Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

28 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 27	July 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

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

The article "elongated tetragonal disphenoid" once became the redirected article of gyrobifastigium, allegedly known as its dual polyhedron. No source ever mentioned it in either Google Books or Google Scholars, especially about its dual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elongated_tetragonal_disphenoid&redirect=no

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Programming Language

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

Non-notable programming language. The only sources are the language's official website, and I found no online sources in English or Chinese that establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.O.D.S.

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

Fails NBOOK and GNG. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is clearly enough coverage to meet NBOOK. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Astaire (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Jenna Wilson

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

I am unsure she is notable in her own right, she is only notable because of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elon Musk; notability is not inherited. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria LGBT college student daughter of Elon Musk. Take her estranged father out of this, and you have no article. — Maile (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per talk page there is a wealth of SIGCOV that constitutes WP:GNG. She has become notable for criticising her father, not because she is mentioned as a passing reference. The criteria for not inherited: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person" therefore doesn't apply. The closest argument here for delete it seems would be WP:BLP1E, but given her transition in 2022 gained significant coverage, this has since expired. CNC (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"She has become notable for criticising her father", there you have it, she is only notable because of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has become notable for criticising him, not simply because they are related, and she clearly wasn't notable before simply by being related. BIOFAMILY is quite clear that it refers to being related is not an argument for notability: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." (emphasis added). Are you suggesting that all the SIGCOV merely mentions Wilson in passing? CNC (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There had been speculation that a personality on X (formerly Twitter) under the name of Adrian Dittman was actually a pseudonym of Elon Musk who was using the alias and account to hype Tesla and Elon, which would violate numerous securities laws. Vivian suggested that the two were in fact the same person. If true, she may be credited with uncovering something material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.192.227 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or not, we go by what RS say, have RS said this? Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Only received coverage, both in 2022 and 2024, due to a notable family member. Content already included under Musk's "Personal life" section. Astaire (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Černák

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

Černák seems to have never played at professional level and his career lasted 150 minutes in total. I found nothing better than Športky, which is a transfer rumor, but am not sure how reliable the source is. Searching for "Filip Černák" on Google come up with other men with the same name instead of this footballer, failing WP:V too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Adika

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. All secondary sources coverage is trivial and mentions him in passing in relation to his co-creators. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndelle Higginson

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:NCYC, WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Ore

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

Looks like the coverage here is passing mentions in album reviews, interviews, listicles, and viral clips – I'm not seeing a clear WP:GNG or WP:NSONG pass here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 S.V. Notch season

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

Football team seasons in Suriname have never been seen as fulfilling WP:NSEASONS, but I guess this kind of article hasn't really been created before either, so I want a community discussion whether this fails WP:NSEASONS. I personally think they do not. Furthermore, I don't see the need for article diffusion since S.V. Notch is a microstub and the Suriname Major League is short as well. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northpark, New Zealand

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

Not an actual suburb and not notable at all. I am fine with a redirect and merging the demographics to a suitable article. I'm not that fussed on which article it is redirected to. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STP Kabaty

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG for p[laces explicitly says that they are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. Has not even one reference anywhere near GNG. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The polish wiki has significantly more info.... much of it unsourced. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacja_Techniczno-Postojowa_Kabaty

I assume there might be information in polish to help prove notability, but as I can't speak polish, and polish wiki has no useful citations to help, I'd vote delete unless folks can find them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M1 (Warsaw)#Depots unless sufficient sourcing can be found. Plausible search term, but the sourcing isn't yet there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've started an AfD on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:07:14:Stacja Techniczno-Postojowa Kabaty; the current consensus is that it is a notable entity but nobody can or cares to add sources to prove it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. STP Kabaty is a crucial element of Warsaw’s metro system, servicing both M1 and M2 lines. It is the only technical support center for the metro in Warsaw and Poland, underlining its unique and essential function. The lack of current sources is a valid concern, but it can be rectified. The article can be improved with proper sourcing and should not be disqualified solely based on this temporary deficiency. Thousands of articles on smaller and less significant railway infrastructure exist on Wikipedia. Deleting one of the larger and more critical stations would be inconsistent and unjustified. The article has been part of Wikipedia for a significant period, and there is generally no consensus for deleting such longstanding entries due to sourcing issues. Instead, there are templates and processes for indicating the need for additional citations and improvements. Paradygmaty (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Polish Wikipedia community has decided today to retain the article. Paradygmaty (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's all about the sources and those arguing to Keep this article have to demonstrate that RS exist to support claims in this article. A source review would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Biden

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

The sources, in order:

1. Less-than-exemplary fast facts article about Naomi in Town & Country

2. List of Joe Biden's seven grandchildren, including Naomi, with fast facts in People

3. Celebrity wedding coverage from Cosmopolitan

4. Passing coverage

5. Wedding coverage

6. Wedding coverage

7. Wedding coverage

8. Apparently the same Town & Country fast facts article as #1

9. Passing coverage

10. Passing coverage

11. Wedding coverage (interview)

12. Celebrity gossip in People (coverage of Naomi being in the Hamptons with Tiffany Trump)

13. Coverage of her and Tiffany graduating college

14. Wedding coverage

15. White House press release

16. Wedding coverage

17. Today Show interview with relatives about Joe Biden

18. Wedding coverage

19. White House press release about wedding

20. Wedding coverage

21. Passing mention in coverage of weddings

22. Wedding coverage

23. Juror says Naomi shouldn't have had to testify against Hunter

So, overall, it would appear that Naomi has done little else to gather press coverage than get married. Lots of rich people get married in ceremonies whose rich and famous guests attract gossipy press. That doesn't establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Police, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And see the similar Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly more notable than Finnegan. Was Finnegan reported in the press for being school chums with a Trump whelp? Did Finnegan testify the trial of Hunter Biden? was Finnegan the first in history to marry on the south lawn of the White House? Hyperbolick (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per my note below ‎. Bishonen | tålk 06:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kefas Brand

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

All significant coverage is heavily promotional and seems to come from unreliable and tabloid-like sources. I can't tell for sure that the sources are non-independent, but it is weird, for example, that five of the sources in the article mention the subject's forex trading and radio station. The draft was declined because the sources appeared to be marketing/PR, but it was moved into articlespace without addressing this concern. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The subject is the brother of Arnold Namisi, another young entrepreneur BLP currently up for deletion. The brothers have been cross-added to each other's pages by User:LuboneEditors, the creator of Arnold Namisi and indefinitely blocked (by myself) for persistent disruptive and promotional editing. For example, LuboneEditors blanked the AfD for Arnold Namisi. I think I'll just speedy both articles, rather than waste the community's time further. Bishonen | tålk 05:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uganda. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Akin Gazi

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

Non notable actor. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cowlibob: I suppose that WP:NACTOR is more likely to apply. Regarding its criteria: 'Such a person may be considered notable if:

1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2) The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.'

I think 1) is more likely to apply. I can see from his page that he has appeared in almost two dozen films and television shows which are sufficiently notable to have their own article. Do you accept that they are notable? If so, is your case simply that his roles are not significant? How do you believe that a significant role is defined for the purposes of notability in WP:NACTOR? Is there a guideline or 'case law' supporting this? Thanks.

Jontel (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP Gazi's article seemingly meets the criteria of WP:NACTOR i.e. 'Such a person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...' in that he has appeared in multiple (around two dozen) productions which have their own articles (and so are presumably notable) and his generally mid ranking in credited roles are presumably sufficiently significant. The case for keeping the article is strengthened by a career duration at this level of almost two decades WP:SUSTAINED. However, without searching through the reviews of his productions, there appears to be little independent reliable secondary coverage of him, which would be required to pass WP:BASIC. The key guiding text appears to be: 'People are likely to be notable if they meet (WP:NACTOR)...(However)...meeting (WP:NACTOR) does not guarantee that a subject should be included.' i.e. WP:NACTOR alone is not sufficient for notability. Given his roles in so many notable productions, is there a case for giving editors time to find the coverage necessary to meet WP:BASIC, as suggested in WP:ATD, by leaving it for a period? Jontel (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MFK Award for Favourite Male Playback Singer

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. An award for playback singers issued by a TV channel. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Awards, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maharashtracha Favourite Kon?: or keep as a WP:SPLITLIST. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Lopez Luz

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for photographers.
This is trying for "notability because awards", but that doesn't just indiscriminately hand an automatic notability freebie to every winner of just any award that exists: an award has to itself be notable as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it. So notability can only derive from awards that can be shown to pass WP:GNG -- that is, the source for the award claim has to be evidence that the media consider said award to be significant enough to report its winners as news, and cannot just be the award's own self-published primary source content about itself. But the award claims here are referenced to a primary source rather than a reliable one, and that's the only source in the entire article, to boot.
Since I can't read Spanish and don't have access to the kind of archived Mexican media coverage that it would take to improve this, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody with better access to such tools can find enough to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just a single primary source for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Mexico. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: some coverage of this person [7] and [8]. The first mostly gives a critical explanation of his work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Simmons (commentator)

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

WP:BIO1E. Coverage is only around his odd legal case 10 years ago of impersonating a CIA officer and committing fraud. He's just not notable outside of that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There's plenty of coverage about him, but nothing past 2016... Still, he was rather "popular" for lack of a better term until he got caught. Semi-notable fraudster, unlike so many others that have articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!Weak keep given only because there's also some discussion of his activities in peer-reviewed journals, this was the first one I pulled up [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in The New York Times (March 2015), Rolling Stone (January 2016), Time (October 2015), in Australia (October 2015), Canada (October 2015), China, etc. make him a notable fraud. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable and independent information to prove he's notable, the article fails to meet WP:NBIO. Yakov-kobi (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Iași (1653)

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

A single publication ~~by an unkoen expert by nonnotable publisher~~ is insufficient for notability of an event, whose description per se is barely two phrases: "they attacked, they retreated" The cited source does not even mention the term "Bate of Iasi".- Altenmann >talk 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Ciesielski is a professional historian and the claim that he is not an expert as you claim is total nonsense and stupidity of the submitter of this article I am in favour of keeping the article AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an evidence that he is a recognized expert. - Altenmann >talk 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have on the Polish nicely written who he was after all he is even the director of the History of the University of Opole [1], he has various scientific works, and his sources are used by the English wikipedia, the Polish wikipedia and the Ukrainian one, please do not write nonsense next time just check it out. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, sorry. Somehow I missed him in Google among numerous other Tomashes Ciesielskis. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so why do you not retreat the Deletion request? Axisstroke (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We !vote here not per wikipedians, but per Wikipedia rules, which say "multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in detail" Now, which sources discuss "Battle of Iasi (1653)", in your opinion? - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret after wading through a bunch of machine-translated sites. I couldn't find any RS in English so I tried searching "Bătălia de la Popricani" for Romanian results as well. The ones that looked best were: [10] (not exactly SIGCOV though); [11] (Vice has no consensus in terms of reliability, and I'm not seeing any sources in the article that we could follow for more info). There might be something in [12] but I think someone fluent in Romanian would be needed to translate. And even assuming it's reliable and there's at least a few pages on the battle, that's two sources at best if we also accept the Vice article. There simply doesn't seem to be enough. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if there is one or two sources what matters is its credibility I know the rules say more than one but if it is credible and recognised in the historical community such as books from Cambridge university then I don't understand removing article one. AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell us which books you have in mind which write about Battle of Iași (1653). - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, in Wikipedia there is a clear distinction between "credibility" and "notability". Expert historians with years of research in some time period would probably write somewhere about every Battle of Asshole Pass (Polish: Potyczka na Dupskim przełęczy); that's what experts do and are respected for. But not every skirmish makes its way as a separate entry in encyclopedias. - Altenmann >talk 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sigcov. Yilloslime (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions from more editors. This will probably not take a full week but please offer policy- and source-related arguments instead of "per X" ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Weak keep: The event is real and not spamy. But, there is no reliable resource that support the event over Internet. But, I think there could be hard copy materials in Libraries and maybe some interested individuals would bring them and include to the article so it is better to give editors chance to edit it. Instant History (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Vandana

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is a dictionary entry. C F A 💬 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several sources that contain significant coverage of this topic: [13] [14] [15]. There are probably more sources that are not in English. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Belongs to wiktionary. No significant coverage of the concept, even in the sources cited above. - Altenmann >talk 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does look like a simple dictionary entry. No WP:SIGCOV and not much to discuss to develop an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a dictionary entry at present, but Helpful Raccoon's sources show that it could certainly be expanded beyond that. In the meantime, we might want to redirect this somewhere - if anyone has an idea as to where, I'd be interested to hear it. If we don't come up with a good redirect location, the article should be kept. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom Lordseriouspig 07:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect lacks of enough reliable sources to stand alone. Instead, Its content fits well within a broader article about Hindu rituals and the teacher-student relationship in Hinduism. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Attack Matrix

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was one article with WP:SIGCOV written about the document presented one time to the CIA Director, but its notability is not WP:SUSTAINED. There are a few WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, but nothing speaking to its lasting importance as an important document notable enough for a WP article. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgardo Defortuna

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

Edgardo Defortuna

There are two problems with this biographical article about a Florida businessman. The first is that violates neutral point of view. The second is that it does not satisfy general notability.

The article reads as if it was written by the subject's real estate company, because it may have been written by the subject's company. The last two paragraphs, Philanthropy and Civic Involvement, and Honors and Awards, have no references. They were written to describe the subject as favorably as possible. The section on Family Matters and the Next Generation is also a puff piece, and is mostly about his wife rather than about him.

The references are not independent coverage, and mostly read like press releases. References 3 and 4 appear to be variations of the same press release.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.islandernews.com	An interview in a Key Biscayne newspaper	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.forbes.com	An article by a Forbes 'contributor'. These are considered unreliable.	Maybe	Yes	No	?
3	therealdeal.com	A profile that reads like a press release from the subject	No	Yes	Maybe	?
4	commercialobserver.com	Another profile that reads like a variation of the same press release	No	Yes	Maybe	?
5	www.bizjournals.com	An article for paid subscribers only.	Assumed to be No.	Yes	Probably not.	?
6	mlmiamimag.com	Another interview that appears to have been provided by the subject.	No	Yes	Probably	?
7	therealdeal.com	Another press release	No	Yes	Probably	?
8	sfbwmag.com	Another press release	No	Yes	Probably	?
9	www.bizjournals.com	A press release on acquisition by Christie's	No	Yes	Yes	?
10	therealdeal.com	Another press release	No	Yes	Probably	?
11	sfbwmag.com	An interview with the subject's wife	No	Not about the subject	Probably	?
12	hauteliving.com	Another interview with the subject's wife	No	Not about the subject	Probably	?
13	www.culturedmag.com	An interview by the subject's wife about a real estate project	No	Not about the subject	Yes	?

This is not the first article about this businessman. A prior article in 2017 was deleted as G5 and G11. An article on 6 June 2024 was deleted as G11. A draft was created on 19 June, and this article was created on 25 July, by the same editor, and they are similar. This article and the draft may be toned-down versions of the spam piece; I have not seen the spam piece and do not want to see it. The Heymann criterion is to find three independent reliable secondary sources within seven days. Otherwise, the originator will be able to find real sources for the draft and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and Florida. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Café Hagen

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

Non-notable small restaurant chain, fails WP:SIGCOV and generally WP:NCORP. I understand more could be added, but as it stands, the entire reception section is "Aimee Rizzo included the business in The Infatuation's 2023 list of Seattle's best cafes for getting work done." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Washington. CptViraj (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jhain

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

This article clearly fails WP:GNG & full of WP:SYNTH mess and WP:OR. There is not any battle named as the "Battle of Jhain", the name of the battle is fabricated Ha shid 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A battle happened in Jhain during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji. The book 'The History of India' mentions it. Medieval India, Volume 3 also talks about the campaign. Early Chauhān Dynasties also mentions it. Though it was not called as 'Battle of Jhain' by any historian so it could be renamed. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Changeworld1984 Battle of Jhain isn't any official battle, it was a minor conflict during Jalal-ud-Din Khalji's Ranthambore campagin which turned out to be unsuccessful Ha shid 13:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s not called “battle of Jhain” by any historians what are we calling it that for? What do they call it? Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article passes WP:GNG and is well cited with reliable sources. Article suffers less from WP:SYNTH or WP:OR and more from non-encyclopedic writing style, which isn't means for deletion. An example would be "Some sources say ..." John.mark1956 (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above Lordseriouspig 07:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimadeva

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

MOS:DABMENTION requires "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page". "Bhimadeva" is mentioned only in Bhima of Mahikavati, probably not a good target for a redirect. I suggest this page is deleted in order to enable uninhibited use of Search. A PROD was reverted by @Utcursch: with edit summary (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=bhimadeva+caulukya) without editing any targeted article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bhima I now, quite properly, also mentions "Bhimadeva". The stipulation in WP:DABMENTION gives as the rationale for its claimed requirement "since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". In this case the links obviously would help the reader so this is one of the occasional exceptions the MOS allows for. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Language-barrier keep. "Bhima" is in the dabbed article names, and "dev" shows up in the article bodies. I am not familiar with that language, but there seems to be some grammar thing going on that makes this dab page worthwhile. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Malviya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL, Till date he has not won any election, he is just the head of the IT cell of the ruling party, whose job is to spread fake news all day long. You can also read about his fake news here. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Youknow? (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD you nominated was closed as Keep, as consensus determined he meets GNG. There is no need to meet NPOL if GNG is met. What is your opinion on this? GrabUp - Talk 15:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Grabup, Thank you for your comment.
Most politicians who contest elections or are at least active in politics meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG. Therefore, even if they fail to meet the specific criteria outlined in WP:NPOL they should still be considered for having Wikipedia articles.? What is your opinion on this? Youknow? (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: Yes, NPOL is an additional criteria, and the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is the main or core guideline to establish notability. If a person or a subject meets any of additional criteria or GNG, then they will be considered notable. For example, let’s assume this politician does not meet GNG or NPOL, but he wrote some books that received reviews from multiple independent reliable sources. Then he will meet WP:AUTHOR, so the person will be treated as notable even if he fails GNG or NPOL. Hope this clears things up. GrabUp - Talk 16:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: Hey do you agree that the person meets GNG? GrabUp - Talk 07:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but your argument is not logical. According to this reasoning, Wikipedia should abolish its criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL). If everyone is to be judged by the same Wikipedia's general criteria (WP:GNG), then what is the need for having specific criteria? Because every local leader also passes the general criteria. Even a person who loses an election meets the general criteria in some way or another. So, should all of them also have a standalone Wikipedia article? Youknow? (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youknowwhoistheman: No, your thinking is wrong. During the general election in India, I saw nearly 50 articles about politicians that were deleted via AfD. Not every politician meets GNG, and not every politician meets NPOL. These criteria are necessary. Here are some examples of past AfDs.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratikur Rahaman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emaan Singh Mann

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriti Singh Debbarma

GrabUp - Talk 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can show you hundreds of such politicians who are passing the WP:BASIC, but are not on Wikipedia because they are not passing the WP:NPOL. Anyway, there is no point in arguing. Let the rest of the editors decide. Youknow? (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as below:

~~Delete~~ : Probably doesn't meet NPOL, but he doesn't seem to be a politician... He also doesn't meet FILM, but he's not a film, so the nom seems incorrect. In addition to the sources from last time, this [16] and this [17] show coverage, more than enough to meet notability, GNG in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Hey, I think you put the wrong vote. You said he meets GNG, so why did you vote Delete? Maybe it was a mistake? GrabUp - Talk 16:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good catch. I wanted to !keep. Let me fix it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly meets GNG. It seems the nominator thought politicians must had to pass NPOL to establish notability, even if they pass GNG, which is incorrect. Notability will be established if any of the criteria are met. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG Madeforall1 (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are many people who have numerous media sources writing about them but this doesn't makes them notable. The subject in this case seems to be affiliated to biggest political party of India and hence we can see good number of sources about them. However, most of them appears to be paid articles. I recall how one of my article Vikas Shakya was deleted despite having many sources. The reason sought was paid editorials being used as sources. Here, in this case, it is possible that we are witnessing same case. The person is clearly not fulfilling WP:NPOL as he has not been elected to even local level body and I doubt the sources used are free from bias.-Admantine123 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admantine123, can you point out which articles are the paid ones, for the benefit of other editors? Or point out the ones that aren't paid, if that's easier. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment WP:NPOL is *not* a guideline that can be failed, that is, if a subject does not satisfy the criteria it does not mean they are not notable for Wikipedia. NPOL is an inclusive measure, not exclusionary. NPOL sits separately from the GNG because it provides "presumed notability" - the idea being that a person elected to office is generally likely to have SIGCOV in reliable sources. FWIW, no comments to date have indicated why sourcing presently in the article does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: he's a troll, but a notable one. Here's an article by AltNews on the disinformation he has spread on social media; an article by Business Standard on Malviya - Rediff has the unpaywalled version. Not to mention the Jansatta article cited in the article already. Sufficient material to cross the bar of WP:BASIC, all told. Java Hurricane 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

AfDs for this article:

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

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Merge into IQ and race

Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.

I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:

Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case there is any confusion, I changed my vote to Delete discussing with folks below Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, agreed.

Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or merge~~. Adding enough context to satisfy the requirements of WP:FRINGE would make the article a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Race and intelligence, but with a shallower pool of sources. The few bits that are specific to Ashkenazi people or Jewish people – Cochran's ideas, Talmud study, the role perceptions of intelligence might play in overall views toward Jewish people – are too scattered to make "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence" a coherent topic for an encyclopedia article. Jruderman (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on discussions below, I'm not seeing much content here worth summarizing into other articles, nor compelling reasons to include any mention of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in most of the related articles. Maybe it's worth a mention in History of the race and intelligence controversy, but even then it would be better to draw from Henry Harpending's section or Bret Stephens's section rather than from this article. As a result, I am shifting my stance to simply "delete". Jruderman (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a vast body of literature that discusses the special role of jewry as a (proto-)object of racism; there also is a large body of research (Cochrane, Glad...) concerning purported (self-)selection trends in historical Jewish populations; there is also a vast body of literature concerning their psychometrics. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, massive removals of text on the same day this AFD was opened[18] suggest either possible tag teaming or, at least, a problematic attitude on the part of Bluethricecreamman and Grayfell. (I will archive this page privately to document such practices in any case). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I guess I could have been less sassy. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge without positive consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar content has been discussed numerous times on that article's talk page and I don't believe that there has ever been consensus for inclusion. Also note that the Race and intelligence article is under a special sourcing restriction imposed by ArbCom, so including non-academic sources, even in the interest of WP:FRIND, would be disallowed. If I'm not mistaken, all the fringe-independent sources in the article currently up for deletion here are non-academic. And in the absence of acceptable fringe-independent sources, the WP:FRINGE guideline is clear that we must remain silent. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah.. didn't see that. agree entirely, seems its been debated to exhaustion on that page.
possibly appropriate talk sections:
- Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#No_evidence_for_Jewish_IQ_advantage
- Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_102#Ashkenazi_Jews
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poor article with mostly very weak and shite sourcing (Charles Murray, Richard Lynn) and newspapers. Newspapers can be good sources for biographies but not for an article like this. It's not worth merging. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), you'll see that this article has been nominated no less than 8 times under different page titles for deletion consideration and was always Kept until this last AFD. With such a track record of being Kept, I want there to be a very clear consensus on what should happen this time so that we are not back here for a 9th or 10th AFD discussion. It would help if participants reviewed past AFD discussions. I also question whether a Merge to Race and Intelligence is appropriate if this idea has been rejected on that article Talk page and, my own question, whether it is appropriate to consider one branch of Judaism to be a "race".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment its hard to tell what the merits of the previous arguments were, as the deleted page from the past few nominations is unseen. Is there anyway to show more page history or something?

It also seems much of the commentary as the years pass on has been on the debunking of many of these studies from pop-culture tidbits of "wow science can explain race difference in a post-racial society" to "wow, can't believe we tried to believe we were post racial when we were publishing WP:FRINGE articles about how genetics prove the stereotypes about different racial groups" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tally results from previous AfDs.

1) [19] no consensus, basically equal deletes and keeps

2) [20] keep, the article is poorly written but has significant notability

3) [21] speedy close, the nominator gave no reason, so closer is probably right

4) [22] speedy close, nominator gave reason, closer just angry that nominator tries again?

5) Cannot find this? the numbering system gets weird, and an admin attempted to delete and salt this page to supposedly prevent further nominations? [[23]]

6) [24] Speedy keep, closed after 2 days? also weird, this is somehow both 6th nom of Ashkenazi intelligence and 1st nom of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence. notably, user who closed is blocked for 3 months from WP:ARBIPA topics due to editwarring, so I think the speedy keep might have been biased.

7) [[25]] Delete, tons of sock puppet activity to Keep.

all this means to say is this article obviously brings up significant tensions, and the AfDs for this page haven't always followed what seems like a clear protocol. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, perhaps it would've been more definitive to use a clean slate for this instead of what I did for this nomination, but our time on Earth is limited, and rehashing this discussion didn't seem worthwhile. If anyone is coming here who doesn't know the history of this general topic on Wikipedia, maybe start with Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. The gist is that Wikipedia holds these articles to a high standard for a variety of reasons, based many years of history and tedious discussion. Sources need to be high-quality, and context needs to be provided, and right now this article fails to do that. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging. Here's what I see in the six previous discussions:

Two discussions were from 2007. Many comments focused on notability. I don't know how strong Wikipedia's RS and NPOV rules were back then. Their combined interpretation at WP:FRINGE was just reaching guideline-level consensus at the time.
The next three don't really count: they were speedy'd because the nominators didn't do their job of connecting their rationales to Wikipedia policies.
The last, in 2020, was closed as TNT only. It did not come to a conclusion about whether another article at the title could be acceptable.

There are many good comments in the previous discussions, but their closing results have limited bearing on the delete reasons we are discussing today. Jruderman (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Would it help to invite more editors to this discussion? I believe it would be considered nonpartisan to post at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, on Talk:Race and intelligence because we're continuing discussions from there, or on talk pages of not-yet-explicitly-ruled-out smerge targets: Gregory Cochran, Ashkenazi Jews, History of the race and intelligence controversy. Or on the talk pages of participants in the previous AfDs (perhaps just those who are extended-confirmed and still active). Jruderman (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can if you want.

I would strongly oppose merging to Cochran's article for multiple reasons, so if anyone wants to actually propose that we can discuss in more detail. Any other article would still have to summarize reliable, independent sources. Right now the article is mostly journalistic opinions, and some of these are fringe sources, as well. This seems undue for a topic as broad as Ashkenazi Jews. With better sources it would be easier to evaluate where to merge. With any merge, the goal isn't "how do we preserve this content" it's "how do we proportionately and neutrally summarize this topic?" Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existing section at Gregory Cochran could use some contextualization or rebuttal, but looking at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence again, I don't see anything worth moving to the Cochran article. Jruderman (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same with the slightly-better section at Henry Harpending regarding the same paper. Jruderman (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this thoughtful discussion is what I was hoping for rather than a quick close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments to that effect above and my !vote from the 2020 discussion, since nothing has happened in the interim to make the situation any better. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the same reasons given in Liz's comments at the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've sent info about the discussion to WP:FT/N

Of note, there has been no noticeable improvement to the article in the past two weeks, and much of it remains citations of fringe sources, and debunks/reactions of the fringe sourcing, which probably is still too much WP:PROFRINGE to be worth keeping. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fringe content cobbled together from inappropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only because the topic has an extensive literature, barely scratched by the article itself. I see a lot of nervousness in these repeated attempts to erase a stub because it touches on a topic that is variously perceived as racist, as a put-down of an outgroup and a proud vaunting of the compared ingroup (Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending's paper became, in Steven Pinker's words, 'a target of harsh denunciation and morbid fascination.'), as too politically incorrect even to mention. The fact remains that:

The discussion is out there, and it has been held in the press, in synagogues, and before a sold-out audience at the Center for Jewish History in New York City’(Pinker 2005) Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN 978-0-226-20140-5 p.178

This is a 19th century myth, recycled because developments in genetics, and a number of provisory results, led to attempts to repackage it on empirical grounds, transforming a negative stereotype into a positive typecasting. So in terms of intellectual history it merits coverage; it terms of widespread diffusion it deserves a comprehensive, astringently neutral analysis per sources like Sander Gilman, our preeminent expert in this kind of argument (Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, University of Nebraska Press 1997 ISBN 978-0-803-27069-5)

So symptomatic fits of nervous nellydom are quite out of place, certainly in a deletion argument. A topic that has a large range of secondary sources, that has stirred scientific and public controversy; that is widely misinterpreted; marked by conceptual clumsiness by its promotors and anxieties by its critics, obviously requires an encyclopedic entry. What we have is pathetic (too much edit-warring, not very informed or competent, but there is a real opportunity here to make a very good article based on high quality sources. In such cases, deletion is sheer laziness, an invitation to relax in shiftless torpor rather than creatively rise to a challenge when the alternative is simply hard, focused work reconstructing it in terms of contemporary scholarly commentary.Nishidani (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good article about this topic maybe could be written, but the problem is that the current version is so fundamentally bad that it would require essentially rewriting from scratch, and the article would be subject to endless POV pushing that would ultimately degrade it to an unacceptable quality. I am also not finding any good sources on this topic other than the Gilman book. I think a section should probably be added to Stereotypes of Jews, which if warranted could be expanded into a full article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version that existed before it was hacked to pieces. What we are looking at is the article after it was bombed by excisions. Gilman's is not the only book. The whole 2005 controversy eventually generated a thesis about modernity in Norman Lebrecht, Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 ISBN 978-1-982-13422-8. The problem is that few wikipedians statistically appear to edit articles in extenso, but nearly every wikipedian is interested in talk page comments.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that Wikipedia editors have decided many of the available sources about Ashkenazi intelligence fail the requirements of WP:RS policy. That's why they keep being removed. Some examples from the time of the previous AFD are the edit summaries here and here. This way of understanding RS policy is one of the aspects of the topic that's been receiving media attention, most recently on Richard Dawkins' Twitter. And it's what will have to be addressed before there can be a well-sourced article about this topic. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE. The occurrence of several earlier deletion discussions should encourage advocates of "keep" to work hard to get the article in good shape -- unless the article is hopeless. The fact that this hasn't been done means that it's time to delete it. NightHeron (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been allowed to get 'into good shape' because of relentless excisions. Anyone could put the article 'in good shape' were the deletionist impetus less relentless so that it could be improved.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin SD Sengokuden Densetsu no Daishougun Hen

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

The article has been flagged for notability and lack of sources since 2016. A search for sources has found nothing, I'm nominating it for lack of notability. Brocade River Poems 01:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SD Gundam#Musha Gundam series as an alternative to deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Phat

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

When your biggest claim to fame is a single guest appearance on a more notable rapper's (Webbie) single and the only coverage is of your death, it's a pretty clear instance of WP:NMUSICBIO. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent (song). Someone searching for Lil Phat in that context is pretty likely. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan national baseball team

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

Unable to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV about this team to meet the WP:GNG, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2015. From what I can tell, the team isn't ranked by the WBSC as seen at [[26]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Baseball, and Kazakhstan. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: +1 to Let'srun. Can't find citation to prove they even exist. John.mark1956 (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian representatives at international male beauty pageants

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable sources as a group to meet the WP:NLIST and as it stands this is WP:SYNTH. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, Lists, and Malaysia. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]