Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 11

< May 10 May 12 >

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Birthdays

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

Not enough sources to support notability. Most refs are promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:c600:3379:c46c:cc1f:b9c7:9b5a:8453 (talk) 07:48, May 4, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I put the more citations needed template as it needs more sources. CastJared (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Near enough in article and a quick search in newspapers.com, google books and proquest finds more suitable sources. Skynxnex (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More citations could be easily added, but the website is very popular and notable. Lewcm (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2023 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crossland College

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

Orgininally PRODed article with the rationale "No WP:SIGCOV of this college or any obvious notability established. Only source is to the official college website. Tagged for notability since 2010."

The PROD was later removed by an IP with the rationale "I found https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=861978 in Google News". The source they referenced is just talking about the school principal being awarded a non-notable "best principal" award (not to mention the website is full of spammy advertisements, so it's likely not a WP:RS) without discussing anything else about the college nor helps further establish any notability for the college. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Karnataka. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This college appears to be comparatively more notable than some other colleges and universities in India. There appears to be some RS (ish) coverage by The Hindu, The Deccan Herald, Mangalore Today and two articles in Daji World as noted by the nominator themselves. -- Sohom Datta (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 May 2023 (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 merge‎ to Ikari Warriors. ✗plicit 23:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Jones

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

He has received no commentary, no WP:sigcov, but full of listicles and passing mentions at reception section. Most of the sources you can find are just what you called "routine trailer coverage". Failing WP:GNG. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (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 merge‎ to CEDU. ✗plicit 23:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Wasserman

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

No reliable sources in references. 1keyhole (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2023 (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. ✗plicit 23:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cargo airlines

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

List of cargo airlines

This stand-alone list has no references, and so does not satisfy the verifiability policy. This article was moved to draft space in 2020, and was declined via AFC, and has been moved back into article space, so that this is a slow-motion contested draftification. See the guideline on list verification, which states that stand-alone lists should cite sources.

  • Keep. Nominator is simply wrong that references are required to be included in a Wikipedia article. Obviously sources do exist. Nominator is advised to conduct wp:BEFORE. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going to start out by saying that I completely disagree with all of the above !voters except Robert McClenon. It is absolutely not acceptable to have an entire list-article with no citations. It is far from "sky is blue" to say that, for example, Uni-Top Airlines was a cargo airline. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so we cannot simply rely on Wikipedia articles (many of which are themselves poorly sourced) as a source for whether an airline is a cargo airline. I think all of Robert McClenon's concerns are entirely reasonable. It is not sufficient to simply cast aspersions on whether BEFORE (which is ultimately not a mandatory process) was done - you have to go out there and find references. Particularly, there has to be at least enough to pass WP:LISTN and in this case maybe WP:CORP as well.
However, doing looking into this, I see that there probably are sufficient sources to keep this article as a list, though I think it needs a heavy edit. Specifically -
  • Cargo Airlines by Alan J. Wright (whole content)
  • The environment of international air carriers in the development of freight markets by Stanley H. Brewer (particularly p. 41-42)
  • The history of Air Cargo and Air Mail by Camille Allaz (particularly p. 348), though this one is a bit dubious since the ICAC was involved in making it.
This appears to be one of those classic cases where an article was not ready for mainspace, got moved there anyway, and no-one wants to actually do the work of proving that it should be here. No, we cannot simply take a holiday from WP:V and WP:N just because "of course it's notable" - do the work to show that it can pass and ideally add that work to the article. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CD Baby

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

Non-notable records label. No sources found. Forbes in particular is a contributor piece, the rest are fluff and PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, England, New York, and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Will give you a better deep-dive of sources later, but I want to preemptively say that out of all the non-notable labels that try to weasel their way into Wikipedia, CD Baby is not one of them. Without even looking at the page before writing this, I can vouch for their notability. Here is a small collection of sources from Music Connection [1], Billboard [2], Forbes [3] (which was written by a staff member and not contributor), and the book Music Marketing by Berklee Press [4]. (I also do not like how you did not mention the New York Times article used in the article.) No offense, but this is a pretty bad candidate for AfD. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This is not a record label, but an online music store/distributor, and probably the largest in that niche during the 2000s and to a lesser extent 2010s. (It's roughly the equivalent of Bandcamp today.) As such ProQuest turns up several news articles spanning the 2000s (WP:NSUSTAINED) with significant coverage. These include features in Esquire ("Derek Sivers," 10-2003), The Oregonian ("Odd is In at Independent Music Seller CDBaby, 10-6-2003), the Oregon Register-Guard ("Oregon firm an indie music sales giant," 7-25-2008), the Boston Herald ("Be my/Be my CDBaby; Music business gets real at online store," 3-5-2004), as well as business analysis in The Guardian ("Technology: Freedom of rights management: Musicians have been badgering Apple to sell their music without copy protection for years, so why, wonders Wendy M Grossman , is it changing its tune now?", 4-26-2007). All of these are available through Wikipedia Library; this is just a small selection. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources above. CD Baby was easily one of the top online distributors in the early 2000s. This book can also be used as a source (p283). There's also a noteworthy Apple anecdote we don't mention (reprinted by Wired, covered by TechCrunch) DFlhb (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CDBaby is a music distributor and has been mentioned in many notable websites such as billboard and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaikha Habiba (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Blocked as a sockpuppet.Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clearly notable by sources provided both here and in the article. Passes WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (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 Draftify‎. Consensus is that the subject is likely to be notable, but the content needs considerable reworking to be suitable for mainspace. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable "individual". I can't even tell what they're claimed to have done in life. I find no sources for whomever or whatever this article describes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject was an Italian soldier, as the article says, and the corresponding article in the Italian Wikipedia has lots of references. See it:Flaminio Paleologo or el:Φλαμίνιο Παλαιολόγος. There's an article on him in an Italian biographical directory, which is enough to demonstrate notability. See Laura Turchi, PALEOLOGO, Flaminio, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 80, Roma, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, 2014. If the subject of an article is from a language/country/society with its own Wikipedia, then WP:BEFORE requires that you check for references in the corresponding article in that language's Wikipedia. In this case, you'll find lots of them. Just Googling an article title isn't good enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The subject is a historical person with an entry in the authoritative Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani and the it.wiki article has several apparently decent sources. However this en.wiki version is largely gibberish and when I read that one of his daughters was called “Margherita pizza” it’s clear that the creator just gave up on trying to produce anything worthwhile. Properly written and sourced, there is a valid article here. Mccapra (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: With a considerable entry in the national encyclopedia (and a hell of a last name), he appears to be notable, but this has to be one of the worst quality articles I've ever read. Curbon7 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/keep. Certainly notable. The article is a Google translation of the Italian Wiki. Yes, Google gives "Margherita pizza". Srnec (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, sounds like WP:TFOLWP wasn't followed. Ljleppan (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I have been through the article to eliminate some redlinks, which are the result of personal and place-names not being translated. As governor of Montferrat, he would certainly be notable and this is confirmed by him having an entry in the Italian Bio-dictionary. I suspect that Margherita pizza appears due to vandalism on the Italian WP, as it is also there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage exists in Italian sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it's an even worse translation, this needs to be sent to draft and TNT for now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
still gibberish tho. “ The doctor Francesco Valerio and the pharmacist "messer Pavolo" were the executive arms of Valla”??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per above. Clearly not ready to be in mainspace. Article needs to be rewritten and properly sourced before publishing. CycloneYoris talk! 10:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject is very likely notable, but the article in its current state is illegible. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2023 (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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrou Ahmadi

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

This is a borderline WP:BLP1E violation but at best a non-notable one time pageant winner. As an alternative to deletion, article could be redirected to one of the pageant pages, probably Miss Earth 2022 (note Miss Iran 2022 is [still] a redlink and itself presumed non-notable). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying that winning some pageant makes a person notable. The relevant guideline states Winners of Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. The subject of this article has not won such an award. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I put the more citations needed template for this article to have more sources for this BLP. CastJared (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CastJared: Are you providing a policy-based reason to keep the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to weak keep article as it needs more citations. CastJared (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree it needs more citations. The problem is: do such sources exist? There's no presumption that they do, per the relevant notability guideline. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed template, as it tells that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. CastJared (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has won beauty pageant and as per the Wikipedia winning awards or pageant means passing the notability and that too she has won 3 pageants so yes this page should not be deleted. — Shaikha Habiba (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Devoter (talk · contribs).
The article lists the subject as the winner of two pageants, and "Miss Iran Earth 2022 pageant" may not actually exist – can you show that it was not an appointment to appear at Miss Earth 2022? At any rate, again, only the big four pageants are considered to be likely to confirm notability, not these national ones (if they exist). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Blocked as a sockpuppet. (Shaikha, not Bri!) Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, Fails BIO, GNG. Source eval:
Comments Source
One paragraph promo bio, "Who is Mahrou Ahmadi? The information about Mahrou Ahmadi, who gained the appreciation of the masses with his shares on social media, is frequently asked by users on social media and on the internet. So who is Mahrou Ahmadi? Where is he from? How old is he? The answers are here.." 1. "Mahrou Ahmadi Kimdir? Nerelidir? Kaç Yaşındadır? Miss Iran 2022 Güzeli Seçildi!". fenoreporter. Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promo photo spread 2. ^ "صفر تا صد زیباترین دختر ایرانی در ملکه دختر زمین ! + عکس مهرو احمدی کبیر با حجاب و بی حجاب !". رکنا (in Persian). Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promo photo spread 3. ^ Times, I. D. N.; Andini, Dewi. "9 Potret Mahrou Ahmadi, Miss Earth Iran 2022 yang Bikin Terpukau". IDN Times (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on 2022-11-01. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
List with stats, not SIGCOV 4. ^ "Miss Earth 2022 contestants to watch, from first Miss Palestine to Miss Iran". 4 October 2022. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 19 March 2023.
5. ^ "Queen of Persia 2022 - QUEENS OF PERSIA". 2022-09-15. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
Duplicate of above 6. ^ "Queen of Persia 2022 - QUEENS OF PERSIA". 2022-09-15. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
One of serveral promo contest bios in a list 7. ^ "غوغای دختر ایرانی در مسابقه زیباترین ملکه روی زمین ! + عکس و بیوگرافی مهرو احمدی کبیر !". Vista News. Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Primary, promo 8. ^ "Miss Earth Iran Biography". Missearth.tv. Archived from the original on 2022-12-04. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
None of the keep votes mention sources, and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  04:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I put the duplicated Queen of Persia link and combined it. CastJared (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be written in a PROMO style, not notable anyways Hadal1337 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator and Timothy. Winning Miss Iran 2022 does not automatically make her notable, and, as Timothy states using the source assessment table, she does not meet GNG due to the lack of SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:37, 19 May 2023 (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! 23:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Kids Jr. with TeenNick

Smile Kids Jr. with TeenNick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, with no evidence of notability, and BEFORE search finds nothing of substance. Previously draftified and PRODded, but creating editor didn't like any of it, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khanyisa

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

Can’t seem to find how the subject meets WP:NMUSIC. She lacks in-depth coverage. Sources say she’s a “rising star”. I think it’s a case of WP:TOOSOON for this page. Xclusivzik (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having millions of followers or a verified account doesn't establish notability. Furthermore this is supposed to be a biography article, where did you get her birth date because the source you cited doesn't mention it? -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that was my mistake but I'm a good mathematician and it didn't take me long figure 1+1=2.
Okay it states here that "the 26 years old..." and the article was published in 2021, and here she was celebrating her birthday, check the dates and do the math genius. Why are we discussing birthdays and missing the point that the subject won an award and is now a nominee? Doesn't that say something about "notibility"?shelovesneo (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination is fine, but she hasn't had coverage in media we can use for sourcing. She could be the next superstar, but without sourcing, we can't have an article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article is are promo, and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  08:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, whatever delete it, idc. shelovesneo (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The South African is a solid source, we'd need a few more like it though, the rest in the article aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's about all the sourcing there is. I did a .za newspaper search, not much comes up. There's a 6 piece band from the late 90s with the same name, plenty of hits for them, nothing for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just did a quick .za search. She has been covered at some length at IOL: [5][6][7] (the status of IOL tabloidy stuff is in question at the moment, but the third article is in the Weekend Argus). She has been interviewed by the Sunday Times: [8]; covered in South African Glamour: [9]; covered at News24: [10]; and gets throwaway mentions in the Sowetan: [11][12][13]. I don't know enough about music Wikipedia or the music world to have a stance on what this adds up to for notability purposes, but putting it out there that there is certainly a case that she meets WP:SIGCOV as reasonably applied to a South African subject. (See here for one list of sources that SA editors generally consider usable – it's biased towards political coverage but many of these publications are on there.) :::Jlalbion (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time in hopes that Jlalbion's comment will be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete !COMMENT. This is more PROMO. For the sources: IOL appears click-baitey, Times Live is barely half a page and is mostly promo for her song, GLAMOUR is ok, minimal coverage, basically just saying where she'll be. News 24 is literally a few sentences, with links to watch her videos, so minimal coverage at best. And the Sowetan are "throw away mentions". So one iffy/ok source, one trivial coverage, rest are meh. I'm not seeing GNG or NMUSIC. Perhaps if she charts or has a gold record we can revisit, it's been 2 yrs already, so nothing for now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – my view of the sources above is that their coverage is quite WP:ROUTINE-ish (and promotional) and thus not significant. "Releases" this and "releases" that sources can acceptably be used to expand articles, but can't be used as notability indicators. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources provided don't meet the SIGCOV standard for living subject. Routine entertainment news. User:Jlalbion has presented links, but these are entirely interviews or bare mentions, not helpful for determining GNG on a BLP. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2023 (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. There is a clear consensus, with some dissension, among participating editors that the article as it exists today lacks sourcing to establish notability. There was extensive disagreement about what our notability guidelines say should be done in a situation, like this, about what our requirement about WP:SIGCOV means and what to do where there is reasonable belief that sources exists but which are not yet present in the article.
As written, the guidelines say that if there is not at least 1 SIGCOV source present, the article should be deleted but if 1 such source exists that may or may not be sufficient to establish notability. While some participating editors believe there was not any source that provides SIGCOV, this did not ultimately have consensus.
Instead the focus ultimately hinges on that second question of how much time is appropriate to wait if there is a reasonable belief that other sources exist. As this discussion has existed for more than a month (having been closed and then reopened during that time) it feels like a reasonable amount of time has been offered during this discussion to find a source and this hasn't yet happened so delete currently has consensus.
But it also feels like more time may result in additional found coverage that establishes notability. As such if any editor wishes to have this restored in their userspace, this request should be granted (if asked I will do it myself). And if an editor finds an additional source that meets SIGCOV, the article can be restored to mainspace (no DRV or other approval necessary). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Perchet

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

Article about former footballer who briefly played professionally in Ligue 2 but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The best coverage I could find was a Q&A interview with his former club here; which is not independent coverage and doesn't count towards WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That first article includes one sentence (about retirement) that isn't a quote from the subject; so it's not secondary coverage. The second article has a mix of quotes and secondary coverage, but it's essentially a match report on how well he performed in a single cup match and the potential that he could move to another club. I can't see how that is SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article is secondary coverage, it's not from the subject himself and is not framed as an interview. The second article is also secondary and is significant. You're being pedantic to push your agenda. Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What agenda? Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS says that interviews and reports of interviews with the subject of an article are primary sources. These interviews can be used in the article, but don't count towards notability. The article contains the following text that is not a direct quote from the subject: À même pas 31 ans (il les aura en novembre), Gary Perchet a décidé de tirer sa révérence. «...» Au moment de conclure ces cinq années au FCMB, à qui il «...», le feu follet du flanc gauche tire un bilan contrasté : «...» Des supporters qu’il cite encore pour le match qui l’a le plus marqué : «...» Do you really think what's left counts toward notability? Jogurney (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PRIMARYNEWS is only an essay. More importantly WP:PRIMARY itself, which is a policy, states (in footnote d, that interviews are primary sources - depending on context. I'm not opining on the context here though, at this time. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PRIMARY says primary sources are "original materials that are close to an event;" what is closer to Perchet's retirement than quotes from him about it? I can't imagine a context where an interview featuring such quotes is not a primary source. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opining - I'm simply noting that there are cased, based on context, where interviews are not considered primary. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "context" is when an interview is accompanied by significant secondary independent discussion of the interviewee by the author. That is not the case here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp I agree with Jogurney that he first source doesn't contain any significant secondary coverage but the second source is half-decent and has some indepth discussion about him in my opinion. However, GNG requires multiple sources of SIGCOV from multiple publications (both cited sources kom from Le Journal). If you can find 1-2 SIGCOV I'm happy to reconsider but as of now I'm inclined to !vote Delete. Alvaldi (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the first source is not good enough, the second one is OK but not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Single source in article is stats, sources above a very brief mentions that fails SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // ≠Timothy :: talk  08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, User:TimothyBlue, do you think is wrong with the sources that Ortizesp provided above? Nfitz (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the subject says is never, ever independent or secondary coverage of themselves, and what little commentary is from the author is far too insignificant for GNG. The second source is from the same outlet as the first, so even if both were SIGCOV the subject would still not meet GNG. As it happens, the second source, while better, is also lacking in secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortizesp. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been trying to do a decent BEFORE before opining, but I've been stymied for days because my Archive.org search keeps failing ... and the sight is deadly slow right now. Please don't close as delete for the moment - I'll try again tomorrow. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
archive.org is still being flakey - so I'll move on. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to have consensus that there's one GNG source. This means the WP:SPORTBASIC of W:N is met, as it notes that this does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. I am concerned that it's hard to search French media from the decade before last - and we should be looking at a (presumably paywalled) archive. But I'm not aware of one. Any suggestions? Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to mention - here's a very brief piece here. Too short, but at least it's not from the same publication. Nfitz (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is consensus that there's one piece of SIGCOV. There is consensus that one of the 2 lejsl.com articles is better than the other (which makes sense because 1 of them contains only a few words that are not from the subject). There is only one editor that argued there is SIGCOV, and that person has no response to the question I posed about the usefulness of quotes from the subject in findging SIGCOV. You appear to have agreed that GNG isn't met, but that we ought to presume paywalled and offline sources exist that represent SIGCOV. I think that's an assumption best left to highly unusual situations (not for someone who was a squad member/substitute for two Ligue 2 seasons). Jogurney (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the one is GNG; and thus deletion isn't necessary at this time. I'm not saying we should presume that there is paywalled and offline sources. But that we do meet NSPORT if not GNG, so there's no immediate need for deletion, and we can apply WP:NORUSH and review this without prejudice when such archives become readily available. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS says: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. One source can't meet that. SPORTBASIC says editors shouldn't create articles without at least one source that is plausible SIGCOV; it doesn't say we keep old articles based on a single source that is plausible SIGCOV (and I don't concede that the lejsl.com source is plausible SIGCOV). Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple published non-trivial secondary sources is the goal we should strive to achieve. However the relevant part of NSPORT is WP:SPORTCRIT which says a the bottom that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject; this is the minimum criteria for an article to exist - and it's been met. If we had full access to extensive contemporary media from the place/language of the subject, then yes, two sources are needed. But until access comes more available for many of the foreign-language media sources, then we apply WP:NORUSH and as NSPORT notes that in this scenario that it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If the keep !voters believe the single lejsl.com interview is good enough under SPORTCRIT, I think they are mistaken. WP:NSPORTS2022 was clear in requiring that all sportsperson biographies meet WP:GNG; which requires multiple sources of SIGCOV. Also, a NORUSH argument is far from compelling for an article that was created over 13 years ago (in November 2009!). Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A NORUSH argument would be less compelling 13 years ago, when there was more chance of finding contemporary supporting material on-line. It would certainly be a poor argument for an EFL Championship player currently on the pitch. If you object to the use of a single reference, can you please tell me for which situation "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" would be applicable? Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that the proposal to require sportspeople to meet GNG at AFD was rejected - Proposal 1 - no consensus: This was the second-most participated-in proposal with over 70 participants. Editors debated whether NSPORTS should state that sports biographies "must" satisfy the GNG if challenged at AFD. While there is a slight majority for the proposal, discussions are not a vote, and we need to consider the arguments made and whether a sufficient level of agreement was reached. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it's been my understanding for many years that the GNG must be met, I opened a discussion at WT:NSPORTS to make sure I've not been wrong the whole time. As I suspected, the GNG does indeed need to be met. Jogurney (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, GNG must be met "eventually" (What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find.) – but its not necessarily required at this AFD, as that proposal was explicitly rejected. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How much more than 13 years is needed? Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People haven't been searching for 13 years, people have been searching for just over one week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even under the assumption that nobody understood this article needed SIGCOV to remain in mainspace until NSPORTS2022 was concluded, there's been more than a year in which SIGCOV should have been found and added. If I felt this article passed SPORTCRIT, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion on the grounds that someone may make it GNG-compliant in the coming months/years. I understand there are tens of thousands of non-compliant football biographies so we can't address all of them at once, and I've been doing my part to improve the ones that can be improved. However, there's no reason to keep ones that cannot be improved like this in mainspace. It can always be brought back if someone finds French-language media archives that contain significant coverage of this marginal footballer. Jogurney (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jogurney, in your engagement of the community at WT:NSPORTS you did not ask the question of when does SPORTCRIT apply, and also the lack of access to foreign-language media from the time-period in question! I assume these oversights were in good faith. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion shouldn't be about me, but I'll just say I'm rather disappointed with your insinuation. I've participated in hundreds (likely thousands) of sports biography AfDs over the past decade, and I stand by my record. Jogurney (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything insinuating about what I said. I even made clear that I assumed you were acting in good faith, so as you could not possibly mistakenly make insinuations! However, to make absolutely sure there's no misinterpretation of what I said, I've edited the previous comment to remove anything that wasn't entirely germane to the point. But instead of making this about you, or me, please just answer the question. Can you give an example, User:Jogurney of when that section might apply; as that may enlighten us on when not to apply it! Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've understood it as allowing an editor to create a new sports biography if they have at least one piece of SIGCOV that plausibly contributes to passing the GNG. However, any sports biography ultimately needs to meet the GNG in order to stay in mainspace. Here, we have a 13+ year old article that hasn't been improved in the year since NSPORTS2022 (when everyone involved in editing it, or wanting to keep it in mainspace, was put on notice that the GNG needed to be met). It simply doesn't hold that this article should be kept in mainspace if everyone agreed that it had one piece of SIGCOV that plausibly contributed to passing GNG (which plenty of participants here don't believe it does). Jogurney (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sportscrit #5 doesn't permit us to keep articles when they have only one example of WP:SIGCOV; instead, it requires us to delete if they have none. It is very clear on this, with the line Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability.
Those claiming that they need more time to find sources aren't giving any information on how long they need, and there is no reason the article needs to exist in article space while they are searching; if they find sources, it is easy to recover the article, and if they don't it is a waste of time to keep it in article space where it will require us to hold another AfD to delete - see the example of WP:Articles for deletion/John Charlton (footballer) (3rd nomination), where it took three AfD's to delete the article, with it initially being kept because editors claimed that there must be sources.
Finally, I am not convinced that the one source editors are arguing is SIGCOV is SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly discussion of whether the one reference in question is GNG or not. But in terms of SPORTCRIT 5, can you give an example, User:BilledMammal of when that section might apply; as that might enlighten us on when not to apply it. Nfitz (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no circumstances where it should be applied to keep an article that fails GNG. I was the editor who added that line, and I can definitively tell you that the intent was only to provide general guidance, to encourage editors seeking to keep or create an article on a sportsperson to keep looking if they found one source containing SIGCOV - while also being clear that the article should not be kept or created on the basis of that aspect of SPORTSCRIT unless additional sources containing SIGCOV could be found.
Could you enlighten us as to how long you want to keep this article before you would concede that such sources can't be found and the article should be deleted? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An WP:OWN! I was part of that discussion, and that's certainly not what I thought it meant. How long? I've said this - when French archives of material from that time period become accessible. What's the rush? What's the damage? It's not like there's actual questions of their existence, or mistaken identity that we sometimes see with century-old players. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:OWN for an editor to describe their intent when adding content. And you weren't part of that discussion; the discussion about adding that wording was minimal, and was focused on objecting to the close of NSPORTS2022 itself, rather than on the wording I was adding. it can be seen here.
when French archives of material from that time period become accessible When will that be, or are you proposing keeping this article indefinitely despite failing GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the discussion - that was just the implementation. The discussion is at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#Subproposal_5, where there was a 16,000 word discussion, where I contributed 10 times. As you notice from the close, it was clear that the one source doesn't have to be their from inception. But you maintain that both sources do? I think you, User:BilledMammal, need to read those 16,000 words and the close statement again.
Huge amounts of material have become available in the last two decades during the period this article has already been around. I doubt we'd have to wait any longer than that period to have enough material available to be definitively sure, one way or another - so relatively quickly. I see no harm; there's no questions about accuracy or verifiability. And as you are aware, we already have evidence that they are likely notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on the specific wording. That wasn’t discussed in the NSPORTS2022 RFC.
I doubt we'd have to wait any longer than that period So another two decades? You think it is reasonable to keep this article for another 20 years without any evidence that it meets GNG? That’s ridiculous. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else is wouldn't make sense given the closing statement. But hang on - you say my argument is based on the wording of the policy that was solely an implementation of the discussion? Yes. That's the point. The article is already in it's second decade, without anyone having concerns about there being zero GNG sources. What's the rush? Where's the harm? Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; neither the discussion nor the close supported keeping articles on the basis of having a single SIGCOV source.
And having articles on non-notable topics causes harm, for many reasons that I have gone into elsewhere, including in discussions with you, but aren’t relevant here; the existence of WP:N presupposes harm. If you believe there is no harm, I suggest you go to that page and suggest that our requirements are weakened or removed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, BM, you are correct - the close didn't support keeping articles on the basis of a single SIGCOV - it actually suggested the possibility of doing that with ZERO SIGCOV - but you do know that. I've no idea what has been discussed previously - can you explain here, or at least link to this discussion of how harm is caused when we know that "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article"? Also, can you tell us how much harm this article existing for about the last 15 years has caused? Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are very mistaken about the close; it doesn't support keeping any articles, what it does do is forbid keeping articles where no sigcov can be identified.
If I have time I'll look for our past discussions, but for now I'll just say that it is no longer true that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article; even assuming that you have managed to find one example of SIGCOV, and I dispute that, the fact that you have been unable to find a second despite an extensive search now makes it likely that such sources do not exist. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT 5 (and the pre-RfC second sentence of NSPORT) is for article creation and persistence in mainspace when not challenged. It allows someone to create an article with one SIGCOV SIRS without having to worry about it being speedied, and patrolling editors will presume it doesn't need to be investigated for notability further and so generally will just pass over it instead of taking it to AfD/draftifying. It is also my interpretation that the presumptions afforded by the rest of NSPORT can only be applied after #5 is met, although those presumptions are still rebuttable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the closure statement suggests that even with ZERO SIGCOVs it can avoid immediate deletion. So what's the one really all about? At the same time, we keep seeing brand new articles at AFD - sometimes with the claim that there's only one GNG! I feel your interpretations are wrong; though at least you are not attempting to mislead us. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as N/C, which I still don't see but following User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Perchet I am reopening to allow for further discussion. Additional days here would be far more productive than DRV and a potential return here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the original "no consensus" close seems fair for now given the current disagreements over how to interpret policy. Garuda3 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only editors alleging a "disagreement" in interpretation are those who opposed the NSPORTS2022 proposals in general. That there are a handful of editors who outright reject the consensus and continually seek ways to undermine it does not mean there isn't a strong consensus that a) GNG must be met by all subjects, b) all subjects must have a citation to SIGCOV in their articles to be compliant with NSPORT, and c) presumption of further coverage must enjoy a clear consensus for an article to be retained with only one piece of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a disagreement over policy be a reason to keep? Either the article meets our notability guidelines, or it doesn't. The previous !keep voters have suggested there is a single piece of SIGCOV (others don't think there is). Regardless, policy is clear that multiple sources of SIGCOV are needed to satisfy NSPORTS/GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be no confusion about how to interpret NSPORTS/SPORTCRIT/NSPORTS2022. NSPORTS requires multiple sources to establish notability: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Consistent with NSPORTS2022, SPORTCRIT requires at least one source in the article, but a single source doesn't establish notability: Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. In short, every sports biography must include at least one source of SIGCOV (or face immediate draftification/deletion/redirection), but multiple sources of SIGCOV are required to establish notability (which don't need to be in the article, but do need to be accessible). Jogurney (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The close at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#Subproposal_5 where the quoted text of SPORTCRIT was approved, clearly says that even the one source isn't immediately necessary. Therefore the claim that there must immediately be two sources is false. Perhaps it would be better to spend our time, identifying and discussing how we can access French archives (perhaps through Wikipedia Library) rather than trying to delete articles for people whore are likely notable! Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading the close. It says the one source of SIGCOV in the article requirement doesn't apply from inception. Articles like this one that have been around for 13 years can't possibly be protected by that language since we are 13 years after inception! Jogurney (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further, that language was removed because editors were concerned it would result in the deletion of articles even if sources were found later, as they wouldn't have been "present from inception". It wasn't removed to permit articles to be created without such sources, nor was it removed to permit articles to be kept without such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the current text. I'm not aware that the text had been changed in abeyance of the close. That in itself concerns me. I don't see that I am misreading the close - there's no discussion of timeframe there. Even in the discussion itself, there's talk about how this is to protect against RECENTISM.
Once again - what French archives exist, and how can we go about accessing them? Nfitz (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Oppose I'm sure this isn't what the OP intended, but as written this would allow the deletion of articles on subjects which clearly pass the GNG, just because the article didn't include evidence of that when it was created and Oppose As this would allow the deletion of articles even if they pass GNG just because they were created in a specific way, among others. These are the problems that Wugapodes was referring to, and the reason the proposal was adjusted - not to permit us to keep or create articles without any SIGCOV, which would make the requirement meaningless.
Once again - what French archives exist, and how can we go about accessing them? Shouldn't you at least know where the coverage might exist before insisting that it must exist? BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even from what's available, we know they are likely notable. I'm not sure why the question is being dodged - I'd assume that checking such archives is part of BEFORE for anyone editing in the topic area of French people. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE does not say anything about attempting to access offline or unavailable sources, that would be ridiculous. JoelleJay (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second source presented by Ortizesp is certainly WP:GNG-appropriate as it includes secondary coverage and covers both a match and rumors of a potential transfer. Other brief reference, such as the first one presented by Ortizesp and the one brought up by NFitz are probably too short to qualify as WP:SIGCOV, but both contain non-trivial coverage of the subject. All of thi coverage can still be considered a pass of WP:NBIO, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 17:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine material does not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one of those to you consider routine? Some editors have really exaggerated what "routine" means - with the example given in the guideline, being a box score. No one has raised the issue of ROUTINE previously in this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained to you multiple times, transactional news and match recaps/previews are routine. From NSPORT: must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. From ROUTINE: Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE is part of the events notability guideline. This article is a biography and so ROUTINE doesn’t apply here. Garuda3 (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORT links directly to ROUTINE to explain what constitutes routine coverage for biographies. If you have a problem with guidelines citing other guidelines, take it up at VPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidently a mistake in NSPORT then. Garuda3 (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because ROUTINE is in the guideline for events doesn't mean its definition of routine coverage can't be used for non-events. And anyway ROUTINE derives directly from NOTNEWS, which applies to all articles and includes For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ongoing consensus is that sports-notability criteria are incremental to GNG which does not appear met here. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per all editors involved. I agreed with them. CastJared (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2023 (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! 23:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gruhn

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

Same reasons as first deletion. Doesn't meet GNG. Refbombed with sports statistics and primary refs to the subject's school. Only decent looking ref is a DL to a NatGeo piece I can't find. Nswix (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as a coach or competitor, the jiujitsutimes references used in the article describe him as academy owner and instructor. Lewolka (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. He has competed nationally and internationally. Has instructional videos on BJJ Fanatics. Is coach to multiple notable fighters. Mmareg (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Also having a couple instructionals on BJJFanatics and "competing nationally and internationally" doesn't prove notability unless you're a world champion in a competition like ADCC or IBJJF. Nswix (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything that shows he meet he's more notable now than he was at the previous AfD. He doesn't appear to meet any SNG and he seems to lack the significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Perkins

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

Does not appear the meet any of the criteria at WP:NSCHOLAR. JMWt (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2023 (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. Closing this early as there has been substantial community input and there's not a snowball's chance in hell of any non-delete outcome. The development and content of this article also raises WP:CHILDPROTECT issues: as the outcome of the AfD is inevitable there's no benefit in retaining this material on Wikipedia longer solely for the sake of bureaucracy.

Page title will also be salted. If there's ever a legitimate reason to recreate, this should be via discussion on an established article talkpage, at which time if consensus is established the salting can be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add: An AfD participant has correctly asked for further clarification of this close. There was community consensus that this is a relatively fringe term which might justify a mention in related articles but does not justify a separate article separate from other terms and encyclopedic content related to the same concept. The AfD and related discussions (including the recent ANI thread) indicate some relevance to this sentence from WP:CHILDPRO: expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children. However WP:CFORK, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE were also relevant to this AfD. Hope that's helpful, and thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor-attracted person

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

This article, specifically, was created as a result of this discussion to soft redirect to Wiktionary. Recently, an editor redirected it to Chronophilia#Chronophilias related to minors, reverted by the content creator, both justifying it with WP:BLAR. It was discussed multiple times, such as in a talk page, in WP:FT/N#Minor-attracted person, and the last AfD. I bring it here for another consensus, as the topic is controversial. Xdtp (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep or merge to Chronophilia. Source eval:
Academic sources
source title description journal peer-reviewed
Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes Toward Labels Among People Who are Sexually Attracted to Children States that MAP was used in 21 academic papers from 2017 to 2021 (year the paper was issued to the journal). WP:SIGCOV on etymology. Archives of Sexual Behavior yes
“We Do Exist”: The Experiences of Women Living with a Sexual Interest in Minors Uses the term to refer to female pedohebephiles, justifies the use of the term. WP:SIGCOV on etymology and meaning. Archives of Sexual Behavior yes
“I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything”: Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People Predominantly uses the term MAP over 'pedohebephile' and others. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. Sexual Abuse (journal) yes
Changing public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: an evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention Ibid. Journal of Sexual Aggression yes
Non-Offending Minor-Attracted Persons: Professional Practitioners’ Views on the Barriers to Seeking and Receiving Their Help Predominantly used the term. Says it can be used as a replacement for (pedo)hebephile Journal of Child Sexual Abuse yes
“I Despise Myself for Thinking about Them.” A Thematic Analysis of the Mental Health Implications and Employed Coping Mechanisms of Self-Reported Non-Offending Minor Attracted Persons Besides map, also uses the term nomap. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse yes
Primary Health Professionals' Beliefs, Experiences, and Willingness to Treat Minor-Attracted Persons Uses the term about 100 times. Also covers its meaning and the "ephebophile" controversy. Archives of Sexual Behavior yes
A Long Dark Shadow WP:SIGCOV on etymology. University of California Press yes
Non-academic sources
Title description WP:GREL
A flag for pedophiles? It exists, but it is not a push for inclusion in the LGBT community says word has been used by academic, child protective organizations and psychiatrists. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. yes (Agence France-Presse)
FactCheck: The European Commission doesn't use the term ‘minor-attracted person’ instead of 'paedophile' ibid. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. not discussed (The Journal)
Non-academic sources covering non-etymological info about this term (controversies, etc.)
Title description WP:GREL
Who is Allyn Walker? ODU Professor Quits After Pedophilia Remarks Spark Backlash / mrel (Newsweek)
Police Scotland denies officially labelling paedophiles ‘minor-attracted people’ / yes (The Independent)
Police Scotland release statement amid row over use of 'minor-attracted people' term yes (Yahoo News)
Twitter accused of aiding child abuse by allowing 'explosion' of online paedophile communities / yes (The Telegraph)
Preply Survey: Americans Mixed on term "Minor-Attracted Persons" - B4U-ACT Blog post. not discussed
Don't fall for the 'groomer' slur - it's an old trick used to stir hatred of LGBTQ+ people Says that the supposed inclusion of "MAPs" into LGBT pride is a hoax, as well as that the the term is used among psychologists. not discussed (TheJournal.ie)
Though the topic of this page is controversial, it meets WP:GNG and has been covered by WP:Reliable sources (peer-reviewed scientific journals and WP:GREL sources).
As a regular editor who read the sources of that article, the only thing that I could find that is fringe or controversial about this matter is the inclusion of ephebophilia under the umbrella (apparently because of a Michael Seto paper from the mid 2010s). As for the term itself, it has been used among academics way before it became a controversial topic on social media in mid 2018 onwards. Neither the academic sources used in that article or the non-academic WP:GREL sources say that this term is fringe, but instead they do report that it has been commonly used among academics and mental health professionals (e.g. psychiatrists, social workers, anti-child sexual abuse organizations).
As for the idea that this term was being used to legalize child rape or anything like that, I could find no reliable sources making this claim. All websites saying this are TERF blogs (W4, Reduxx), alternative media (The Post Millenial) and Christian news websites. The absolute best thing I could find was this single 2022 paper published on the British Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and History (peer-reviewed) named A Case Study Via Sociolinguistic Analysis Of Covert Pro-Paedophilia Organisation Registered As A Child Protection Charity And Its Links To Paedophilia Enablers In Academia And Academic Propaganda, but either the person who wrote the article or the journal itself was apparently accused of defamation by an organization that they have accused of being "pro-pedophilia" in the paper. See here, the Naudé guy is the author of the paper. This paper was also banned from Academia.edu and is only available in an non-reputable journal called The PublicInsight. Using the term WP:Fringe to describe this paper would be an euphemism.
For the purpose of comparing this article to how it looked like during its 2021 AfD discussion, this is how the previous version of this page looked like then. It was a little dab, the content was significantly different compared to the current page. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — 22spears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note This Editor, who created the article in question, has been indefinitely blocked for pro-pedophilia POV pushing. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything relevant can be covered by a Wiktionary entry. The topic is known all over social media to be an attempted “rebranding” of pedophilia, but any mention of this gets ripped from the article consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurferSquall (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The topic is known all over social media to be an attempted “rebranding” of pedophilia..."
"Social media" is not a reliable source. The article clearly shows academic articles that use the term, and justifies why it is used by some mental health professionals. The fact that some people on social media say the term is an attempt to rebrand the rebrand pedophilia or legalize child rape is irrelevant. In some spaces, promotion of LGBTQ+ is "known all over social media" as an attempt to legalize pedophilia. This line of thinking does not justify deletion. R alvarez02 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just homophobia, when has that ever been true? SurferSquall (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this term is associated with a some form of "rebranding" of pedophilia has been debunked by this (WP:GREL), this (WP:GREL) and this (WP:MREL) sources. As I had told you weeks ago, I have no problem covering fringe POVs on articles, but this theory is not just "fringe", it has been described by RS as a complete hoax. Besides, "social media" is not a reliable source; I ripped your edits from the article because they had no appropriate sourcing and were blatantly false. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources debunk this. They merely debunk any link between the LGBT community and pedophilia, and that link is indeed a hoax.
But the source we cite the most, Jahnke, says the intent behind the term is to remove the stigma associated with pedophilia, i.e. to "rebrand" it, or normalize it (though Jahnke also says that the new term is also stigmatized). DFlhb (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This. The source supports almost the opposite of what this article claims. SurferSquall (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "normalizing" and "destigmatizing" are not synonymous, even though they may appear similar. Everyone in the addiction recovery field wants to destigmatize alcoholism so as to encourage more alcoholics to seek treatment, but no academic in that field will ever claim that being an alcoholic is normal or non-problematic. Although destigmatizing pedohebephilia is more controversial, it is motivated by the exact same logic, and numerous academics in the field of CSA prevention support it. If more pedohebephiles seek mental help, that is not just useful for them personally, but also for society, as mandatory reporting laws are already in place to make sure that the ones that are dangerous get dealt with.Observer42436 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly inappropriate for you to attempt to delete before the Afd is closed SurferSquall. --Pokelova (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia:BLUE. Many pedophiles have attempted to use this term to distance themselves from being called a pedophile. SurferSquall (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a circular argument. Surely you can see that? 86Sedan 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@SurferSquall, please don't blank the article in the middle of the AfD dicusssion. You already have a history of unconstructive editings on that page. If you continue to disrupt the ways of things around here, you might get blocked. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic simply isn't notable enough for its own article. As much as you'd like it to be (which is weird) it does not warrant a whole article. SurferSquall (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One look at your user page tells me everything I need to know about you SurferSquall (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SurferSquall, you have acted highly inappropriately through this entire process. Deleting the article mid-AfD and veiled attacks on @22spears character do not help your case. R alvarez02 (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by another editor, several of this article’s sources do not support the article’s claim. I suggest you read carefully what the sources are actually stating. SurferSquall (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article shows extensive adherence to WP:Reliable, far more than some other existing articles that have remain untouched on Wikipedia. For instance, Aromanticism cites a Tumblr archive for the origin of the flag, but the same thing was scrutinized on this page. Additionally, it has been used in many academic articles, and significantly referenced in media. It is obvious that this article is being subjected to more scrutiny because of the bias of some editors.
The WP:BLAR stated: "If anywhere on the encyclopedia, there, but I don't think this has improved since the last time this went to AfD". This does not contain any supporting evidence for delation. the last AfD stated "Academic sources using this term suggest a high specialized, nuanced meaning and intention behind this term. This nuance and intention is not reflected by its use as a disambiguation page, which seems an inappropriate place for it. Rather, it may be more suitable being incorporated into the body text of larger articles in this topic area, where the deeper intended meaning can be explored." as one of the primary reasons for deletion. This article is not a disambiguation page anymore, if it once was. Additionally, the academic sources and controversy section shows that this term is not used by one author. R alvarez02 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — R alvarez02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No comment.Speedy keep due to no deletion reason being provided. "Topic is controversial" is not a deletion reason. This is a regular WP:WORDISSUBJECT-type article about a notable phrase. There is a sufficient number of sources that cover the phrase as such in depth. Another example of such an article is Gay agenda.—Alalch E. 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've decided to distance myself from this AfD due to there being a concern of pro-pedophilia off-wiki coordination, or something along those lines, and I don't currently have time to evaluate that concern and decide whether and how that would affect my position on what should be done.—Alalch E. 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given above. --Pokelova (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the editor who made the redirect to Chronophilia (rather than pedophilia) a few months ago, it was obvious this topic had notability back then, if only someone would have put the work in. Since then, there have been further controversies around this subject commanding at least 50M impressions, and a great deal of misinformation from certain parts of the press. The answer is not to censor scholarship and amplify conspiracy theories. We assimilate the best available verifiable information on the topic, and publish it in one place so neutrals and bystanders may see past the narrative. Be that the narrative of the outrage mob, or the narrative of the activist pedophile. --86Sedan 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • hesitant keep as notable. Wikipedia is not censored. The phrase might give me the creeps, but that's not a valid argument in a deletion discussion, and it should never become one. Same goes for a subject being controversial. that being said, the large number of SPA's involved with the topic is a good warning that this article might need some serious administrator eyes on it at all times. Closer should also note this discussion at WP:FRINGE. If further concerns about this article's quality are raised, my !vote switches to an immediate deployment of WP:TNT. We either need to cover this topic properly, or not at all. The space in between is a bad place to be. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're still pretty far from that. DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I didn't have much time to examine the article for flaws when I wrote this, so I relied purely on the prescence of sources, google scholar hits, and a quick scan of the text, none of which raised immediate issues. But I didn't have time for a more in-depth look, hence the "if any issues are raised" clause. Judging by the discussion surrounding this I think that clause of my argument has been triggered several times over here, and judging by the criticisms below I don't think the article should be allowed to exist in its current form. My comment here also caused one of these SPA's ( 86sedan, to be precise) to email me, asking me to also vote keep on a number of other articles they were presumably also involved with. Which is a very good way to make me change my !vote to Delete and salt for the foreseeable future. The article clearly has issues, and I think with the sheer volume of activity surrounding it chances are that if we turn it into a redirect instead we'll be here again within a shockingly short amount of time. This is an article that should only be able to be recreated under administrator oversight.--Licks-rocks (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced and on a notable subject. Doxastic1000 (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Doxastic1000 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Delete, needs WP:TNT at best, and the fact that the article (and now this AfD) has multiple recently-appearing SPAs involved with it is highly suspicious. Here, for instance, we see a good-faith editor had to remove puffery for the term. Other contributions from the SPAs in the topic area should also be checked closely wherever possible by people with time to do so. Crossroads -talk- 01:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this term does have some use in academia [15] especially within the last few years, I don't see how the term itself is notable enough to have an entire article dedicated to it, compared to the voluminous literature that does not use the term. Discussion of the term could probably warrants a mention in the paedophilia and possibly other related articles, but not much more. As noted by others here, the involvements of SPAs (and infrequently active editors like Doxastic1000 above) in this articles creation and AfD is concerning and must be considered by the closer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking about other articles, this article was started after a section I had created to cover this word on Chronophilia became obnoxiously large and I decided to put the contents relating to this term in an article of its own. The content from this article could be merged to Chronophilia, considering DFlhb's suggestion that this article is too wordy, but I'm not sure. 🔥 22spears 🔥 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support merging. It's probably the best solution. This or drafting and restoring the soft redirect. Xdtp (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to merging the contents to Chronophilia. Casdmo (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I'm with Crossroads and Hemiauchenia here. WP:TNT at best. This seems more like a WP:POVFORK for pedophilia than an independently notable topic. And given the presence of SPAs and low-edit count users who have come out of the woodwork to !vote "keep", it appears likely that we're dealing with WP:MEATPUPPETry of some kind. Generalrelative (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Seven academic sources are presented in the source survey above. Only two actually analyze the term-as-a-term (the first, and Long Dark Shadow). The second, fifth, sixth and seventh sources doesn't discuss the term itself at all, while the third and fourth sources do it superficially in just one paragraph. The apparent presence of SPAs on such an explosive topic is an immediate red flag (not to mention that my removal of puffery was reverted and replaced with more puffery, with a ridiculous personal attack to boot). The lead and "Variants" section take 8 paragraphs to say what could be written in two sentences: Minor-attracted person is a term intended as a less stigmatizing alternative to pedophile or hebephile (and sometimes ephebophile). The term is preferred by some pedophiles who want to "embrace their sexuality as part of their identity", and by some academics who argue that stress related to social stigma can be obstacles to the seeking of professional help, and increase the risk of committing sexual crimes (my own paraphrase, and the quote is from the Jahnke paper). That statement needs to be properly contextualized with MEDRS, which this article fails to do. The "Usage among persons sexually attracted to minors" section relies overwhelmingly on one source, which has numerous methodological limitations, as the source admits (notably, a non-representative sample of purely self-reports from online forums). That leaves the Reception and Controversy sections, which are trivia/WP:NOTNEWS. There is no point in bringing up obscure LGBT conspiracy theories simply to debunk them, when bringing them up would normalize them at least as much as debunk them. WP:TNT is also a reasonable argument. The lead strongly fails NPOV. Besides the puffery, it even fails MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE, since it presents it as an innocuous "umbrella term", rather than a term preferred by pedophiles, intended to de-stigmatize pedophilia (per Jahnke). Public reaction to the term has been "intense" and negative (again... per Jahnke), yet our lead only say it's "rarely [...] used in popular discourse", and only bring up criticism of the term in the context of what we describe as hoaxes and misinformation. Quite misleading, and a clear POV issue. DFlhb (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in the Jahnke source, discussion of the term-as-a-term is incidental to the paper, not the main focus of the paper, so that just leaves Walker. DFlhb (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have been a POV-fork of pedophilia etc. if it covered psychiatric disorders under this title, but it does not, instead it covers a term—it is then a question of whether the article does this well. The term-is-a-term is a notable subject. There are other sources already in the article which contain significant coverage of the term, such as afp and thejournal.ie. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.—Alalch E. 06:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Hemiauchenia wrote, the term has some use in academia, especially in recent years. Whether this literature is "voluminous" does not matter, so long as it suffices to construct an article. For example, there's not a great volume of literature on the Suteans, yet there's enough that Wikipedia has an article on them. In RS, the category of attraction to minors includes more than just pedophilia; therefore, an article on this term cannot be dismissed as WP:POVFORK of pedophilia. Other than that, the motions to delete seem to be based more on second-guessing the users who are contributing to the article, than on the merits of the article itself. Concern about SPAs is reason to watch the article closely, but not reason to delete it. I agree with Crossroads that this edit removes fluff to follow WP:NPOV. Casdmo (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Blank-and-redirect to Chronophilia#Chronophilias_related_to_minors per WP:DEL-REASON#5, or delete per the same. This is a WP:CFORK—plain and simple—and the so-called "academic" sourcing that forms the basis of the article is almost entirely composed of works that make WP:FRINGE claims. Take for example Allyn Walker, who voluminously argues that pedophilia is a sexual orientation akin to homosexuality (in a pro-pedophilia way, not in an anti-gay way) in their many works. These include many of the works that the creator claims contribute towards notability, including A Long Dark Shadow, "I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything": Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People, "I’m Not like That, So Am I Gay?" The Use of Queer-Spectrum Identity Labels Among Minor-Attracted People. The page creator also does not distinguish between use and mention in their description of the academic sources above—mere use of a term does not warrant an article about it, and articles that merely use a term and only provide a trivial explanation of it do not contribute weight towards making a fork. Rather, we should avoid running a WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK, and should simply convert this to a redirect pointing at the appropriate page on chronophilias. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple academic sources [16][17][18] from the past 10 years from different authors and institutions that have characterized hebepedophilia as a sexual orientation or preference. Regardless, this fact that Walker came to this conclusion does not discount their other also peer-reviewed research. Saying this research is 'so-called academic sourcing' is an inaccurate statement, as all these sources are peer-reviewed academic sources from credible journals. Please see WP:FRINGE/ALT. R alvarez02 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are trying to argue that the notion that hebepedophilia being a sexual orientation is somehow anything other than pure WP:FRINGE, do you have any current or future plans to attempt to add this claim or line of thought to the sexual orientation article? Genuinely, it seems like a necessary consequence of your line of argumentation, and yet I cannot possibly imagine that this is your intent. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 10:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not have any plan to do this. Despite there being some authors that have characterized it as a sexual orientation, it is not the scientific consensus. If it were to be included anywhere, it would have to be pointed out that most sexologists do not describe hebepedophilia as a sexual orientation. Although, I have not looked extensively at authors who have investigated this and come to that conclusion.
    My point was that this opinion is not pseudoscience. It is an alternative theoretical formulation, and Walker's adherence to this theory does not discount their other works by association. R alvarez02 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that this so-called "alternative theoretical formulation" has been in existence since the time of NAMBLA, and yet has remained on the fringes ever since—just as homeopathy remains on the fringes despite having been advocated by a small and persistent group for a good bit of time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a straw man. homeopathy is not an equivalent comparison. For one, it lacks all peer-reviewed scientific evidence to even be considered an alternative theory. That is why it is pseudoscience. See Homeopathy#Lack of scientific evidence. Additionally, NAMBLA claims that adult/child sexual activity is harmless, which is a very separate concept from the possibility that pedohebephilic attraction is an age-based sexual orientation. If it were a sexual orientation, that would not be justification for it being okay or legal either way... but this is getting sidetracked. R alvarez02 (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus thusfar...
So of note might be absent previous users who took part in the discussion when this article was a disambiguation page, prior to the overhaul. These, [regardless of the opinions they gave] are:
--86Sedan 08:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring likely socks and canvassed accounts there was consensus to delete before you made this, there is consensus now even including them. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar mentions of terms in the name of Wikipedia articles since 2019:

As a guide: Total Google results were approaching 1/10th of "transgender youth", and more than some other topics we cover. It seems to be notable, if controversial. It is not out of the ordinary for Wikipedia to have a moderately sized, well-sourced article on such a topic. --86Sedan 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep This article is even more robustly sourced than the version from the previous AfD. The term and controversy surrounding its use has become ubiquitous enough that it cannot simply be covered in a Wiktionary entry. Redirecting/merging to another article like Chronophilia would place WP:UNDUE weight for this subject on that article. The WP:SIGCOV of this subject far surpasses the standard of many articles that no one would question as being notable, especially with the academic and non academic sources taken together. The term has become less WP:FRINGE since the last AfD, and an article adhering to WP:NPOV standards seems to be the best way of covering the subject without censoring it entirely. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Wiktionary:minor-attracted person. After lurking in this AfD for several days, my hopes for WP:NPOV coverage of this topic have been ruined. It seems this topic cannot be covered at this time without implicit advocacy in violation of WP:CHILDPRO. While a delete and salt seems to be the likely outcome of the AfD, I'm still going to advocate for restoration of the crosswiki redirect at this diff, since the term is obviously searchable. It doesn't seem that this encyclopedia can handle to complications of an article at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an excellent point that all the attention coming in from Tucker Carlson, Greg Abbott, Jack Posobiec, Tulsi Gabbard, etc and even more whacky social media/one world government conspiracy theories, would be directed towards Chronophilia or Pedophilia. Both of these would do a disservice to the topic, and absolutely hand the incentive to agents of paranoia. They would in turn be able to gain an advantage by monopolizing verifiable information about the political and academic background to this topic, and twisting it to their own agenda. So in essence, this article works like a fact-check. 86Sedan 12:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Many have already mentioned policy and reasoning I was going to say. I will add, I'm not seeing much in the way of instructive value to this being an article. Deep down, it's just a term, not a concept. It's inclusive of several concepts in its meaning, but is not itself a unique concept. I feel that the use of keyword searches to find occurrences of a term "in the wild" does not change this. Nor do I find keyword hits to be a compelling argument given the nature of the internet to copy strings of text over and over, sometimes millions of times, given the sociological pattern of viral phenomenon, which can give great coverage to trivial or fringe matters, to detriment of truth or reason. Even google scholar is not immune, as what passes for scholarly can sometimes be quite loose, as well as areas of academia that study internet phenomena themselves, instead of the topics found in those phenomena. The suspicious new-yet-experienced-editor SPAs acting on this article also cannot be ignored, given the troubled history of pedophilia-related articles on wikipedia.Legitimus (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instead the reader is led to a "culture war" article, lacking proper context and where editors can import WP:NOTNEWS sources. The "reception" voices are now such as Tucker Carlson. Lauren Boebert, and Libs of TikTok, and some nice "controversy" sections to edit war over. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby: The target of the redirect being CSA was already discussed. It was commented that CSA article does not discuss the term. Not to mention it's an umbrella term (aka hypernym), it includes NOMAPs (now labeled as anti-contact), not just sex offenders. Xdtp (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Child_sexual_abuse#Pedophilia discusses use of pedophile, Child_sexual_abuse#Prevention, Child_sexual_abuse#Treatment. This is exactly the context in which the academic sources discuss the term. Add the educational content there. Wikipedia should be for readers, not some playground for SPAs. fiveby(zero) 19:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the previous AfD. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:E9F1:6989:B39E:7AA4 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:E9F1:6989:B39E:7AA4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. It's nothing more than another term for pedophile and the "article" is a WP:POVFORK. I was ready to write a longer comment until I read Legitimus' response. It dots the i's and crosses the t's of what I was already thinking. Someone behind the Wikipedia curtain needs to investigate who sang the siren song and enlisted SPAs. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One reason any serious editor of this topic conducts their activity from a private SPA, is the ease with which WP:POVFORK is invoked at the mere mention of a controversial research subject. Not to mention, death threats (including those sanctioned by a major social media platform) against researchers in this particular area.
    So in essence, you answer your own question. 86Sedan 02:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems pretty clear that the usage in academia is meant to just be an alternative term for things such as pedophilia and chronophilia. A euphemism, if you will, to avoid the connotations of the original terms and to allow for proper academic rigor to be used. That doesn't make it its own independent concept, however, and the content herein really is just duplicating content found elsewhere, such as in those articles. The article also seems to be being used as a coatrack for other topics, which also appears to be the reason for the many SPAs voting keep above. SilverserenC 16:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to pedophilia, which this is not meaningfully distinct from. casualdejekyll 18:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: The nominator of this AfD has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, this shouldn't have any bearing on the validity of the AfD, as at this point numerous users in good standing have voted to delete. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The term does seem to be used in academia. See: Levenson & Grady, "Preventing Sexual Abuse: Perspectives of Minor-Attracted Persons About Seeking Help," in Sex Abuse (Dec. 2019). No opinion about whether this constitutes a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems rather telling that the abstract doesn't itself use pedophilia, But pedophilia is still one of the five keywords used for the paper, pretty clearly showing that MAP is being used as a euphemistic alternative term for the same thing. SilverserenC 21:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly another term for paedophilia. We don't have two articles on the same subject just because two different words are used for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree the subject is not a separate concept from the chronophilias it refers to and would support merging it with Chronophilia were it a term with not such a history, I concur with Qwaiiplayer that merging it would cause undue emphasis on the term in an article it was merged with as mentioning the term warrants combating misinformation about it, which can't be easily condensed. With all the attention this term is getting, it's beneficial to have quickly accessible information about it available, as opposed to burying it in another article. Queer Linguist (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Queer Linguist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep for reasons explained by User:22Spears and User:86Sedan.-Strippy6 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Strippy6 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Look, whoever is behind these socks and old accounts, please don't mingle my name with your operations. You are not salvaging the article, you're just muddying the waters and making the people who voted for "keep" look bad. This is not a poll, it's a discussion. Stop creating new accounts just to say nothing of substance. The world is not going to end if this article gets merged or deleted. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of the above editor, who appears to have a long history (at least chronologically) of contributions on various subjects. Their sudden appearance would suggest to me, he or she has seen the discussion here at an external resource for whatever reason, and decided to log in after however many years.
    Otherwise, I note one account that has obviously been created to provide a Keep opinion, and one IP editor providing a Delete opinion. Paranoia around pedophile sockfarming is a routine occurrence here, since the 00s, which of course completely ignores all the other special interest groups (Information State, any one?) with a far more successful history of meddling. That paranoia is used to intimidate editors into withholding or recanting their opinions, lest they be accused of being part of the big pedophile boogeyman conspiracy.
    Meanwhile, established editors have not exactly covered themselves in glory with their behavior off-page, some of which amounts to outright vandalism, and following editors from this discussion elsewhere. The average opinion in favor of Deleting the content of the article under discussion amounts to a kneejerk reaction against the subject and complete refusal to assess the topic for notability; to simply read the article. The above-average opinion in favor of Deleting the content amounts to a notability/policy argument that pushes the boundaries of credibility, given what does appear to pass the same tests.
    And the point remains, that if we cede that Number-1 position in Google, readers will be ending up on a woefully inadequate Wiktionary page, or visiting other sources to find the same, verifiable information next time this topic explodes on Social Media. These will be (as can be established from 1 or 2 minutes browsing the results) primarily fringe - oriented conservative news sites and organizations that use the subject of this article as part of their mission. Giving conspiracy theorists the distinction of being the first to relay verifiable information to an audience, emboldens their narrative, that much is obvious. 86Sedan 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    who appears to have a long history (at least chronologically) of contributions on various subjects.
??? Strippy6 has about 30 edits total, with the majority of those being a decade ago. They're miles away from meeting the requirement to be an extended confirmed editor and are barely above autoconfirmed as it is. SilverserenC 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stigma of pedophilia runs so deep that those who can consider the subject rationally are usually reluctant to speak for fear of backlash. Two editors in this very AfD have already expressed concern for their own personal reputations. One has even added a strikethrough to their initial remarks to distance themself from the subject. In current social conditions, it's not only perfectly fine, but expected, to leap to conclusions and assume the worst whenever the topic of attraction to minors is mentioned; anyone who does otherwise is considered suspect. Only one perspective is safe to express; other perspectives involve risk. We're seeing it play out in real time on this AfD. In a tongue-in-cheek manner, I say this is why we can't have nice things. Casdmo (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep If this is any kind of fork, then so are articles such as faggot and tired and emotional. There is no ambiguity in the article about the fact that its topic is a term, not the thing that term refers to. In a sense, the term MAP is itself a real-life analogue of a POV fork, in that people have used it to discuss something in a fringe light that would be taboo if the usual word was used. To 22spear’s credit, the article does not repeat this error and instead attempts to document it. The question is whether the term meets GNG, requiring that it is mentioned, as well as used in reliable sources, hopefully going beyond general collections of pedophilic euphemisms. (Note that using a term does not exclude a source from also being able to mention it.) Previous comments on this page have gathered enough of this kind of “etymological” coverage to demonstrate notability. As to 22spear being an SPA, I don’t believe this points towards bad faith, since their articles tend to provide balanced and well-sourced coverage of their topics, though it is off putting that their user page includes a gif that could be seen as a reference to popotan. small jars tc 15:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's Caramelldansen, anyone who was on the internet 15 years ago knows what it is but I doubt very many know of its origins. I don't think you can read that much into it. --Pokelova (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's Popotan via Caramelldansen, so it's ambiguous. I would like to assume good faith, and that its inclusion is either nothing to do with Popotan, or that it's just innocent edginess if it is, but this kind of ambiguity is exactly what tends to make a good dog whistle. Our article on Popotan is surprisingly quiet about the issue, but you can easily see its connection to these topics by reading the premise of the game. If I were 22spears I would have removed this gif as soon as I saw this nomination to avoid the potentially unintentional but still tasteless association. small jars tc 17:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're assuming they had any idea of the origin. They would have absolutely no reason to remove it in the extremely likely scenario that they didn't know. IMO they still don't have any reason to, since the meme is so utterly abstracted from its source that it's frankly a stretch to make a connection to this. --Pokelova (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I am probably being overly paranoid but still felt the gif should be pointed out. small jars tc 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any comment germane to the deletion of the article in question, but I feel that this implication must be addressed, and I do not think that the image needs to be "pointed out". Caramelldansen is a widely beloved and completely benign Internet meme consisting of a drawing of two girls dancing to a pop song; whatever issues existed with the user in question were totally independent of this. jp×g 16:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"totally independent"? seems a strange assertion. Surely there is some connectedness between this image right next to some text about "riding dick"? I'd have thought that would have rung anybody's alarm bell ... Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem was that the image was tasteless in context, and I'm glad that it has since been removed from the user page. I have avoided making any assertions about the specific intent behind it here. I should probably stop even looking at this AfD after submitting this reply, since some of my comments have become slightly too emotional and a user has asked me to climb down from badgering people. small jars tc 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@small jars, 22spears is a single purpose account and that purpose is to portray pedophiles in a positive light and critics of pedophiles in a negative light. 22spears hijacked a redirect to create an article on the disputed term "minor-attracted person". They created the article Predator Poachers which reads as an attack page (although likely deservedly so). They excised large portions of Operation Underground Railroad and had the article on the founder Tim Ballard deleted. They created the less-than-neutral Stigma of pedophilia which should be merged into pedophilia where it belongs. They created a biography of Allyn Walker, one of the proponents of the term "minor attracted person". They added links to a blog post by notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. They have a draft in their userspace which is a biography of Todd Nickerson, who is associated with the "virtuous pedophile" movement. If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV. MrPinkingShears (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that in their two edits to add content to the biography of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll, 22spears refers to them as "Tom" in their edits, twice, and as both "Tom" and "Thomas" in their edit summaries. This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll, but I will let them explain it for themselves. MrPinkingShears (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — MrPinkingShears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wow, Wikipedia really is exceeding its own high bar, this time. Julie Godforsaken Bindel knows Tom O'Carroll personally. Send her to the gallows. 86Sedan 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's crazy how everything that could go wrong in an AfD went wrong in this one. The canvassing, socks, the nom being banned, and now this account that only has 4 edits outside this AfD casually showing up to accuse me of personally knowing Tom O'Carroll of all things and shilling for Allyn Walker. I don't even care anymore, even if this article somehow survives, it's not worth it to have to deal with this level of maliciousness that shows up daily on this side of Wikipedia. If you want to know something about me, just hit me up on my talk page and we can civilly talk; it's crazy how most people who have a problem with me, like you and that Bhfg guy, will do anything but calmly try to have an actual conversation with me and ask me questions. The reason why I joined this website was to write about things that I commonly read about, not to participate in gossip wars and petty social media-ish internet beefs. All I do in this website is get a search engine, find good sources and transcribe what they say (and no, it is not POV-pushing if you predominantly write about one or two topics, Pink, I recommend that you read WP:NPOV). I know that this practice is not well liked among the conspiracy-minded, but still. 🔥 22spears 🔥 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@22spears Your use of someone's first name in your edits gave me the impression that you either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them. That would explain why you refer to them by their first name, so familiarly. I didn't see you call Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll? MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using this fact to argue WP:COI is bordering on paranoid. I would put the use of "Tom" in an ES down to nothing other than the fact that it's shorter than "O'Corroll," and doesn't have any of its pesky last-name orthography to type. small jars tc 21:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that 22spears has a conflict of interest, nor am I paranoid. I have gone through their edits (as anyone can) and I have formed an opinion about their editing based on that analysis. I haven't implied that they are a pedophile (or speculated about images on their user page). I merely pointed out that they used someone's first name in both edits and edit summaries related to notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll, which they didn't do in any other biography that they edited. MrPinkingShears (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't "merely point out", you clearly inferred that it is likely that they either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them, in relation to their editing of O'Carrolls article, which is nothing other than an accusation of COI. small jars tc 22:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing someone is not necessarily indicative of a conflict of interest. If it was, I suspect a lot of Wikipedia editors would be in trouble. MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're far off topic now, but you should probably read the policy on this. A disclosed COI is not always a problem; an undisclosed one, which this would be, is. small jars tc 22:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you've argued is rationale for why the article should be deleted. Whether 22spears is an SPA or not is largely irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account#If you are in a discussion with someone who edits with appearance of being a single-purpose account. Mainly: "Focus on the subject matter, not the person.". The implication of this reply is verging on a personal attack. R alvarez02 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R alvarez02, my comments are about the edits that 22spears has made and not about them personally. I have reviewed the edits and determined that 22spears is pushing a pro-pedophile point of view. Anyone is welcome to go through the same edits and come to their own conclusion. You are also a single-purpose account, with all of your edits related to pedophilia. There is nothing wrong with being a single-purpose account, but when a single-purpose account pushing a pro-pedophilia view is supported by other single-purpose accounts with low edit counts such as yourself, there is probably reason to dig deeper. MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Small jars, the article digs this stuff out from an academic fringe, which prevents NPOV (an unfortunate loophole in WP:PARITY). Almost no academic source provides significant coverage of the term-as-term, and the non-academic sources are superficial WP:NOTNEWS cruft.
The term was coined by B4U-ACT, an organization that refuses to say whether child abuse is good or bad. Per Semantic Scholar, the top journal where the term is used is Archives of Sexual Behavior, which many academics are boycotting for promoting fringe science and for ethical misconduct. The academic paper we cite the most, Jahnke, relies on the premise that the only valid label is whichever self-label pedophiles like best. Jahnke say that pedophilia is not undesirable nor pathological, and that Both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that people who are sexually attracted to children prefer to embrace their sexuality as part of their identity and want this to be reflected in the professional discourse as well (emphasis mine). Jahnke are simply obliging. That's the term's purpose, and due to the fringe sourcing, that's the only stuff we'll be able to cover here, and that's absolutely a POV fork. The "stigma" stuff might sound fine and dandy, but it's used by some as cover to promote abuse[19][20][21] (see, the WP:PARITY loophole in action. I had to dig out a communist newspaper and foreign sources) DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. IMO the news coverage, rather than (fringe) academic coverage, of the term and its associated controversies are both the kernel of the notability, and the only reason almost anybody will have heard of the topic or be looking for an article to read on it. NOTNEWS does not apply as the article is neither a) original reporting b) about a particularly recent or short-lived story or c) written in an unencyclopedic news style.
2. That's the term's purpose, and due to the fringe sourcing, that's the only stuff we'll be able to cover here, and that's absolutely a POV fork – Your fears are a result of disregard for the use–mention distinction: Yes, this term is/has been used for bad purposes, but by covering them, we do not necessarily endorse them, but are in fact able to prevent such deceptions through neutral information. (If the article doesn't do this well enough, it simply needs cleanup) It would not be a POV fork unless it were directly parroting what these research subjects said: even this “fringe” piece of academic writing (which seems to be from an RS journal) does not go so far, but only reports on their feelings. small jars tc 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by covering them, we do not necessarily endorse them We're not covering them. Seems like you didn't read my reply, nor my first post here. DFlhb (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article and your response to my comment. I have not read your own comment. small jars tc 02:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or re-imagine as Minor-attracted person (pejorative) or similar. The mere existence of this article, presenting as if this is a valid term, is pedophilia advocacy. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article does not give the overall impression that this is a "valid term" in all uses, though it does explain the (non-zero) extent to which it has been used in a valid academic context, as a necessary background for discussing controversies and abuses of the term. I am all for reworking the lede to more clearly indicate the pejorative and at other times euphemistic uses of the term from the start of the article, but doing this by adding a parenthesised qualifier to the title is against WP:TITLEDAB, since it would not be distinguishing from any other existing article. small jars tc 09:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DFlhb's analysis above --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Pedophila, per WP:POVFORK - Alison talk 05:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Bon courage and AndyTheGrump. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And Salt per WP:CHILDPROTECT ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyTheGrump et al (or redirect). It's a synonym or near-synonym, and we don't have separate articles for synonyms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited on a pederast messageboard.
After a thorough search, including likely places organized "pedophile activism" goes down, this is all I could find:
(Redacted)
In a resigned tone, it mentions selective deletionism (this is a completely valid point) and the fact we give Hitler's dog and varied gender topics ample coverage. This is hardly evidence of muh organized "pro-pedophile" activism we hear about from prophets of doom such as the now-banned editor in the discussion above.
Sure, they probably have a RocketChat or any number of discord channels to organize this kind of thing, but it's not like Wikipedia deletionists don't have access to the same tools for canvassing (and the distinct advantage of aged accounts to back it up) see for example the 5 delete opinions within 5 hours above this very comment.
The compromise solution (completely unnecessary) is probably going to be something like this:
Redirect to chronophilia#Controversy surrounding development of language
Under this heading, we would very briefly mention the body of work cited by B4U-ACT, Nottingham Trent University, etc, and then go into considerable detail with respect to the resulting controversies, and how they came about. --86Sedan 08:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is predominantly used by mental health professionals, academics, and child advocacy organizations (John’s Hopkins’ The Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse, Association for Sexual Abuse Prevention, The Global Prevention Project, etc.). The purpose of using the term is to help foster a less stigmatizing environment to get these people help before they offend, and to prevent recidivism/reoffending. It also covers not only pedophilia, but also hebephilia and maybe even ephebophilia. So it’s an all-encompassing term that’s more accurate and precise than the colloquial use of “pedo”. The article is also useful in that it debunks misinformation on the topic that the public has been exposed to through various right-wing media outlets. Observer42436 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sickening attempt to rename or water down from the meaning of pedophilia. no way. - Roxy the dog 09:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire category for euphemisms Roxy, you don't have to like them but they exist and are talked about in sociolinguistic settings. Other people have given legitimate reasons for their beliefs that the page should be deleted, agree or disagree, but I do not see your argument as legitimate. --Pokelova (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be silly. A whole article on a euphamism for pedophilia. you need an attitude adjustment. If I change my reply to include all the very sensible delete ivotes, from incredibly experienced Users I see here would that make you withdraw your silly comment, Hmmmm - Roxy the dog 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase, MAP, is itself a sickening attempt to rename or water down from the meaning of pedophilia. By deleting an article that documents this attempt, and allows people encountering the term for the first time to understand the real history behind it, we are only enabling the abuse to continue. small jars tc 12:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt The use of the term can be included in the pedophilia article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support either salting, or, if we redirect, full-protecting the redirect and salting the non-hyphenated alternative spelling. If we redirect, the page should be deleted and redirected from scratch so the page history isn't kept (due to the evidence I posted at ANI that people identifying as "pro-MAPs" have started linking to the Wikipedia article for advocacy). DFlhb (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether MAPs find the article useful in their advocacy is largely irrelevant to us and to this discussion, in much the same way I told another user recently that the photos of nude children in our article on Puberty would stay regardless of whether a pedophile found them arousing. Letting a fringe dictate what you delete seems equally bad as letting them dictate what is written. --Pokelova (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely is relevant, and the fact is that deleting (and especially salting) this article will serve the purposes of no one better than it serves pedophiles and abusers, who wish to continue using this term to organise without the kind of scrutiny our coverage can provide, and to lesser extent the interests of homophobes who wish to use it as a basis for conspiracy theories. The article and its author might be questionable enough that we need to return to square one and rewrite the article, but it is notable and absolutely needs to exist as a matter of ethics. small jars tc 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As a WP:POVFORK. As AndyTheGrump mentioned, this is clearly just another term for pedophilia. Also support salting. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but do not salt: The article is blatantly inappropriate in its current state, but there could be a legitimate reason to have an article covering the term pedophiles are attempting to rebrand under. I would also support blanking and redirecting to either CSA/Pedophilia or Pedophilia. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear POV fork. If the term exists, it only exists to describe Pedophilia, so a redirect may be appropriate iff people may be using it as a search term, regardless, it should be salted and/or protected as a redirect to prevent recreation. --Jayron32 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like saying "if the term faggot exists, it only exists to describe homosexuality, so a redirect may be appropriate," except that MAP is not only notable as a roundabout slur for LGBT people, but also, simultaneously, as a euphemism/dog whistle among actual pedophiles. small jars tc 14:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't though; but you keep trying to deflect legitimate concerns by bringing up unrelated analogies. --Jayron32 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The analogy is only illustrative. The point is that, being both a euphemism and a kind of slur, this is a term with a lot of independent connotations and notability. Redirecting is giving insufficient weight to its history and ongoing usage. small jars tc 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest another key point, small jars, that badgering people is not going to get you anywhere? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to AGF, but it seems that either everyone claiming that this is a fork hasn't even looked at the article, or I have an extremely wrong idea of what a fork is. small jars tc 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

several users blocked for advocacy in violation of the Wikipedia:Child protection policy.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep Minor-attracted person is distinct from pedophile both in meaning and in usage. A pedophile has a primary sexual attraction towards prepubescent minors, and only about 1-5% of the male population have this attraction. A MAP includes anyone who experiences sexual attraction towards people under 18, which is a far broader category. Equally important, the colloquial understanding of pedophile is that it means a child abuse – even one who is not attracted to children. MAP does not carry the same imputation, as it clearly refers only to attraction, not to criminal acts. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the above user is a long-dormant account, showing up just to vote here. Also note that past edits such as "Agreed about the need for revision to the child protection policy to reflect the fact that an editor can't be blocked just because of a sexual attraction towards children, unless they act on that attraction by advocating child abuse." should be construed as clear pro-pedophile advocacy. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant and misleading. You failed to point out that Jeremy Malcolm runs a child protection organization below that, saying "the current state of the art in our field acknowledges that there are pedophiles who actually are just as staunchly opposed to child abuse as anyone else, despite their own very unfortunate sexual interest". You can see their website here: (Redacted) (Not doxxing, it's listed on their profile). It's clear they are actually dedicated to child protection, not pro-pedophilia advocacy. User:R Alvarez02 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not get to strike that comment. How haven’t you been banned yet for your clear pro-pedofile advocacy? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's an incorrect comment. Saying "should be construed as clear pro-pedophile advocacy." is very misleading given the author of the comment runs a child protection organization. At the very least, the last sentence should be striked due to it making a pretty absurd accusation. R alvarez02 (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the mistake of clicking that link and reading some of Mr. Malcolm’s vile content. He’s actually advocating for less censorship and fewer restrictions in these areas. Everyone supporting this page with a Keep should be thoroughly examined and removed from Wikipedia. I’ll now distance myself from this conversation. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty cut-and-dry personal attack, saying "Mr. Malcolm’s vile content", referring to an editor. R alvarez02 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am a professional in this field, thank you very much. I am weighing in because this is one of the articles that is squarely within the field of my expertise. I will thank you not to cast aspersions on my motivations. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a professional in this field, Yea, that was my take, too. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s different from pedophile because it also encompasses ephebophiles. The end. Dronebogus (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POVFORK and abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know about any specific individuals, but it's interesting to see how many supporters of this (and related) content claim to be professionals in the field - it seems everyone is a researcher, a therapist, or whatever... and everyone is only interested in protecting the children. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt POV fork, advocacy, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, blah blah blah probably at least 10 other reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsure about SALT. Incredibly creepy attempt to normalize pedophelia. Delete per POVFORK, CHILDPROTECT, etc. etc. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt as a creepy, child protection policy-violating POVFORK. There's already an article on the subject. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect (to an appropriate place). Given various standard of protection and WP:UNDUE, WP:DICTDEF, and WP:PAGEDECIDE, a standalone page doesn't serve our readers or the encyclopedia at this time. Unsure about SALTing. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I voted keep when this was a dab page, but it isn't one anymore, and it's clear from both the article itself and everything above that this article is and will always be a content fork, one extremely vulnerable to POV-pushing, that will require constant oversight and upkeep. Everyone's time would be better spent doing something else. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An article's topic being contentious does not condemn it to inevitable exploitation by POV pushers. We have various levels of page protection for a reason. I do not see the work of countering dangerous pedophilic and homophobic propaganda with neutral coverage as a less worthwhile effort than many others. It will be hard with this article but we are already making some progress. small jars tc 23:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, just the fact that something is contentious isn't a reason to just get rid of it just to save us some headaches. THIS particular one, however, isn't really a "topic" in itself. It is just a soft-serve, nice way of saying "pedophile". Zaathras (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just say it: I'm 1000% cool with invoking WP:IAR and purging this nonsense to the depths with no redirect and salting so that this doesn't even appear in history. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What if we cut out all of the sentences written by blocked accounts and revdel? small jars tc 07:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a nice way of saying “pedophile” with a bloody long history. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this term. Though 22spears distorted things by mainly citing academic sources neutral or in favour of the term (and I have already revealed my own idiocy by trying to defend their good faith), there is academic criticism of it going back a fairly long time. This criticism includes at least one paper that has been attacked on a legal basis by one of the very groups behind the popularisation of this rhetoric. It has also been the basis of multiple damaging homophobic conspiracy theories. Despite this, variations of the term are still evolving to evade detection on social media. Within the last year, at least one online grooming CSA case has involved a twitter profile including the term, and it getting totally missed by twitter and authorities [22] (This article is upsetting, and I feel it's slightly exploitative of NBC. I'm at the end of my tether so I haven't read it through). I can see why people might wan't to erase the efforts of people like 86sedan off the face of Wikipedia, as GhostOfDanGurney says, but it really can't justify not talking about these things. The fork argument is absurd and I see it as a result of either panic or a lack of investigation on the part of !voters. small jars tc 07:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Per DFlhb's analysis, and that this is clearly some disastrous CONTENTFORK. I'll also add that "Minor-Attracted Person" is something of a misnomer; i.e. I don't think the reason pedophiles are attracted to children is because they haven't reached the legal age of majority, though those people are almost always below the age of majority in most jurisdictions (though on reflection this term does seem to be framing this phenomenon well for pedophiles who want to legalize their desire to fuck children; "Arg! If it weren't for those pesky laws of majority..."). I would ordinarily recommend a REDIRECT to Pedophilia#Society and culture, but based off the *interesting*, very vocal crowd this AfD has attracted what that portends for the future would be constant recreations and borderline violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT. So SALTing is in the best interest of Wikipedia and everyone else. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly redirect. We would have no separate feces-attracted person adjacent to copraphilia. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have many articles that cover such perversions. If necessary, redirect (without retaining the history) to Pedophilia. Nfitz (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if redirect redirect to paedophilia or chronophilia#Chronophilias related to minors. Having caught up on the sources published since the last time this was at AfD, what I said then is still true. The term MAP is a euphemism for paedophilia, and the content that's in this article is a pretty clear POVFORK of the other existing articles. If this is deleted, I'd recommend salting. If it's redirected, I'd recommend full protection. Either recommendation is to prevent us from having to go through this a third time in another couple of years. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, salt, on top of the above reasons, this article appears to have become a rallying point for... how do I say this without casting aspersions... editors who I don't trust being in contact with young editors even on talk pages. WP:IAR and remove this pov fork that caters to "researchers". Very Average Editor (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Yadav Murder case Ballia

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

While tragic, this is simply another murder. It happened so recently, that it is difficult to ascertain whether or not this will have any lasting coverage, but as for now, WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 12:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:SUSPECT vios Jack4576 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. The page creator redirected the article to List of bridge failures#2000–present. No need for an AfD at this point. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Espoo bridge collapse

2023 Espoo bridge collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG CutlassCiera 13:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Aguilar

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

article created and written entirely by subject in direct violation of WP:AUTO autobiography rules, clear conflict of interest SaltLakeMists (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
  • Article created and written by two accounts belonging to the article subject, in direct violation of Wikipedia autobiography rules WP:AUTO
  • users previously pointed this out in article talk page
  • article subject responded in the talk page taking ownership of the edits and writing
  • user accounts Rebeccaaguilar50 and Rebecca Aguilar were both used to only create, write, and edit this article
  • subject has used their accounts to add themselves in other Wikipedia lists
  • comments in talk page suggest there may be differing viewpoints on the facts surrounding some of the main topics in the article, calling into question the contents
SaltLakeMists (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable television presenter, sources used are blogs and sites related to the person. I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems clear:
Fails WP:GNG but most importantly the entire article is a clear WP:COI, fails WP:AUTO, entire article was written by subject
Subject admits to this in Talk page and uses multiple accounts SaltLakeMists (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: references #6, #9, #10, and #11 collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources are promo and brief routine news, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. BEFORE only found promo materials. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  16:58, 19 May 2023 (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 14:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue1 destinations

List of Blue1 destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In a 2018 RFC it was decided that lists of airline destinations are essentially a failure of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:NOTTRAVEL is also relevant and also failed here. EDIT: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close.

In addition this article is a clear failure of notability standards, as the only sources cited appear to be a PR website, the Tampere Convention Bureau, and a 404 link to the Anna Aero website. None of these are independent, reliable sources. My WP:BEFORE failed to find any sources that would remedy this even if the WP:NOT and RFC problems were over-come some how.

In reality, even if WP:NOT were overcome, in order to meet notability standards sourcing would have to pass WP:CORP and extend beyond specialist/industry press. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blue1 Jack4576 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack4576 - For a merge to be appropriate, these destinations would have to be reliably sourced. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{cn}} can be added, would be a shame to just delete this work Jack4576 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No point keeping stuff that isn’t reliably sourced and can be deleted at any time. We already had an RFC on this content. FOARP (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing the point of merging, agree this is WP:NOT Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, this list is essentially useless. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2023 (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 14:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School

Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been to AfD before, but that was before Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#RfC on secondary school notability. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: unless nominator is able to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media. (I note that the local language is not English). This is a weak nomination and should be opposed on the basis of WP:BEFORE, and the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability unless that can be demonstrated. Jack4576 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
conducted concentrated searches in* Jack4576 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked ProQuest and Nexis for print sources. The school's website was entirely in English when it was live and as LibStar notes, there are only English sources cited in the Bengali Wikipedia version. I think that's enough due diligence, but if significant independent coverage in non-English sources subsequently emerges then the article can be recreated; I don't think that's a good argument for keeping a poor-quality article based on insufficient English-language sources in the meantime. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm satisfied these searches are sufficient for WP's policies. Delete is a legitimate, albiet sad outcome. Jack4576 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You will need to strike out your "oppose" above. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2023 (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 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle High School Faisalabad

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

Lacks significant coverage for a stand-alone article. Fails WP:NORG. BookishReader (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: unless nominator is able to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media. This is a weak nomination and should be opposed on the basis of WP:BEFORE, and the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability unless that can be demonstrated Jack4576 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did a thorough WP:BEFORE. I use ProQuest for my research purposes. I'm a Pakistani by birth and a native speaker of Urdu language. I searched all the major newspapers in Pakistan. For your information, there are large number of English-language newspapers in Pakistan. Big three are: The News International, Dawn, and The Express Tribune. I searched in these newspapers and using its transliteration in Urdu as well. I'm adding transliteration in the article, so you can search as well. BookishReader (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied, Delete if you wish. Its a sad thing to do and will make the website less encyclopedic, however, you at least have WP's policy endorsement to do so. Jack4576 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to strike out your "oppose" above. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2023 (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 12:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Authority Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed College

Defence Authority Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find coverage about this school. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: unless nominator is able to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media. This is a weak nomination and should be opposed on the basis of WP:BEFORE, and the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability unless the above can be demonstrated Jack4576 (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VAGUEWAVE. BookishReader (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if you !vote keep in an unreferenced article, I expect you've found sources to support a keep outcome and can list them. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As per the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability the onus is on the nominator to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media. In the absence of that a Keep is appropriate Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete- No reliable sources can be found PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only found trivial mentions of the subject in the news. Unless supporters of keep can provide can give sufficient sources, delete seems to be the reasonable action (I mean, that's kinda how AfD is supposed to work. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" actually means something). Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree that was the outcome of how AfD is supposed to work following RfC on secondary school notability.
    SIGCOV is not a requirement for an entry. Its satisfaction merely gives rise to a presumption of notability. Jack4576 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Insufficient coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no SIGCOV; Jack4576, you really need to stop with your non-policy based opposes. Most subcontinental newspapers, even ones in regional languages, are on the internet and you don't really need to conduct print searches through each newspaper. Most schools here are random private, for-profit schools with no notability or coverage. AryKun (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2023 (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 12:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sadegh Amiri

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

Cross-Wiki Spam, Iran Spam ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 08:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless his citation factor is high enough, this is PROMO and reads like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the sites posted are valid
https://cv.pnu.ac.ir/HomePage/EN/mohammadsadegh.amiri 113.203.13.158 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, look inside the page, there are many sources, they are scientists and system scientists 113.203.13.158 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google scholar searches demonstrate he has a relatively solid citation count, plus he is a full professor at a prominent Iranian university, which is #1 WP:NACADEMIC Jack4576 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the site https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1213119677 113.203.58.114 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, can you remove the warning sticker of Mohammad Sadegh Amiri, thank you 113.203.38.190 (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the warning template on the article page is the responsibility of the administrator. I am not qualified to remove this template without authorization, unless I voluntarily withdraw the deletion proposal, which is impossible for me to voluntarily withdraw as far as the current problems are concerned.
    The reason I nominated this article for deletion is: "Cross-wiki Spam is possible", and its multiple language versions were deleted by many Wikipedians. Because the issue that may be involved in this article is the issue of undisclosed WP:COI or the specific publicity of this character.
    If this article is well-known, I think it is necessary to at least remove all the promotional content of this character, at least so that it does not look like a promotional draft. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 08:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am on the fence at first look. The citations on the top-cited articles look a little on the low side for WP:NPROF C1, in what I believe to be a medium citation field. There is a relatively long tail of moderately cited articles, however. This one might be a good candidate for the techniques of JoelleJay. The article text doesn't strike me as overly promotional, with the possible partial exception of the unsourced statement regarding "family history of more than 100 years;" I am however perhaps a little less sensitive to such than other editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look over the next few days. It's certainly not a good sign that there are multiple MDPI-type papers... JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse long thread containing WP:MILL activities of subject, and explanations of why they do not contribute to notability
  • https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/en/publications/nanotechnology-for-inflammatory-bowel-disease-management-detectio
    Hello, he is also on this site, is the site valid? 113.203.94.218 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor, publishing articles is something that all/most professors do, and does not help establish notability. See the WP:MILL essay and the WP:NPROF notability guideline. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    how about this https://id.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJkdmFwhGJGt96M8Mf9MT3.html 113.203.94.218 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a database entry that says little more than the fact that the man exists. It does not help establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which site is valid? 113.203.94.218 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.574.1.2 113.203.94.218 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just a paper he co-authored. It means nothing. What reliable website talks in depth about the man himself? XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://books.google.com/books?id=YQcqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA547&dq=mohammad+sadegh+amiri+biography&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3quuspfD-AhXUQeUKHe0HAWEQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=mohammad%20sadegh%20amiri%20biography&f=false
    He speaks here 113.203.94.218 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Sources by the subject of the article do not establish his notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this site not valid?
    https://cv.pnu.ac.ir/HomePage/EN/mohammadsadegh.amiri 113.203.90.142 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A person's website about himself is not independent. The fact that it exists says nothing about whether or not he is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://cv.pnu.ac.ir/HomePage/mohammadsadegh.amiri
    It is also available in other languages 113.203.45.86 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the same link you already posted, which as already stated, means nothing. XOR'easter (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.instagram.com/dr.amiri.herb/
    Their activity on Instagram 113.203.81.194 (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor, the only things that indicate notability are things that show impact. In particular, anything that is authored by the subject will _not_ show impact; neither will routine directory entries. I think that repeatedly pushing run-of-the-mill activities here may be having the opposite effect of what you apparently intend. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, is this site good? Thank you
    https://viaf.org/viaf/408159397607119302492/ 113.203.93.162 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is similar to Worldcat, and doesn't show notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://system.khu.ac.ir/nbr/article-1-3105-fa.html&sw=%D8%AE%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86
    In this site, information about the new species that has been discovered 113.203.23.174 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another article by the subject, this one in Persian. Doesn't contribute to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citation count looks a little weak to me for WP:NPROF C1. Looking through the citations, I'm seeing many mdpi and other problematic or predatory journals in the citing article, which I think detracts somewhat from the NPROF case. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.441.1.5?articlesBySameAuthorPage=3
    English reference for plant cultivation by this scientist 113.203.7.30 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already pointed that link and been told why it, by itself, does not contribute to his notability. XOR'easter (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation count is weak. Please be sure you are counting his specific citations, his son by the same name is also a scientist though in a different field. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Scopus seems to give a lower h-index (25) for him than Scholar (31). Do we know what the median is in this field? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://searchworks-lb.stanford.edu/articles/edskst__edskst.JAKO202028167036449:JAKO
    Hello, is this a good resource? 113.203.36.150 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It is only an entry in a library catalogue for an article that Mohammad Sadegh Amiri co-authored. Please stop providing links unless they somehow indicate that he is more influential than others who work in the same field. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2023 (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 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. The most decisive argument is that the organization, insofar as it exists, has no notability outside of the article in which it is already treated. Significant coverage of the organization itself has yet to be demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Jihad Brigades

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

Pretty much no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage outside of news reports on a 2006 kidnapping, which itself has a pretty dubious WP:SUSTAINED case. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: In hindsight, I suppose a redirect to 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping would be just as valid and potentially more useful than deletion here.Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are not multiple reliable sources establishing notability. So this unambiguously fails WP:ORGCRIT. As a matter of fact there is only one source in this article, which is WP:1E and from 20 years ago. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple BBC articles on this incident. Meets SIGCOV. WP:NTEMP. Jack4576 (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the one incident, which has its own page: 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. That's why it's a bit of a WP:1E-type issue. None of the sources really discuss the organization itself in-depth, per WP:CORPDEPTH, only trivially re: the event. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of that page. Withdrawing Keep vote. Jack4576 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad possibly - might have been an idea to include that link in the opening comment. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The organisation is known only for this incident and therefore all coverage on this page is a duplication of the coverage at 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. In reality, as is often the case where a previously-unknown terrorist organisation comes to light, it appears to have been a front organisation (in this case for the Army of Islam) and therefore likely doesn't exist. Coverage in the references appears to be of the incident, not of the organisation. Indeed the organisation is only mentioned in passing in these articles meaning it lacks significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this, this, this, this, this, and this. Enough sources available to meet the notability criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all one sentence mentions. These are all the very definition of trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - these are all passing mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately there is a significant question-mark over whether this group even exists - there was only ever this one incident (which we already have an article about), and the US claims it was just a front for another organisation (which we already have an article about). That makes this article a potential WP:V-fail. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's a name so generic that it could easily have been a mistranslation or translation error that simply got replicated across sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, throw in WP:NOTNEWS as well: we're getting on 20 years from when the last ever known event that this potentially-non-existent group was ever linked to occurred, and there's no long-term coverage. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal (band)

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND --FMSky (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails GNG, and seems to have a promotional angle besides. Also, one of the sources is the band's own website, the only other one being insufficient to establish notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: fails WP:BAND, and also SIGCOV, however, (1) the prominence of one of its members, and (2) contemporaneous coverage from both BrooklynVegan, and AV Club Chicago leads me to the conclusion that this band was/is notable enough at a local level to be GNG notable Jack4576 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep vote mentions the lack of SIGCOV, the point about prominate member is covered under NOTINHERITED. I don't see properly sourced material for a merge, but no objection to a consensus redirect if one emerges.  // Timothy :: talk  00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and notability is not inherited. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (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 06:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abed Chaudhury

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

From my searches I don't believe he meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: found an independent article from theafricareport.com but I'm not confident this is a reliable source. Opened RfC Jack4576 (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reporting on subjects work by The Africa Report amounts to SIGCOV by an independent reliable source. That coupled with the rest of the scattered sources throughout the article is enough for notability IMO Jack4576 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his citation count isn't high enough, it's a no. I can't find much else for additional sourcing to support keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet NORG - there is insufficient coverage in depth from reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. The only two references within are routine coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am adding more sources to the article but considering it is a local organization and one of the largest domestic abuse support groups in Kansas I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion. Des Vallee (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not satisfactory to say "it's a large domestic abuse support group" and therefore meets criteria for inclusion. You actually need to point out which sources cover the article subject in-depth. This article needs to meet NORG in order to warrant inclusion and a thorough WP:BEFORE check shows plenty of small routine coverage "hits" but this does not justify inclusion. Even a local business often will populate a number of hits in a search engine. We need evidence of sustained, indepth coverage. Not hits here and there briefly mentioning the name of the organisation. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source for example does not count towards notability. It simply says Jessa Farmer, public policy coordinator for the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, said current Kansas statute left victims who endured years of violence to refile annually for extension of a protection order. She said the burden was on victims to navigate the court system, often without legal representation due to a shortage of attorneys in Kansas willing to take these cases.
    That is the epitome of "routine" and trivial coverage. The article has nothing to do with the organisation itself. It's about domestic abuse and they've just quoted someone from this organisation. That does not substantiate a claim to notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MaxnaCarta This source per example is entirely about the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, a quick search shows it has been mentioned at least 245 times by reliable sources. Des Vallee (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s one source and not of sufficient depth to meet MNCORP. 245 hits means nothing unless the coverage is significant. Trivial mentions are not sufficient to meet NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes WP:GNG. A quick search of news articles shows a measureable number of good sources.--Paul McDonald (talk)
@Paulmcdonald: Please list the best three sources you believe are reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage so I can withdraw the nomination? MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Click the "news link and you'll see plenty.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald I did just that. I’ve acknowledged that there are hundreds of “hits”. Irrelevant. Many organisations get lots of trivial mentions. Doesn’t mean they’re sufficiently notable for a stand alone article in an encyclopaedia which requires significant coverage to be included. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big differnece between Trivial mentions and citing the subject as an expert. For example: "According to the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, SB 180 compliance could put more than $17 million in funding to Kansas agencies at risk." from Kansas Reflector; WIBW interviewed the organization's executive director Michelle McCormick and was later quoted as an expert source in both the Lawrence Times and NPR; the previous executive director was cited as an expert by the Hays Post; another previous executive director sourced information on porn and human trafficing in the Topeka Capital-Journal back in February of 2019, over four years ago, meeting WP:SUSTAINED. These samples provided are not Trivial mentions but instead: they meet the standard of Independent sources, the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, the coverage is clerly WP:NOTROUTINE, and the coverage meets the standards set forward not only in WP:GNG but also in WP:ORG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable. SIGCOV is not a requirement for an otherwise notable subject to be notable under GNG.
As Paul McDonald has noted, the coverage meets the standard of Independent sources, the sources speak to the WP:IMPACT of the organization, and are WP:NOTROUTINE Jack4576 (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn’t apply. ORGCRIT applies which does require sigcov. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources which are in-depth about the organization do not seem to exist. Lots of mentions, but fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 TT me 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The extensive sources we need just aren't there; they likely do meet the inclusion criteria, but without proper sourcing, we can't create an article for them. I can only find trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspapers articles mentioning them in relation to other things, directory listings, that's about all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to recent comment about the quality of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep as per Paul McDonald's comments in the thread above and my own comment in reply. Jack4576 (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People affiliated with an organization being quoted in the media doesn't amount to in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Even if that media coverage could establish the article-worthiness of the people (e.g., per academic bio criteria), notability is not inherited: not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply because there is no argument being made that any people are notable because of their attachment to an organization. I have no understanding why the academic bio criteria is mentioned as a reason to delete, that's never been brought up either. Resons to delete should be germane.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable organisation. This is the 2nd Afd in as many days with exact same kind of claim to notability, but the coverage doesn't support it. The fact that some members may be notable doesn't make organisation notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 22:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the first two references collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don’t. They aren’t sufficiently in-depth. Check NCORP/ORGCRIT. It’s a high bar for organisations and companies. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source only names the organisation. While quoting its staff member. Per NCORP/NORG trivial mentions include “quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources”. Not significant coverage. This is what all the coverage out there looks like. It’s not enough. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They specifically fail WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I find that the sources not only in the article, but listed above as examples and found through basic online searches far exceed the the criteria at WP:SIRS. These are not "brief, passing mentions" but are instead the heart of many of the news articles. They are not trivial mentions, they are material sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • done commenting I think both sides have stated their points and don't want to regress into WP:WABBITSEASON. Hat tip to all!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – mostly per XOR'easter & Onel5969. The sources provided above and in the article lack significant coverage, thus causing the organization to fail the WP:GNG. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (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 merge‎ to John Edwards extramarital affair. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rielle Hunter

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The claim to notability here rests in the extramarital affair, and that information can be merged into John Edwards, John Edwards extramarital affair, and John Edwards 2008 presidential campaign. The separate information about being the inspiration for a character in a book + their father being part of a scandal aren't relevant for notability purposes, nor is her film career (Hunter is not named in our cast lists for either Overboard or Ricochet even though this article calls them Hunter's most notable appearances). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hunter wrote a book that has been cited in scholarly articles.1. She is discussed, still, in news stories about political scandals 2, 3, 4. She writes about equestrian sports 5. Deleting this article was discussed on the talk page 14 years ago ... and it's still here. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaireeodell: Which of those websites/news stories contributes to her notability under WP:NBIO/WP:NBASIC? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter is notable in both a conventional sense (for better or worse her relationship changed the course of history and continues to factor in discussions of political issues) and by WP:GNG. The current article includes reliable sources focused on Hunter as the main topic. The "separate information" (the Poole character appears in five books by the way) may seem less relevant if the topic is John Edwards, but the topic is Hunter here. With hundreds of scholarly articles 1 referring to Hunter and with her abiding presence in discussions of political scandals, I think it would be a mistake to make her a mere section of the Edwards entries. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaireeodell: Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't address my question. Which specific sources do you believe contribute towards her notability in the Wikipedia sense? I know that there are many sources out there that mention her, but so far I'm not seeing the sort of significant coverage that meets the GNG/NBASIC standard, let alone WP:BIO1E. However, if I have missed some coverage, please fill me in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the author of a notable and bestselling autobiography. What Really Happened was reviewed in Kirkus and was widely discussed in the press. It easily passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. If her life story is notable, then she must be notable. pburka (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pburka: NBOOK is a notability guideline for books. It is completely separate from the notability of authors. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm saying that the subject and author of a notable biography must be notable. That's just common sense. pburka (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pburka: Can you point me to the provision in WP:N or a sub-page that says that? I'm very open to being wrong, but I've never heard this before. Edit: I've realized that you're probably thinking of WP:AUTHOR, but that provision is a higher bar than one single notable autobiography (and I'm not sure it's notable, but I'm happy to accept that for the sake of argument). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • The story of her life is notable. We could write an article about her autobiography, which will include most of the same information as this one, or we can just keep the existing biography. Keeping the existing article is simpler, so it's my preferred option. pburka (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to John Edwards extramarital affair. While memoir writers may sometimes have WP:BASIC notability support based on coverage of their life story, this memoir is titled What Really Happened: John Edwards, Our Daughter and Me, and seems best incorporated into an existing article based on the context and coverage (e.g. ABC News, 2012, NY Daily News 2012, Guardian Opinion 2012, Kirkus (2012) "An object lesson in misguided tell-all writing: A woman hounded by the media while raising an infant fathered by a cheating man manages to render herself unsympathetic"; Library Journal (2013) "unnecessarily cheesy, adolescent voicing that makes this unfortunate story best suited to Jerry Springer fans and Oprah whoopers"). She also published In Hindsight, What Really Happened: The Revised Edition: John Edwards, Our Daughter and Me (Hollywood Reporter, 2013, which "apologizes for both her behavior and her decision to write about it"; Vanity Fair 2013 "It is a sequel of sorts to her utterly forgotten 2012 memoir"). I have also reviewed sources with WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP policies in mind, and it does not seem possible to write a balanced standalone biography article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into John Edwards extramarital affair - known for only that event. A search for her alleged professional film related career prior to Edwards, comes up lacking in substance. She would not warrant a stand-alone article without Edwards. Grundle2600 who created the article is under an indef ban for creating approximately 393 socks.(Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grundle2600). — Maile (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    393 socks? wow, that's quite the time and effort involved. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are split between those advocating Keep vs. those preferring a Merge. Given the age of this scandal, I'm surprised there are not earlier AFDs for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd prefer a merge; outside of that "event", there isn't really anything for notability. Scandal perhaps, nothing for GNG. Non-notable as a producer, the book/author isn't meeting AUTHOR that I can see. And frankly, the article has more info about the affair than the rest of the individual's life, pointing to what's potentially notable in the story. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (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 13 May 2023 by Spicy: G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Mainul Saiman) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Shyamal Sylhet

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

The sourcing is not reliable and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. The topic is not wiki notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator is not a confirmed sockpuppet. Please wait for confirmation before tagging articles for speedy deletion on these grounds. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikidata. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's May Wrong, I am not known about ( user:Rnwiki-global ). Mainul Saiman (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note I have blocked Mainul Saiman, the author of this article, as a sock of Parvej096388. (Rnwiki-global is another sock from the same case.) Girth Summit (blether) 17:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Stockton Howell

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

One of many casualties of the Battle of Gettysburg, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I think the circumstances of his story and his role in that battle are enough for me to regard this person as notable and therefore would prefer to keep this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Christianity, and New Jersey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. I don't see the notability here, but the sourcing at least gives me some pause against being fully for deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. His actual role in the battle was minimal. That there's sourcing for almost anyone who was at Gettysburg isn't surprising given the level of documentation that exists, but I'm not seeing anything notable here. Intothatdarkness 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not an ordinary solider, but the only chaplain killed at Gettysburg. "There can be no discussion of military chaplaincy at Gettysburg without mention of Horatio Stockton Howell." StAnselm (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the references we have on him are very recent: the quote I give is from this year; there is a page devoted to him in this 2020 book. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Just FYI, the quoted author Bruce Davis heads the Gettysburg Civil War roundtable, so he's an expert. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on a quick google search. I've applied three marginal sources already. I'm seeing material like this which seems to indicate this person is a part of Gettysburg lore, being a chaplain who was shot for refusing to surrender his sword. This book about Union chaplains seems to indicate Howell's death is the "most famous" of six Union chaplains mistakenly killed as combatants. There's a heck of a lot of Gettysburg lore, I'll grant, not all of it warranting notability. Looking at newspapers.com I'm seeing over three dozen Pennsylvania mentions over the years (including a few claimed eyewitnesses). This book says of his commemoration “...the first battlefield monument to perpetuate the memory of a chaplain slain in battle...”. Gettysburg figures are notoriously hard to kill at AfD, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources about Howell that are already in the article establish the claim of notability based on his life's work and death at Gettysburg. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable book and newspaper sources in the article that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, passing minor references insufficient to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant coverage such as several paragraphs here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Gettysburg Times is a regional newspaper printed since 1902 so seems to be a reliable source, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2023 (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 13 May 2023 by Spicy: G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Mainul Saiman) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Daily Jalalabad

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

Non-notable regional newspaper in Bangladesh. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator is not a blocked, confirmed sockpuppet. Please do not make these accusations based on suspicions alone. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikidata. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I still recommend going through the WP:SPI process first, because he is currently not blocked for this reason on enwiki. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPI is ongoing, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parvej096388. Although there is a 90% possibility that the user is related to this case, the implementation of CSD G5 still has to wait for the final announcement of the conclusion. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note I have blocked Mainul Saiman, the author of this article, as a sock of Parvej096388. (Rnwiki-global is another sock from the same case.) Girth Summit (blether) 17:15, 13 May 2023 (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 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy Down Versace

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

Has done nothing to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete zero sourcing found. It's all about anything related to Versace (the brand). If he was an artist to watch in 2014, then nothing's happened since, he isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded Jack4576 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In 2014, he announced in every conceivable social media and self-promotional outlet that he was entering the studio to record a song. Then what happened? Nothing. In other words, he doesn't even have one single recording. Not even any social media chatter since that fateful day 9 years ago. It's hard to imagine anyone less notable than this. I wonder what he's doing today... wait, no I don't. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promo Nonescence.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2023 (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 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dan

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

Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Has not played top professional level in Australia which is Super Rugby. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found these other articles (1), and (2) but am still not convinced this person is notable Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale"

Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title says it all. Fails WP:NLIST by a wide, wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalete This is one of the most pointless articles I've ever seen, and the best example of WP:NOT I'll have for a long time. Chaotic Enby (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (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! 03:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kaplan

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

This looks like someone's resume. The major claim to notability here seems to be the blog that he contributed to. However, the blog's nominations would seem better summarized at PCMag instead of an article about one of the magazine's editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable personally, fails WP:GNG, very promotion in nature. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's an LGBTQ piano teacher with the same name that has more coverage than this person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2023 (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! 03:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Woodworth

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

No indication of notability Amigao (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McCaleb Burnett

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

Delete. Non-notable subject. No notable information since previous deletion 15 years ago.

Update: A lot of work was done on this page by Geniustechwizard4556, a sockpuppet of MetaWiz4331, who appears to have a notorious history of creating pages for non-notable actors. AdyFieldston (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I created this nomination page after the original nominator had edited the previous, closed AFD to renominate. I have so far expressed no opinion on the nomination. Skynxnex (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides social media links and confirmation of films he was in, the best I can find are Rotten Tomatoes and Shutterstock pages. Deleted in 2007, still appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. This nomination was created by an WP:SPA, which I find a little suspicious. Novemberjazz 21:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This keep vote comes from the creator of the article, who has had numerous articles flagged for non-notability, which I find a little suspicious.
    WP:NACTOR doesn't seem to apply as the article subject does not have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." AdyFieldston (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input from established, unconnected editors would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. The three sources used on the page seem to be the only RS on the internet to mention his name, and even they only summarily mention him as being in the film the article talks about. WP:NACTOR calls for "significant roles in multiple notable" productions. Burnett's roles in major films/shows have to date been very minor ones, and his major roles have been in decidedly non-notable productions. --Tserton (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Tserton; the sourcing is not impressive. Doesn't pass the GNG or NACTOR. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Furr

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

Dearth of reliable sources discussing the ludicrious claims proposed by this fringe "historian". Most sources that cover Grover Furr's theories are either rather unreliable or self-published(including by him), with only a few historians making offhanded remarks harshly criticising his work making claims unverifiable; there are no good secondary sources that could be used to write more than a few sentences discussing one or 2 of his many books.

Failure to meet notability guidelines due to lack of relevance of works. Originalcola (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a previous discussion on this same topic indicating a certain degree of controversy around this article yet given the fact that the article does not seem to have been improved much since the original nomination I felt it necessary to repropose deletion. Originalcola (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as an "eccentric researcher" lets call it. Plenty of sourcing discussing the individual, regardless of the validity of the studied material. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As was pointed out in the 2014 AfD, there do exist sources on Furr, including criticisms by individuals who are at least considered notable enough for Wikipedia, namely John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (in their book In Denial), David Horowitz (in his book The Professors), and Rod Dreher (here.) If you feel the article is too long, then it would make more sense to propose shortening it rather than deleting it altogether. --Ismail (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst there are a few commentaries on Grover Furr's works that doesn't necessarily merit inclusion on wikipedia, their commentaries are minor at best. The article is already missing lots of information and seems to imply that some of his theories are correct or at least portrays them uncritically due to the lack of coverage of his theories meaning that most of his self-published claims can't be covered by reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, if the article implies "that some of his theories are correct or at least portrays them uncritically," this is something that can be fixed by modifying the article, not by deleting it. If Furr is notable as a crackpot (as another comment here put it), the article shouldn't require a point-by-point rebuttal of his books to convey his crackpot status. As an aside, given your reference to self-publishing I'd note that Furr's books don't appear to be self-published. They're mostly put out by Erythros Press and Media which is associated with the Marxists Internet Archive. --Ismail (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more referring to his website in which 7 references are made and most of the "articles" he published was posted. Also I'm not against the inclusion of crackpots on wikipedia, it's simply that Furr isn't a notable one. Could one honestly consider a single line in John Earl Haynes book or an article in a conservative newspaper as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Originalcola (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If mention by a well-known historian (however brief) and an article specifically about Furr in a conservative periodical were the sole sources used to establish Furr's notability by Wikipedia standards, then I'd agree they wouldn't be sufficient (though I see nothing wrong with arguing the sources themselves are notable), but as noted there are other sources about Furr besides these. As for taking issue with references to self-published writings on his website, again that's something which can be addressed by modifying the article, --Ismail (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability was affirmed in first AfD, there is no new detail here motivating a second AfD. The article needs a lot of improvement (i.e. trimming), but low quality articles don't warrant deletion. --Soman (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't the original AfD end without a consensus? Originalcola (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the rationale is factually correct, Furr is notable not as an academic but as a crackpot. So the “Career” section is appropriately tiny (and the large WP:UNDUE bibliography should be removed).  —Michael Z. 13:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I agree with others that improvements are needed to the article, and that the subject likely fails WP:ACADEMIC, the sourcing appears to be sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I agrew with Mzajac regarding what he may be notable for, the problem here is that much of this article is based on primary sources (Grover Furr's works) or passing mentions. From what I can tell looking at citations to his works, he seems to be virtually ignored in academia (how come he is still a member of it boggles my mind somewhat), it seems (exceptions are rare polemics like , his books - the ones I checked, about half of what is listed in his bio - have zero reviews[26] and [27]). I feel he should be notable for us to tell the readers he is not a reliable source (to put it mildly) but I am having trouble finding anything in the sources cited in the article or from my BEFORE to argue he merits WP:NBIO (and in the end, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, etc.). I'll ping an editor I think may be interested in this: User:Paul Siebert. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The author is an academic, though in English not history. He appears to be propounding discredited views of history, as promulgated by USSR. The article is critical of him; and rightly so. However sometimes it is useful to have articles like this in WP in the hope of preventing the gullible from being taken in. I am sure we have articles on holocaust deniers, which we keep for similar reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first AfD was closed as "no consensus". He is not a notable academic, and yes, he is ignored in academia. He is mostly known for his fringe views covered in self-published and other primary sources. Yes, he is noted as one of denialists in a few better sources, but again, this does not make him a lot more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree etc. There is plenty of coverage, though other historians naturally do not waste too much time dismissing his theories. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mzajac. I don't see a major problem with the article's sources which do appear to indicate that he is notable per WP:NACADEMIC. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Mzajac, didn't mean to ping you; I was just fixing the formatting of a few !votes here. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:23, 19 May 2023 (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 02:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Habibullah Nowsheri Shrine

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

Khawaja Habibullah Nowsheri Shrine

It isn't entirely clear whether this article is about a Sufi poet, or about a shrine at his grave, but it doesn't satisfy general notability for either a person or a place. There is no explanation of what reliable sources have written about either the person or the place. None of the references are secondary. They include a map, which shows that the place exists.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 google.com/maps A map showing location of the shrine Yes No Yes No
2 thekashmirimages.com An article about the Sufi poet, Khawaja HabibUlLah Nowsheri Yes About the poet, but not about the shrine Yes No
3 YouTube Appears to be about Sufism in Kashmir Yes Not about the shrine No No

If the article satisfied notability, it would need to be tagged for heavy copy-editing for grammar, usage, and style, but it doesn't pass notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be a draft article that was moved by the creator to mainspace after it was declined. Definitely not notable, as a person or place. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although this appears to be a locally venerated site, a google search does not help very much. I tried finding some stuff in Urdu, this indicates that a grand veneration ceremony (urs) happens at the shrine every year. This has gotten another two lines (p. 59) in this thesis but nothing helpful and substantial to support keeping a standalone article. This could perhaps be incorporated into a biographical article about the saint. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (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 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mavila Vishwanathan Nair

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

Article looks like a CV and there is no inherent notability in any of the positions he held. Very little in gnews and supplied sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV except one by Union Bank but that's a primary source. 2 of the sources are dead links. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_11&oldid=1156340090"