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. Gnangarra's argument seven days ago remains unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Subiaco footballers who have also played in the VFL/AFL[edit]

List of Subiaco footballers who have also played in the VFL/AFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this is an interesting list, it appears to entirely be original research. No citations are cited. I also can't find anything like this list in a reliable secondary source online. Print versions of this don't seem to be likely either. Since this violates WP:NOR and WP:NLIST, I propose it be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivia Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral yet to be convinced I did find https://www.wafl.com.au/honour/players-drafted which would provide a cite for many of the names this includes both AFL & AFLW players. A less reliable source https://ozfooty.net/lions/3477-every-subiaco-produced-vfl-afl-player though it looks relatively comprehensive. There are regular media sources on a year by year basis, and each of players are notable and where they came from is a defining characteristic for both the player and club. There is no single reliable list for everyone thats a problem. The will be book sources about the history of Subiaco Football Club that will again carry segments of the list depending on the publication time. Its a non-static list with additions every year. I'd put one refinement in that should only be for players who started their AFL/VFL career via Subiaco, not players who came to subi after playing in AFL/VFL. Finding sources will really depend on how you frame the search give the information is also in WAFL records and media reports. Gnangarra 08:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They list about 70 people who have done that.That does seem like a lot of people. Wp9097 (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:LISTN as no reliable secondary sources have been uncovered that describe this grouping. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep split into years as multiple reliable sourcing for the article is available on a year by year basis like this. According to notability guidelines everyone that list is notable for being drafted to the highest level professional league in Australia. Clubs get paid a fee when the player is drafted, when play their first game, at various milestone games(10,50,100) so its a significant factor for WAFL clubs and the league[1]. Gnangarra 03:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Konrad Grallert von Cebrów. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Grallert[edit]

Joachim Grallert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This Prussian watchmaker and jeweler, despite allegedly having shops as far as Vienna, seems to fail GNG, at least from what I can find online. There's nothing on Google Scholar or JSTOR, and on Google Books there's just 2 hits from contemporary Prussian newspapers: one is a bankruptcy announcement and the other one I can't quite figure out, but is certainly no significant coverage either. Unsourced since 2006 and juging by the creator's username, this article may have been the result of a genealogy hobby project. Lennart97 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to his son (leaving redirect). The son was a WWI general. My guess is that the content here is derived from a longer article on the general in Hungarian or German. I doubt he is separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't merge in this case just mean redirect? The son's article already mentions that Joachim was a watchmaker, and that's about all the information on him we can verify at the moment. Lennart97 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Konrad Grallert von Cebrów. I can't find any evidence that Joachim Grallert was notable in his own right, so redirecting to the son's article, where he's mentioned, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. I agree with Lennart97 that no further content needs to be merged since the current article is entirely unsourced (and no other sources have been identified). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect,He is not notable for his business or being the father of a WW1 General, redirect to Konrad Grallert von Cebrów is more reasonable. Alex-h (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2021 (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 the band and redirect the album. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Null Device[edit]

Null Device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable band and non-notable album. Both fail WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Different Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Agree on the album; however, I would like to think the band article could be improved if given time (also, find it awkward to have two articles in one AfD) -- t_kiehne (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tkiehne The directions for having more than one article in an AfD is at WP:AFD. It's nothing unusual. As for the band article being given time, it has been 16 years since the band article was created. SL93 (talk) 07:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete band and album - Searching can be tough because their name is also a computing term, but a search in conjunction with member names or album titles reveals nothing significant and reliable. The band has only ever been discussed in friendly intro interviews and local blog sites from Madison, WI like those already used in the article. (Here's another: [2]) And since they are non-notable, so is the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - If the band's article is deleted, remove the hatnote about them at the top of Null device (the computing term's article). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Null Device, Redirect A Million Different Moments to the band's article: Barely found anything about the album. As for the band, the sources in the article seem reliable and so is the one indicated above. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the band and their music: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Though the article needs some clean-up by trimming down unnecessary parts and updating it, it's good enough to pass WP:BAND. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: for the same reasons as cited above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2021 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musée de la Culture Diola[edit]

Musée de la Culture Diola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews, I tried a plain google search and the only source I could find is a Lonely Planet travel guide listing [9] LibStar (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have added a reference to a journal article which describes this "tiny museum" and the initiative of its creator in some detail. It remains debatable whether this is sufficient to sustain an article; if not, an alternative may be to mention it in a new Culture section in the article about Mlomp? AllyD (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Jola people. Can also be mentioned in Mlomp per AllyD. SpinningSpark 14:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – one reason for the difficulty of finding information on this museum is that it is know by a variety of names, for example, Musée de la Tradition Diola (e.g., see "Mlomp Musée de la Tradition Diola". Lonely Planet.), Diola Museum (e.g., see "Visit of the Diola Museum". Vaolo.), etc. I added some information/references with a wider search. I think more could be found with further wider search. Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST, and WP:PRESERVE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards keep, but other thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tathra Sea Eagles[edit]

Tathra Sea Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Amateur village rugby team from Tathra, New South Wales (Population 1500). As 12% of Australian population are males aged 12-35, this means there are about 180 people to choose from. They play against other village and local town teams in the area, and the article states that they are not always in the top division of the local league, so very much an ameteur village team Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Re population: Note that the immediate population of the "village" is not the population available. The villages also draw from surrounding "rural" districts. But agreed, the population is still small. However, the demographic base for a sporting club does not determine notability either way. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to an article History of Rugby League in Southeast New South Wales. There is more than sufficient reference material to ssupport such an article. For example, this alone would support a couple of due weight paragraphs for the Tathra Sea Eaglse in such an article. There are also articles such as Group 16 Rugby League, which might be an alternative merge and redirect target, but not as ideal because the "Group 16" has not always existed. (See for example Narooma Devils for other historic competition groupings.) Note that while these small clubs are very unlikely to ever be notable in their own right, they are definitely notable in aggregation and are likely search terms for people interested in either rugby league or the social fabric of the area. Aoziwe (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bold third relist because we can't merge and redirect to a non-existent article. What do others think about keep, delete, or other alternatives to deletion that exist. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but a weak keep it is. There's a decent amount of info on the club and I've added an extra line and reference to the article for what it's worth. I'm unsure on whether there's a guideline for rugby team notability in the same way there is for football clubs? JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of notability guideline for rugby league teams, WP:ORG applies. It fails to get significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rec footy[edit]

Rec footy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article from 2006 with no references. How has this existed for so long? This article suggests that Rec Footy is just a variation on the rules of Australian Football, so it would make sense to merge into that article. The recently added sources do not seem to do much for notability, since they mostly are not secondary sources, and therefore are useful for establishing notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Something that only existed over 10 years ago isn't that easy to find good refs, but there is a bit there now. The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - surely the standard is whether this subject has had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In this case, it appears not to have had all that much coverage at all. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per added sources. /Julle (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - apart from the Herald Sun article (which I have no access to), the remainder of the sources do not appear to be secondary sources and cannot be used to establish that this subject is notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But question is this is the right project.- dashiellx (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is an odd case, because I would imagine that to most people the term "rec footy" would just be a casual term for a recreational league or something similar. Clearly the title needs to be changed. Perhaps to something like "Recreational football (sport)" or "Recreational football (code)" (kind of like Swedish football (code)). If the article is kept, it definitely needs to be moved. Jay eyem (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move as suggested by @Jay eyem:. --dashiellx (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough, but it shouldn't have been tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football, User:Perryprog, as that's for Association football (soccer), not Australian rules football (or Canadian football or Gaelic football or Rugby football or similar sports). Nfitz (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh goodness, the one time I do something vaguely sportsball related... there's a reason I generally skip out on this area of Wikipedia—I know nothing about it! I totally assumed those were all the same things. Thank you for the correction! :-) Perryprog (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Catholic Church[edit]

Celtic Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find any RS on this alleged group. All I managed to find is a supposed official a website I added, and another supposed official website I found by looking at the article history; as well as a mention with no explanation on encyclopedia.com with no way to know if it refers to this groups specifically or to another as the title has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The page has had no RS added to it in its 18 years of existence.
Per WP:NCHURCH, the article should therefore be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This seems to be purporting to be a denomination, but I am far from convinced that it is more than a handful of congregations, in which case it is surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete considering searches by nom, fails WP:ORG and WP:NCHURCH. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails notability, no RS, Alex-h (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence this is notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2021 (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. Even those who agreed to keep seemed to agree that the article is not in appropriate shape and may even confuse two different people with the same name, and as we are dealing with a BLP, that tips the scales toward deletion. This is without prejudice toward creation of articles about notable events which may have involved either individual, provided that they are written in accordance with BLP and care is taken to ensure that material about one is not mixed up with the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Johnson (prisoner)[edit]

Lamar Johnson (prisoner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability and other issues. This is a page about the person who is not notable. Even if the event (trial or some other process) was notable, this living person is not notable to the level required for the encyclopedia. A few articles about his conviction do not make him notable. There are numerous other examples setting a standard when a person who was on trial becomes notable. This person is not. Compare with Kyle Rittenhouse, for example. Even a few days after half of the world watched the trial and knew about him, it was decided that Rittenhouse was not notable enough for Wikipedia to have a page about a person. Topjur01 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2021 (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/2021 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I add a comment: This page started as a hoax. It stated "Lamar Johnson, the first person that was released from prison for a wrongful conviction in Maryland under the new Conviction Integrity Unit research." which was false. This person was not released from prison. Later the page was remodeled but still no Notability standard reached. Topjur01 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax article, delete. Almost tempted to salt it... Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Right now not enough coverage to justify inclusion. Fails WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well, if the person is not notable, his case surely is. Maybe you could change the title to 'Lamar Johnson case' or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C400:96C:E82D:4F99:71D7:2543 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above, article as stands is a POVish mess but case seems notable, see PBS, Kansas City Star, The Intercept, Fox2, USA Today, KCTV, NBS etc; with coverage ongoing from 2020 to August 2021. Rusalkii (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:hoax, there are two Lamar Johnsons who had been imprisoned for murders they claimed they didn't commit and had newspaper articles written about them. One in St. Louis in 1994, who is still in prison and has the article written about him, and one in Baltimore in 2004, who was exonerated in 2017 under the Conviction Integrity Program. Presumably the article started about the Maryland man and transformed somehow into the St. Louis one in the news in 2021. Rusalkii (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment since this article is clearly a mess, it combines content about two people, the person is not notable, his case appeared in media a few times but not more than hundreds of other court cases so it is not reallu enclyclopedia-level notable, can we send it to sandbox and authors submit it when it is properly written and sourced? Or what other options do we have? Topjur01 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article as it stands is clearly about the St. Louis Johnson still in prison. I can't see anything at all about the Baltimore Johnson on the page. I've cleaned up some of the POV and made sure key claims were cited. Rusalkii (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would create a new page for the St. Louis Johnson and revert this page back to the last version clearly about Baltimore Johnson (this, I believe). Both seem notable to me, since most murder trials do not receive nearly this much attention usually. Baltimore Johnson is more borderline and may deserve his own AfD once its actually about him and not St. Louis Johnson. Rusalkii (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The murder of Marcus Boyd, the trial, and legal proceedings after the conviction might be notable. But the subject is not notable as the person. He does not appear in media about other events except for the ones related to the murder or legal proceedings surrounding the murder and conviction. Just like with other persons who do not get encyclopedia entries as persons but appear in encyclopedia entries about events, I believe in this case Wikipedia could have an entry about the event, not the person. Topjur01 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji–Spain relations[edit]

Fiji–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of this article is sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Most of the relations described occur between European Union not Spain. Level of annual trade is very low at less than €2million. No embassies, agreements, nor state visits. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Foreign policy or diplomacy. Philosophy2 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is highly unlikely that this is a notable relationship, though doubtless there are some relations. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirect as an WP:ATD? Or deletion per nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. No reliable independent sources to be found on this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nominator's rationale appears to be correct but I'm happy for someone to provide evidence to the contrary. The above suggested redirects do not seem to be useful so I would prefer deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Vallance[edit]

Ross Vallance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT; being national amateur champion and having competed, as an amateur, in professional-level events is not enough for notability, nor is the very limited coverage of this player in media outside snooker database websites. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Montgomery15 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Hasanová[edit]

Michaela Hasanová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. No WTA Tour main draw or significant title win. Non notable junior career (no Grand Slam title or top 3 rank). Jevansen (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jevansen (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, a few $10K level doubles titles isn't good enough to reach WP:NTENNIS. Iffy★Chat -- 10:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and does not meet NTENNIS either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager Classics Collection[edit]

Voyager Classics Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable book line. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The individual books are notable, but I see no reason for this particular imprint/collection of them to be. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentPier[edit]

TorrentPier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

When I stumbled upon this article it had no sources at all. I've had a go at cleaning it up, but the only useful source I can find is the project's own README file - this does not really make it notable. A brief internet search in both English and Russian has not turned anything useful up. If anyone knows of any materials that could be used to substantiate the page, I would be very grateful. Otherwise, I suggest that we delete it. Akakievich (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Akakievich (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Akakievich (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot find any good references to this software; even the article on Russian Wikipedia entirely lacks citations. The official site has been dead or a redirect for much of its lifespan, and a Github repository with only 175 stars also does not scream "notable" to me. Incidentally, the project seems just about dead—the latest release came in June 2018, and the official Github discussion forum was closed in January this year. Overall it really does not seem to have generated any attention outside of very specific circles (a reasonable outcome, of course, for community-driven free software). Shells-shells (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable piece of software. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Shells-shells; not a notable software/application. Mann Mann (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

2011 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was previously batch-nominated as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 MAAC Men's Soccer Tournament. This currently might qualify A3, though you could write a stub from coverage on their own website. I don't see independent coverage, and there is no article about the season to merge to. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't seem notable and it's unsourced. JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above, is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Warm Springs, Virginia[edit]

West Warm Springs, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was likely just the western part of Warm Springs. I found a mention about water service to the village of West Warm Springs (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89814412/notice-of-intent-to-request-a-release-of/), but no significant coverage. Note that having a place on NRHP doesn't mean automatic notability. wizzito | say hello! 20:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 20:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Evidence suggests that "West Warm Springs" was a distinct entity, at least according to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. From this press release:

African Americans, exercising newfound autonomy after the Civil War, purchased land here on the western slope of Little Mountain and established the community of West Warm Springs. Many early residents worked at nearby resorts, including the Warm Springs pools, or were skilled artisans and craftsmen. Central to community life were John Wesley Methodist Episcopal Church (1873), Mount Pisgah Baptist Church (ca. 1880), and the Jones School, which served Black students early in the 20th century. Webb’s Store (ca. 1900), restaurants, and a dance hall provided gathering places for residents. Descendants of the founding families have been instrumental in preserving the history of West Warm Springs.

Also, there's some information in this NRHP nomination form. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ser Amantio. Seems to be a distinct community with enough coverage to write a short standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable community, per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McCowan Spring, Virginia[edit]

McCowan Spring, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I guess this was someone's personal hot spring? No results in the Bath County book, only two results on Newspapers.com:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89813790/forest-visitors/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/89813819/frank-berry-and-walter-earhart-at-mccowa/

Both are about people visiting, no SIGCOV. wizzito | say hello! 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be another GNIS error. No sign of SIGCOV for this one. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 1 December 2021 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill (novel)[edit]

Overkill (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NBOOK is a very low bar, but even with that I can not find enough notability for this book to pass. It has been included in one "best recent thrillers" list and ... (PS having trouble adding other WikiProject links) Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator passes WP:NBOOK with new refs. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the New Zealand deletion discussions. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets that "low bar". It was reviewed by Publishers Weekly, The Guardian and Foreword Reviews. It was also shortlisted for CWA's Dagger John Creasey Award and there's more written about it (and the author) in The Otago Daily Times. pburka (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets Wikipedia:NBOOK. Schwede66 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Note Thanks and sorry, I did look honest. I will remove this once I can check I have permission to do so. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Alum, Virginia[edit]

Bath Alum, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The Bath County, Virginia book states that this was nothing more than a hotel, a hot springs, and a mid-way point. Not a community.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_lFTDmwHYssC&newbks=0&lpg=PA91&dq=Bacova%20Junction%2C%20Virginia%20-wikipedia&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=bath%20alum&f=false wizzito | say hello! 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 19:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Nyssen[edit]

Jan Nyssen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article relies entirely on primary self-published sources and sources that do not mention the subject of the article. The bulk of it reads like a CV rather than a BLP, and I do not believe the subject meets the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC. The original creator and main editor of the article was blocked as a sockpoppet of the article's subject. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In spite of some of the article's obvious shortcomings, I think it should be kept because the subject meets two criteria listed at WP:PROF. Criterion 1 ('research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline') is met because the subject has a high citation count on Google scholar of around 15,000 overall citations and an h-index of 66. Criterion 5 ('named chair or equivalent') is met because he is a full professor at Ghent. As has been discussed many times in AfDs like this, a full professorship in a good European university is the equivalent of a named chair in the United States. I should add that cutting unsuitable material in an otherwise notable article is always an option. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I updated all of the articles's citations to add authors, dates, translations of non-English titles, etc. to better help anyone evaluating this article. Platonk (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to pass WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't necessarily buy the WP:NPROF C5 argument, but agree that the citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Seems noteworthy enough under WP:NPROF C1. However, despite some good editing by @Platonk, there is still more wrong than right with the article as it stands, and thus would suggest to WP:DRAFTIFY to rectify. Poojean (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thee is no justification for draftification. The purpose of draftification is to raise an article to a standard that would passAfD., and since the subject does, improvements can be made just as well in mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Şevval Ay[edit]

Ayşe Şevval Ay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar case to recently deleted İpek Özgan and Büşra Demirörs. Ay's appearances at youth level and in WP:NOTFPL leagues do not confer notability. Current references are a stats page and 4 mentions in passing. Google News has nothing of any substance, Google has only stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors as does a DDG source search centred on Turkish sources. No evidence to support a claim towards WP:GNG, which is ultimately what would be required here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and not notable. No possible reliable source found through Google search. Mommmyy (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2021 (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. Also note that "it was created by a banned user" isn't a valid argument if multiple other legitimate users have significantly contributed to the page. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Kolodny[edit]

Debra Kolodny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails BIO, made by a banned sock, lack of reliable citations Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to pass BIO (coverage by several RS's) and has several apparently reliable citations. Can those in favor of deletion identify which sources are not considered reliable? (Yes, there are one or two or non-independent, but an adequate number seem good.) Ma^t_chups 03:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The citations look quite excellent to me, if there's something I'm missing here please let me know. Yitz (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs work (especially on organization and tone) but several of the citations are good and demonstrate notability. Jmbranum (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ümran Özev[edit]

Ümran Özev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is pieced together from stats coverage only as none of the references offered in the article have any meaningful prose relating to Özev, who has only played in WP:NOTFPL leagues and at youth level for Turkey. Based on the lack of coverage found in Google News and a Turkish DDG search, I am not convinced that this BLP passes WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious (rapper)[edit]

Vicious (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable musician. No sources in article other than an AllMusic profile with 2 user ratings total on it and no info. Searching for sources, I tried his rap name, his real name, a combo of both, and all I found were facebook and pinterest pages. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - He released one album, for which there are reviews from AllMusic, Billboard, and the Associated Press; the album allegedly made three Billboard charts, and ended up being a top ten reggae album for the year. There is a smallish article in the Daily Press (VA), and a longer one in Wax Poetics. I was expecting more stuff to show up, tbh, but most news "stories" in databases seem to be reproductions of Billboard charts. Caro7200 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not as good at Googling as you - I just looked again and I cannot find any of those. Can you link to them? Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic and Wax Poetics are here; the rest were found via academic databases. [10], [11] Caro7200 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources listed by Caro7200 and the likelihood of there being additional offline sources due to the age of the subject. NemesisAT (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sümeyra Kıvanç[edit]

Sümeyra Kıvanç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is currently a prose version of her Turkish Football Federation stats page. A similar case to Büşra Demirörs in that this is another semi-pro footballer that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches, including a Turkish source search, yielded this match report, which mentions her a couple of times, some videos and a bunch of U17 and U19 squad lists which don't add up to a GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia Civan[edit]

Rabia Civan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet our current inclusion criteria for footballers and there is clear consensus from many recent discussions such as those for İpek Özgan and Büşra Demirörs that these sort of BLPs should be deleted. All of the article's current references are either stats databases or squad list mentions. Not one of them takes Civan to one side and provides any type of in-depth analysis. A WP:BEFORE search including but not limited to Google News and a DDG Turkish search came back with more squad list mentions but, again, nothing addressing Civan directly and in depth. Civan therefore does not meet WP:GNG unless anyone is able to provide evidence of multiple reliable sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Wessman[edit]

Róbert Wessman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It is likely from the actions of the page creator that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed their conflict of interest. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Deletion_request for the full explanation. For the record, I am working on behalf of Wessman.

This page should be deleted so that, if the subject is considered notable enough, the article can be recreated from scratch by someone who does not have a vested interest. Noemimanical (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking through the current article, the article subject seems to have received significant coverage in reliable sources over at least several years, and a quick Google news search has numerous results in both English and Icelandic. The paid editor working for Wessman who has requested this deletion seems to be making pretty baseless claims against another editor, ignoring all their work on another article to somehow claim they have a conflict of interest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above as the article appears to meet the notability guidelines. If the article is biased or not neutral then you can edit it. Sahaib (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Róbert Wessman is one of Iceland's best known and most successful businessmen and easily passes WP:GNG. While the criticism in the article is a large part of it, it is properly sourced by reliable third party sources. That said, with the amount of sources available about his career, the article could be expanded exceptionally. Alvaldi (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hope Whitehead Lee[edit]

Mary Hope Whitehead Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a writer and artist, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for writers or artists. The notability claim here is that her work exists, with no indication of the kind of distinctions that it takes to distill existence into notability, and the referencing is almost entirely to primary or unreliable sources (profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, book self-sourcing its own existence rather than being referenced to independent media attention about it, Goodreads and a blog) which are not support for notability at all — the only source that actually comes from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet isn't about her, but just briefly namechecks her as a giver of soundbite on the significance of a local independent bookstore, which isn't enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself if it's the only real media source in the mix. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Delete I am unable to find any reliable sources to add to this article. There is no listing for her in VIAF, which to me indicates that the publishers of her works are very small presses, perhaps collectives. The article looks like it was written as an assignment for a Contemporary Feminist Thought class and perhaps the original editor is unaware of what makes a writer or artist notable. The class is still in session, so it is possible there is going to be further review by an experienced teacher. Ian (Wiki Ed) appears to be a POC. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the main editors involved with the article several days ago. Ther have been no improvments. I now think the original creator dropped the class and the article had been abandoned. Fails notability and I changed my vote to delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not appear to be a notable artist or writer. A cursory search does not drag up anything that I could really add either. CaffeinAddict (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mireille Saba Redford[edit]

Mireille Saba Redford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article was in a bad state when I came across it, and after nuking all of the unsourced or poorly sourced prose there, I ran a Google search to look for sources, I found nothing contributing to notability, indeed few sources usable in a BLP. GNews had exactly one mention of Redford, GBooks only turned up the books she has written and nothing else of use, and GScholar turned up nothing of any use. There did seem to be one Arabic source I found, but that seemed to be a CV and very unreliable. With the complete lack of coverage she has received, I strongly believe she fails WP:BIO. JavaHurricane 12:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She does have a literary career, but not appear notable. I have not found reliable sources. The references I find show she has published and edited works, but there are no independent reviews. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also searched Wikipedia Library databases that I have access to, including ProQuest, and have not been able to find reviews or other sources to support WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:NPROF notability. Beccaynr (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article was made by a student editor in the course https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/American_University_of_Beirut/English_203_(Fall_2021)/; the course description states "This course seeks to develop students’ intellectual viewpoints and a writing voice through writing Wikipedia articles about Arab and Lebanese authors who have little to no digital presence (neither in Arabic nor in English). In order to preserve this literary heritage, this class will work on producing Wikipedia articles about Arab and Lebanese literary figures who might otherwise become long forgotten since they are rarely taught in the Lebanese curriculum's literature courses."; personally, I think that forcing students to write articles on likely non-notable people isn't the best thing to do, but whatever. wizzito | say hello! 18:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like Wizzito has pinged relevant editors, so perhaps they will get this sorted out. I am adding this comment so we know that the Wiki Ed knows. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I ran a French-only Google search, not much more turns up, lists of her books, the university catalogue from Lebanon where she teaches.... nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Catfurball (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The person was recommended based on a thorough research of notable women to write articles about as part of a project to digitize Lebanese and Arab literary heritage and create articles about forgotten or underrepresented figures. The team deciding on these articles consists of professors and librarians. We take our work of representation very seriously. This representation is very context and culture specific, and we are an underprivileged and underrepresented group, and in deleting or considering our underrepresentation as lack of notability, you are further marginalizing us. Please reconsider. AbirWard 10:39, 6 December, 2021 (CST)

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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Hill (Herkimer County, New York)[edit]

Honey Hill (Herkimer County, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced. I can find no evidence of this summit passing WP:GEOLAND, nor can it be found in GNIS. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a non-notable hill. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find anything in Newspapers.Com on it except that the "Golf Club of Newport" used to be the "Honey Hill Golf Club" but even if that were notable it would be for the club, not the hill. BBQboffin (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable hill fails NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Herkimer County, New York#Geography. I'm seeing next to zero significant coverage. Per WP:GEOLAND, If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. This article cannot be developed using sources that I can find, so redirection to the place where local geography is handled seems appropriate. I do not oppose deletion outright; there is very little content in the article of encyclopedic value. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. USGS domestic names search shows four entries for Honey Hill in New York state but none are in Herkimer County. RedWolf (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Someone created hundreds of thousands of these hills in New York State, hills that have no special features other than a name, and it's good to be levelling them. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of this particular article, 420Traveler, is actually very much still active, creating a new article every few days, although recent creations seem to be decently sourced. I contacted them on their talk page a few weeks before nominating this article, but got no response, and apparently they haven't taken notice of this AfD either. Lennart97 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I contacted them as well about GNIS stubs and they said there are sources but they haven't been added yet. I'm not sure that an editor who thinks it's OK to move such an article to mainspace should have Autopatrol permission, however it looks like most of their articles end up being sourced in the end. –dlthewave ☎ 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Lets not drag this out any more, I agree to delete this, must have been a mistake that it was created. Also, @Dlthewave as far as having Autopatrol permission, look at all the articles ive created and expanded to GA status such as many of the Kansas highway articles, river articles, lake articles. Also look up the description of a stub article. -420Traveler (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you've done a lot of good article expansions as well, I'm not trying to take away from that, and it looks like most of your recent creations are well-sourced. But there's also pretty strong consensus that creating geo stubs with no sources or sourced only to GNIS is disruptive as other editors must do the legwork to verify that the place actually exists and search for secondary coverage. I would hope that an Autopatrolled editor could be trusted to never do that. –dlthewave ☎ 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Mathur[edit]

Devika Mathur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician and radio host, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for musicians or broadcasters: the strongest notability claim as a broadcaster is that she hosted a talk radio show on an internet radio platform whose own Wikipedia article was deleted earlier this year as unsourceable, and the strongest claim as a musician is that she was a non-winning competitor on a Canadian Idol season. Neither of those are "inherent" notability freebies that exempt a person from having to get over WP:GNG -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, even on a search for better sources I just get glancing namechecks of her existence in Canadian Idol coverage and/or local entertainment calendar listings rather than coverage that's substantively about her, and the tone here is so highly advertorialized ("Devika sang hits from such music superstars as Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey & Toni Braxton ... a feat very few true singers could accomplish") that the article would need to be completely rewritten from the ground up even if it were salvageable with stronger notability claims and better sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nomination. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I couldn't find any articles or sources. 37.111.137.59 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Puff words, one semi-notable about her in Gnews from Mint Lounge, not seeing notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete' Fails wp:BLP & WP:SINGER.Juggyevil (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashionye Ogene[edit]

Ashionye Ogene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there are some sources by her, or sources by her employer, and one source mentioning her, there are no good sources about her (in the article or online). Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Promotional resumé looking article on a non notable individual. Celestina007 (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: One wonders how closely the nominator examined the article WP:BEFORE nominating it for deletion. The article consistently refers to the subject as "she" and "her", so the nom appears to either intentionally misgender the subject or failed to read the article carefully. pburka (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would I intentionally misgender her? I made a mistake in not rechecking the gender after I had spent time looking in vain for better sources, that's all. Fram (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why, and I didn't say that you did. However I've only ever heard Ashionye as a woman's name, the Google search results are full of pictures of her, the article refers to her with she/her pronouns, search results refer to her with she/her pronouns, and the nomination uses he/him pronouns four times, so I had to conclude that you either didn't research her at all, or it was intentional. Since it wasn't intentional, I assume you'll correct it. pburka (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now corrected. Fram (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — more specifically, fails WP:JOURNALIST with only 59 Google results, none of which are substantive coverage of her or her work; nothing in JSTOR or NYT. Even the "What links here" articles contain only incidental, passing references. —KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:49, 1 December 2021 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate engineering[edit]

Climate engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Term has no proper modern definition so the article is too confusing and contradicts Carbon dioxide removal. Content should be split between Solar geoengineering and Carbon dioxide removal. "Climate engineering" should redirect to Solar geoengineering. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Climate engineering has a clear definition as given in the first sentence of the article: the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system. While the source for that is from 2009, it is still in current use.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Climate engineering/geoengineering is a far wider field than just solar geoengineering. Any contradiction can be handled by normal discussion and editing, not deletion. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma Can you expand on your claim that "Climate engineering/geoengineering is a far wider field than just solar geoengineering" - what else please? Thanks for finding all those refs and the term may well have had a meaning in the past, but I should have explained that what I meant by "modern" is the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. The first part of that was published early this year and "Climate engineering" is not defined in the glossary. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, are you saying that since the IPCC Report didn't use the words "climate engineering" that the field has ceased to exist and the article should be removed? Wikipedia also has articles about things that used to exist. However, take a look at the program here of the Climate Engineering in Context conference held in October 2021. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StarryGrandma As the concensus here is to keep this discussion can be closed I think. Thanks for that recent link - so their definition at https://www.ce-conference.org/what-climate-engineering includes CDR. So as SailingInABathTub implies I guess we will have to tell the readers early on in the article that some definitions incude CDR and some don't. And we will have to make clear as best we can which arguments for or against "Climate engineering" include CDR and which don't. Perhaps this can best be done by putting the arguments which don't include CDR only in the "solar geoengineering" article. Unfortunately it is going to be difficult to disentangle the arguments I suspect. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, independently notable of its subtypes and clearly passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. Any confusion within the article can be resolved through editing. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but...I suggest a few changes to reflect the decline in the term's use: (1) shorten the article to include only content that applies to both solar geoengineering and large-scale carbon dioxide removal (i.e. politics and ethics would be removed, maybe more); (2) rename it to "Geoengineering (climate)", as that is now much more common than "climate engineering," and have the latter redirect to the formerand (3) phrase the opening sentence to something like "Geoengineering (or climate engineering) is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system, sometimes referring collectively to solar geoengineering and large-scale carbon dioxide removal." TERSEYES (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even if the term is no longer in use (which is not the case), there is plenty of material (much of it already in the article) on which an article describing its historical use could be based. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or rewrite I agree with Chidgk1 that many of the highest-quality sources on climate change have stopped using the term. Not only have they stopped using it, they've commented that grouping carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management into one concept makes no sense whatsoever, as I explained in my comments at the Climate change FAR The current article fails NPOV by promoting the point of view that large-scale CDR and solar radiation management are types of the same thing and have similar risks, whereas the majority point of view among scientists is that these are different things with very different risks. We would be better off deleting this article than having the current one. The best outcome would be to rewrite the article to center the majority scientific point of view and to contrast it with uses of the term that perpetuate popular misconceptions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any WP:RS for this? SailingInABathTub (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NASEM consensus report says, "methods that create or enhance carbon sinks are best considered as part of the toolkit for net CO2 emissions reductions, although they are sometimes misleadingly classified with solar radiation management as “geo-engineering."^[1] The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C glossary says, "Because of this separation [between two meanings of the term], the term ‘geoengineering’ is not used in this report."[12] page 549 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub, there is also this 2021 source from the journal Global Policy, which concludes, "‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate engineering’ should be dropped in pertinent international fora in favor of separate consideration of SRM and CDR." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging that the previous definitions of the term are currently considered confusing by the IPCC, and that this fact should be prominent in the article. There are still climate engineering conferences,[13], papers,[14] reliable newspaper articles,[15] and books[16] being published that retain the older definitions - despite them being considered confusing by the IPCC. So in order to maintain a WP:NPOV we need to still cover how these sources define climate engineering and geoengineering in this article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Where would a study like geoengineering the Indian Ocean be discussed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nowhere on Wikipedia until secondary sources cover the idea. When there are secondary sources on it, it could be covered, due weight permitting, under whatever umbrella concept the secondary sources put it in. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep as the article was improved quite a bit on December 3. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the term "climate engineering" would redirect to solar geoengineering in future, then would we somehow briefly explain how the term is/was colloquially used? So far it says in the first sentence: "Solar geoengineering, or solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposed type of climate engineering in which etc." EMsmile (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as a super-subject of solar geoeng. For example, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/12/new-report-assesses-the-feasibility-cost-and-potential-impacts-of-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-approaches-recommends-u-s-research-program William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With Teeth (disambiguation)[edit]

With Teeth (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This disambiguation page is no longer useful because there is a hatnote at the article of the primary topic that conveys the same purpose. GMX^{(on the go!)} 14:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. BD2412 T 19:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. PianoDan (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ONEOTHER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 02:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Vera (activist)[edit]

Francisco Vera (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP concerns. Concerns about BIO1E and BLPs of minors. An 11 year old received a death threat on Twitter and it was made into an international incident. There's nothing else here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep -- seems to be a well described individual, with significant coverage in both Spanish and English language news -- actively says that he will continue activism in the face of the threats, Sadads (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep If you explain "BLP concerns. Concerns about BIO1E and BLPs of minors" in plain English rather than Wikipedia jargon you might have a chance of convincing me as I have no idea what BIO1E means. But as far as I can see there is a fair amount of press coverage in reputable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are pretty basic Wikipedia policy issues. I suggest reading WP:BLP and WP:BIO1E which will introduce most of these issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I read WP:BIO1E but WP:BLP is rather long - can you explain your concern about this being a biography of a child in plain English please? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea is that minors are more subject to BIO1E than even other people because they have less ability or less awareness, and can be more easily harmed by public attention. (I don't think this is a good argument in this case given that there's international attention to the person in question) but that is a reasonably policy based concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom's concerns. LondonIP (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Coverage is not just about death threats. Is an activist with sources. The 1E issue would be more compelling if there were some other natural place to put the content. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per user Sadads. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Stuart[edit]

Russell Stuart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails sigcov. Been deleted in 2006 and recreated/updated by UPE. scope_creep^Talk 13:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One would think that, with all the accomplishments this article claims, there would be ample coverage of this person. But I couldn't find anything except a press release from his own company. Mlb96 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC, page is apparent WP:AUTO breach as creator was User:Russellastuart Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Jessop[edit]

Scott Jessop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable YouTuber, whose coverage comes from other Youtubers and a garbage tier TV show that try to capitalize on his failed personal life. Catlemur (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep He has received coverage both in connection with his TV show and in connection with the Sundance Film Festival, so he passes WP:BLP1E. However, despite being from high-quality sources like the WSJ and the LA Times, the Sundance-related coverage seems like human interest reporting, so only a weak keep. Mlb96 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some of the sourcing, like the Salt Lake Tribune article which only mentions the subject in a caption, is poor. However I feel there is sufficient coverage in the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal articles, and these are both major publications, for this article to be kept. NemesisAT (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2021 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios A. Zamboglou[edit]

Demetrios A. Zamboglou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established. No reliable sources that confirm notability of the subject. Vgbyp (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak** He only has few reference which are independent reliable sourceZafas1653 (talk) 1:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I do appreciate the effort User:Zafas1653 put into this AFD; An account created a few hours ago. Within minuets of its creation the account manages to find this specific AFD, reads the article, evaluates all 45 references in the article, votes. Once done, jumps to the next AFD and do the same. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, Chief Operating Officer of CFI Financial Group. COO at Babb Group. European CEO and Development Manager at Lykke. Creator of the world's first crypto-marketplace based on blockchain technology. Top 30 Under 30 Award. Blockpass Advisor. Fellow member of the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investments. First Cypriot to join the Young Leaders Circle at the Milken Institute. Made it into GCC list of successful youth under the age of 40 for the year 2021. 5 different professors approved the notability of the object of the article, in order for the NUCT university students to work on the article under the Wikipedia education program in Jordan. 45 citation from three different languages including Philenews, Europes Leading Startup Magazine, chartered institute for securities & investment, blockpass.org, Stockwatch , Finance Magnates, best-masters, forex-awards.com, oneZero, UK Financial Conduct Authority, AtoZ Markets, and the websites of a multi-billion financial organizations. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Tarawneh, what is your connection to this person? I notice that you uploaded this image after receiving a personal email from him. I'm also mildly curious as to why VRT ticket 2021042210007271, which relates to that file, is not visible to ordinary VRT agents. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

after receiving a personal email from him! Can you please elaborate Justlettersandnumbers...

Although this has nothing to do with this AFD, the Answer is: an OTRS agent needs to have permission to gain access to the group where the ticket is located. If you don't have the required permission you will not see it. That is how the system works. It is moved to the main permission group, so if you have access there, you will be able to read it. The students could not find a free image. I adviced them to contact him and request one. He sent an email releasing his photo to CC-BY-SA. Tarawneh (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, Tarawneh! My reason for asking about personal email from him is that you give your source for that image as "Personal email from Dr Demetrios Zamboglou". As you say, it has nothing directly to do with this AfD, but where is the permission from the photographer in that ticket? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The owner personally (him self) emailed his photo with the required release. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to the ticket, you will see that he affirmed sole ownership and exclusive copyright to the photo. Clearly stating legal authority to release the copyright. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we have a standard response for that: "en-Permission from photographer not subject". Everybody and his wife claims to own photographs taken of them; that's why we routinely ask them if they actually own the copyright, and if so, how it was acquired from the photographer. However, this is off-topic in this discussion, let's leave it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Sources are a mishmash of unreliable, superficial, and non-independent. Professors running a student project don't decide who is notable; the Wikipedia editing community does. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a WP:REFBOMB of questionable sourcing. Tarawneh has been asked already to clarify his relationship to the subject, and not done so; I have asked again at his talk page. This isn't one you can just keep editing through - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David. Who must disclose : Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. Why would you assume that I am one? I rank 100 on ar.wiki editcount. I wrote hundreds of articles presenting living people. I have to say that I admire the technique being used here; Moving this AFD into this direction. In my 20 years of actively contributing and defending the project even from Authorities in foreign countries, I never even imagined that I will ever see this, especially from a guy who's been around for years. Still, I do understand that are protecting the project, and I respect that. --Tarawneh (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've removed six references from the article because they contained no mention of the person in question; that suggests that all other refs should be checked with some care. Deferring comment on notability until that's been done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, totally agree. We should campaign removing all references failing to mention the subject of the articles. I can see now that references mentioning fuel behavior should not be found in articles talking about specific type of cars, references suggesting a well documented failure in a certain airplane should never be found in the Bermuda triangle article. Even references talking about bombs and weapons should never be in WWII article. I almost forgot to mention the Virus DNA behavior references, these are tricky, and must be removed from all articles addressing different kinds of illnesses and treatment technologies. Generally speaking, I seem to recall a feature in mediawiki called talkpage; Usually that feature is used to discuss and exchange notes about all type of concerns regarding certain reference within the article. Tarawneh (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your article reads like spammy nonsense, and this sort of argument that shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia sourcing doesn't help your case in the slightest - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2021 (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. To start with, on a count, there appear to be 16 editors arguing for deletion, 7 arguing to keep, and one to merge. While of course AfD discussions are not a vote, the number is not entirely irrelevant either. The question, then, is whether strength of argument on the "keep" side outweighs those who argue to delete. In this case, it does not. The general, though not unanimous, consensus is that while this subject is frequently mentioned, those mentions do not go into the level of depth necessary to pass the notability bar. While one individual suggested a merge, this did not receive further support or discussion. The consensus is therefore to delete. While I don't intend to say any names, and many people conducted themselves well, I also think it appropriate to give a general reminder that the purpose of an AfD discussion is to discuss whether or not an article's subject is suitable for Wikipedia, and not to discuss the perceived shortcomings of editors of that article, the subject of the article, or other participants in the AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Collier (political activist)[edit]

David Collier (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails our notability guidelines, as of yet. The sole claim to fame is authoring some reports on alleged antisemitism which, as Selfstudier says, is not significantly covered outside of the usual suspects [in Israeli media] that habitually round robin [such] news between them. NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

*Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG as evidenced by the sources in the article. Notability is determined by the amount of 3rd party coverage, not by his "qualifications" or by being an expert, and there is tons of such non-trivial coverage, in high quality publications such as The Guardian, The BBC, ,The Times, The Jerusalem Post and others. This is not some "random blogger", but an independent researcher whose work has ben used by the British Equality and Human Rights Commission to issue a scathing report on antisemitism in the Labour party which resulted in high ranking members being suspended or leaving the party, it has been featured in several UK parliamentary discussions, and cited by the US Dept. of State in a report on religious freedom in the UK. The sources listed cover a period of more than 5 years, and include peer-reviewed academic papers which cite his research favorably. This is a clear indication that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply Inf-in MD (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock[reply]

• WP:NOTNEWS apply to events not people Shrike (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThis person is a non expert and non notable blogger (see self description), not a political activist (the page should have been disambiguated at David Collier). Article has 2 incoming links, one from a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard initiated by the article creator (the article appears to have been created merely in order to support a content dispute at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign article) and the other from Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party where the article creator added material that probably has zero weight. Reliable independent sources do not cite this person for his views, his principal claim to fame, afaics, is for attacks on Wikipedia itself (as well as some of its editors).Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply false: [17] Inf-in MD (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blog as well. The usual crowd (4 of the articles 8 refs are the Jewish Chronicle) flogging the antisemitism horse to death. Here he is, at http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11737.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:NEWSBLOG, written by a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. And there are many other sources in the article, including the BBC and the Guardian, all of them about his anti-Semitism reports, none about his criticism of Wikipedia. You have clearly not read the article before commenting here.Inf-in MD (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]

You cited a blog, not an expert Here's a different blog with the other side of this not news story (this one is at least semi reliable per RSN)Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a WP:NEWSBLOG. And there are a dozen of other, non blog sources, read the article before commenting here Inf-in MD (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All discussed at the NPOV noticeboard where there is a virtual consensus that this person is non notable, bring your views there.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ToI blog is not a NEWSBLOG as we define it. It's hosted by the paper, but anyone can apply to have a ToI blog and the paper has no editorial control. I think therefore it counts as an SPS, although possibly written by an expert (not sure about the relevance of his expertise). BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could be (though I wonder, if a senior executive of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is not a notable expert on anti-semitism, who is?) , but is a side issue, really. There are nearly 2 dozen other high quality sources in the article with significant coverage. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]

There is not a single source that provides any amount of coverage of the subject of the article. There is coverage of some of his blog posts and the reaction to them. Nothing about the subject of the article. You may not use a supposed biography of a living person as a WP:COATRACK for his opinions. nableezy - 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, ToI very specifically disclaims any responsibility or editorial control over the blogs, making them not WP:NEWSBLOG but WP:SPS, and making moot that entire bit of handwaving. See their terms where it says Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. nableezy - 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obviously. And possibly block creator per WP:POINT. But to the point of the AFD, we have a biography with no biographical details of the person. We dont have a birth date, we dont have if he went to school, where he went to school, we dont have info on any personal details. We have an editor who wishes to use a random blogger as a source so made this WP:POINT and BLP violating article. Collier himself is not covered anywhere, a couple of his blog posts have been covered. If any of those posts reach our GNG there can be an article on them, but on the person there is quite literally no substantive coverage on him anywhere. Delete, and sanction the creator. nableezy - 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that stuff actually matters for determining notability. I've written multiple articles on people who are completely anonymous but have had their work covered enough to be notable. Mlb96 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do we make articles about non-notable bloggers now? The only thing that this article can ever be is a platform for promoting Collier and his opinions. Bob drobbs created this article with the comment "David Collier is notable now" when faced with multiple opinions at NPOVN that he isn't notable. Bob drobbs needs to learn that notability leads to articles, not the other way around. Zero^talk 14:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when and how you came to your determination that he's a "non-notable blogger". I did find it very strange that you and others were declaring him a non-notable blogger in the other discussion, especially as RS described him differently. So I went out and reviewed more sources. It was based on that that I came to the conclusion that he's now notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meet WP:GNG per sources presented here and article. WP:NEWS doesn't apply as it not event Shrike (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial mentions in a dozen publications do not GNG make. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not trivial mentions, but full-length stories covering his reporting, in depth [18] [19] [20]. Take the time to read before posting obviously false information. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

• "The Jewish Chronicle" is not considered to be reliable for post-2010 reporting and on issues concerned with Left and Palestine. Lines like [t]he research, by prominent research David Collier, [...] speaks volumes about the journalistic quality of the outlet.
  Algemeiner Journal Top 100 Jews of 2017 - Seriously, that is among your three best sources?
  A blog on Times of Israel is not reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Algemeiner is neither a trivial mention , nor is it an unreliable source. I don't know if it is the best soruce among the more than two dozen in the article, but it clearly disproves you claim that all mentions are "Trivial mentions" or from unreliable sources. This would be a trivial mention (not used in the article). This is not. I think the difference is clear. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Here's one for you. One of his reports was the focus of a Jerusalem Post article. That's clearly not a "trivial mention". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: And please do not misrepresent what is said in the list of perennial sources. Nowhere does it say that Jewish Chronicle is not considered reliable post 2010. The text is: "There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting.. It also says that there's general consensus that it's biased on topics like this one, and that in line attribution is recommended, but it doesn't call for exclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Nableezy said, they do not speak about him at all. Do we know any damn thing about the subject? Any random report on antisemitism has its usual coverage in Israeli media. What is special about this case?

Nobody is misrepresenting anything. Is this news pre-2010? In-line attribution is as good as exclusion, as practice goes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Not reliable" is strictly correct if one needs to attribute. Is there an Irish report about the Irish report? Or a report from anywhere apart from the usual suspects that habitually round robin the news between them.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created the page in good faith based on the idea that coverage about him and his research collectively passed the bar for notability. He's obviously not a "random blogger". My vote is in part based on this from WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." He's got lots of mentions, to varying degrees of depth, in lots of different sources. Collectively, I think he definitely passes the bar. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I edited my original comment for clarity and to reduce verbosity. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That there are so many descriptions ought to tell you something. And none of those match your OR "political activist". Reports by experts are one thing (for example, Mark Rich is considered an antisemitism expert) but reports by an "antisemitism researcher" don't carry the same weight.Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source offers any coverage of David Collier at all. What's his birthday? Did he go to college? Does he have brothers or sisters? Where was he born? Where does he live? What does he do for a living? There is literally zero information about David Collier in the article or in any of the sources. This is just silly, and even if he were "notable", he still is not a reliable source and this is not going to change if his blog gets covered in any of the places you want it covered. A WP:POINT violation and an utter abject waste of time. You did not "encounter info" about any person, because there is literally no information about the person on that page besides he has a blog. You dont even have a source saying that this is his real name. nableezy - 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that seems relevant to me here is to what degree RS speak about him and his work. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They do not speak about him at all is the point. Do you think this is actually a biography? When you have zero biographical material other than him saying he was born sometime in the 60s? nableezy - 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Collier is tight-lipped about his own life. But, as one of the few critics who have analysed his modus operandi noted, he is known to make profiles of human rights activists present at conferences where Israel and Palestine are discussed by raking up 'info', quoted out of context, that casts them all as anti-Israel ergo anti-Zionist ergo anti-Semitic. These 'proscriptive lists' then spread through the internet, poisoning the well of rational analysis. Of course he would be delighted to have a page on wiki to attest his notability, despite the fact that he despises it as full of anti-Semitic types. One of his criteria for defining an anti-Semite is, apparently, the use of the word 'apartheid' in the context in which Israel is discussed. By that criterion, the three major NGOs, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tselem are, as of 2020, anti-Semitic. When a blogger defines anti-Semitism that narrowly, everyone comes under suspicion as a potential 'Jew hater' simply for worrying about things like the demolition of 50,000 Palestinian homes over the last decades, while immigrant settlements on stolen land flourish.Let him blog away, but his views are not notable, at least to serious scholarship of the kind an encyclopedia covers. There are a million frenetic and frantic conspiratorial thesis pushers blogging out there, seeing bad faith and evil under every suburban rug. This junk posturing has a polemic function, but has no durability, unlike the work of people like Daniel Staetsky ('Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel,' Institute for Jewish Policy Research 2017, who, unlike the Colliers of this world, found no significant correlation between concern for human rights in Israel and anti-Semitism. Staetsky is a sociologist, not someone who blogs 'indefatigably' and asks for funding. Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Bob drobbs: Editing your own comments after they have been replied to and without any clarification is not the done thing, it creates a false discussion because people replied to what you wrote originally.Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. Besides being non-notable, the article is horribly unbalanced. Lol: "has been described as an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner" ...he has been described in many, many other ways, too, "somewhat" less flattering. Alas, I cannot repeat many of them here, as I risk violating our BLP-rules. (Can I mention the word "toxic"?) The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those descriptions come from RS: The Jerusalem Post called him a "investigative journalist", Algemeir called him a "pro-Israel activist", and op-ed in the Middle East Eye called him a "citizen journalist". If any RS spoke about him in "less flattering" terms, then it seems those could and probably should be included too. I don't understand your claims of bias when the article seems to accurately reflect how RS are describing him. Your complaint seems rooted in the idea that criticism from completely non-reliable sources isn't included, and thus this article is unbalanced?? If you have any RS that speak about Collier in less flattering terms, please share. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you used Middle East Eye, now. It contains the following remark:

"'Palestinianism' is a disease that is anathema to freedom, to debate, to openness and to human rights," Collier blogged. "It will infect those who catch the disease with anti-Semitism just as it provides them with a denial mechanism to protest their innocence." This highlights an issue that many of the charges of anti-Semitism against Palestine solidarity activists are coming from partisan political opponents rather than objective racism monitors. Collier is a longstanding Israel advocate and critic of Palestinian activism who has described his mission as "showing everybody how toxic our enemies are".Kieron Monks, Labour’s anti-Semitism scandal has spilled over into attacks on Palestine solidarity Middle East Eye 17 July 2018

The word 'Palestinianism' has since Edward Said's day been used to describe the Palestinian struggle to have their national identity recognized, and their rights to their land accepted (as they are in international law). Collier describes that national desire, perfectly mirroring the Zionist aspiration for the recognition of Jewish rights in IsraelPalestine, 'a disease that is anathema to freedom one that 'infects' people with anti-Semitism. I see your paraphrase totally ignores this extraordinary absurd statement. In Collier's words above, it is normal for Jews to desire to have a national home: it is pathological for Palestinians, who existed there prior to Zionism, to have the same feeling. That statement is notable for its asinine failure to reason logically. This is the intellectual level of the blogger we are asserting is notable. For whom? Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: What does any of that have to do with this AFD? if you prefer to word "disease" instead of "cult" and "ponzi scheme" as currently written in the article, then take it to the talk page for the article or just edit the article. Don't drag these sorts of squabbles in here!

And it is 110% inappropriate for us to make judgments about deleting a page based on our interpretations of a living person's "intellectual level" -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about the British Parliament? This official report reject most of what Collier claimed about a so-called "an anti-Semitic event in Parliament", Huldra (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize, that whether the British Parliament accepted or rejected most of his claims the very fact that they were the subject of an official report is evidence of his notability. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was only because the Israeli ambassador Mark Regev accepted the Collier rubbish, that the British Parliament took it seriously, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, ad argummentum, that you are correct, that only further establishes his notability - So notable that the Israeli ambassador took his report seriously, and took it to the UK parliament which also took it seriously, and got them to investigate it. Not exactly "some random blogger'. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to assume, you can read the report. The UK parliament is obliged to take seriously any rubbish that an ambassador to St James's spreads; that doesn't make the rubbish (or the rubbish-maker) notable. Huldra (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should try that, yourself. From your link above (my emphasis): "The Ambassador did not identify an individual alleged to be in breach of the Code; his letter was about the event. Therefore the letter could not be treated as a formal complaint". Think your argument through, you are only making the case for his notability stronger. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike[reply]

My case stands: when the Parliament receives a complaint that "“very anti-Semitic with the usual comments made about non-Israeli Jews”; was an “anti-Jewish litany and holocaust deniers’ rant”; it would be outrage iff they did not investigate it. Alas, the things reported in David Collier's blog were found not correct. Now, this is a man you want to use Wikipedia to present to the world as a "an independent researcher, investigative journalist, blogger, and pro-Israel campaigner"? Huldra (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that if a "random blogger" sends a complaint to Parliament they engage in the kind of investigation you linked to, doubly so when even a letter by the Israeli ambassador is explicitly rejected as a complaint worthy of such investigation. My opinion of the man has nothing to do with his notability. Some very awful people have Wikipedia articles, because this is not "Model-Personpedia" . We go by notability, as measured by covered in reliable sources, not by the moral character of the subject as evaluated by Wikipedia editors. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

Again: no. The investigation was due to suggestions that "Baroness Tonge breached the Code of Conduct"; the result was, incidentally, showed that Collier's blog was not to be trusted. And I agree that many awful people have a Wikipedia article, the difference here is that the existence of this bio is used as argument that his views are "notable", Huldra (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt what determines notability. Notability is significant coverage of the topic of the article in reliable sources. Is the topic of the article Collier? What sources provide any significant coverage of him? Would be great if you could quote one giving for instance where he went to school. Or his birth year. nableezy - 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the topic of this article, and I created it, it's David Collier, his activism, and his writing. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So youre admitting to making a supposed biography of a living person as a coatrack for his political activism in his blog? Exactly why you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE. nableezy - 22:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COAT and stop making threats implied or otherwise!

If most of an article about an astronaut speaks about his work, because that's how RS covered him, then it's NOT a coatrack. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unaware of any threat Ive made. A biography of an astronaut would have his birth day. Hey look, Neil Armstrong was born on August 5, 1930 in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and he had a younger brother and sister. He joined the Navy, and went to college, and became a test pilot. You know how I know that? Because there is an actual biography of him. Not a shrine to his blog. But yes, see WP:COAT. See how it describes the article and the motivation for its creation. nableezy - 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Independent coverage on him (rather than occasional mentions of his reports) is too sparse and most of the article is his opinions from SPS. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another day, another AfD which is really just a PIA dispute featuring the same participants as always. To me, this guy looks notable. Sigcov in The Times and the Herald Scotland are pretty good. The distinction between biographical information and information about his work seems to cut in favor of keeping, as the latter is much more important for establishing notability than the former (in fact, I've seen many editors say that biographical information is worthless trivia). The article definitely has major NPOV problems, though. Mlb96 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A notable figure, and we cannot submit to those who would remove from Wikipedia details of people they find politically offensive. In case it matters, I am a socialist who agreed with Corbyn on other matters, but could not fully support him because of the levels of Jew-hate which festered within his movement. I don't agree with Collier on everything either, but his activity is significant enough for an article here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Quite aside from the deep incivility inherent in presuming that one cannot possibly object to this article save out of biased political motives, what "details" about Collier are you claiming exist here, save for those he supplies himself through his blog or quotes from him in interviews? Ravenswing 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: I didn't see any implication in RobinCarmody's comment that he was speaking about everyone who disagreed. "Those" is simply plural. But I do think he's probably right that some people here might be more motivated by a dislike of this guy, than any fair minded judgment of his notability. Just look at the two comments directly below this. Do they have anything at all to do with Collier's notability? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; you all should be aware that Collier use his blog to WP:DOX any Wikipedia editor he doesn't agree with. And editors are using the existence of this bio as argument that his views are "notable" Huldra (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jane Jackman (University of Exeter). "Advocating Occupation:Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK" (PDF). ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (the esharp paper mentioned in the article) contains interesting references to Collier. Notable is his description of the UN as a "a rabid Jew-hating forum", of UNSC Resolution 2334 as "[f]odder for the anti-Israel lynch mob" and "BDS is an umbrella group under which all Israel haters unite"to "smear Zionists as bullies and Nazis". I'm all for freedom of speech but keepers would do well to actually scrutinize some of the material in the blog, for example, <suppressed>, which I would put in the same category as Holocaust denial.Selfstudier (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot has a page. I don't think this guy has bad views is quite the argument you think it is when it comes to determining notability. But if there's well sourced criticism of the guy, just add it to the article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt the place to debate whether or not Collier's views are evidence of a well formed psyche or not, this is a place to debate whether or not a biography of him meets our inclusion requirements. Irrelevant details distract from, not enlighten, that process. I dont give a shit what he writes about. There simply is no significant coverage of him to merit a biography here. That is the reason to debate, not that he has a doxing streak on his blog, or that he espouses views I consider asinine. nableezy - 00:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not now about to edit a page I think should be deleted. Most of the article has been added since this AfD went up, with every bit of trivia that can be dug up in a web search and very little that establishes notability.Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would the material on his blog affect this AfD in any way, shape, or form? I don't need to read his blog to analyze whether he satisfies WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Collier is his blog, little else is known about him apart from what's on it. Ask yourself whether that blog (ie Collier) is an RS? Selfstudier (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to determine nobility for that person. Where are the reliable sources devoted to that particular person? Not this one. -->[21] That's not about him, he is mentioned there with the description of an investigative journalist. Can anybody show me RS devoted to David Collier, please? GizzyCatBella🍁 01:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? This isn't RSN, it's AfD. Whether his blog is reliable or not has no bearing on this discussion.

@GizzyCatBella: Check the Times and Herald Scotland sources I mentioned earlier. Mlb96 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlb96 - Okay, let’s start with this. How old is David Collier? And maybe one more to start before I move forward. What town was is born at? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better question: What do either of those have to do with his notability? Shall we delete our articles on Satoshi Nakamoto and D. B. Cooper as well? Or how about Tommy Wiseau, Dream (YouTuber), and Tank Man? I can name more if you need me to. Mlb96 (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can just check his CV...Oh, wait. Linkedin? Nope, blog is it.Selfstudier (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about any source that provides in-depth coverage to the purported subject of this article? The Times is an opinion piece by Melanie Phillips, not reliable for factual material so throw that one right out. The Herald does not cover Collier in any depth at all, it only supports that he was to appear in a debate and the opponent refused due to not wanting to legitimize somebody who had participated in a smear campaign. It provides no detail about Collier besides that he is a blogger. nableezy - 02:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald article is dedicated entirely to describing Collier and the things he did and said; how much more in-depth do you want? Your criteria for sigcov are so strict that anything short of a book-length biography would qualify as trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very much untrue, it describes one encounter that didnt occur because the person found him too objectionable to appear on stage with. It does not describe Collier himselg in any significant detail though. Which is why you cant say where he went to school, or if he has siblings, or really anything besides he has made a number of blog posts. nableezy - 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable authority on antisemitism with signifjcant coverage of his activities in reliable sources. Free1Soul (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock[reply]

An authority on antisemitism would have a resume and some academic qualifications and have citations to his work in other reliable sources. Please dont make such baldly untrue statements. nableezy - 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The blogger evidently does not consider himself notable, since he is hyper-careful about keeping from the public record anything about who he is, (birthdate, birthplace, education, qualifications, employment). What he does do is publish details about other people, profiling them as antisemites, which, in his view, appears to be tantamount to anyone critical of human rights abuses in Israel’s occupation. I can only find one RS, other than the usual community chat papers, that mentions him, and I say that as someone who follows closely the serious scholarship on antisemitism and anti-Zionism, where he simply does not figure. Nishidani (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is likely that the subject of this article is following this discussion, given his stated interest in Wikipedia. Separately, I find it odd that such an inconsequential discussion has attracted so many accounts which look like WP:DUCKs. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quackery begets quacks. This is all too predictable Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete. So far I have not seen any significant coverage of David Collier himself, only of his works. It is possible for a book to be notable without its author being notable (examples where we have an article on the book but not the author: An Atlas of Fantasy, The Plains Across, Colder Than Hell etc). And so Collier's works, even if notable, don't automatically confer notability onto Collier himself. If someone finds sources that do demonstrate Collier himself meeting GNG, please ping me.VR _talk 08:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I also want to add that in the scientific research world, its common for a researcher to have papers with a dozen citations. Some of these citations give in-depth coverage to the content of the paper (experiments that validate the paper's findings, dispute the paper's findings, improved upon the paper's techniques, compare the paper to another one etc). But we wouldn't have an article on the author just because their papers got a few citations.VR _talk 09:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  VR, your argument would lead more logically to a conclusion of Rename (as a blog) rather than Delete. Headhitter (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article creator comments on the article talk page I wouldn't particularly describe this article as a biography either, as his work is far more notable than he is as an individual.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the article creator is saying that Collier the person is not notable: indeed there appears to be little information about who he is, but what he writes is notable. Well it isn't, except for the rabid smearing, doxxing, and hyperactivism in conducting a witchhunt by insinuation such that institutions like SOAS ban Jews, and are rabid hotbeds of Islamic activism. Oh really? Multiple such absurd claims and you get what Collier is 'notable' for. And the wiki page becomes just one more venue for showcasing the froth of social media shouting matches.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice selective quoting. Here's the rest of it:

... his work is far more notable than he is as an individual. That's possibly by choice. But for a wiki page, that's okay. See: D._B._Cooper

Unless you're also going to argue that the D._B._Cooper, with zero biographical details, needs to be deleted, your strongest argument in favor of deletion seems completely gone. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that your statement is my strongest argument for deletion? I admit it's quite a good argument for deletion but it's not mine, it's yours.Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's sources including The Times, The Guardian, and the Scottish Herald, so appears to pass [[WP:GNG]. The argument that his work is notable but he isn't strikes me as a bit off, that would mean we should deleted the pages of many artists because it's they're art that is notable. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've fallen for it. There is no mention of Collier in The Times article. Like most of the page, what is happening is that Collier kicks up a fuss, an aftermath of media havoc ensues somewhat related to some position he advanced, and editors stack the page with news articles that never mention Collier. I.e. Jane Jackman analysed Collier's activities in a peer-reviewed academic paper. A scandal (of 'antisemitism' or of censorship) was created that never mentioned Collier. We cite all of these general articles on the Jackman affaire, which mostly ignore Collier, for Collier's page, while suppressing any reference or link to Jackman's article. I guess most have not accessed The Times article: but it mentions the controversy as Glasgow over Jackman as far as one can see, and it has yet to be shown that it includes any mention of Collier. So the 'impressive' number of articles cited in the mainstream press are not about Collier, but incidents which, on Facebook or Twitter, Collier had a position. Source gamesmanship, potemkin village jerryrigged referencing to give the impression he is notable.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fallen for anything. The Guardian mentions him in a more than passing way, the Herald is about him specifically, the Huffington post is about his work, the BBC article again is about his work, as is the Telegraph article. I'm not interested in the details of the scandals, or this individual, he's in multiple reliable sources - he passed GNG. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come now. Seriously? The sum total of the Guardian piece's mention of Collier is "David Collier, a pro-Israel campaigner, who was referenced in the paper and who published a rebuttal on his website, described the removal of the apology as “an act of cowardice”." The sum total of what the Herald piece says about him is "Mr Collier is a UK businessman who lived in Israel for nearly 20 years and whose blog is dedicated to "researching anti-Semitism inside anti-Zionist activity"." These are the very definition of casual mentions that do not meet the GNG's requirement of significant coverage. Ravenswing 07:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald article is entirely about the individual, or about reactions to him. I just don't see how that is 'just a passing mention'. The Guardian is the weekst of the five I mentioned, but those two where not the only ones. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In writing, 'you fell for it', I alluded to your citing the using of The Times artiole to prove he is often mentioned. You didn't examine the article, which does not mention Collier. I.e. you fell for it, taking on trust that since another editor had cited the times as evidence for his notability (inappropriately), the article you hadn't read must have mentioned Collier. The strength of Wikipedia is that numerous editors who don't know each other from a bar of soap, relentlessly check and cross-check things like this before making a call.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I only perused the Times article when I should have been more detailed. Your comment made me go back and read the others more fully. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by claims that The Times doesn't mention Collier. The article, I'm looking at begins with the words: David Collier is a British Jew who devotes much of his life to chronicling the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attitudes... [22] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Times that we were discussing did not mention Collier. The new one you bring up is by Melanie Phillips, who, after writing a paranoid tract on the Muslim takeover of Londonistan, used the Times to eloquently boost Collier, using language he himself is not averse to, i.e. 'cesspit' etc. The Times used to exercise editorial control to guarantee quality reportage. Alas, no longer, save for the TLS. Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I'm surprised about the level of extreme bias in the article, I think his report makes him notable enough to be kept as a article. Dunutubble (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't be surprised by the 'extreme bias' in the article. That is what the subject is 'notable' for. In the Jackman case, he 'replied' to her careful documentation by a blog spitting fury, using words like 'cesspit', 'gutter' and accusing her of smearing him as someone 'recruited' by Israel. She wrote no such thing. To the contrary, she described him with an innocuous and accurate descriptor as someone engaged on a 'self-appointed mission'. A blogger who consistently distorts sources to stir the witch's brew of toxic commentary is 'notable' only in so far as 1000s of similar types in the infinite web of social media chitchat are, but none really cut mustard as 'researchers'. They only count as a quantifiable mass of group influencers via meme replication in social media.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While there are what appear to be reliable sources provided, they do not present meaningful coverage of the subject itself, instead detailing wider activity regarding anti-semitism investigations in the Labour Party. Invariably, they include his name in passing but no additional information Dexxtrall (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one RS which goes into depth into one of his reports and mentions Collier 13 times[23]. Some of the 35ish secondary sources are trivial mentions, but by no means all of them. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Well. There's 45 minutes of my life I won't get back. But I've just reviewed all the sources in the article and there's no there there. Almost everything mentioned about Collier himself is a casual mention at best, and the couple sources that say anything more are either quotes from Collier or sourced from his blog. Neither, of course, can count towards supporting the notability of a subject. The various keep proponents have the requirements for the GNG only half right: there must be reliable sources, but those sources also must cover the subject -- not his work, not his blog -- in "significant detail." Instead, the sources -- however reliable -- don't cover him in any detail at all, and are thus debarred from supporting notability. Having read the subject's blogpost slamming this AfD and crying conspiracy, I can certainly appreciate why Collier would not want biographical details available to the public. The consequence of that, of course, is that he doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article.

  Beyond any of that, a drum some of the keep proponents are also beating is in the importance of the work. So stipulated, but what about this article is necessary to memorialize it? We already have Jeremy_Corbyn#Allegations_of_antisemitism, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party, Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel, 2021 Meron crowd crush as representative articles. Ravenswing 17:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to an article an Collier's reports. Not sure what the article should be called, but it's clear the article subject isn't notable enough outside his writings on antisemitism. The writings are definitely of encyclopedic interest , though, based on all the sources. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of encyclopedic interest? On his blog he makes no distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, a distinction that the best authority on the subject, Kenneth S. Stern, who wrote the international definition of the latter, thinks cogent. Collier finds an antisemite under ever critic of Israel's policies and thinks UK campuses are infected to the point every Jewish student feels 'unsafe'. Stern did a massive review of that meme as applied to US universities, where the same insinuation was insistently harped on in a certain vein of political rhetoric, and came to the opposite conclusion.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Similar feelings to Ravenswing above. I've checked the sources on the article and done my own sweep. There simply is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject himself. Mujinga (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's just not passing the notability test, for me. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - A critical op-ed has been added to the new Criticism section. It walks through one of his reports, but also gives an analysis of his approaches, goals, and views. I think this helps, to some degree, addressing the problems of sources saying little about him and NPOV. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unconvinced. The "Criticism" section consists of a single source to an op-ed piece that's frankly a heavily biased polemic on Why Everything Collier Posts Sucks. This AfD should not and cannot be a referendum on Collier's positions. Its sole purpose must be to answer whether the subject meets the GNG/WP:BIO. I do not believe that he does, and I don't believe this one source adds anything of merit. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Ravenswing 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this part of WP:BIO:

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"

And I didn't say that this new op-ed solve any problems. But point-by-point, as there are more-and-more sources talking about him, there's a greater chance that he passes any bars for notability. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of that, thank you; I have several thousand edits at XfD over the years, and am well up on notability standards. I remain unmoved, and stand by my comments. These sources do not talk about Collier -- they just talk about his allegations, and most of them falling into predictable editorial lines depending on the politics of the speaker. Ravenswing 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a highly regarded antisemitism expert whose reports received significant attention. His investigations are taken seriously and have led to the suspension of several people from political positions due to antisemitism. David Collier's activism against antisemitism is notable, and a biography is the easiest place to put all these together.RCatesby (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC) blocked sock strike - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions like ' highly regarded antisemitism expert' require RS evidence, particular from ' highly regarded antisemitism experts' (for which there is, as far as I can see, none) who actually have a strong record as scholarly authorities in this field. This is a complex technical call in wikipedia terms, and there is some evidence of attempts to influence the vote with some 'keep' editors having a very low record of interest in wikipedia. Your 523 edits just scrape by the ARBPIA qualification rule.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If these reports deserve attention at all and given that they are about antisemitism in England, Ireland and Scotland the best place for them would seem to be in Antisemitism in the United Kingdom article assuming that there is suitable independent reliable secondary sourcing in support.Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support moving information about reports to Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but I won't strike through my original opinion just yet. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 13:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Is there really any doubt at this point that his reports are notable? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way to find out is maybe try and fit them into the above mentioned article and see a) whether you can and b) what the reaction to that might be. I assume that editors with a specific interest in the subject watch that page and will have an opinion on their encyclopedia value. It's difficult for independent researchers because there will questions about their authors qualifications to write such reports. I'd say it would depend on the amount and type of secondary coverage of the reports that exists, the best kind being known experts in the field commenting in reliable sources.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is another possibility.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I think there's a total misunderstanding of Wikipedia's practices if editors here, or elsewhere, are making judgments about a researcher's "qualifications" or expertise, and using that to decide if material should be included. The only question should be "notability", should it not? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with article content. Reliability and verifiability do. Notability is about whether a topic is suitable for an article here. Reliability is about qualifications. And this blogger has none. He has never written a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject. He has no known academic qualifications. He has no known expertise on literally anything at all. nableezy - 22:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are totally misunderstanding wikipedia's policies and practices, and I don't care how many edits you have. It is not your role to judge Collier's "qualifications". You cannot do that as an editor, then use your personal opinions to make judgments about content inclusion. NO ONE is advocating that we treat his website as a RS. But, if secondary sources speak about his reports, then we look at the reliability of those sources, period. It is 100% appropriate to include his opinions as opinions, if it's covered by RS, irrespective how you feel about his qualifications. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But of course we judge qualifications of sources, that is literally what WP:RSN is. Of course we consider their credentials, that is what WP:SCHOLARSHIP is about. And for a non-notable blogger with no qualifications, we do not include his opinion as his opinion just because a source includes it. That is what WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) and WP:WEIGHT (unqualified bloggers merit no weight when their views are not widely covered as having some import) are about. You can keep thinking I am the one misunderstanding Wikipedia's policies and practices, but that is a personal problem for you. nableezy - 22:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the last sentence of what I wrote? Reports in and of themselves are not "notable". I think we have exhausted the angles here, I see no need to discuss it further.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, his reports are not notable. As a topic, there are no reliable sources covering his reports. Including sources covering different reports as one topic is OR by SYNTH. nableezy - 20:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. coverage of his reports is not the same as coverage of him as a person. Amisom (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he is a significant figure in the British Jewish community and a leading contributor to the continuing political debate in the UK about the extent of antisemitism. Headhitter (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'a leading contributor to the continuing political debate'. Debate? Where has he ever debated anyone in public? Nishidani talk) 21:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• He's tried to do so, but he's been no-platformed: <suppressed> Headhitter (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So he is not a contributor to the debate, since debates don't take place. The link doesn't work. Getting people 'no-platformed' appears from his blog to be precisely what his blogging attacks consist in. GB's Jewish community has strong, highly literate, incisively readable and distinguished analysts of anti-Semitism, sociologists, philosophers and critics, as one would expect. Collier does not rate among them.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now corrected the link: it's <suppressed> Collier has received coverage in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/10/glasgow-university-retreats-over-antisemitic-label-for-journal-article and The Daily Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/08/04/jeremy-corbyns-leadership-has-radicalised-labour-members-attacking/, both of them WP:RS. Headhitter (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The 'coverage' he received in the Guardian states in a sentence the same meme we find mentioned in several other reports on the GlasgowU backtracking fiasco. Nothing new, except further proof of journalistic laziness. Meme replication across numerous breaking news articles is one of the greatest problems in the encyclopedic representation of the conflict. By the way, the repeated mentioned in those sources of Collier's 'rebuttal' has the same function. No one seems to have thought it worthy of a counter-rebuttal, -not notable again-though it is full of cheap smearing (Jackman's co-supervisor,Ilan Pappé apparently is '‘a conspiracy theorist' and ‘liar’) and embarrassing ignorance about Israel. Jackman referred to 'mowing the lawn' with a source he contests.This is either faux naïf or he doesn’t know, aftere 2 decades in Israel, that ‘mowing the lawn’ is a standard IDF idiom for its periodic onslaughts on Gaza. He demands an academic reference for it, since Mouin Rabbani in the London Review of Books, whom Jackman cites, is not in his view, reliable. I.e. he is unfamiliar with Rabbani's background, work and qualifications, thinks the LRB unreliable, and doesn't known enough Hebrew to recognize at sight a phrase that is attested to endemically in RS and throughout the net, often directly cited from named Israeli figures like Naphtali Bennett. He claims that the peer-review system failed. Try sieving his blog with peer-review methodology and one would realize why he blogs and does not go through that process to get published in serious scholarly outlets.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Hudson, the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, referred to David Collier in her report on Baroness Tonge in 2017: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldprivi/142/14205.htm Headhitter (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not get that "referred to David Collier" is not "coverage of David Collier". This is textbook COATRACKing. nableezy - 21:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And quite aside from Nishidani's comments, there's a notion a number of people seem to have at AfD generally: that if there's some excuse for a subject not to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, the provisions of the GNG and WP:BIO are somehow suspended in their favor. This curious notion has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The way we know that someone is a "significant figure" in any community is for reliable sources to say so. Ravenswing 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The subject of this article has tried to canvas people to this AfD. Not linking the page since it contains personal attacks on individual editors, publishing timestamp on article is 2021-12-03T09:02:38+00:00 for reference when closing this AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked, and saw that he names me as a vitriolic 'antisemite' about whom he 'has written about .. both several times before – and there can be little doubt they know it.' News to me -I've only read two screeds on that blog in the past few months, when linked by editors to them: I don't read blogs, twitter, facebook, social media, as is news to me the 'fact' I apparently work 'behind the scenes' to 'get his wiki bio erased. Conspiracy-mongering again. No person profiled on a wiki bio owns that page. To the contrary. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of a feather, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israellycool refers. (Someone is thinking of resuscitating it, I see).Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - This page has been EC protected right around this time. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re eSharp I have not voted in this debate, mainly because I am unsure about the usage of the eSharp article, which contains a scholarly assessment of Collier's output:

...David Collier, a blogger under the banner heading Beyond the Great Divide. Given that his posts are frequently recycled and applauded on Facebook and Twitter, he is highly regarded among grassroots Zionist supporters. His writing, however, is peppered with inflammatory language. For example in January 2017 he referred to UNSC Resolution 2334 as ‘[f]odder for the anti-Israel lynch mob’ and the UN itself as ‘a rabid Jew-hating forum’ (Collier 2017) Collier’s self-appointed mission is to attend and report on pro-Palestinian events and academic conferences. He refers to these as ‘hate-fests’. He told his embassy audience in November that ‘BDS is an umbrella group under which all Israel haters unite’ to ‘smear Zionists as bullies and Nazis’. 2 His posts frequently single out prominent supporters of Palestinian rights such as Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi to name-and-shame. Overall, Collier’s blogposts exemplify the discursive categories typical of an extreme ideological perspective. These include outright denials of Israel’s human rights violations beginning with the displacement in 1948 of the indigenous Palestinian population (Pappe 2006); the shifting of blame for the conflict through discourses that claim (for Israel) the right to self-defense, and which imply that Palestinian violence is a random expression of Arab anti-Semitism rather than resistance to decades of dispossession, discrimination and humiliation; dehumanization of Palestinians as a people who routinely sacrifice their children in order to kill Jews; a strong antipathy for anyone supporting Palestinian human rights; and frequent resort to ridicule. When the Al Jazeera documentaries aired, Collier was quick to deride the series, downplaying the seriousness of Israel’s tampering with British public opinion, and citing Marcus Dysch, Political Editor at the Jewish Chronicle, who on 12 January attacked the series as ‘harassment of Jews dressed up as entertainment’ (Collier 2017b). Similarly, Collier reproduced the remarks of fellow blogger Jonathan Hoffman, whose piece on the Zionist website Harry’s Place summed the films as ‘voyeurism for anti-Semites’ (Collier 2017b). It would be easy to dismiss such social media exchanges as inconsequential hot air. But propaganda thrives on the repetition of catchy slogans such as these, and the constant exchange and recirculation of misleading information - Collier’s comments reappear across a range of social media - arguably spreads and entrenches already strongly held Zionist beliefs, inflaming antagonism towards pro-Palestinian supporters and muting their messages. The possibility of free and fair debate is severely limited.

As our article currently explains, Collier did mount a campaign to have this journal article buried, and the resulting editorial cover page on the article would suggest he was partially successful: "But along with such debate comes the responsibility for articles to be rigorous, well-balanced, and supported by evidence. This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data, which promote what some would regard as an unfounded theory regarding the State of Israel and its activity in the United Kingdom." This cover note has been in flux and the one here is dated September 2021; it is not clear to me whether this version is the final product of the ensuing debate. The academic community, in the form of 500 scholars signing a petition, had described in the opposite terms: "The paper was accepted for publication following the standard process of double-blind peer-review. The article is an academic account of public relations, lobbying, advocacy and information management, which is a well-established area of academic study." I am not entirely clear when this petition was delivered. Either way, the debate between the editorial team and the wider academic community was around whether the picture painted of the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom was fair. It had nothing to do with the article's description of individual bloggers or similar.

The way I look at this AfD is that if the eSharp article is admissible, we have a proper academic analysis of Collier and his activities on which to base this article. If it is not, we have only scraps and asides in sources focused on other matters. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone else's info, this article as linked to by Onceinawhile includes this disclaimer:

"This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data"[24]

The article now has other criticism. It doesn't need a a graduate student paper that's been disavowed by the publisher. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob drobbs: please explain why you duplicated text I already had in my post above, with a statement suggesting I had not already quoted and addressed this? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Uni had to save face after being caught with its pants down by 500 scholars. Thus the revised screed minus the antisemitism nonsense. The crucial part is "some would regard as an unfounded theory" which basically is the same as "All minus "some" would not regard it as an unfounded theory" along with the fact that the paper is still up.Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, why do you refer to the antisemitism charges as "nonsense"? Wikipedia should be WP:NPOV. Headhitter (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original screed claimed the paper contained an "unfounded antisemitic theory" a claim removed when 500 scholars pointed out it it had wrongly conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism and undermined academic freedom, while damaging the reputation of the author as a result, "nonsense" for short. I can say that, this isn't an article page. I call lots of things nonsense, rubbish, twaddle, if that's what I think it is. Selfstudier (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth casting an eye over Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom. I had quite forgotten about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive294#ZScarpia (the complaint was filed by a blocked sock and actively supported by 2 others).Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break starting from Bob drobbs' sources table[edit]

Sources table: We don't have a clear consensus yet. And as painful as this process has been so far, I would HATE to have to go through it again in 6 months or a year. So here's a first pass at a source analysis table. And as a reminder, WP:BIO does not require any one source to go into depth: "... multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a clear consensus yet Why do you think that? Selfstudier (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least five sources on the list are often contested at RSN. (Israel Hayom, Mondoweiss,Middle East Eye. the Times of Israel and Tablet blogs etc (The Tablet has some good stuff, but it hosts also some of the most toxic journalistic cant I've come across on I/P issues). This is the only time in the past few years where I have seen Mondoweiss, funnily enough, cited positively from a 'pro-Israeli position' perspective. The pro-Israeli position led to its deprecation on Wikipedia. MEE is also deprecated frequently by the same editing group as a source. (the point is consistency: one cannot argue that newspapers are not reliable sources at RSN, and then cite them as reliable sources in a wikibio of a person who would probably regard them as odious sources of antisemitism).

The funniest anomaly is citing the Alliance for Workers' Liberty page. Sources like that have been rigorously rejected by pro-Israeli editors from virtually all articles covering the British Labour Party anti-Semitism accusations topic. One cannot absolutely use it to cover the left position on Corbyn, but it is fine to note Collier's notability. What's good/bad for the goose should be good/bad for the gander.

Despite what you say about bios not requiring depth, the technical issue raised by Ravenswing remains cogent: the coverage is invariably en passant, and several sources all cite the same language and the same incident. We don't know who David Collier is (not that one is interested to know), from these scattered sources: the reports all regard incidents covered in several Wikipedia articles. Therefore this page only justifies its existence to remind readers of the fact he bloigged a few reports on anti-Semitism, that were noted at the time. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found the Alliance for Workers' Liberty inclusion bizarre too. I didn't look through the edit history to see who added each source. I just documented them. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections/comments re table": "Antisemitic conspiracy fantasy in the age of digital media: Three ‘conspiracy theorists’ and their YouTube audiences" is scholarly article not book, has passing mention in footnote ("O’Keefe achieved mainstream media attention in 2017 after the now-notorious Palestine Live Facebook group was infiltrated by researcher David Collier.") "Labour can't see its cesspool of antisemitism": is an opinion piece, 8 mentions but all about report not him. "'Hitler had a valid argument against some Jews": couple of citations and brief mention ("In 2018, independent researcher David Collier (2018) published evidence showing that Corbyn had been an active member of a secret Facebook group.") "Labour to act on antisemitic member posts": 1 passing mention only. US State Dept: quite brief mention only ("In July Member of Parliament (MP) John Mann, leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism, called for action to be taken against “racists,” following the publication of a report written by pro-Israel blogger David Collier and funded by Jewish Human Rights Watch citing links between the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and anti-Semitism in Scotland.") "Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has radicalised some Labour members into attacking Israel and Jews": Four mentions, all about report not person. "Glasgow University retreats over 'antisemitic' label for journal article": Brief citations plus quote, calls him "a pro-Israel campaigner". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction and filling in some of the blanks. I've updated the table. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, perhaps to an article on British anti-Semitism. Fails WP:ANYBIO. That said, this article was clearly created in good faith and I find the tenor of this discussion, especially the topic ban call, disturbing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional sources I added two sources to the source list. One was a book added to the article by Selfstudier. The other one is the eSharp article. It's not included in the article because it's publisher has disavowed it as biased and faulty research, but I'm not sure if that has any impact in regards to notability. Notability is determined by source's existence, not inclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Still trying to "puff it up", are we? I would rather cite the published and still up eSharp paper, double blind peer reviewed, than anything by subject, who has not had anything published, peer reviewed or otherwise.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I can find seven sources from Bob drobbs's sources table that together I regard as amply satisfying the WP:BASIC criterion for bios and so I don't regard delete to be a defensible outcome to this discussion. However, there are some issues with the article that means simply keeping it may not be ideal:

• As Nishidani has noted, Collier has been campaigning against Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Zionism in a manner that, through his large Twitter following, has resulted in harassment of Wikipedia editors. While I do not think that Collier is personally engaged in this, equally he is not condemning this harassment or taking steps to prevent it. From what I can see, the harassment has not distorted our coverage, but it is quite possible our coverage has been affected in hard-to-see ways, such as editors choosing not to edit this material.

A good, i.e. verifiable, sufficiently in-depth and well-balanced, article on Collier would actually be an asset against this harassment, since it would cast some light on what is going on. We are not there yet, however, and it occurs to me that draftspace might be a better place to sort out this article than articlespace.

• This is a new article that arguably should have been created through the AfC process. It's not clear to me that it is well-named, since we might as easily qualify his name (amateur historian) or (Zionist). These categorisations do matter, since they are so prominent, and while there is no reason why these couldn't be handled with an RfC, this issue is more conveniently handled at the draft stage.

I'm inclined against merge, since there does not seem to be one article that is the obvious best place for all the encyclopediac content that could go in the dedicated article, but I think draftify, on the grounds that the article should have been created in draftspace, might be a better result than keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chalst: just on your statement that "I do not think that Collier is personally engaged in this...", that should not inform a view in this debate, which is solely a notability question. I would like to correct it for the record, though. Unfortunately some of his posts have intentionally doxxed editors with their real names. Other examples of harassment from his blog (which I have redacted) include: (1) I believe I am close to uncovering [redacted]’s real identity. The account holder may be [redacted] and connected to [redacted] University (possibly [redacted] campus – so if you know of an anti-Israel academic activist there – probably with [redacted] background – let me know).; and on a different editor: (2) From his edits [redacted] appears to be a raging antisemitic conspiracy theorist with a major fetish for the Nazi Occult. He also seems to have a soft spot for radical Islamists (and may well have converted in about 2007). More generally, his blog posts show a consistent inability to understand the idea of a balanced narrative, as if the coins in his pocket only have one side, and they imply a belief that editors writing anything less than pure Israeli government propaganda are "online terrorists", and he encourages his readers to treat them as such.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I agree that "merge" is an imperfect solution, but ordinarily when a subject is part of a larger phenomenon but not clearly notable in their own right, that is the solution. If deleted, the article creator should be encouraged to re-create this article if the concerns expressed here are addressed. Though tbh an article on this subject is likely to be a battleground regardless of what happens here. That said, your analysis is a good one and I tend to agree that "delete" is harder to justify than som eother outcome. "Draftify" does seem tantamount to deletion however. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has come a LONG way[25] since the AFD was put up. At least some of the bias has been corrected in the criticism section and people from all sides have contributed to improve the page. As for draftiying, if the existence of this page becomes conditional on documenting harassment, it seems to be an intractable problem: Collier's report on Labour is notable. Collier's issues with a handful of wikipedia editors is not notable, and will probably never be notable.

Discussions about a new name[26] began 10 days ago with little input so far. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing produced so far has changed the fact that he is largely a self-published blogger, and has not emerged from the "blogosphere" in a meaningful way. That and the absence of RS coverage on him. I note too that the criticism section relies excessively on another blog, Mondoweiss. So that is why I lean toward merger. If at some point he becomes notable, we can revisit. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have held off from voting as this has not been an easy one. I didn't want my vote to be influenced by the individual's anti-Wikipedia crusade, his clear interest in self-promotion, or the fact that the two main authors of the article have account histories with WP:DUCK-like characteristics and have previously appeared at WP:SPI (this one was declined because the account had gone stale [it should be reopened now...] and this one was closed as unclear [interestingly two of the three opposing editors at the SPI have both since been confirmed as socks].the second has just been confirmed as a sock [edit: 18:27, 10 December 2021])

I think most editors here would agree the coverage is marginal per WP:GNG, but what pushes me to the delete side is that for such an obviously controversial person there is no WP:RS coverage on the critical side. If the eSharp article is not allowed as a source, there is nothing with a critical assessment of Collier and his more "unusual" characteristics. That would leave us with a WP:PUFF article based mostly on primary sources and a few articles written by his journalist contacts (Melanie Phillips and Aaron Bandler in particular). Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once, 10 years ago someone accused me of being a sock. The discussion ended with the the person who posted the query retracting it, and saying let's stop "further protracted persecution" of Bob. You really want to bring that up as part your of argument that this page should be deleted? ;-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are virtually no sources about Collier himself; the article is essentially strung together from passing mentions and WP:PRIMARY sources for his views. This isn't sufficient to support a biography. Furthermore, the article (even with the edits by the banned sockpuppet removed) essentially reads as a WP:COATRACK intended more to argue for (or about, if we include more criticism) the focuses of Collier's activism rather than Collier itself - and the lack of sources actually discussing Collier makes it unlikely that it could be rewritten to fix this problem. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply does not have enough in-depth sources about the man himself. Like a lot of political commentators, he seems to get quoted a lot, but that isn't the same thing as biographical sources about him. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2021 (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.