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.
Subject of article is an academic but I don’t see any criterion from
WP:NACADEMIC being satisfied. Also her parents are quite notable but per
WP:NOTINHERITED we know notability isn’t inherited. The sources in the article don’t even necessarily discuss subject of the article.
Celestina007 (
talk)
23:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. While it is stretching things a great deal to call the subject an academic, I think that multiple newspaper/magazine profiles over a period of time probably meets GNG.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
07:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - I agree, she is a businesswomen and meets
WP:GNG. There are several other references that can be added to the article.
Melissaim (
talk)
09:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
Melissaim (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD. reply
Comment. Does the page qualify for G5 deletion as creation of a blocked sock? Myself and another editor made a few cleanup and tagging edits, but I don't think these are substantive.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep, as this is now clearly a valid disambiguation page due to additions to the page.
BD2412T14:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep per
ONEOTHER and place the {{One other topic}} template on the page. Please see
Talk:Sarah Kaufman#Requested move 25 April 2020. I closed that RM and placed a {{db-g14}} disambig speedy deletion tag on this page. I had moved the dab page, which was then titled with the base name, "Sarah Kaufman", to
Sarah Kaufman (martial artist), where its history was preserved. Tavix deleted that page a few minutes ago while moving the page to this nominated title, which before had only redirected to the base name dab page. So the dab page history was originally at the base name, "Sarah Kaufman", and was never the history of this nominated page, "Sarah Kaufman (disambiguation)". Done this many times because I think it's the right thing to do until someone explains otherwise in terms a four-year-old can understand. Thank you Tavix for explaining this so even I can understand. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 02:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You're basically backdoor deleting the disambiguation page by moving it to an obscure, unrelated title and then redirecting it. This is wholly inappropriate, especially because
these disambiguation pages should not be speedy deleted in the first place. The correct action would be moving the disambiguation page to
FOO (disambiguation) and then prodding it or AfD'ing it should you think it be deleted. I'm dumbfounded that you think it is "right" to have the edit history of a disambiguation page be hidden behind a completely unrelated redirect. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I think that should merit the removal of the page removal right since you have done this "many times". --
Tavix(
talk)00:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Iff the disambiguation is to be removed, it should be removed using the proper channels—PROD or AfD—so it can be properly vetted for removal. You're bypassing that important step by sweeping the history under the rug. The result is the same, there's no dab anymore, with the important side effect of having mismatching edit history. --
Tavix(
talk)00:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I was under the impression that all three, PRODding, AfD and speedy deletion, are "proper channels" for deleting a page. I preserved the dab page history, which was never at this page as far as I can tell. The dab page history was at the base name. It was decided at the RM that one of the two entries on the dab page was the primary topic, so according to the guideline's community consensus, the dab page is no longer needed and a hatnote will suffice. There is no question that this page should have been deleted, and it's a waste of editors' time to PROD it or send it to AfD. The best way is to speedily delete the redirect that targeted the base name dab page. You have not explained why the page must be PRODded or AfD'd instead of speedy deletion. Why would you want to waste other editors' time with PROD or AfD, when the best way to delete the FOO (disambiguation) redirect is speedy deletion under Db-g14??? Yer makin' me pull my hair out here, and I don't have that much left to pull out!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there01:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The RFC I linked is the latest consensus I have regarding
WP:TWODABS, which found no consensus to delete them. Do you have a later one which allows them to be removed speedily? Note that G14 does not apply here, it is for one extant page, not one other page besides the primary topic. --
Tavix(
talk)01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I hadn't realized that the consensus had changed. So in the future, I will move the dab page to the FOO (disambiguation) title and place the {{One other topic}} template on the page. Forgive me for not noticing this before. I have altered my !vote above. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: valid little dab page. Agree that complicated page history manipulation seems a bad idea: if the page ends up deleted, so be it, its history goes too. If it is kept, its history is preserved. Enough.
PamD10:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect, pointless nomination contra
WP:ATD. Trauma centers in Massachusetts are now listed at
List of trauma centers in the United States, making it a plainly obvious redirect. That this redirect could be useful is also demonstrated simply from the fact that it had been created under this title, maintained separately for six years before merging, and edited by several different editors during that time. Whether anyone is interested in creating redirects for other states is irrelevant, but if someone did create such redirects I hope that someone else wouldn't waste more time trying to get them deleted. postdlf (talk)
23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I disagree. More than one of the references in this article meet
criteria 1 for notability of musicians and ensembles.
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
Many of the references are published by reputable, non-trivial sources and do not fall into the exception list of
Reprints of press releases
Trivial coverage.
Articles in a school or university publication.
For example:
this and
this are both pieces focusing exclusively on Jeremy Aaron.
I agree that there are a lot of references, some of which are blogs or the musician's official website. However, some information, such as release date of an album should be sourced from the musician's official website. For example, if you check out Joni Mitchell's wiki page, the first reference is jonimitchell.com, which is controlled by Joni Mitchell.
Delete - Notability is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bandcamp, instagram, etc are not reliable sources. The muscisan's own web site is not independent. A mention of the musician's name in the credit's for a song, or album, etc. is not significant coverage. Concert announcements are not significant coverage. Once we eliminate those references from consideration, the only remaining are literally the two noted above. Of those, Ear to the Ground writes about emerging musicians which is to say those who have are not yet notable. So I'd say we have at best, one piece of significant coverage. --
Whpq (
talk)
19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There are definitely more than one independent reliable sources. Including the two you mentioned,
This is coverage of Jeremy in another independent article.
This is radio coverage of Jeremy. The references where Jeremy Aaron is not the subject serve to strengthen the argument that he is also a notable figure in his work accompanying other musicians and organizing concerts.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following
The radio show appearance is an interview and performance. It does not represent coverage that establishes notability. The Broadway World article is concert announcement and does not establish notability. --
Whpq (
talk)
01:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Jeremyagottfried, the entire article is ref bombeb with unreliable sources & sources that apparently don’t even concern subject of the article so i am going ahead to trim it for you & in the end you’d see for yourself how empty the ref section really is after all the mirage has been removed. Give me a minute or two to accomplish that.
Celestina007 (
talk)
01:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for improving the article. I appreciate it! It sounds like the main argument I'm hearing is that musicians who haven't received widespread national recognition are not notable. If that is the standard, then apply the standard equally across wikipedia. Let's remove every article contributed by @
Tracklan2contributions Let's remove the pages for every musician who operates at a local level but has toured on a fairly regular basis. Cause if we're being honest, coverage in 2 online blogs vs 4 online blogs is not that big of a difference in notability. Most online music publications, like Pitchfork, deli magazine, etc are curated by pay to play PR campaigns. Notability based on a standard of so called "independent" media coverage is a very subjective standard.
Jeremyagottfried (
talk)
01:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Celestina007 Absolutely. As long as the writing is honest and open to collaboration by the community, then I don't take issue with autobiographical pages. Most low-profile musician wikis are written by fans of the artist, which is equally biased. I am bludgeoning cause I see this as an opportunity to expound on this ideal of "notability" compared to the way the music industry actually works.
Jeremyagottfried (
talk)
04:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Jeremyagottfried, okay you might need to slow down & understand the fundamental policies governing this community before commenting any further or creating any new articles in the future. You wouldn’t want to get blocked for being a “promo only account” now would you? Have you by any chance read the contents of
WP:AUTO?
Celestina007 (
talk)
05:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Jeremyagottfried:, I hope this message finds you well. If you are truly
here to build an encyclopedia, I encourage you to review (in addition to
WP:AB) the policy pages about
What about article X? and
Other Stuff Exists. Generally, a comparison is not useful on its own (because maybe other pages should be deleted as well) and is only useful to support an otherwise meritorious argument. The comparison you have made between the article here and that of Jimmy Wales does not appear to be helpful because Jimmy Wales has obviously received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources such as to pass
WP:GNG, while we are struggling to find such sources about the subject at issue. Generally, a subject may create a page about themself if they conform to all of the other rules Wikipedians need to conform to, such as only creating subjects about notable pages and using reliable, independent secondary sources that give significant coverage of the subject; that is what the
WP:AB page tries to explain. If you are here first and foremost to
here to build an encyclopedia, then other editors will be happy to have your help on this site. If, however, you are
not here to help build an encyclopedia because your purpose is otherwise (e.g. to self-promote), then I would remind you that Wikipedia is
not about you, and
conflict of interest editing is practically prohibited beyond some limited instances. You can visit the
WP:TEAHOUSE to ask any questions about these principles, or you can post them on my
talk page if you wish and I would be happy to try and answer them. Best wishes,
Ikjbagl (
talk)
05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The sources provided don't pass GNG or NMUSICIAN (I agree with Whpq and The Gnome) and the article should be deleted for lack of demonstrated notability. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it seems from the above discussion that this is an admitted
WP:AB and that the page creator may therefore have
WP:NPOV issues. Since that seems to be the case, EVEN IF THE SUBJECT WERE NOTABLE, I would consider recommending
WP:TNT to deal with it so that the article could be re-created independently from reliable sources.
Ikjbagl (
talk)
05:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Keep: There is, at most, a very weak
WP:NACTOR argument to be made, on the basis of the subject's role in Smosh: The Movie and some other recurring parts. There are no immediately obvious sources, though, and a more discriminating search will require a painstaking sifting of the thousands of sources that contain the name "Kevin" followed by the word "will". If someone does manage to find some sources, I will keep my vote as it is; otherwise, I expect I will be downgrading it, due to
WP:GNG not being met.
Dflaw4 (
talk)
12:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is simply nothing out there to support the argument that the subject meets
WP:NACTOR or even
WP:GNG. We get a strong indication of the dearth of sources when Keep proponents offer nothing of substance, i.e. specific, multiple sources. -
The Gnome (
talk)
22:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Actually, describing this guy as a singer in the article seems like wishful thinking or self-promotion because most of his work is in fashion design. But even in that line of work he is in pure self-promotional mode, self-posting pictures of his stuff and depending upon other social media strategies. He has no
significant and reliable coverage as necessary for notability. Many of the article's current sources appear to be reliable but are usually announcements about events in which he was one of many participants. This attempted
promotional Wikipedia article is more of the same. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Well of Harod. Despite a very lengthy discussion, I think there is clear consensus that we should not have two different articles about what appears to be predominantly identified as the same site or location. How to call the resulting article is another matter, and is to be decided by editors on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. We can consider delete or merge when there are two articles on the same place. However, as demonstrated at
Talk:Well of Harod, the most recent scholarly opinion is that they are not the same place. With this knowledge, the case for them being covered together is gone.
Zerotalk07:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Zero0000, It really doesn't matter if a biblical well of harod is different place what matters is that the
WP:commonname of place knowns as Ain Jalut is Well of Harod and the original article was about that place. The creation was disruptive attempt to circumvent the move procedure
Shrike (
talk)
07:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It is perfectly reasonable and normal for there to be two articles for two locations. The only question here is what the names of the articles should be, and you correctly note that this is complicated by the fact that the name of one of the places is commonly used for the other place. The way to resolve that is to discuss the article names in a proper place, i.e. not AfD, not to force us to have one article for two places.
Zerotalk08:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
To determine name there are proper move procedure that instead of using it created the article about the same geographical place --
Shrike (
talk)
13:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You are describing material that I personally added to the Well of Harod article a couple of weeks ago, two days before sources were provided showing that these are actually two distinct topics. I moved the relevant information to the Ain Jalut article; you added it back to Well of Harod. The overlap is there because you want it to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
15:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't believe my comment was offensive in the context, but it has been judged to be so and I apologise for any offence. Also please note that Zeros comment was before I clarified 'As you ask , as per nom as per
WP:POVFORK'
81.111.119.153 (
talk)
15:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect (we don't even need a merge currently - material is in position.) This historically considered location is covered perfectly adequately and in context at
Well of Harod. I don't see any gain from ripping it out. Can't pronounce on precedents for treating historic locations and their hypothetical identities in separate articles - the only one that comes to my mind is
Troy and
Hisarlik, but these are both large topics on their own and would overwhelm a single article. Clearly not the case here. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I didn't miss it. Just about all the relevant material is about the hypothetical connection, regardless of whether it turned out to be correct or not. It's the most relevant context. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
03:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge - These are surely the same location, though even if not, the content and context fit easily into Well of Harod, so a spin-off article like this is entirely unnecessary.
Patiodweller (
talk)
03:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Three points: (1) Wikipedia is not an advertising agency for the Bible; we must be careful not to add weight behind spurious claims to authenticity of Biblical locations; (2) We make an exception for this where there is a traditional location for a Biblical place. There has never been a traditional location for the "Well of Harod". In the late 19th century there was a debate between a handful of European scholars, based on their interpretation of a single sentence in the Bible, which landed on two possible places. (3) Throughout Wikipedia for these situations, where there are multiple possible locations and no traditional one, we have multiple articles. One for the Biblical location, and the articles for the actual places. See for example:
Rehoboth,
Baal-hazor and
Kadesh.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
08:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
, It has nothing to do with Bible the article was about certain geographical place with its
wp:commonname you created the article about exactly the same place to circumvent move procedure--
Shrike (
talk)
09:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If one could be bothered, an good case could be made for merging
Baal-hazor and
Tall Asur - two undersourced stubs that together might make a start class article. This is an anti-example for a split in the present case. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge with Well of Harod. The name "Well of Harod" is simply the Israeli name of Ain Jalut, which is the Arabic name of a spring where there is today a national park called the "Well of Harod National Park". The Well of Harod should change scope from a biblical site to an actual site know by the locals as "Well of Harod". The modern Well of Harod/Ain Jalut can be seen in this picture.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If there was much to write about both I would agree, but all of the information, about biblical Ein-Harod, the modern Ma'ayan Harod National Park and the historical Ain Jalut can all be inside one article. As far as I know there is really no clear identification for the spring next to
Gidona which is known by the Arabs as
Ain Jalut. This is really a minor place, it shouldn't be too complicated, better give the readers everything in one decent article.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)11:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Even if there should be be two articles they should be both named by their
WP:commonname which is Ain Jalut is not one of them.But I agree with Bolter one article is enough --
Shrike (
talk)
11:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Lead section should be something like:
"Well ofSpring of Harod (
Hebrew: מעיין חרוד), also known as Ain Jalut (
Arabic: عين جالوت) is a historical spring next to the community settlement of
Gidona. The Arabic name associate the site with biblical Goliath while the Hebrew name associate it a spring from the
Book of Judges. It is the site of the
Battle of Ain Jalut. Today it is part of the Ma'ayan Harod National Park[1."
This way, the article will draw connection between a modern park to its history. The subject of the article should be the spring it self becuase it is a physical thing while the biblical place should be added as the background for the name.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)11:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That gives a
false equivalence between the two names. The name Ain Jalut has verified provenance as the name of the place in recorded history. “Well of Harod” is a phrase in the bible which some European explorers thought could be Ain Jalut or could be Ain el Jemain, and then some real estate developers decided to take a view on this scholarly debate when building a settlement in the area of one of the two possible places in the 1920s.
Either way, what the “right” name is is not the question here. The point of relevance is that there are two distinct topics: (1) the place mentioned in the bible and the subsequent scholarly debate over where it might be located; (2) the place in Israel today called Ain Jalut/Gideon’s Fountain/Maayan Harod, and the history of that place. Your proposed lede above deals with #2 but not #1.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
13:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I wanted to add #2 but I don't know the subject. There is no problem in adding to the lead secion I proposed that the actual Spring of Harod is maybe somehwere else. According to the article, Ain Jalut is thought to be the place where David killed Goliath, while it is actually some 100 kilometers from there. So is the Arabic name also wrong?--
Bolter21(
talk to me)17:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge (leaving the usual redirect). Most of the subject article appears in the target already. The target discusses the issue of identity and no doubt more could be added on the arguments about that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - per Zero, if they arent the same place they shouldnt be covered in the same article as though they were. nableezy -
17:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep If they are two different places, then 2 articles, if there is some doubt, still two articles and hat note "Not to be confused with.." or something of that sort.
Selfstudier (
talk)
17:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Selfstudier,
Nableezy,
Zero0000,
Nishidani. Please take a look at
this. Today in 2020, Ma'ayan Harod (i.e. Spring of Harod, i.e. Well of Harod) is the name ascribed to Ain Jalud. When visiting Ain Jalud from 19th and 20th-century maps, you also visit "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" which is a known tourist attraction in Israel. There should be one article about a physical place located in the coordinates shown in the top-left of the illustration, since "Ain Jalud" and "Ma'ayan Harod" are just names ascribed to a natural spring that can be visited by anyone here. All of the information about biblical/Islamic traditions of this place and if they misidentified it, mention it. It is always interesting to know about historical misconceptions rather than censoring them for the sake of historical "truth".--
Bolter21(
talk to me)13:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If Wikipedia combines a biblical place which has two possible locations with one real place, it makes a strong inference, irrespective of whether we write somewhere in the article that there is another possible location. That is fine when there is a tradition, but this is a modern invention. I like your map, and the name of "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" because that is the name of an actual place. "Well of Harod" is a place in the bible; noone uses that name in English-language tourist literature in Israel; our Well of Harod article is structured to focus on the biblical question. If we merge the article about a biblical place into an article about an actual place, that feels a little too much like WP:OR.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
13:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I think the scope of the article should move to Ma'ayan Harod/Ain Jalud. Is there a problem with writing that the name "Ma'ayan Harod" comes from "Well of Harod" in the bible ("Well of Harod" is just one of the English translations of Ein-Harod) even though scholars suggest that the actual "Well of Harod" is in a different place? If the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia can deal with this, so is the Ma'ayan Harod National Park, which is a great park around the Ain Jalud spring, whose name by the way is probably the outcome of a misidentification (although I haven't read enough of the sources to determine whether there is actually a clear identification for Ein Harod of the bible). There are many places in Israel such as
Gat Rimon which is a modern village named after an ancient city that was probably 5 or 7 kilometers west in
Tel Zeton or
Tel Gerisa.
Otherwise, I rename "Ain Jalut" to "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" and keep the article for the biblical site. In my opinion biblical Ein Harod doesn't need an article and right now the article doesn't provide much information about whether it is Jalut or Jemain.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)14:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Usually I stay away from biblical stories, I don't trust any of it but I looked at
https://bibleatlas.org/harod.htm just to see so it says there "There is no good reason to question the accuracy of the common view..." which makes me think that it has been questioned else why mention it? So this modern scholarship is questioning it but you want to ignore that in favor of bible studies, that's about the size of it, right?
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
You completely misunderstood me. I want to stay away from biblical sources. Instead of talking about a biblical place of an event that didn't necessarily happen in real life, talk about the actual spring, which was once Ain Jalut the site of an important battle and today a national park in Israel with a recreation village and is named after the biblical place. The biblical connection this spring is the name at the very least. There is no archaeological record or any map from the Iron Age to prove the description of the biblical events. The European travelers just looked at some springs did their best to link them with biblical sites. You and I can go and swim in those springs. What we can't do is swim exactly where the mythological Gideon saw his soldiers drink.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)15:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect per POVFORK and Bolter. If an editor thinks the COMMOMNAME has changed, the thing to do is make a move request. If there's no consensus, you can't just make a new article. That's a POVFORK.
Levivichdubious –
discuss14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not opposed to a discussion about either renaming the article or splitting it, but AFD isn't the place for that. This article was created as a BOLD split, which isn't a problem per se, but once it was challenged, it should have just been reverted, with a discussion proceeding on the talk page of the original article. I think the best thing to do right now is to turn
Ain Jalut into a redirect to
Well of Harod (making this AFD moot), and then anyone who thinks there should be a split or title change should propose it at
Talk:Well of Harod.
Levivichdubious –
discuss18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep one article is about a biblical place and the other is about a real place. If the real place name is disputed then you can start a move request.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC) (I made my comment during
this version of the article)reply
Shrike, it is not a POVFORK. Ayin Jalut is mentioned in many sources throughout history as Ayin Jalut. The biblical place is a biblical place. It's actually POV to put content of Ayin Jalut in the place that is mentioned in the Bible. The historicity of the Bible is much worse than the sources that call it Ayin Jalut.--
SharʿabSalam▼ (
talk)
16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Well of Harod: There is a significant enough overlap in scope and content between the two subjects that this falls under
WP:OVERLAP. By
WP:COMMONNAME, the name for the combined article seems to be Well of Harod.It’s not like naming the article by the common name will assert that the literature referring to the place as Ayn Jalut is POV-relegated to a lower standing because the article title is the other name; all names can still be shown prominently in the lead and all relevant content can be covered. We don’t need separate articles for every topic that has different names from different groups of sources. — MarkH21talk16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't know how long this is to run. One thing is obvious. Editors are voting 'merge' based on their reading of a page which, through lack of serious editing, is misleading in its representation of the facts, as are virtually all wiki articles dealing with the Bible. All these articles quote that as a primary source, and ignore the complex scholarship contentiously surrounding virtually every other verse.
To understand the point being made by Once and Zero, you have to read up on the information so far omitted. That takes time. It has taken me alone some hours to check closely one (Israeli) academic source from 2017. That source, by
Israel Finkelstein and
Oded Lipschits, concludes that the Spring of Harod figuring in the Gideon legend was not in the
Jezreel Valley - a confusion caused by a redactor writing several centuries after the event who was wholly unfamiliar with the geography. For this and several other reasons, they conclude that the identification of our
Well of Harod/Ein Jalud with the Gideon tale of the Well of Harod has no factual basis. Gideon's biblical 'spring/well of Harod' lay near
Shechem, way south. So too the Hill of Moreh is not around
Givat HaMoreh in the Jezreel valley, but more likely the site of
Sahl 'Askar, just south of the refugee camp of that name, and again near Shechem. The difference is fundamental. The implication is that the site Israel names Well of Harod, and which historians of the site associate with the Battle of Ein Jalud, have nothing to do, due to redactorial name confusion, with the story of Gideon and the Midianites. So merge or separate, as one will, one has to correct the Well of Harod article, removing the Biblical bit about Gideon.
By the way, that Givat HaMoreh wiki article is a farce: it puts the Hill of Moreh in the Jezreel valley and then cites three biblical verses that locate the Oak of Moreh elsewhere, in Shechem, while asserting that Moreh here refers to the same locality.
So, there are grounds for suggesting that editors should refrain from making up their minds (and from using contiguous wiki articles as a frame of reference) until the actual ascertained historical facts of probabilities are set forth, to allow them to judge on the basis of correct information, hitherto not in their purview, due to the lamentable state of these articles.
Nishidani (
talk)
17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
This sounds more like an argument to create/split off a
Well of Harod (biblical) than against merging
Ain Jalut to
Well of Harod, the latter which is moreso an issue for the
WP:COMMONNAME of the Jezreel Valley spring in the national park near the location of the 13th century battle. Whether the biblical place is separate and should have a separate article is an appropriate discussion after this AfD. — MarkH21talk18:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nish, I must remind you that "Ein Jalut" means "spring of Goliath", which apparently comes from the a Christian traveler who linked a spring next to the city of Jezreel with the story of David and Goliath. The name Ayn Jalut is just as wrong as Ein Harod. Even more if you consider the fact most scholars do accept the identification of Ein Harod with Ain Jalut, while no one doubts the biblical battle of David took place in the Elah Valley between Azekah and Sokho in Judea and not in the Jezreel Valley.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)18:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(a)No need for the reminder, since I do tend to remember what I read, esp. if it concerns linguistics. People get very intense in the I/P area about imagined POV slants in trivia, and go through a manifold of forums, talk pages to work the worry beads on this or that issue to death, last man standing being the consensus'. All the current uproar tells me is that neither this nor the other page are getting any work done on them. That the Well of Harod has to be gutted of the Gideon legend bit, except for a corrective note; that things in the Ain Jalut article have to be reworked. One example, the one you allude to:-
The
Itinerarium Burdigalense (586) notes "ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occidit" in reference to a location just before Scythopolis.[1]
Now, the source is Robinson p.168 n.1, which nowhere mentions 'a location before Scythopolis'(unlinked). Robinson writes:
In connection with Stradela (Jezreel) the (Itinerarium Burdigalense) has:'ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occidit.'
So what we have is not what Robinson wrote. He implied not Scythopolis below but Zir'in above it.
(b)'The name 'Ayn Jalut is just as wrong as Ein Harod.' The name Ayn Jalut is the Arabic toponym, attested for 8 centuries, and reflecting a (undoubtedly ancient local Jewish)tradition referred to by the Christian chronicle in the fourth century CE. The name En Harod was attached to it by Victor Guerin in 1870 in an attempt to pin down that Biblical toponym at Judges 7:1 where it is a
hapax legomenon. The fact that the Goliath-David story is a myth (repeated in the Greek Iliad) and therefore not true, and that the Gideon legend refers to an oral tradition associated with an area much farther south, all means not that the names are wrong, but that calling the present site En Harod with the attached assumption this refers to the Bible legend is an modern historical dislocation, whereas Ain Jalut conserves a legend associated for 2,000 years with that particular site.
I couldn't give a flying fuck one way or another, really, about this passionate dispute. What pisses me off is that no one gets interested in the scholarship required to ground articles accurately, unless there a perceived political issue at stake in a wording or page move. Then, the ink spills into tidal talk page too-ing-and fro-ing, and the substance of encyclopedic construction languishes in insouciant disrepair.
Nishidani (
talk)
13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_deletion - "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" would appear to be the operative guide here. Since those proposing deletion are not able to prove that these two places are the same, and there is independent content for both, I don't see any justification for deletion.
Selfstudier (
talk)
12:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, this is an Articles for Deletion, right? Says so right there at the top. And if you merge it, that amounts to deletion, right? Now go away and bother someone else.
Selfstudier (
talk)
14:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Did you read the policy page you linked to ? A merge or a redirect is listed there as an alternative to deletion, so no, they are not the same. If you are not familiar with wikipedia policy, perhaps you should stay out of AfD debates.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
15:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I want an encyclopedia with non-duplicate content , and I want editors participating in AfD discussions to understand the relevant policies. So I will continue to create AfDs as needed (this one was suggested by the content-fork creator , BTW), and continue to request you familiarize yourself with policies before commenting.
JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (
talk)
15:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Like I said, no proof they are the same, independent content and no reason to "get rid of" the article. Oh gosh, I just commented again, naughty me.
Selfstudier (
talk)
16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Selfstudier Stop saying there is no evidence this is the same place. There is only one spring in question, and it is the one found today near
Gideona. It is called Ma'ayan Harod by Israel, and was once called Ayn Jalut. The meaning of "Ayn Jalut" is "Spring of Goliath" and a traveler from the 4th century described the area next to
Jezreel (city) (2 miles to the west) as the place where David slew Goliath. It is accepted by all scholars today that the battle against Goliath occured in Judah so "Ayn Jalut" is actually a false name.
Ishtori Haparchi has addressed this misidentification already in the 14th century. He identified the site with the "Spring which is in Jezreel" from the tale of Saul's death. Rabbi Joseph Blumenfeld published Haparchi's book in 1957 with his notes and wrote that today the site is identified with the Ein Harod, with reference to
Abraham Moses Luncz (I am trying to get my hand on one of his history books right now but the local libraries are still closed). Robinson and Smith also addressed the problem of "Ayn Jalut" in 1841 and identified it with the Spring in Jezreel. Victor Gurein has identified this site with both Ein Harod of the story of Gideon and with the Spring in Jezreel. Ridgeway in 1876 has also identified it with both the "Well of Harod" and the "fountain which is in Jezreel". A book of Israeli geographer Ze'ev Vilnai called "Legends of Galilee, Jordan, and Sinai" simply calls the place Ein Harod, which is identified with Ayn Jalut.
The more I read in the sources the more I realize that there is no single identification but one thing is sure, all sources today will call this place "Ma'ayan Harod National Park" because this is what it is. Saying that the biblical Ein Harod can't be there doesn't change the fact that Goliath was killed in Judah and not in Ayn Jalut, so the Arabic name is just as false. The name of the site today is Ma'ayan Harod, and its former name "Ayn Jalut" is criticized for its inaccuracy by every scholar who mentions its meaning.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
deeply naïve, i.e. 'The fact that Goliath was killed in Judah and not in Ayn Jalut'. If you are taking any of these kinds of epic or fairy tales as facts, then argument is pointless. There is a vast literature on the compositional strata of both the Septuagint and Hebrew bibles (which differ in this regard), sifting early versions as legends oral traditions that may reflect some distant realities, and later redactions that weave in theological point or romance with a moral point. Goliath is not a historical figure in any case. There are two legends about his death, the other victor being Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19), probably Elhanan ben-Dodo, because even there the text is garbled. You cannot touch anything in the Bible/Tanach without looking into modern commentaries and criticism, and little is 'factual' in such texts, any more than the Iliad is factual. Goliath is a fairy tale almost certainly,- since the exact same story appears in many legendary traditions- whoever 'killed him' whether in the
Valley of Elah or somewhere else. Tradition names four possibilities even in and on the border of Judah (
Ephes Dammim,
Sokho, a toponym used of two areas quite distant from each other,- one way southwest of Hebron not quite Judea, or even in the Philistine town of Gob, perhaps
Khirbet Qeiyafa). None of these are facts anymore than Ain Jalun- the Spring of Goliath - implies the factitity of Goliath. Legends are not facts. Wiki articles like these don't document the truth. The bvest we can do is describe how traditional stories are analysed in modern scholarly treatments of them, something editors here seem remarkably reluctant to do, preferring the primary source, that wonderful motherlode of just-so stories tinctured with historical makeup, or vice versa.
Nishidani (
talk)
20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oh c'mon. This entire comment for one word? I supposed you figured out my opinion on the accountability of biblical stories. I meant, that today there is no argument that the site of the biblical legend of David and Goliath (a man killing a giant with a sling to chose the fate of two nations) took place between Sokho and Azekah which have been identified in Judah. But that's not the argument here. There is a spring, found today in the Ma'ayan Harod National Park which was known until the 1920s as Ayn Jalut. Many scholars who came to this place have identified it with the Spring of Harod. Two scholars identified it elsewhere (Condor and Finkelstein). Many others have identified it with the "Spring of Jezreel", and sometimes with both (an article from 2015 explains that since the spring next to
Zar'in (Jezreel) is usually dry, many scholars mistakenly identified it with the larger Ayn Jalut. Today in popular culture of the region it is identified with Ein Harod of the bible. Whether this is the exact identification or not is not important becuase there is no alternative. It is a legend and none of the sources can prove that there is an exact identification for this spring.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)21:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I take people at their word. Your prose construes that way. It's a second language, fine, but readers like myself are being helpful in tuning your ear to the finer points of a language you are showing excellent proficiency in. As I showed in the essay heading my talk page, there is a wiki problem in negotiating one's way through an official Israeli policy to erase the Palestinian landscape of its Arabic resonance by replacing all toponyms with Hebrew place names. So Israel renamed what every one for centuries called, and Arabs still call, Ayn Jalut, with En Harod, which of course makes everyone nowadays think it is the Biblical well. It almost certainly isn't. Thanks for the grid and comments below, hard work, which many who comment here don't do.
Nishidani (
talk)
22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I never said there was no evidence, I said those proposing to do away with the article cannot prove that they are the same place, there is some doubt about it and since there seems on the face of it to be two stories (narratives if you prefer) to go along with that, it seems quite unreasonable to me to to subsume one narrative in the other. The new scholarship as I understand it builds on past queries about identification and is a bridge between biblical scholarship on the one hand and archaeology on the other, called geographical history and the work is subject of many plaudits, it is not for you to dismiss it.
Selfstudier (
talk)
19:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Selfstudier, when we say "Ein Harod/Spring of Harod/Ma'ayan Harod" we refer to the same place as Ayn Jalut. This is today the name of the spring. The names "Harod" and "Jalut" both come from legends, but the spring itself is one. There is no point in writing an article about the biblical place because it is just a place in the story of
Gideon.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Listen, you are failing to understand my intentions. Look at the
Well of Harod article. The "Identification" section does not imply in any part that Ayn Jalut is indeed the biblical Ein Harod, nor it implies it is the biblical "Spring which is next to Jezreel". It simply mentions the scholars who identified it with Ein Harod and the scholars who identified it elsewhere (Condor and Finkelstein). There is no scientific proof to whether Ayn Jalut is Ein Harod, but there are enough scholars who supported this identification which is plausible and therefore since 1921 this site is also known as Ein Harod. In 1948 it was no longer known as Ayn Jalut and a distinction between the kibbutz Ein Harod, which relocated east, and Ma'ayan Harod was made. Both meaning "Spring of Harod". Interesting side note, the official website of the Ma'ayan Harod park in Arabic calls it "The National Park "Ma'ayan Harod" Ayn Jalut" (
الحديقة الوطنية "معيان حارود" عين جالوت).
I do not intend in any moment to suggest a clear identification for Ayn Jalut as Ein Harod. I simply mirror the sources which supports this claim and thus we got the modern name. Which although is not supported by all sources, is supported by most sources. Is Ein Harod located in Ayn Jalut? Maybe. Is the biblical narrative falsely relocated an Israelite legend from the city of Shechem? Maybe. Is Condor right to identify the spring on the Beit She'an Valley? Maybe. One thing is true: There is a spring today known as Ma'ayan Harod with respect to its traditional Arabic name Ayn Jalut.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)10:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
My intention is to write an interesting article about the spring located next to Gideona. This spring is traditionally known as Ayn Jalut and has been traditionally identified as Ein Harod. Today it is known as Ma'ayan Harod and it is a national park. There is one place, there is no need for two articles. Therefore, merge Ain Jalut, not "get rid", with Well of Harod, whose first sentence mentions the Arabic name. Also I think "Well of Harod" should change to "Ma'ayan Harod", but one discussion at a time.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)12:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge back. Right now we have two articles with leads proclaiming they are about springs. But there is only one and the same spring.
Srnec (
talk)
15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No one proposed that. No one also wants to change the
Battle of Kadesh to
Battle of Tell Nebi Mend, that would be ridiculous. While searching for sources in Hebrew I found that many history books in Hebrew about the Mamluks say "Krav Ein Jalut" - Battle of Ain Jalut. Some of them explain that today Ayn Jalut is the Ein Harod and others don't. The battle is known as the battle in "Ain Jalut" no matter how it is called today. If another battle would be fought there, it would probably be known as the Battle of Ma'ayan Harod. It is really a question of COMMONNAME. If Wikipedia was written before 1920, it would be called Ayn Jalut no doubt, but it is written in 2020, a hundred years after new people settled this place and for generations knew it as Ein Harod. Every contemporary map or source, when referring to the location today and not in context with historical events, refer to this place as Ma'ayan or Ein Harod. (My best guess was that when they opened the park they changed it to Ma'ayan to differentiate between the spring and the kibbutz, still searching for sources to clarify that). Today if you go there you see signs saying "Ma'ayan Harod" and it has been that way for 100 years. And besides, the first sentence of the world has Ayn Jalut so the name isn't censored or removed. There was some confusion becuase of the bad state of the Well of Harod article, which gave more weight to the biblical tradition rather than the actual place. There is no political implication or POV pushing in merging two articles in the same place. It is simply the current reality and this logic most certainly cannot be applied to every single place in this country, as each place has its own unique story.
Merge/Redirect - I don't find the keep votes particularly persuasive; I think the merge votes accurately explain the situation. Additionally, to respond to the comment about disputes over content, I would say this is not a dispute over content. A dispute over content would be a dispute over what the article contains. This is a dispute about whether the subjects are distinct enough to warrant two articles or whether this is a
WP:POVFORK; that doesn't particularly have anything to do with content.
Ikjbagl (
talk)
05:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
למזרח יזרעאל ביושר כמרוצות הסוס הוא העין שחנו עליה ישראל במלחמת שאול האחרונה ויוצא מהרי מהרי הגלבוע מן הדרום וקורין לו "עין ג'ילות". ואומרים הישמעאלים כי שם היה מלחמת דוד עם גלית, והם טועים, כי לא היה אלא בארץ יהודה בין שוכה ובין עזקה
"To East of Yizrael... is the spring upon which Israel camped during the last Saul War, and emerges from the Gilboa Mountains from the south and is called "'Ayn Jiluth". And the Ismaelites say the war of David with Goliath was there, and they are wrong, because it was in the Land of Judah between Sokho and Azekah."
Blumenfeld note (1957): לפי דעת התיירים החדשים העין הזה "עין החרוד" הנז' בשופטים ז' א' (הראמ"ל)
"According to the opinion of the new tourists, this spring [is] "Ein Harod", mentioned in Judges 7:1"
"To East of Yizrael... is the spring upon which Israel camped during the last Saul War, and emerges from the Gilboa Mountains from the south and is called "'Ayn Jiluth"."
"It is difficult, at first, to see how this name should come to be found in this region ; but there would seem to have been an early legend that here was the scene of David's combat with Goliath. In connection with Stradela (Jezreel) the Itin. Hieros. has the following: "Ibi est campus, ubi David Goliat occibit ;" p.586, ed. Wessenling. But I find no other trace of this legend."
No mention
"There is every reason to regard this as the ancient fountain of Jezreel, where Saul and Jonathan pitched before their last fatal battle;..."
"...and where, too, in the days of the crusades, Saladin and the Christians successively encamped. At that time the Christians called it Tubania; but among the Araiis it already bore its present name.^ The presence of fish in the fountain probably gave rise to the story off its furnishing a miraculous supply for the whole Christian army during several days."
"En continuant à nous avancer vers l'ouest, nous atteignons, à midi vingt minutes, l'A'ïn Djaloud, source très-abondante, à côté de laquelle nous faisons halte quelques instants."
"Cette source est, selon toute vraisemblance, l'E'n-Harod de la Bible, en hébreu עין חרוד, en grec [Greek letters], en lalin fons qui vocalur Harod, près de laquelle Gédéon campa avec son armée avant d'attaquer les Madianites."
"Elle est appelée dans ce verset source de Jezraël; en efl'et, elle coule à vingt-cinq minutes à l'est de cette ville. Néanmoins, je dois avouer qu'une autre source, appelée aujourd'hui A'ïn el-Maïlek, est plus rapprochée deZera'ïn, l'antique Jezraël; mais comme elle est beaucoup moins abondante que la précédente, j'inclinerais assez à penser que Saiil choisit de préférence le voisinage de celle-ci pour y asseoir son camp."
"A l'époque des croisades, Saladin lit dresser les tentes de son armée près de cette même fontaine, (jue Bohaeddin' désigne sous le nom d'A'ïn el-Djaloiit, nom, comme on le voit, identique à celui qu'elle porte encore aujourd'hui parmi les Arabes; les Francs la connaissaient sous la désignation de Tubania,"
"Dean Stanley, followed by Guerin, would put the Well of Harod at 'Ain Jalud, the story of Goliath (Jalud) having displaced in some way the recollection of the former name."
"Lieutenant Conder suggests 'Ain el Jemain for the Well of Harod. (Judges vii. i.) Dean Stanley, followed by Guerin, would put the Well of Harod at 'Ain Jalud, the story of Goliath (Jalud) having displaced in some way the recollection of the former name."
"...tradition has rightly fixed on the third and largest, now called the 'Ain Jalud, as the well of Harod."
"tradition has rightly fixed on the third and largest, now called the 'Ain Jalud, as the well of Harod."
Doesn't identify "Spring in Jezreel" with Ayn Jalud/Ein Harod, but mentions Ayn Jalud with the description of the battle of Saul:
"But they went round Jezreel, and attacked the promontory of the hill by the easier slopes and wadies to the south which lead up to open ground about the village of Nuris, and directly above the 'Ain Jalud"
"According to an old tradition the battlefield of David the sheperd and Goliath the Philistine was also situated next to Ein Harod...called by the Arabs Ayn Jalut..."
"In the Valley of Jezreel there flows a spring which in biblical times was called Ein-Harod. The new village nearby bears its name."
"Thus, there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud."
"Thus, there is no reason to identify the Spring of Harod in Ein Jalud."
"...placing the Spring of Harod in the area of Shechem seems reasonable. This was also the way that Josephus understood the story, in describing these events near the Jordan River"
No mention
No mention
Proposal to pause AfD
I'm cutting off this side-discussion, since we basically don't put AfDs on hold. It can be difficult to conduct a discussion while the article is undergoing substantial changes, but that happens and editors need to work around it. --
RoySmith(talk)16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Proposal to pause this AfD due to the problematic situation at the article and its talk page. Editors who support deletion of this article are currently (a) edit warring to block any new content being added to the article; and (b) edit warring to block the article being added to WikiProject Palestine and/or ARBPIA. The first point is important because the exclusion of the additional information stops editors from addressing any of the comments regarding similar content, and the second point is important because at least two of the "votes" above would not qualify under the ARBPIA 500/30 exclusion. Some of the information being excluded also highlights the relevance of this article to ARBPIA.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
And there is no basis to try and put the article under ARBPIA-related restrictions. This has zip to do with the modern conflict, and the only one who has even thought of bringing up this context appears to be you. Might as well try that for Daboia palaestinae (actually the case would be stronger there, based on recurring vandalism...) --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Elmidae: the relevance to Palestine, Palestinian history and Zionism is very clear and well sourced, but unfortunately it has
been deleted from the article... This place has been used in political rhetoric by the Palestinians to evoke memories of ancient victories against foreigners, and the village there was depopulated after it was purchased by the Jewish National Fund.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No. The Ain Jalut article was created with no discussion, it should be at the very least deleted and added after more discussion. The article shouldn't exist as long as there is no consensus for its existence, and we are not 100% likely to even reach a consensus. Instead, the discussion needs to continue after the problem of the
Ain Jalut and the alleged POVFORK is dealt with. This might end up with no consensus and two problematic articles.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Let it run. I have no problem with no consensus and two problematic articles. And a discussion to create an article is not a policy requirement afaik. Time will sort it all out eventually. In the meantime,
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Alternatives_to_deletion - "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases" would appear to be the operative guide here. One editor in particular seems to think that endless reverting is OK, it isn't.
Selfstudier (
talk)
15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
May I suggest deleting the Ayn Jalut (which unlike the original Well of Harod article, censors the identifications with Harod which appear in its sources (Gurien and SWP) while drawing modern connection only to the PLO? This is clear POV.--
Bolter21(
talk to me)23:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No and please stop trying to disrupt the AFD process, there is no pausing of the AFD process. Your actions are on the verge of disruptive, you already tried to propose this very recently. It's irrelevant who the author of the AFD is, it's at AFD now and you just need to wait the seven days for completion.
Sir Joseph(talk)23:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
No here we don't discuss the editors but the articles. If the devil itself nominated an article that doesn't meet wikipedia criteria, than that article should be deleted --
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
08:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is consensus to not keep. But there's no consensus abot whether to redirect, or where to. That remains up to editors. Sandstein 07:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
CoronaEditor, Being "famous" as per google hits or any such metric doesn't grant
notability; having multiple reliable sources significantly describing the subject, which allows writing a proper article on the person, is what makes a person notable, as per
WP:GNG. Among those google hits do you find any reliable sources that could be used to write an article on her?
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
03:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
2020 Kids' Choice Awards, coverage either consists of trivial mentions lasting a sentence or so, or coverage coming from unreliable sources, or coverage that is clearly marked as promotional. She therefore fails GNG, but she is mentioned at the target page.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
08:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect per ATD-R, as Devonian Wombat suggests: there is a dearth of independent coverage in reliable sources sufficient to pass the WP:BASIC requirements.
SERIAL#10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Though I don't think it makes sense to redirect it to Kid's Choice Awards as
Galobtter and
Devonian suggested. That article only mentions her name once and does not contain any useful biographical information about her.
Michepman (
talk) 04:11 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete. A case of a gallant attempt at fame, initiated by an editor with a declared interest in putting up in Wikipedia articles about "YouTubers, influencers," etc. However, there are no adequate sources, either in number or in quality, to support the case for our subject's
notaibility.
Google hits and
YouTube views are unimportant in the context of sourcing. -
The Gnome (
talk)
22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Pretty clear consensus to delete, given the lack of lasting impact. Murder is almost always newsworthy; it is rarely encyclopedic. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)02:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Article was PRODded by
User:Comatmebro, and that was reverted without explanation by the article creator. I believe this should be deleted per
WP:NOTNEWS: there is nothing here of any lasting importance; in the end it was just another crime, just another crazy killing, and I suspect the only reason this was ever written up, or ever garnered some media attention, is that the guy yelled something associated with a certain kind of terrorism--a connection that, if I read the article correctly, was of no value whatsoever.
Drmies (
talk)
20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Indeed
WP:NOTNEWS of a sadly horrible but common crime which gets a week in the news but is barely followed up on after outside the standard 'oh yeah that happened' story when the sentencing happens. Nate•(
chatter)21:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
That I have no faith in your judgment is a fact. Please write in complete sentences, especially if you tell lies about me, like about me "thinking all school shootings are not notable". I don't care about those other articles you mention; they have nothing to do with this one.
Drmies (
talk)
01:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per NOTNEWS and the elaborations of nom and Nate. (Though it has no bearing on the present discussion: at first glance, the other two articles Simmo86 mentions are also good candidates for deletion, for the same reasons. Edit: in fact now I've sent one to AfD: a stabbing with no deaths and no apparent significance whatsoever.) --
JBL (
talk)
00:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I Note that the one you sent to AFD was resulted in keeping. Becouse it was a rare occurance like this one in Sydney.
Simmo86 (
talk)
06:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which AfD discussion you are looking at – the one JBL refers to above has not been closed (it only opened a few hours ago), and is not about a rare or unusual incident (sadly). --bonadeacontributionstalk11:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: this initially got some coverage as a "terrorist" attack in Australia, but this proved misleading. A mentally ill young man killed a prostitute he was visiting (and who he visited before) and then ran into the street, attacking other people. I was working nearby and - at the risk of breaking Wikipedia's rules - can assure everyone that the CBD was not locked down and there was not mass panic. The whole incident was over in a few minutes. As I have said on the Talk page, Australia has about 100-200 homicide incidents a year. The majority involve a knife or another sharp implement. This is not notable.--
Jack Upland (
talk)
00:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. While this incident was widely covered in reliable sources at the time, it has been shown to be a consequence of mental illness, and has no lasting significance.
WWGB (
talk)
02:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This was covered significantly for some time in Australia and was national news in the same vein as the 2018 Melbourne attack. The attacker was in the news again as recently as March for court proceedings. I remember the ABC covered the victim significantly. This wasn't covered like a random crime and I'm surprised at the characterisation of the event as "only written up because possible terrorist motive" for what was reported as a major incident.
SportingFlyerT·C09:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Basically any major crime will receive coverage in the immediate aftermath and perhaps around the time of court proceedings; that's about the question "is it newsworthy?" But saying "yes it's newsworthy" is a very far cry from saying
yes it's encyclopedic. --
JBL (
talk)
14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I've read
WP:NOTNEWS and I don't think this qualifies in the slightest. NOTNEWS implies routine, this was not a routine event. The event continues to be covered, see
[3][4][5] and it's already received an academic mention in
Meanjin. I'm not sure what that ABC comment is in reference to, as it was a major event in Australia, which doesn't normally have high profile crimes like this one. I'm in the minority here, but I can still be vociferous!
SportingFlyerT·C20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry to say, two of the sources you provided are seven months old
[6],
[7] and one is five months old
[8]. The only follow-up is the suspect going to court. This shows it is not an on-going story. There is no impact here. It's all routine news.
Murders occur in major cities, and that's a fact jack. For most of the time it doesn't impact anything except the lives of those immediately involved somehow, such as the victim, the victim's family, obviously the suspect and probably the suspect's family. A very small sphere of influence. [WP:LASTING]. In the press it gets turned into
WP:sensationalism. There is a familiar saying, "If it bleeds it leads!" ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
21:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Why are you "sorry to say" this? There's an argument here this was only in the news in the days immediately following the attack, I'm showing that's not the case. There's no rule that the news has to follow up on the event on a daily basis. There was another story from March as well in the Daily Telegraph but I can't access this. The impact here was larger than just the immediate family, and the coverage went national and wasn't sensationalised. This isn't your normal American murder. I don't know how else to convey that.
SportingFlyerT·C21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with Sportingflyer. This was probably the most publicised attack in the Sydney CBD since the 2014 siege. Even if it doesn't deserve its own article there should be a place for it somewhere on Wikipedia.
Deus et lex (
talk)
10:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete NOTNEWS. This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances but it's one incident. Not really of national significance or global significance. Just an ordinary homicide. No connection to terrorism. No indication of something that will endure over time - failing a prerequisite for notability.
Steve Quinn (
talk)
10:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that is all Australian coverage. New Zealand is essentially the same thing. And it's the same story over and over and over. It might as well be one news article or one TV broadcast. Lacking in significance. Fails Notability Events. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I disagree. When Australia sneezes New Zealand gets a cold. And coverage by CNBC does not constitute U.S. coverage. CNBC is fully capable of localizing coverage for a local national or even regional market. Same with other networks. The U.S. rarely needs coverage of Kangaroos. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Coverage in NZ is the same as OZ, how ridiculous!! by that reasoning any coverage in Canada or Mexico is the same as USA, any coverage in any EU country is the same as Germany (although France would also be in the running:)), any Scandavian country's coverage is the same as each other ... ad nauseam.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
15:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I've been re-thinking one aspect of this. Since this was initially thought of as a possible terrorist attack it could be that this initially made news around the world. So, I am willing to concede that. However, after it was discovered this was not a terrorist attack, then in my view, it became a run of the mill crime-news story. So my i-vote has not changed. I'm not seeing where this caused a re-assessment or readjustment of how the police, the criminal justice system, the Aussie government, or society operates - for example. Maybe someone has some info on this. I'm willing to hear it. And yes, New Zealand is not part of Australia regarding coverage. I shouldn't have said that. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
01:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fail of
Wikipedia:Notability (events), and particularly the first sentence of the overall guideline: An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. All of the article references are at/close to the date of the event, which underline the case that this "event" had "no lasting major consequences" or "coverage that persists over a period of time"; coverage is not the issue.
Britishfinance (
talk)
10:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Jack as well as per NOTNEWS - Had this been a terrorist incident then I would've !voted Keep however it wasn't, Not every stabbing-incident needs an article, I also agree with Comeatmebro's and Drmies's actions here. –
Davey2010Talk10:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. I note some opposition essentially along the lines of "It made the news where I live too", but that doesn't make it not
WP:NOTNEWS. It would need to have more widespread and lasting impact outside of the crime itself in order to make a valid article.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete a sad occurance, but still not notable. the news made it to Indis, and Ireland. But it was just a news, extremely tiny coverage, just another news with lasting influence, or sustained coverage. —usernamekiran
(talk)09:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not meet
WP:NEVENT, and
WP:NOTNEWS, although some mentions in international media (probably due to sensationalism of members of the public being involved, and who can forget images of the perpetrator being pinned down with a milk crate!), no lasting consequences/effects (reporting on subsequent trials, even years later do not (usually) count).
Coolabahapple (
talk)
15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - @
My very best wishes: - the article was created because it was a significantly-covered story at the time in Australia involving a public attack in the Sydney Central Business District, particularly after the 2014 siege and a couple of incidents in Victoria.
Deus et lex (
talk)
01:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
According to publications, the perpetrator suffered from mental illness and did not get his medication in time. Was he even convicted? I do not see anything about conviction. His motivation is not clear. Was he connected with any terrorist organizations? I do not see it.
My very best wishes (
talk)
01:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draftify — Although I’m not sure if or not it passes GNG as I haven’t in all sincerity performed a before but it is quite ludicrous I must say to bring this skeleton of an article to an AFD.
Celestina007 (
talk)
09:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable god. I only found one source for the
Niuean god, and that was the one already in the article. I did some
WP:BEFORE, but I really couldn't find anything at all. Kori (
@)20:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, not all of the deities listed at
Niuean mythology have their own wikiarticle probably due to the dearth of sources, that article itself relies heavily on one source in the deity listing ie. Dictionary of Polynesian Mythology. by Craig (also this article's only source), if no others are forcoming suggest a "redirect" to
Niuean mythology#Deities would be appropriate.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Niuean mythology. I tried searching for spelling variants and the narrative (spear god on Niue) but did not find much (there is a 19th century source, but...). Gods can be non-notable, e.g. some on
List of Mesopotamian deities are missing. Niue is a small island, with a population of only 1,600.--
Eostrix (
talk)
14:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The singles do not appear notable and, IMHO, unless the award was truly major/global, a nomination wouldn't show notability either.
Ifnord (
talk)
20:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I considered putting this up for deletion myself given the poor state of the sources, and I’m glad someone else did.
Mccapra (
talk)
03:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The only thing I could see in its favour was that the article didn’t mention some gruesome self-promoting ‘charidee’ the subject had founded, which seems to be the way most nonentities prefer to squeeze their way onto Wikipedia nowadays.
Mccapra (
talk)
07:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Neologism that was coined by the article's author (Joseph Goddard) and only appears to be used by him. Even the referenced encyclopedia entry was written by him.
LoganTalkContributions19:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
These are literally "by Joseph Goddard" the same
User:Joseph Goddard who created this article in 2006 before he even happened to have these published so yes it is just made up and covered by no one else but whatever.
Reywas92Talk22:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
speedy delete this is all circular because the sources saw it on Wikipedia. This is made up by the creator to promote himself.
Praxidicae (
talk)
15:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
delete I don 't think this really qualifies for speedy, but given the date of the last AfD it's apparent that this is an idea which has not caught on. Almost all GScholar hits are from Goddard's own works, and the others appear to be passing references or possibly even from larger works in which Goddard wrote a section.
Mangoe (
talk)
15:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think this qualifies for a speedy either, but it does appear to be a non-notable neologism based on my own before search which echoes that of the nom's and Mangoe's.
SportingFlyerT·C07:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The only nontrivial coverage I can find that is not local in scope is an article published by the MAA, the parent organization of the local section that sponsors this competition, on the history of that local section
[9]. I don't think that comes close to satisfying
WP:GNG. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete a non-notable broadcaster. I live in the city of Detroit and have never heard of him, which is not really much use. However we did delete the article on Sonny Elliott who was the most colorful broadcasting personality in Detroit, so we have clearly showsn that the Detroit broadcast market does not generally lend notability to those in it. There are eceptions, but they are rare and need way better sourcinv than we have hear.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
non notable DJ who was a guest in a number of radio shows. Fails MUSICBIO. Was denied in drafts due to being unsourced autobio, but still the author persists.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
19:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I strongly disagree with this request for deletion. The page is well sourced and has good coverage on BBC webpages. The are plenty of articles on Wikepedia mainspace that have have far less sources. – User: Lazzarinni(talk)—
Lazzarinni (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - The "keep" voter above mentioned BBC sources. There are indeed BBC sources showing that this DJ has appeared in some of their programming, but they are basic announcements and promotional listings with no journalistic analysis or commentary. The same is true of many of the article's announcements of his podcasts. This is not too far away from the
WP:EXIST fallacy. The DJ's works have been listed in many places, but he has not yet achieved the
independent and reliable media coverage that is necessary for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Pure
WP:GAMEGUIDE content. Sourced to primary sources, tweets, and other things that are inadmissible on their own without reliable secondary sources. Written by fans for fans and doesn't put anything in real world context. Fails notability criteria. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Very few of the individual entries are independently notable, and the few that could be considered to be are already covered at the
Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) article. There are also no reliable, independent sources that I can find that discuss the concept of this multitude of "Alternative classes" as a group, so it fails
WP:LISTN. Even if the concept of alternative character classes in D&D were notable (which by all appearances, it is not), this excessively crufty list would still not be appropriate.
Rorshacma (
talk)
23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, albeit somewhat weakly / with conditions. Please see arguments (on both sides) at the similar
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character class (Dungeons & Dragons), so it's consistent that Zxcvbnm also believes this topic should go too. I'll repeat from the earlier AFD that nom's comment about "written by fans for fans" is not a deletion criteria and is essentially meaningless (only topics that nobody likes written by people who don't care are allowed on Wikipedia? what?). Wikipedia is good precisely because it covers all sorts of obscure topics seemingly only of interest to fans - go check out
WP:DYK and nominees there, and you can find all sorts of weird stuff from fans of the history of New Netherlands, or 1920 US politics, or Eurovision. Okay, that aside... the real criteria is references - are there
reliable sources that cover the matter and show notability? Now, this is a spinoff article created to not glom the main article up with all the "asterisk" cases, so references are inherently spottier, per Rorshacma above. The sources clearly exist in the current article but there's way too much
WP:PRIMARY and not enough secondary sources as they stand. Additionally, the article could do with some trimming to just the relevant classes. That said, insert usual "AFD is not cleanup" comment here - help with cleanup and additional sources would be good, and maybe even a merge-back to the parent Character class article if this is truly unfixable, but deletion is probably over the top.
SnowFire (
talk)
01:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). SnowFire makes good points about why this shouldn't be flatly deleted, as does BOZ with their citings of policy. Subject matter like this is unfortunately going to be mostly reliant on primary sources, but that on its own does not make this or any other topic non-notable. I believe this list should be heavily scaled down, and its edition sections moved to subsections of the Character class article's edition sections. The mechanical descriptions of most of these classes are not needed, and it would probably be better to only mention the more widely-known classes in prose; the sections on Original, AD&D 1e, and Basic do this well, and can be easily integrated as-is. Everything below that is a mess of tables and cruft, but I believe it can all be written following that style. (For example, the 3e/3.5e section can include one sentence about the classes introduced in Player's Handbook II, one sentence about those from Oriental Adventures, another covering the "Complete X" series of books, one for "Tome of X", and so on. The 5e section might be discarded entirely, since the Character class article already includes a mention of Artificer and where it was released; nothing more than that is needed.) This requires significant cleanup, but the material here has a clear home. —
烏Γ(
kaw)│05:03, 05 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as a
WP:SUMMARY-style split off from
Character class (Dungeons & Dragons), an article that has already been kept by consensus at AfD. (Re) merging would not be appropriate as it would make the main article too long.
So there's the policy-and-guideline-based argument. Now here's the question that the nom has never answered. How does removing this information improve the encyclopedia? How is having a less-comprehensive coverage of a subject via focused sub-pages in any way an improvement of the project as a whole? Just trotting out a link to a project page does not answer that question at all.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It improves the project because if there are no limits on the notability requirements for inclusion, Wikipedia would be flooded by irrelevant, original-research material, making it nigh-impossible to concentrate on what is actually notable and improve on it. We have to draw lines somewhere, and this article is clearly over that line. If this clearly indiscriminate list is allowed to stay, we might as well just allow anything. Relative toenail size of a certain game's monsters? Yup, allowed, because it exists.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)20:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Slippery slope fallacy is your argument then. This list is clearly not indiscriminate. It has a very specific and fixed criteria for inclusion and is a subtopic of a topic that is well covered and notable. There's nothing here that crosses any lines, let alone ones that are made up whole cloth by the nomination.
oknazevad (
talk)
13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It's actually not well covered - it's a regurgitation of primary source material which fails
WP:LISTN which fails the spirit if not the letter of
WP:GAMECRUFT. That's the true problem with most of these D&D articles, and why they're better off on another wiki - rarely will you find any truly secondary coverage, most "secondary" coverage is actually from players of the game, as if football players were also journalists for the games in which they played.
SportingFlyerT·C15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
A false analogy. That's like saying the we can't use reporting by car magazines because the writers drive to work, or that we can't use food magazines because the writers eat. Or that we can't use medical texts because they're written by doctors.
oknazevad (
talk)
17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The real analogy here would be making an article about a car model that is solely referenced to the car manufacturer's website and marketing materials. If there is nobody else talking about it besides the manufacturer, it's not considered notable.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)18:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge not seeing enough sources to support an independent article about this topic. As a suggestion, you could summarize it and include it in an existing article about the character classes.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
20:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per SnowFire and KarasuGamma - I'm sure this belongs on a Wiki, but not on Wikipedia. It's either unacceptable listcruft with no notability or a game manual. But if there are useful sources, then we can transplant them to the proper page.
Ikjbagl (
talk)
06:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable real estate firm with the usual PR sources. some sources don't even mention the firm just one of its founders etc. Was draft, but instead of submitting the editor moved it directly to mainspace.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
19:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was PRODded by
Drmies with the very sensible concern "There is no good encyclopedic reason to reproduce a list of something published by a newspaper--there is no secondary sourcing to prove that this is notable, one way or another." It was
unprodded by
Simmo86, who seems to do that with some regularity. So, let's waste a week discussing this.
JBL (
talk)
19:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
JBL, I appreciate the ping and the AfD nomination. Your assessment of
Simmo86's de-PROD, I share--an editor with so few edits who reverts a PROD without even the decency of an edit summary, well, a revert could have been justified as well, following
WP:DEPROD. Anyway, I've given my reason and I stand by it. If this is to be noteworthy, there should be a secondary source that proves that this one newspaper listing is deemed notable by our standards. There isn't any.
Drmies (
talk)
20:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – there isn't even any claim to notability for this list, which is literally just one individual's opinions, printed in a newspaper, with no commentary from independent sources. One odd thing is the addition of an "Other editions" section at the end, which says "Other countries have produced similar shows" (huh?) and links to
Greatest Britons spin-offs. In that article, which lists spin-off shows of a British TV programme, there is a reference to an
ABC TV show which aired in 2012 and which was (probably) called "The Greatest Australian" (it was one show, not a series, and I doubt it was in fact a spin-off of the British show – but that's an entirely different issue. That article linked back to this one, but I've fixed that). My point being that if the list in this article was in fact a notable entity, it would hardly be mistaken for a television show... --bonadeacontributionstalk12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete many problems with this. Cites The Australian as source but link is to PertNow. Number 28 isn't even a person, but a band, AC/DC. Article has been often tampered with , such as Steve Irwin put in number one.
Teraplane (
talk)
22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nobody wants to keep this, but there is no consensus about whether a redirect should be created. This means that anybody can create such a redirect, and anybody can then contest it at RfD. Sandstein 07:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Literally a
WP:GAMEGUIDE through and through. There is no aspect of this list that doesn't pretend to be a reference to players about the game, and all sources are primary. Fails notability criteria which states that pure lists of gameplay concepts are not allowed. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. This is just a massive list of non-notable gameplay elements, with no further context or indication of notability. The only sources are entirely made up of game material from primary sources. I really don't see anything here worth preserving anywhere else.
Rorshacma (
talk)
23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect back to
Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)#prestige class. These are a dime a dozen with little outside coverage and all specific to a single edition of D&D. (Unlike the alternative classes recently nom'd as well, which stretch across all editions for 40 years of content and have room to grow / more sources).
SnowFire (
talk)
01:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete ALL of the sources currently go back to wizards.com, so they're purely primary. Again this is on probably suitable for a D&D specific wiki - this is not properly encyclopaedic for Wikipedia.
SportingFlyerT·C01:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I disagree entirely. This as a list article is not a likely search term, nor is it a notable article. We can move the other redirect to the Character Class page. Easy done.
SportingFlyerT·C01:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect per SnowFire. (There is no reason to delete this before redirecting; this list provides a useful basis for a more functional and productive recreation if secondary sources emerge, and there is no dispute or edit war happening that would prompt discouraging recreation.) —
烏Γ(
kaw)│05:21, 05 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect per SnowFire and 烏Γ. Absolutely zero reason to wipe out the edit history via deletion before creating the redirect. In fact, that might even be against the site licensing, which requires attribution.
oknazevad (
talk)
18:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
If nothing is merged, then the edit history doesn't need to be retained. That is only required when the result is merge and redirect, per
WP:MAD.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't believe any of those have as much of a claim to being the primary topic as the D&D context does. —
烏Γ(
kaw)│09:45, 08 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nothing can plausibly lay claim to being the primary topic behind a game mechanic such as this. It is simply too common to say such a thing.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)21:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fram makes a good point about "prestige class" not being exactly a D&D specific term. Maybe a disambiguation page which links to some of those other articles?
oknazevad (
talk)
19:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete with no obvious redirect target. There are a few games that have notable character classes, and any encyclopedic information is already written there.
Jontesta (
talk)
23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails MUSIC BIO. Most probably paid promotion, the new editor got tired of resubmitting the draft and denied so he just copied the draft with all the tags and moved it to mainspace.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - This one is a close call but it is probably
too soon for a Wikipedia article. He has indeed appeared at festivals and minor awards ceremonies, but the article is dependent on sources that merely list his presence with no independent analysis of his individual works. He has a few friendly, introductory interviews in the specialty press (
[10],
[11],
[12]), but I don't think he has yet achieved the
significant and reliable coverage that is necessary for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. There really are not any sources discussing the term outside of the actual game books. It certainly is a part of the game, but there is not enough to justify this being a separate article. I would probably also be fine if there were to be a light Merge to
Dungeons & Dragons gameplay.
Rorshacma (
talk)
23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no section about experience and leveling in
Dungeons & Dragons gameplay, and this concept would warrant a small mention in such a section if it existed, but I'm not sure if there's merit to including any information about levels there. —
烏Γ(
kaw)│05:26, 05 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree with that revert, unfortunately. Expanding the scope of the gameplay article too far would turn it into a fork of the PHB. —
烏Γ(
kaw)│00:58, 06 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The subject fails
WP:GNG,
WP:MUSICBIO and
WP:NACTOR. The article's sources are primarily YouTube links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject does not show him being discussed in reliable sources. For someone who has released four studio albums, he should have some coverage.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Note that there are some sources in French, but after translation they are equally unreliable. The only coverage to be found for any of his music or acting are typical unreliable streaming entries, social media sites, and paid promotional services. I also searched for professional reviews for each of his albums and found more of the same in that search. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Fails MUSICBIO. They have released an album under Ambitiouz Entertainment, but that in itself cannot confer notability as Ambitiuoz is not that well known itself.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
18:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources in the article aren't inspiring - one is a wiki (
UGC), and I can't see any information about the editorial team, policy etc. in the other two, so I don't think any of them are RS. I can't find any depth of coverage in RS online, so this seems to fail
GNG and
WP:NMUSIC.
GirthSummit (blether)10:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - They're a relatively new act in heavy self-promotional mode, so good luck to them but it is
too soon for a Wikipedia article. This attempted
promotion is just one of many splattered all over the Internet by themselves or management. They have plenty of streaming entries and paid promotions but have not yet been noticed in any
significant and reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete. The subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. Per sources
here and
here, he is described as a fast-rising producer. He has a produced a handful of singles but none of them pass
WP:NSONG. His only claim to notability is being nominated for Producer of the Year at the 2019 Vodafone Ghana Music Awards. One doesn't deserves a separate article simply because there was nominated for a major award.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Celestina007 why do you allow your judgement been clouded by
Versace1608 ?? Is it because he influences you as stated on your userpage? After this discussion, I believe the issue between you two must be discussed at the Wikipedia:Teahouse.
Geezygee (
talk)
14:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Geezygee, how did I miss this threat? He doesn’t influence my decision or wait, does he? Maybe, maybe not you can discuss this At the tea house, wine house, beer house, vodka house or whichever house. I do not care! however what imperstively does influence my decision in a !voting process is the content of the article & if they meet the appropriate notability guidelines & if they don’t I would most likely !vote a delete. Like I said you can discuss my matter with whomever & whatever. Infact discuss it with the God or god you serve I can’t be arsed. You feel me? Oh & furthermore your reputation for creating articles on very non notable people gives me a reason to pause & really question if or not you engage in undisclosed paid editing.
Celestina007 (
talk)
19:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Geezygee: None of those charts (including Adom FM Music Chart) are reliable charts; they are all
single vendor charts. The Ghanaweb and 3news.com sources are about the song appearing on an exam question. The Daily Graphic source is actually not independent of the subject so it cannot be used to establish notability. Articles being tagged as a stub is irrelevant. In order for a subject to have a separate article, the person needs to meet our notability requirements. The subject's only claim to notability is being nominated for Producer of the Year at the Ghana Music Awards. The 3Music Awards isn't notable.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The subject of this article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO; none of the songs ha has produced are notable. I could not find coverage of him in reliable sources after conducting a Google search. He has bee nominated for two non-notable music awards, although one of them have a separate article.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - He received some notice for being nominated for a Ghana DJ Award, but merely among lists of other nominees with no specific coverage. His own works have the same problem and can only be found in the typical streaming and self-promotional services. No
significant coverage to meet the
notability requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't think the awards are notable per wikipedia's standards, and certainly do not meet music industry standards as major awards. Per their own website, they are identified thus: "The Ghana DJ Awards was created to celebrate and appreciate the talents of Disc Jockeys (DJs) who promote Ghana music. The Awards is an exciting annual program designed to foster the development of the Ghana music industry by rewarding and celebrating Radio, Mobile and Club Disc Jockeys who have excelled in their fields of endeavor." In other words, an organize that exists to promote an entity are using awards to call attention to their mission (not uncommon for many organizations to do this very thing) but it's not a competitive award where peers nominate and vote on peers, which is normally necessary to be looked at as significant. And even then, this is merely a nomination. Otherwise, coverage is weak.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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 subject is a Youtuber, fortnite player and social media personality. Most of the article content is fanzine stuff and there’s only one source that looks maybe reliable. It’s probably hard for individuals operating in this world to demonstrate notability, but I don’t think this does.
Mccapra (
talk)
16:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The issue here is the existence of sufficient reliable sources. There is no agreement about this. The same applies if one disregards all contributions by editors primarily active in the Balkans topic area, or all who didn't bother to actually discuss the sources. Sandstein 19:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
WP:POVFORK of
Plav and
Gusinje. Although the burden of proof is on the creators of this article, I made an effort to track down a secondary, reliable source that unequivocally describes a large-scale massacre in Plav or Gusinje in 1912/1913, to no avail. When making claims about the massacre of hundreds or even thousands of people, rock-solid sources are needed, preferably in English, as per
WP:EXCEPTIONAL and
WP:V. This article suffers from a lack of reliable,
WP:SECONDARY sources to substantiate almost all the claims made in it and instead largely cites
WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, a major
WP:REDFLAG. I will elaborate on these below.
Amanuensis Balkanicus (
talk)
16:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Rexhep Dedushaj's Krahina e Plavë-Gucisë nëpër shekuj, whose publisher is unidentified. See
[13] According to academic Peter R. Prifti, Dedushaj is a secondary school teacher and political activist, not a scholar. See
[14]
SANA, the media arm of politician and mufti
Muamer Zukorlić (claims 800 killed and 12,000 forcibly converted)
Another questionable source is Marijan Premović's article, which was published by the Bosniak Academy of Sciences and Arts (BANU; not to be confused with the
Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina). BANU is an ethno-political NGO that was founded in 2011 to "protect and promote Bosniak cultural, national and religious identity and interests". Its president, Ferid Muhić, has been known to promote fringe views, for example claiming that Serbian and Croatian are eastern and western variants of the Bosnian language. See
[15] Some Bosniak scholars have described its foundation as "an attempt by Muslim clerics to increase their influence". Šaćir Filandra, a political science professor at the University of Sarajevo, has called BANU "marginal" and "illegitimate". Among its founders is the accused war criminal
Ejup Ganić. See
[16] This is clearly a
WP:FRINGE organization.
Among the sources that are used in violation of en.wiki guidelines is:
Robert Elsie's Kosovo: A Short Documentary History, which is a collection of primary documents, and is cited uncritically and without attribution in violation of
WP:PRIMARY.
The only
WP:RS, English-language sources that mention atrocities in Plav and Gusinje during this time are Sabina Pacariz's Yearbook of Muslims in Europe and a Balkan Insight article reporting that unnamed "Bosnian organizations" claim that 1,800 were killed and 12,000 forcibly converted. Both of these sources merely report that commemorative ceremonies took place, and the claims stemming forthwith, not whether or not there is any veracity to these claims. Unequivocally claiming this in
WP:WIKIVOICE instead of attributing it to the unnamed "Bosniak organizations" mentioned in the Balkan Insight article, as the article does and Maleschrieber did
here , is a clear violation of
WP:SYNTH. The 2013 commemoration can certainly be mentioned in the Plav and Gusinje articles and cited to the two RS referenced in this article (Balkan Insight and Pacariz) with the attribution "Bosniak organizations claim..."
Amanuensis Balkanicus (
talk)
16:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment the article creator doesn’t appear to have been notified about this nomination. I’ve placed a notice on their talk page.
Mccapra (
talk)
18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Side comment: I have been expanding this article, although I didn't create it. It would be nice if the nominator who has mentioned my username here, also informed/pinged my talkpage about this but he never did so. Getting to the sources:
The point in an AfD procedure is to establish notability or the opposite of it, not to argue that a source is not RS or that is POV, so since the beginning every argument of the nominator is not valid because it doesn't discuss notability but if the article is POV or not.
The sources do discuss this topic extensively, so it is notable. I will take some time to discuss some of the RS claims about the article, not because that discussion is related to this procedure, but because I just want to reply to the allegations by Balkanicus. Rexhep Dedushaj, is a historian from Gusinje whose book is on its 4th edition offline. It is regularly used as bibliography by historians like
Marenglen Verli, member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania in his
work about Plav/Plav-Gusinje/Gucia (it has full bibliographical details - I used the same). Premović's article was published in Almanah, which is a peer-reviewed journal that is hosted online on CEEOL,
a leading provider of academic e-journals and e-books in the Humanities and Social Sciences from and about Central and Eastern Europe., from where I got the citation. If Balkanicus wants to discuss about CEEOL or Almanah or Premović, there's RSN about that.
Sabina Pacariz, also in the bibliography of the article
writes: President
Filip Vujanović joined the cerenomy, where he stated the crimes performed in Plav and Gusinje are the dark side of the Montenegrin history and later she also writes: On 5 March 2013, in a joint organisation of the Islamic Community of Montenegro together with the Islamic Community and Cultural Centre of Plav and Gusinje in New York, Janazah—a funeral prayer in the sports hall in Plav was organised. Under the name 'Vakat zuluma' (the times of tyranny), the prayer was performed to mark the passing of 100 years from the forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje in the years 1912-1913. Approximately 2,500 Albanians and Bosniaks from Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and from the usa joined the funeral prayer.
Elsie-Destani have published documents from the Balkan Wars and WWI about the situation of the Albanians in the Balkans. The fact that there are extensive primary documents that mention even the names of those killed in these events only proves its notability even more, it doesn't diminish it.
Full quote from Galaty, Michael; Lafe, Ols; Lee, Wayne; Tafilica, Zamir (2013).
Light and Shadow: Isolation and Interaction in the Shala Valley of Northern Albania. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
ISBN1931745714. which I still haven't had the time to add in the article: Warfield's letter also addressed the claim, made at the time by Edith Durham, that the Montenegrins were persecuting Albanians who lived in their territory and driving them out of their villages. He reported that 2000 Albanians had come over the mountains from Gusinje and Plav and were refugees in Shkodra. [William Warfield was Director of the Red Cross Unit in Albania in the Balkan Wars]
Full quote (to establish the notability of the event - not as a source to be used because secondary modern bibliography, already in the article, explains the same event in much detail): In the primary sources of the era about the region this massacre appears in many of them.
Rebecca West was a famed travel writer of her age. In the book,
Black Lamb and Grey Falcon she specifically [link to blacklisted site removed] writes] just about the village of Plav (not the region as a whole): An unfortunate contretemps occurred here during the Balkan War. When Montenegro captured the village of Plav from the Turks in 1912, they were greatly aided by a local Moslem priest, who joined the Orthodox Church and was appointed a major in the Montenegrin Army. His first action when left unsupervised was to hold a court-martial on his former congregation and to shoot all those who refused to be baptized. They numbered, it is said, five hundred. She is referring to Mulla Hajro Basic/Basha/Bashiqi who changed his named Balsa Balsic for a certain amount of money and was used by the Montenegrin army as a "local judge" to condemn many locals to death.
Conclusion: I didn't create this article but I have been expanding it and many more sources exist, so the current bibliography will be expanded too. But the existing bibliography also establishes notability beyond doubt. This is an event which a)is discussed in bibliography b)is mentioned in diplomatic documents of the era c)influences mass events in Montenegro and the diaspora from that country d)is an event about which the President of Montenegro has apologized about. So why are we discussing the notability of an event which Montenegrin society, primary sources from that era, secondary bibliography and the lived experience of the descendants of the people of the region clearly recognize and don't treat like something that needs to be "proven"?
Speedy keep per the above this shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. I know that the Plav-Gusinje/Plava-Gucia region hasn't been discussed as much as other areas in the Balkans in bibliography, so I understand why Amanuensis might not know much about the region, but IMO he should retract his nomination.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
00:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not seeing RS that a massacre took place, just vague claims by apparently partisan writers which don't amount to SIGCOV.
Mztourist (
talk)
10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Mztourist: Michael Galaty is a professor of MSU and director of
Cobb Institute of Archaeology of Mississippi State. Why do you think he is "partisan"? The rest are also distinguished in their field and pass RS criteria. But again I have to stress that regardless of what we think about a source and its partisanship notability is not judged by that. Also, let me say this again: The President of Montenegro where Plav and Gusinje are located has apologized for these events. If the president of the country has done so, why would you think that these are just "vague claims by apparently partisan writers"?--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
11:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Because specific detail of the supposed massacres is lacking. Galaty is used only once as a reference and only in relation to refugees and not as to the massacres themselves. The other sources are so vague as to be of questionable value. The opener for the Milosevic article is: "More than 2,000 Bosniaks and ethnic Albanians prayed together to mark the 100th anniversary of what they allege was genocide against their ancestors."
Mztourist (
talk)
12:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Mztourist: You've misunderstood what is meant here. In the Balkans, there's a debate about whether any such event of mass killing can be described as a "massacre" or more than that as a "genocide". See
Srebrenica massacre for example. The verb "allege" was chosen to describe that dispute in a neutral way, it doesn't have to do with the event itself. The event iself is something about which the Montenegrin President has apologized. How do you explain that if the event isn't notable or hasn't happened?--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I haven't misunderstood anything. Just as in the Vietnam War, one side will say a massacre occurred, another side will say nothing or something minor happened. Having the Montenegrin President say "the crimes performed in Plav and Gusinje are the dark side of the Montenegrin history" doesn't tell me anything about whether or not massacres occurred. Without RS I don't think we should have pages claiming massacres.
Mztourist (
talk)
12:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
President
Filip Vujanović joined the cerenomy, where he stated the crimes performed in Plav and Gusinje are the dark side of the Montenegrin history. [..] On 5 March 2013, in a joint organisation of the Islamic Community of Montenegro together with the Islamic Community and Cultural Centre of Plav and Gusinje in New York, Janazah—a funeral prayer in the sports hall in Plav was organised. Under the name 'Vakat zuluma' (the times of tyranny), the prayer was performed to mark the passing of 100 years from the forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje in the years 1912-1913. Approximately 2,500 Albanians and Bosniaks from Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and from the usa joined the funeral prayer.. Why do you think it doesn't refer to the massacres just because he used the word "crimes" when in the same page the author explicitly refers to them as "forceful conversions and killing"?--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
12:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Your weak arguments do not change my view on this. If there was a massacre there should be RS, but there aren't, so it should be deleted.
Mztourist (
talk)
17:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Maleschreiber: This discussion isn't about other massacres, so please avoid arguing
WP:WHATABOUTX. You haven't addressed the fact that there isn't a single a secondary source that unequivocally refers to the alleged massacre in Plav/Gusinje. Regarding Michael Galaty, nowhere in the passage you provided does he mention a massacre, only the fact that another person said 2,000 people were displaced from the area. Referencing third-person accounts claiming that 2,000 were displaced from the area in 1912/13 and using this to support the conclusion that there was indeed a massacre around the same time in which 1,800 people were killed is
WP:SYNTH and
original research.
Amanuensis Balkanicus (
talk)
20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Terrible sources and multiple problems, which have previously been clearly stated. It would work better as a part of a bigger articles (with proper references). Sadkσ(talk is cheap)16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- It is not a POV fork because neither of the articles of which it is alleged to be a fork say much on the subject. Even if the accounts are not ideal, the fact that some people believe it happened should be enough to justify having the article, particularly as both sides appear to have joined in a commemoration event. It is certainly a bad article, but it is not a pure HOAX. Personally, I would like to learn whether the 12,000 people who allegedly went through a baptism ceremony in fact stayed Christian: My guess is that many did not. The right outcome for a bad article is to improve it and find sources (which will probably not be in English); and in the meantime tag it for improvement.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: Assuming good faith on the part of the creators, I too wouldn't classify this as a
WP:HOAX. However, with everything else you've said I respectfully disagree.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Shouting, "
but it's true!" or "
but there must be sources!" at the top of one's lungs doesn't change the fact that there is a noticeable lack of
WP:RS to
verify most of this article's content and that the only salvageable portions are the two sources reporting on the 2013 commemoration, which don't affirm the validity of the claims being made. My proposal is quite reasonable -- mention the 2013 commemoration in the history sections of
Plav and
Gusinje. As per
WP:DESCRIBE, "don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article". In this case, the topic is the 2013 commemoration and accompanying claims, the only thing that can verifiably be included on Wikipedia.
The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.
Amanuensis Balkanicus (
talk)
20:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
About the total number of casualties: Jusuf Bajraktari,
The Kosova issue--a historic and current problem: symposium held in Tirana on April 15-16, 1993 Full quote: In 1913, 4 000 Albanians in the vicinity of Peje and Gjakove alone, and 8 000 in Plave and Guci, were shot after refusing to renounce their Moslem or Catholic religion and their Albanian nationality. This was published by the
Academy of Sciences of Albania. You can certainly claim that in the article it should be used with attribution to the author, but notability of the topic has been established here.
I will continue the expansion of the article tomorrow as I was somewhat busy the previous days, but I'll be posting bibliography here too.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
12:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I've doubled the article's content based on existing and new bibliography. @
Peterkingiron: Šarkinović (2013) says that two or three families remained Orthodox. What I didn't know was that forced conversions also included some Catholics who were forced to become Orthodox. What is also interesting is that a fatwa was issued which - in order to save more lives - allowed the Muslims to convert without fearing that they have sinned. It sort of reminded me of the
Oran fatwa. --
Maleschreiber (
talk)
21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per
WP:TNT. It seems unlikely to me that the group is notable, and I didn't find sources to suggest such on a search. Regardless, little about the current article looks like it can be salvaged. And interest in such salvage may be limited for a centre that appears to have winded down around 2008.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
17:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Research groups are almost always non-notable. In any case, written as it is based on the group's own self-promotion and with no sources, it would need a ground-up rewrite even if appropriate sources could be found, a difficult task for something that old, local, and ephemeral. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, obviously. The unPRODder seems to make a habit of unexplained unproddings of articles that shouldn't exist. --
JBL (
talk)
19:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I'm struggling to find notability; a lot of the references seem to 'prove' notability but the links don't work
Spiderone12:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Simply a promotional article having little/no credence if we look at it through notability angle (
WP:GNG). Besides that, the main contributor to the article has been warned not to use flashy words (
WP:TONE)
Hatchens (
talk)
15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NARTIST. The 2009 Student Academy Award for "The Bronx Balletomane" was given to the filmmaker Jeremy Joffee, though Mr. Kriss was also involved in the production. I looked for additional sources and found only run-of-the-mill local news coverage of various people with the same name. Cheers,
gnu5715:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was deleted via PROD and I was asked on my talk page to restore it. The original PROD was "Non notable student competition" The person who requested it be restored stated that this is the only place the information is available (see the request
here~ GB fan14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. I PRODed this having found no sources. If the grounds for requesting that it be restored are that ‘this is the only place the information is available’ I hope they take a copy for their own use, because it’s definitely not notable and should be deleted.
Mccapra (
talk)
04:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article is currently unsourced, and searching for sources does not bring up anything substantial in reliable, secondary sources. The event does not appear to pass the
WP:GNG.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 title of the article says that it is about "Relations" between the two terror outfits. However the article discusses none fo this, rather compares them. Even then, most of the comparison is OR and COATRACK. A couple of sources discuss the comparison of both outfits, but no relations are ever discussed.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
13:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or change subject - per nom. ISIL and Al-qaeda, both, have different sources of funding through which they run their operations. However, ISIS has a different take on this. ISIS believes that the United States is a secondary enemy in the region and the primary target should be to cleanse the Islamic community from within by killing the other Islamic sects, such as the Shia sect and other minorities. . the article contrasts the organizations the title is misleading.
Grmike (
talk)
13:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)grmikereply
Delete, without prejudice to recreation. There is a legitimate topic here but right now the page needs some
WP:TNT. If someone wanted to adopt this page and make it decent within the next few days I would gladly change my vote to keep, just give me a ping.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk)
18:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Appears to be repetition of the content already existing on the main pages of the two articles. There is no necessity of having this page per
WP:NOPAGE. --
Yoonadue (
talk)
16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable businessman. Article is based on PR pieces mostly. Only claim to fame is a social media group. Altogether a hodgepodge of PR and promo
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
10:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Re: "Article is based on PR pieces mostly." - They are multiple
Wikipedia:Secondary sources and from newspaper publications such as South China Morning Post and Mainland Chinese publications such as Sixth Tone and
Sixth Tone, China Daily, and Xinhua. It is common for biographical newspaper pieces to have a somewhat positive slant, but the pieces were not directly written by a PR firm.
WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
Wikipedia:Notability (people) also states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
The fact that he's known because of his social media activities (his stated occupation) does not prevent him from being notable under these guidelines.
"Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band."
These articles have Raz Gal-Or or his group as the main subject.
I understand your concern over "PR pieces" but these are not written by PR companies but by journalists. It is common for newspapers to sometimes give positive or even glowing coverage to people, but I don't consider these to be "PR pieces".
宋心蕊; 赵光霞, eds. (2019-12-04).
"歪果仁研究协会会长高佑思："90后"洋网红的中国追梦记" [Gao Yousi, President of the Crooked Nut Research Association: "Post-90s" The Dream of China]. Nanfang Daily (in Chinese). Archived from
the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
陈洋 (2019-06-12). 梁宇芳 (ed.).
"高佑思 一个90后犹太人的中国式成长" [Gao Yousi, a post-90s Jewish person's Chinese-style growth].
Sina Corp. Archived from
the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
高辰, ed. (2017-05-17).
"微信发布在华"老外"用户大数据：六成人用微信支付" [WeChat released big data for "foreigners" users in China: Six adults pay with WeChat] (in Chinese).
China News Service. Archived from
the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
It is a hard thing for foreigners to be accepted by the Chinese public. Among the few successful ones, Raz Gal-Or must be one of the smartest, and possibly the youngest, having gained huge popularity through internet.
The 23-year-old, born in a small town near Tel Aviv in Israel first came to the public’s attention when he appeared on a Chinese television programme.
What propelled him to nationwide fame, however, were series of short videos he produced and sometimes hosted in which foreign residents shared their perspective on Chinese matters.
The videos produced by the Foreigners Research Institute, cofounded by Gal-Or last year, were so funny that they successfully captured the heart of millions of youngsters.
...
He later moved to Beijing because he had developed a “love for the culture, the language, the curiosity and opportunities”, and chose to study international relations at Peking University to get a sense of the country’s diplomatic thinking and impact on the future.
Beginning in late 2016, people passing through Wudaokou — a Beijing neighborhood popular among the city’s foreign population thanks to its proximity to nearby universities — might have noticed a young man strolling around the area, trying to talk to his fellow foreigners on-camera. Though the dark-haired expat is often politely but firmly rejected by those he is attempting to interview, he deftly edits the footage he gets into five-minute video clips that often go viral on social media apps and streaming platforms, such as Weibo, WeChat, and Bilibili.
The young man conducting the interviews is Raz Galor — also known by his Chinese name, Gao Yousi. A 23-year-old Israeli, Galor received his bachelor’s degree from Peking University. In 2016, Galor founded a startup with Chinese classmate Fang Yedun, and they now run one of the most popular social media accounts that depicts the daily lives of foreigners in China and has 2.28 million followers on Twitter-like Weibo. The startup’s Chinese name translates to “The Crooked Nuts Research Institute,” and is a pun on the Chinese word for “foreigner,” which — when said in a foreign accent — can sound like “crooked nut.” This malapropism has become a popular and amusing — if gently and friendly teasing — way of referring to foreigners among Chinese.
RAZ Gal Or had traded in his usual jeans and T-shirt for something more arresting. He wore a flowing robe in deep blue while on his head was perched a tall white hat.
Instead of the fourth-year Peking University (PKU) undergraduate student that he was, he looked like someone from the pages of ancient Chinese history. And that was exactly what the 23-year-old Israeli student was aiming at. He was made up to look like Wang Yun, a bureaucrat in the Eastern Han dynasty (25—220), who was also known for his involvement in a coup against a tyrant.
While it was a spoof, it was also very serious on one level. It was the first in the series of vox-pop videos made by Gal Or’s startup. The episode by Foreigner Research Institute, or YChina, the shorter name by which Gal Or is now promoting his organization, got more than 10,000 thumb-ups after being posted on China’s social media Weibo on September 14.
...
The Gal Ors were living in Hong Kong before they came to Beijing. His father Amir Gal Or, who is also a major investor in YChina, moved business from Hong Kong to Beijing in 2012. It was then that Gal Or junior moved to the mainland after finishing high school in Hong Kong. When he was living in Hong Kong, Gal Or said he little understood the Chinese language and culture. So after taking up residence in Beijing, he began studying Chinese language intensively, which meant four hours of one-on-one courses every day.
The 24-year-old Israeli internet star holds up a smartphone to capture the reaction before settling down with about 100 fans for an evening of playing games, signing photos and answering questions.
Galor has been hot property since December when he started hosting a video series called The Foreigners Research Institute. Each episode lasts under five minutes and features on-street interviews with expatriates in China about cultural quirks and the latest trends.
The first video racked up more than 4 million views across multiple social media platforms, including Youku, Sina Weibo and Bilibili. Since then, Galor－known locally as Gao Yousi－has produced over 50 more episodes and gained more than 5 million online followers.
An Israeli young entrepreneur, founder of a China-oriented online video startup, on Tuesday gave a lecture in Israel's harbor city of Tel Aviv on his story and experience in China.
Raz Galor's lecture, titled "Unlocking China: Media and Marketing Trends in Asia's Biggest Market," shared his story of creating Ychina, or Foreigner Research Institute, a cross-border video channel network featuring Chinese culture, entertainment and technology through the eyes of foreigners living in China.
...
The online video startup has already gathered millions of followers on Chinese social media networks. The videos are about expatriates' life in China in the form of vox pops, which include random interviews with foreigners in China and their study of Chinese history.
宋心蕊; 赵光霞, eds. (2019-12-04).
"歪果仁研究协会会长高佑思："90后"洋网红的中国追梦记" [Gao Yousi, President of the Crooked Nut Research Association: "Post-90s" The Dream of China]. Nanfang Daily (in Chinese). Archived from
the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
In the high-pitched music, Gao Yousi and three friends appeared under the Guangzhou Tower, trying an exciting city gameplay-ask passers-by to randomly guide, pawning four roads to punch in all parts of Guangzhou, laughing frequently ... This crooked nut The latest work of the Research Association on Guangdong has gained good traffic. "Tolerating multiple memories for everyone is where the soul of the city is." Gao Yousi said at the end of the video.
Crooked Nut Research Association is a transliteration of the "Foreign Research Association" from the media agency. The 25-year-old president Gao Yousi is tall and humorous, has a mature beyond the age and a deep understanding of China. He took a group of "old irons" and skillfully walked in the cross-cultural context, using microphones and lenses to show the diverse China in the eyes of foreigners, and at the same time put the real China on the international stage.
陈洋 (2019-06-12). 梁宇芳 (ed.).
"高佑思 一个90后犹太人的中国式成长" [Gao Yousi, a post-90s Jewish person's Chinese-style growth].
Sina Corp. Archived from
the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
This is the 7th year of Gao Yousi's coming to Beijing, the 5th year of starting a business, and the 3rd year of becoming a "net red". His story is not only a story of a Jewish young man who uses Jack Ma as a startup icon, but also a story about integration, struggle, anxiety and ambition, but also a different and same Chinese-style growth story.
...
When Gao Yousi was 13, Gao Zheming decided to move the company from Israel to Hong Kong. At that time, Gao Yousi, who spoke only Hebrew, was sent to a Canadian international school. In order to allow his son to adapt more quickly, Gao Zheming suggested that Gao Yousi be elected president of the Student Union. At that time, Gao Yousi had just entered the 11th grade, which was far from the most popular student. Even English was not very good. But even so, Gao Yousi listened to his father's suggestion, he plunged into preparations, from preaching, canvassing, and all the way to the final election speech.
...
Gao Yousi has four children, he is the eldest son. From an early age, he had a good relationship with his father. Today, he lives in Beijing with his parents, younger brother and younger sister. His WeChat profile picture was also taken with his father when he was a child
When Raz Gal Or was waiting at the Beijing Capital International Airport to catch a flight to Tel Aviv ahead of the Spring Festival, both the 26-year-old entrepreneur and his traveling companion Brian O' Shea were struck by the number of people wearing masks in the airport. Having been preoccupied with their business, they were not aware before that an epidemic was spreading in Wuhan, Hubei Province in central China.
Several days later, they collected 229 boxes of medical supplies in Israel within one day, and successful donated them to Huanggang, east Hubei on February 9 to assist the fight against the epidemic.
The whole donation process of 384 hours, is recorded in a book, "China, We Got Your Back", published in Chinese and English by New Star Press, a Beijing-based publishing house under the China International Publishing Group. The book, which is the first in subject of fighting against the novel coronavirus, also witness the selfless assistance to Hubei and cooperation between young Israeli and Chinese entrepreneurs.
...
The first-born of a successful Israeli entrepreneur who has business in China, Raz Gal Or has lived in Beijing for over 12 years. In 2014, he became the first Israeli under-graduate student of Peking University.
Raz Gal Or is co-founder of YChina, also known as the Foreigner Research Institute, a business development company specializing in China. Uploading videos that sharing thoughts of young generation of foreigners in China, YChina has soon attracted millions of fans after releasing its first video in January 2017.
高辰, ed. (2017-05-17).
"微信发布在华"老外"用户大数据：六成人用微信支付" [WeChat released big data for "foreigners" users in China: Six adults pay with WeChat] (in Chinese).
China News Service. Archived from
the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
Gao Yousi is an Israeli. He was born in 1994. He is currently in his junior year at the School of International Relations at Peking University. He is also the president of the "Corrugated Nut Research Association". He speaks Chinese very well, and all kinds of Chinese online language are handy. However, he has only been learning Chinese for four and a half years.
Gao Yousi used "Foreigner 2.0" to summarize this phenomenon, "This is a new era. Many people are playing Chinese apps, Chinese games, studying in China, and can speak Chinese. Many people really Want to develop in China, have their own Chinese dream. "He said. "Cashless" has a profound impact, 6 out of 10 foreigners use WeChat to pay.
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 subject of this article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. Majority the references cited in the article are promotional links to the subject's music. The remaining sources are interviews. A Google search of the subject does not show her being discussed in reliable sources. All of the awards and nominations she has received are not notable.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?00:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Versace1608: Sorry that was a careless blunder of mine because I presumed it to be notable because of the wide coverage of the subject in
Google search index and I realized that presumption should not be relevant to this discussion and also acknowledged that the Google might not be reliable when searching about this person. Of course I earlier mentioned that the article lacks reliable secondary sources.
Abishe (
talk)
13:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - The musician passes
WP:GNG as she has been nominated for a major award (VGMA) in the country. ~ the source "ghanaweb.com" , "modernghana.com" passes for
WP:RS. I have add the stub tag to better improve it.
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
07:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kwamevaughan: Which criterion of WP:GNG does she pass? The Ghanaweb and Modernghana sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject. The two nominations she received at the 2020 VGMAs aren't enough to warrant a separate article.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?10:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Leaning Keep, but qualified as follows. Doing a search for sources, I see a whole lot on the following websites< yen.com.gh, ghanaweb.com, modernghana.com, and pulse.com.gh. Some others on newsghana.com.gh, ghanamusic.com, ghanamotion.com, and some others. I'm mentioning domains rather than links to particulars because there are dozens and dozens of articles on these sites, so easy to find. The big question is how reliable they are, and I can't say I'm familiar apart from seeing them come up in other Ghana-related articles. Ghanaweb.com is the most popular website in ghana after Google and YouTube, and Yen.com.gh is certainly up there. That speaks to prominence, not reliability, though. There are enough of these, that I'm willing to err on the side of considering them reliable at this point, pending evidence to the contrary. — Rhododendritestalk \\
02:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Any response about the amount of coverage something has received is talking about the GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). You say "having promotional links". These are not links. They're articles in those sources. I'm not interested in
WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, so let's focus on the sources, because indeed, if those sources are not reliable, GNG is not met. On what basis are you saying they're unreliable? A search through RSN for ghanaweb returned just this
one hit, which was poorly attended so certainly not a clear consensus, but what's there leaned towards ghanaweb being ok. PS: adding a ping after writing a comment doesn't do anything. For a ping to create a notification, it has to be accompanied by a new signature on a new line. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Rhododendrites: Let me ask you specifically. Can you tell me which sources in the article are notable? All of the sources in the article are promotional links or press release info about the subject's music. None of them discusses the subject's music. Show me sources that critically reviewed her songs. I am awaiting your response.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?14:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Notability is irrelevant to the sources (and several of them are notable). The question is whether they're reliable. If you've nothing to add to clear that up, my !vote stands as written. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This is where you're wrong here. You have failed to show me sources that discuss the subject or her music. You claim that those sources are reliable and I'm telling you they are promotional links and press releases.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?16:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Wrong about what? That my !vote, which conditions a keep on the reliability of the many sources that are available? Rather than bludgeon, you could add some context about why you say these sources are not reliable. You're not obliged to, of course; just like I'm not obliged to try to persuade you of anything. I suppose I'll have to look elsewhere for context about these sources. You may ultimately be right, but, ahem, "you have failed to show me" why the sources which discuss the subject or her music are unreliable apart from waving them off as "promotional links". (I'm not going to arbitrarily link to some -- they are littered around those sites mentioned above, as you've no doubt seen). This will be my last post unless I find (or read here) additional information. — Rhododendritestalk \\
23:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Rhododendrites: You're wrong to think that a website is reliable simply because they are one of their country's most popular websites. I asked you to tell me which sources in the article you consider reliable and you've failed to do that. I am going to breakdown all of the article's sources since you are not satisfy with the statements I've made.
The first source is inaccessible; it is an unreliable self-published blog source powered by Wordpress. The website reads "We bring you the best Premium WordPress Themes that perfect for news, magazine, personal blog, etc. Check our landing page for details." Can you please tell me how exactly do you consider this source reliable?
The second source is a radio interview she granted to Abusua FM, talking about her song "Jeje". The song fails
WP:NSONG and the source isn't independent of her.
The third source is another interview; interview sources cannot be used to establish notability because they are not reliable secondary coverage.
WP:GNG clearly states this.
The sixth source is simply Kofi Kinaata's endorsement of her song "YiWani". The song fails WP:NSONG and the source cannot be used to establish its notability.
The eight source is a mixture of quotes from an interview and some secondary content.
Sources 9, 10 and 11 are interview sources that are not independent of her.
Sources 12 through 17, 19 through 22, 24, 29 through 34, and 36 through 41 are all links to her YouTube videos; sources 18 and 35 are inaccessible.
Sources 26, 27 and 28 are about her nominations at the 3Music Awards and the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards; only the latter award is notable.
After analyzing all of the sources, the subject's only claim to notability is her multiple nominations at the VGMAs. One brief secondary coverage of her (sorce 8) and her two nominations at the VGMA are not enough to warrant a separate article. To retierate, she doesn't meet any of the criterion outlined in
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO.
Versace1608Wanna Talk?00:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per
WP:MUSICBIO, You need one criteria to pass for notability. I mentioned earlier that she has received two nominations in a major award. Does that not count? Further to that, I have added two more sources "peacefmonline.com" and "myjoyonline.com" which passes for
WP:RS.
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
11:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kwamevaughan: One bolded !vote per person. Add as many comments as you want, but adding multiple !votes is
disruptive and persisting in doing so can lead to sanctions (preventing you from participating at all). That's not a threat; just letting you know. This is more about arguments than votes. Just write Comment instead of keep. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.
Delete - Note the
citebombing to make it look like the rapper has more media coverage than he really does. He has gotten a few legitimate notices about his unusual status as a Mongolian rapper and appearance in a commercial. But most of the article's references are about other things, such as his city's cold temperatures or festivals at which he briefly appeared. A search for sources that are really about him only reveals the
usual social media promotions and streaming/retail sites. Charitably it is
too soon for a WP article on this rapper. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)14:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Another promotional article created and maintained by SPAs. Reposted soon after second deletion but unfortunately not noticed and deleted as a repost and salted so instead here we are again. To loosely paraphrase and quote the last nomination by
Beeblebrox, Third time around, same problems as last times. This is mostly puffery to make it look like this guy is some big player in the film industry when in fact he is mostly just another member of the crew on most of the projects he's worked on. The sources are mostly ordinary, although there's also a high school paper thrown in and a few other sources that are not exactly reliable. Many of the sources simply do not mention him, do not verify the claims made or only mention him in passing. Was previously a lot more spammy
[21] but was wisely reverted to an old version by
Y[22]. That version was more of the worst. This is self serving spam, not an encyclopedia article.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
07:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete&SALT. I have looked through the sources and the content. Fails GNG and has a number of other problems. I find it suspiciuos that I cannot find his name in many og the awards listed, like the Cannes young lions 2011.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
09:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete/
salt. I can't say I remember that AFD ten years ago, and apparently I didn't bother watchlisting this or I would've nominated it again when it was recreated six months later. This is
puffery, largely done by
single purpose accounts likely to have some sort of relationship to the article subject. I can't say I have ever seen Kickstarter used as an article source before, and we've also got Facebook in there and something called "Like Cool" that I've never heard of. If you have to go to those kinds of lengths to create the illusion of notability (along with what appears to be a lot of exaggerating if not outright lying) the subject almost certainly is not notable. I did look at the LA Times source, as they could confer some degree of notability, and I note that while it is hosted by LA Times, the article was in fact in one of their regional suburban papers, the
La Canada Valley Sun. (which coincidentally the Sun just sold off two days ago). Given the aggressive recreations of this article permanent create protection seems in order after deletion.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Page lacks reliable sources and there is no claim of notability here, as the sources discuss the meme instead of the subject herself. Could possibly be promotional too.
AshMusique (
talk)
16:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment most of the sources aren’t reliable anyway. Vice is, the Daily Dot I believe is, news.com.au is. They’d be enough to support a stub at most I should think, but being famous for lip-synching on a single TikTok would in any case put her into
WP:BLP1E territory.
Mccapra (
talk)
02:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This was apparently either not properly placed in the article itself, or incorrectly subst'ed onto the AfD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BD2412T04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment/Keep You also should mention Kotaku being a clear reliable one. Sources mentioning her career as a streamer cause her to pass that
WP:BLP1E thing. Not a big fan of that policy, as it kinda fails to understand how virality works online. Take
Chewbacca Mask Lady for example. Probably arguable that she is known for just the one video, but she passes GNG. Regardless, there's sources talking about Neeko's streaming past the one TikTok/Twitter video. Additionally, that one TikTok video has notability just beyond its virality online (i.e. its perceived effect on Sanders' campaign by viewers and outlets).
Soulbust (
talk)
06:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Also how is it promotional? I'm assuming good faith here, but it's pretty clearly not promotional. Pretty much every sentence is cited properly. Also "the sources discuss the meme instead of the subject herself," is a misreading of the article. Look at the
Background and personal life and
Media reception sections, as well as paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of the
Online career section. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are about the meme, but also have information about her being reached out by Sanders' campaign.
Soulbust (
talk)
06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Albeit difficult to search, I'm not finding any significant coverage of the subject from multiple google searches with different wordings. Maybe someone more creative can find something in their searches, but I'm coming up empty.
Sulfurboy (
talk)
03:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doubtful notability - has long had a notability tag on the page. Any useful content can probably be merged into other pages (e.g. the ASI's)?
Annecremin (
talk)
01:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Provisional Keep. Brevet brigadier general most certainly satisfies
WP:SOLDIER. Still a general officer. But only as long as he actually served as a general officer and the rank wasn't entirely honorary. We need more information. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Our article
Brevet (military) would suggest it was honorary only: Brevet rank in the Union Army, whether in the Regular Army or the United States Volunteers, during and at the conclusion of the American Civil War, may be regarded as an honorary title which conferred none of the authority, precedence, nor pay of real or full rank. The vast majority of the Union Army brevet ranks were awarded posthumously or on or as of March 13, 1865, as the war was coming to a close. (that is the date of Smith's appointment, too). - But hard to tell in this specific case, unless it's in the print source. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
16:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete I can see no indication that the subject is notable, nor can I find significant independent coverage of the subject in WP:RS. buidhe00:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Kazumi Watanabe. The album has only been mentioned very briefly in discography lists (both online and in books) that apply to the musician's career overall, and the album itself has no reliable or significant coverage as a standalone item. If the album has any distinction in Watanabe's body of work, it can be mentioned at his article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Contrary to what some editors seems to think, IMDb is not a reliable source. Just last week we determined one entry there had conflated two different actresses with the same name. We can not have an article on an actor or actress with that as the only source. When the person is alive, we need reliable sources for everything in the article, and here we have no reliable source and so need to scrap the article. The fact that this article has survived 13 days with this level of non-sourcing is disconcerting, the fact it has been 13 years is a sign that Wikipedia has need of major changes.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that 18 sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion (
diff). Also, this discussion was listed at the 2020 April 25 AfD page (
diff) despite being created on 26 April 2020 (
perm link). At this point, just leaving this in place at the
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 2 page, rather than reverting everything. So, this has been relisted one day early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100004:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Even the less puffy versions of the article were based heavily on IMDB, and I'm not seeing any of the sort of independent coverage that would establish notability per
WP:BASIC.
VQuakr (
talk)
08:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: What a mess! 20 sources predominantly about "Russia", "Ukraine", "Putin", and "Trump" does not give notability to the subject and shows the article is likely improperly-titled. This seems to be a
sock farm play ground and presently a
pseudo biography. This is reportedly an encyclopedia not a
"resume" listing site and consensus generally supports that IMDb should not determine notability.
Otr500 (
talk)
11:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Article absolutely fucks up
WP:PRODUCT, no reliable sources at all. This article is just some promotional
bullshit, because every source BARELY EVEN MENTIONS THE SUBJECT! And one of the sources is from TLC Tugger? From TLC Tugger?? FROM TLC TUGGER??? Kori (
@)04:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable academic. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails
WP:ACADEMIC. News about person death doesn’t proves this person was notable, everyday they published news like this.
আফতাবুজ্জামান (
talk)
03:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Based on sources, keep. If notability of the competition is not enough, a topic review is needed. Tone15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. She has won a major national beauty pageant (
Mexicana Universal). The
razón article has minimally adequate depth, and the minor coverage on other sources is cumulatively adequate. The article is well sourced and not promotional.
Daask (
talk)
13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have not found anything on wikipedia policy on pageants. My opinion is that the winner of a national pageant officially recognized by the country who have been recognized in non trivial RS articles should be included.
MistyGraceWhite (
talk)
10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete:
User:Zanimum recently moved this draft to article space without verifying the citations. Nearly all citations are self-publications. None are independent, reliable sources. Please add sources, if possible. Otherwise, this page does not belong in article space at this moment in time.
HSE001 (
talk)
02:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Do not draftify at least the content is verifiable and not transparently promotional, which puts it ahead of many, many mainspace articles. I have my doubts about notability, and if more independent sources can't be found, it should be deleted as GNG fail. buidhe02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Note, I've moved this back into the draft space. I slipped in the review, that said with a significant audited circulation, there is a possibility that the article can be improved upon by its creator. --
Zanimum (
talk)
04:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment -
Zanimum, there was not a single independent, reliable source in the draft. Citation 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 are all self-publicational or user-generated pages, potentially from the subject. Citation 3 is not a reliable source. Once there are reliable sources then it can be considered for article space. Otherwise, this is promotional and spam.
HSE001 (
talk)
20:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.
Keep has reliable sources coverage in many good sources such as Time Magazine, ABC, New York Daily News, Playboy Fox News and others so therefore
WP:BASIC is passed and the article should not be deleted. Also the circumstances of this nomination are suspect as the article has been the subject of persistent abusive vandalism over the last few days which resulted in page protection, Just before the page protection kicked in the article was nominated for AFD by an account that has been dormant since July 2018, so starting an spi, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with
Atlantic306. [[Category:Cosplayers]] has only 57 entries, so wikipedia is not being overrun with this type of activity, and this person seems to be in the top several dozen examples of the type.
Twopower332.1938 (
talk)
23:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, with no prejudice (no pun intended) against re-creation if encyclopedic coverage of the use of "China flu" to refer to the topics is added to the encyclopedia. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
14:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: problem with merging with
Chinese virus is that not all of the entries on China flu could be merged to Chinese virus because they aren't called that. For example,
Asian flu, which originated in China, isn't called China virus. Wikipedia exists to get people to the page they're looking for, not to be politically correct. buidhe08:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree. Flu season in China or influenza in China is not "China flu". If the objective is to get people to the relevant subject, why is it not "2013 flu season in China"? Plain inaccuracy politically correct or not.
PenulisHantu (
talk)
14:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: was China flu actually used for all these things? I search for Google with pre-2020 results does not yield many results. Note that results like China's flu vaccine supply or China's flu season in 2017-2018 have nothing to do with this. --
MarioGom (
talk)
08:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. None of the articles mention "China flu" and to suggest that the topics are otherwise known as "China flu" is
WP:OR and is violates the
WP:DAB guidelines about what disambiguation pages are for. This is a very long way from "sensible disambiguation".
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
16:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. None of these are valid entries according to DAB guidelines and the phrase "china flu" appears in zero articles on Wikipedia.
-- Fyrael (
talk)
16:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - "China flu" generates ~ 100,000 results in google.
[28] bloomberg, nytimes and other acknowledges widespread use of the term.
Grmike (
talk)
11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmikereply
And if someone decides that use is notable enough to actually add it to a covid-19 article, then that could be a potential redirect target. It still doesn't validate this DAB page.
-- Fyrael (
talk)
15:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Unnecessary disambiguation, per the guidance of
WP:DABNOT. None of the pages are actually named China flu, or have easily conflated titles. Sure the subjects could be conflated, but then thats a case for an article discussing the history of flu pandemics, which already exists at
Influenza pandemic.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓11:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Coronavirus disease 2019. It's a plausible redirect but we don't need a disambiguation page for other viruses, flus or diseases which have originated in China. It's a term which as attracted a lot of attention, particularly in the U.S. e.g. [realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/20/coronavirus_is_the_chinese_governments_curse_upon_the_world_142721.html this] and
this. The disambiguation risks being a magnet for
POV editing but equally we can't ignore the fact that many people, whether you like it or not, refer to COVID-19 as such, and that the term has attracted media coverage. Therefore, a redirect is the best bet. SITH(talk)11:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep This term has been used enough times before politicization in recent times. See no policy based reason to delete this disambiguation.
Accesscrawl (
talk)
17:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Pretty clear consensus for deletion of top-level article. Sub-pages have been redirected already. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Video game awards body with no assertion of notability. I've seen zero coverage from mainstream video game news outlets and searching Google News, I only see self-published sources and republished press releases from the organization itself (which counts as self-published). All of the references in the page itself are also self-published.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Your statement that the subject has "zero coverage from mainstream video game news outlets" is incorrect. A casual, quick Google Search I just did found the following links, including those from a few generalist technology websites:
As for your assertion that you only see "self-published sources and republished press releases from the organization itself (which counts as self-published)", what about press releases republished by Yahoo! and Gamasutra?
However, the article needs a lot of work and trimming. I am also not sure why there's a rash for standalone articles for NAVGTR subcategory awards. Even if a consensus is formed where the subject matter itself is notable, I highly doubt that any of the subcategory awards are. If the page survives AfD.
No, other publications republishing their press releases is NOT a reliable secondary source, per
WP:SIGCOV and they do not count. There are a few articles on the award winners, but they do NOT establish notability of the award show itself. To establish notability, there needs to be articles discussing why these awards are important and well-regarded within the industry. Merely reporting on the winners is not that.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep main article and merge all sub articles based on VentureBeat article which has depth and seems independent. @
Haleth: Republished press releases are no more reliable than self-published press release; see discussion of churnalism at
WP:NEWSORG.
Daask (
talk)
12:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The VentureBeat article has this warning on it: "This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff." Bitmob was a former video game website that allowed anyone to post news/opinion articles and if they got popular, they would get editing support from the paid staff. As such, it is considered
WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. I actually removed that ref from the article before this AFD.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is some coverage, but it doesn't look like significant and reliable and independent coverage. The worst sources are press releases and the best are
churnalism—really just rewritten press releases without any independent research.
Woodroar (
talk)
02:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Im undecided on the parent article, but all the individual award articles are absolutely not warranted for such a minor awards show. Regardless of where it falls in the notability standard, we are absolutely not talking about the Grammys or the Emmys here. At minimum, the individual award articles need to be merged/redirected into the parent award article.
Sergecross73msg me13:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree that at the very least the sub articles shouldn’t be separate entities and should either be merged/redirected or deleted depended on what happens to the article for the overall awards.--
69.157.252.96 (
talk)
18:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete and cleanup additions of winning these awards to various games that's happened recently. These awards just don't matter and are incredibly obscure. Per nom, the coverage in secondary sources is not significant; they occasionally reprint a press release, that's it. I would say that if Wikipedia wanted to increase coverage of "relevant" awards, even articles on magazine / websites (e.g. IGN)'s best games would be "better". We don't have those (maybe rightly so), so we shouldn't have these either, which gain even less attention than the magazine awards.
SnowFire (
talk)
21:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep top-level article, but delete the individual awards. There's evidence within the industry that there's recognition of this being an important award, with the understanding that importance ~= notability. (eg if you go to games and developers that have won this award they will show it among their others, its not obscures). It just is annoying that no one talks about the award non the non-profit behind it to give the notability a boost. Also be aware, before about .. 2013? they were known as the "NAViGaTR Awards" ( see
[30][31][32]. Mind you, this is not as great as I'd want to see about the awards but there's more history that we can build on and unfortunately, starting at 2001 when they were founded, we're just at the tip where some sourcing may be in print than online. --
Masem (
t)
15:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete this article and all sub-articles on the individual awards. As alreadt stated several times, "significant coverage" as per
WP:SIGCOV is not given, making the ceremony and the company behind it unnotable.
IceWelder [
✉]
20:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
this subject doesn't meet any guideline for notability. he didn't win any important prize in porn and his sources are unreliable (blogs, interviews, porn web site (commercial) and collections of his pictures).
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Some of his work seems to be rather infamous (listed in the article, would rather not type them out on here, and I'm not an anti-porn person) and has been discussed in scholarly articles in relation to gay bareback porn.
1,
2 So I think there is some notability there. As per usual with porn stars and porn content, you aren't likely going to get an in-depth profile on him or in-depth analysis on his filmography by mainstream news outlets. Not voting as of now, but leaning towards a keep.
GoldenAgeFan1 (
talk)
16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Some of these academic pieces have been published by long-standing publishers like
Taylor & Francis and
Duke University Press and some also seem to be peer reviewed. So they shouldn't be automatically dismissed. Two separate journal pieces even assert his most well known film as both a "cult classic" and "now-iconic". I don't really expect much feedback on this AFD, A: because it's porn, so will be dismissed by many, and B: The nature of the performers work is probably shocking and distasteful even for porn standards for many to be taken remotely seriously.
GoldenAgeFan1 (
talk)
03:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I have decided to vote Keep after finding additional coverage in
Out Magazine1 and he was even noted in medical dissertation The Medical Condom: Contentions, Challenges and Opportunities for PrEP, HIV Prevention, Gay Sexuality and the Gay Male Body for
Ohio University.
2 and there is also this extensive write up, but I'm not sure if thebody.com is considered a RS.
3GoldenAgeFan1 (
talk)
05:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi, I gave a closer look to those articles and in neither of them the subject passes mentioning. In
1 his name appears 3 times in 265 pages. Two times it's in a footnote, and all the three times his name appears only because is in the title of one of his movies, "Dawson’s 20 Load", so the subject is not him but the movie and still is just a mention. In
2, his name appears two times in 28 pages and again, one time is because of the title of the movie, "Dawson’s 20 Load", and the other time, speaking of the movie, it says that Dawson is a bottom. In the out magazine are his movies "Dawson’s 20 Load" and "Dawson’s 50 Load" to be mentioned. Correct me if I am wrong but all of this sounds like mere mentions.--
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
08:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Those you addressed weren't extensive discussion of him but did assert notability. In the medical journal piece, the footnote mentions "Dawson, as a premiere award winning performer, is very well-known throughout the gay community even though he and Paul Morris have brought on a lot of controversy regarding the bareback content within their films, especially within the gay community and the pornography industry". In an archived article from the now defunct NY Blade discusses the controversy about him, his films and trying to recruit people for a follow up to his most famous movie, noting it drew the ire of activists.
1 the Windy City Times piece mentions the above article and also asserts similar claims.
2. Add to the fact that his most notable film is still being discussed in academic articles many years later long after his retirement and dropping out of the public eye (the most recent academic write up was released this year, and as I mentioned some assert the film as a "cult classic" and "now-iconic"), and in connection to the bareback porn genre, I believe notability is there. Also, it's not particular easy to search for material about him alone, due to him using a common, singular name for his porn name.
GoldenAgeFan1 (
talk)
14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
why don't you add some of this citation to the article?. I understand we need to be a bit flexible with the sourcing of gay porn actor as are hard to find sources but still, being a porn actor shouldn't be a free pass to enter wikipedia. --
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
14:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
That's not a bad idea, but some are not easy to cite properly, especially the academic ones, since most are behind
paywalls. Plus I'm not over enthused to, since the article will likely be deleted in a few days/weeks anyway. Besides the state of the article
doesn't necessarily reflect the notability of it. And I have searched for and added refs to many porn-related articles, and yes, sources aren't easy to find for porn-related articles, gay, straight, ect. I probably wasted my time on trying to save this one, as porn articles are usually deleted in AFDs. They are probably one of, if not the most deleted type of articles on Wikipedia (the majority, probably justifiably so). See the history of
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion which goes back to 2007. I agree there should be standards and not every star should/needs to get an article, but I don't think they get a "free pass." Anyway, I think I'm done with this AFD, and focus my time on working on articles that stand a better chance of not getting deleted.
GoldenAgeFan1 (
talk)
17:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
GoldenAgeFan1: look I wrote an article for a porn star which was put into a test here on AFD but it survived, this was one a few days ago. If you feel this one is worthy to be kept and can be saved don't give it up. If there is anything I can do to help you out I will, just let me know. I just wan to get rid of the crap from porn actor list not the good stuff. --
AlejandroLeloirRey (
talk)
18:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Seems to fail creative professional criteria. I was hoping to see she had won an Audie, but I did not find mention of such a win. I am admittedly unaware of video game awards, but I did not find any in
WP:BEFORE. Searched Google News, Books, Proquest, Publishers Weekly, and other audiobook sources in BEFORE. In the course of this BEFORE, I added most of the audiobook reviews to the article and some external links.
The article seems to be built off of IMDb and possibly her publisher's website in a different incarnation. Will withdraw the nomination if
WP:HEY work reveals good secondary source coverage.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
01:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Good find on the Bustle article. I was surprised I had not found that before, but then I saw that it's just a list entry without any review or comment on her work, so I don't think that counts as a reliable secondary source for significant covwrage. I don't know whether Anime News Network is considered a valid source--do you?--but in that article she was just listed as being in the cast, again without comment of her work.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
07:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP She played a notable character on the Code Geass show as well as the films of it. She played Subaru in .hack//Sign quite a notable role. Plus a notable reoccurring character in the Metal Gear series, as well as notable role on Tales of Symphonia.
WP:ENTERTAINER she is notable for having significant roles in notable media.
DreamFocus16:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I've never seen anything about the notability of characters within a production being important, just the production, and one would assume the wikilinked productions are that. Key is "If he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Do you know of reliable, independent coverage of her work in this field in secondary sources? Not just mentions that she's in the cast, but real critical assessment or feature articles in reliable secondary sources? If you know of some, will you add them here or to the article? The best I've found is reviews of her audiobook work and those are pretty brief. She's done the odd brief Q&A with her publisher and an author she's read for, but these are not independent. Thanks.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
16:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The subject specific guideline for voice actors is
WP:ENTERTAINER. It reads: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.WP:NOTABILITY reads: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline.
Wikipedia:Notability_(people) says the "Basic criteria" of the GNG makes them notable or "Additional criteria People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Entertainer is one of the additional criteria.
DreamFocus17:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, it says "likely" and it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." At present, there are not significant sources known for the
WP:ENTERTAINER claim. Please post if they exist; happy to add them and withdraw the nom if we can make the article stand on something other than info lifted from IMDb and other credits lists.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
17:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment a radio show interview YouTube link recently added to the article makes me think she may have enough reliable secondary sources after all. I see that it is part of a longer interview, but the link to that one doesn't seem to be working.
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
00:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment It's not quite enough to confidently say it's
WP:SNOWing, but that's the forecast. Some editors found significant sources that I had not, namely multiple AudioFile reviews. It's still a poor article and I'll trim the "ographies" down a bit accordingly. The biographical coverage is scant and reliably sourced video coverage so poor that it's difficult to assess whether many of her roles have been significant (when she's one of many in a cast). But there is enough coverage of her work in audiobooks--I'll have to remember to look to AudioFile for more reviews when I look at other audiobooks and performers who don't necessarily win awards but have worked on many. Nomination withdrawn. Good work, all! --
DiamondRemley39 (
talk)
16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to fail
Wikipedia:Notability (people): Of 5 references, 4 appear to be user-generated content or other non-
WP:RS sources, and the other one is non-
WP:SIGCOV that only spends a couple sentences on the subject and doesn't explain where they obtained specific information about who his clients are.
Closeapple (
talk)
00:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete and
WP:SALT as
WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of AfD article), and also salt
Jim kwik: This is my own nomination, but I didn't notice the previous deletions of this page when I nominated it. For the record: The article is about a "business coach" who allegedly grew up in Westchester, New York and owns Kwik Learning in Los Angeles. This current re-creation appears to have been planted by whoever planted the last re-creation in 2018: It has similar specific groups of supposedly-great people that this person has supposedly helped. The page was speedy-deleted 2013-04-12 for
WP:CSD#A12/
WP:CSD#G12 (i.e. copy-paste website spam); deleted via
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Kwik on 2013-04-22; and again created by
User:Shenalyn2018 (see
Special:AbuseLog/20576867 claiming his companies are "KwikLearning" and "SuperheroYou") and speedied on 2018-03-05 for
WP:CSD#G11 (unambigiuous advertising); also
Jim kwik (lower-case) deleted 2013-04-15 for being a duplicate of
Jim Kwik just as it was coming up for AfD. --
Closeapple (
talk)
20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable place. Tried looking for any reliable sources, but I didn't find anything besides websites to buy land. Kori (
@)23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete It exists, but there is no evidence of meaningful concentrations of people. Probability another mass-produced GNIS stub. Only websites to buy land and maps were found. Fails
WP:GEOLAND and
WP:GNG. --
Dps04 (
talk)
02:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Cite error: The named reference Robinson168 was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
.jpg)
