoples". So why is that not an adequate summary? If there is a better one, anyone is welcome to improve it. Daranios (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an adequate summary because it's not a summary but an interpretation. The source doesn't say that the Genie represents anything. It's not making a point about the Genie at all, it's making a point about Justin/Prince Ahmed. Even saying that Kelly says that Justin/Prince Ahmed represents the British Empire is making a stronger assertion than is supported by the source, since the source is not unequivocal about it. "A might be said to stand for B inasmuch as the relationship between A and X is similar to that of B and Y" is not the same thing as "X represents Y". A better summary of that text might be According to English studies scholar Kathleen Coyne Kelly, Ahmed can be viewed as representing the British Empire in the way his relationship with Abu and the Genie mirrors that of the British Empire with its colonial subjects., but then it's pretty clear that the Genie is not what this is about (and we would still not quite be representing the source accurately since the explicit parallel the source makes is about character traits—being stoic and honorable—rather than relationships). If you think Kelly's commentary should be on Wikipedia, the proper place would presumably be the article The Thief of Bagdad (1940 film), where it can be summarized accurately from scratch without having to turn a point about one character into a point about a different one in order to fit the scope of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thanks for the input, and especially thanks for starting the article from scratch the way you did. While I still think the previous version had its own worth, I think what you have created is superior (and the old version is still available in the article history in case someone wants to use that in the future). Daranios (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, there is nothing in the article to preserve as it is a list of original research with no independent reliable sources. AFD is about deleting articles, not topics, and if someone wanted to create a proper article about this topic with proper sources, I would recommend Genies in fiction. I would also prefer if people don't push this AFD into a battleground by restating their position over and over. You have made your opinion clear and let's allow other editors to chime in. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: "with no independent reliable sources" - But there are some secondary sources! - if only for a minority of material. There are also the primary sources given implicitely or explicitely, so I don't see the original research. Though I am happy to concede that we should have secondary source to distinguish notable from non-notable entries. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep conditional on retaining the prose structure I have introduced (see this version). Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. I have therefore replaced the list with a proper prose article based on sources about the topic, much as with WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. Ping Piotrus, who said Ping me if this is rewritten into prose, with sources, and I'll reconsider my vote. TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following the fine work by TompaDompa. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic for an article. Now rewritten to be one. Dream Focus 14:33, 28 March 2022 (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 Hactivism. content under the redirect if folks would like to merge. Star Mississippi 01:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protestware[edit]

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

Fails the GNG for a lack of significant coverage in sources; uses of the term appear to be limited to the context of peacenotwar (malware). The sources in the article and in a BEFORE check seem to focus on the malware and its creator, Brandon Miller (motorcyclist) (article also subject to an AfD). The article also appears to contain some amount of original research. For example, the line "Protestware was first used to describe peacenotwar..." is cited to snyk.io but the word "protestware" is not found in the cited article. The same occurs for the line "Although the term was actively being used to describe other incidents some time before peacenotwar...", which is cited to Hackaday. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be deleted: The word is a neologism if we're being generous, but is likely closer to a protologism which has only been used for the purpose of spin doctoring cyber crimes. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (from the article's creator) The term will remain relevant, it has already been used in another incident regarding the package es5-ext. Admittedly, there is still active development of the term, it is actively being used by cybersecurity researchers (as such the article states). I did some refactoring of the page to update the sections and sources (some references had been updated therefore they became invalid) to give a more general overview of the word. Feel free to request more changes and adaptions if needed. DevSpenpai (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a crystal ball , so we can't predict whether or not a term will remain relevant. If the term sees wide enough use in the future, then a page could always be created at that time. Your definition also already has a commonly accepted word, see Hacktivism The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Malware. MarioGom (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging it with a different article is a great solution. Not sure which is more applicable though, merging to Malware or Hacktivism? DevSpenpai (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Hacktivism sounds like a good target too. MarioGom (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Hacktivism per above. It does seem to be a term that will sticking around (OSI just did a press release about it), but won't have significant enough coverage by itself just yet. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect/ merge to [Hacktivism] would the most appropriate way to handle the page. OSI put the term in scare quotes so I'm not so sure their article indicates the term gaining acceptance in the open source community. The Gentle Sleep (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to hacktivism per Lollipoplollipoplollipop. This material is premature, and I agree with The Gentle Sleep that it counts as a neologism for us right now, so keep is not a reasonable option. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2022 (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.

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Indica

Give to the Winds Thy Fears (neé God Will Lift Up Your Head)[edit]

Oude Rode Ogen[edit]

Juris Graubergers[edit]

Victor Pelae[edit]

Lynching of Wollo University professors[edit]

ISKCON Temple, Mumbai[edit]

Alan Edwards (publicist)[edit]

Sotiel-Migollas mine[edit]

Symmetry in the Quran[edit]

Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum Award for Medical Sciences[edit]

Rehab A. El-Buri Foundation[edit]

Post-literate society[edit]

Glenn Diesen[edit]

Sushma Adhikari[edit]

Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington)[edit]

Roxi Copland[edit]

IranPress News Agency[edit]

Extreme Limits[edit]

GEO-LEO[edit]

Center for Knowledge Societies[edit]

Zapr Media Labs[edit]

Navi Group[edit]

Selena ¡VIVE![edit]

Japanese mythology in popular culture[edit]

Gao Jiancheng[edit]

Genies in popular culture[edit]

Protestware[edit]

Leave a Reply