< July 10 July 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Respublik (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Azov War (1501-1502)[edit]

Azov War (1501-1502) (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 does not apepar to reach notability guidelines as searching the articles name results in only the wikipedia page and websites that simply copy from wikipedia, as well as a few websites unrelated to the article's subject. The article was also created by a user who has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of the user Ea-Nasir, in case that information helps. Withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found Gaismagorm (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expand, don't delete. The Russian Wikipedia article [1] for Meñli I Giray, who was the Crimean Khan, has the following paragraph (via Google translate):

In the winter of 1501-1502 , Sheikh-Ahmed, the khan of the Great Horde, began to prepare for a new campaign against the Crimean Khanate . Mengli Giray, warned of the impending invasion, ordered the mobilization of the entire male population over 15 years old [24] . Khan of the Great Horde, Sheikh-Ahmed, at the confluence of the Pine River into the Don, joined with the army of his elder brother Seyid-Ahmed [24] . The brothers built a fortification here, preparing to repel the attack of the Crimean Khan. However, the khans soon quarreled, and Seid-Ahmed with his detachments retreated to Astrakhan [24] . Ottoman Sultan Bayezid IIinvited the Khan of the Great Horde to migrate to the Southern Bug, but the Turkish ambassador was captured and killed by the subjects of the Khan [25] .

The references are to a book in Russian, which I cannot obtain or read even if I could get my hands on it. But the content of the paragraph largely matches the content of this article that was submitted for deletion. I would tend to assume good faith and trust that the citations aren't made up, but unless someone wants to verify it once and for all, I land on the side of keeping the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i tried to search up the references and didnt get any books. the first one did give me a russian wikipedia article. is it possible for you to provide a link for the book (using google books or something) Gaismagorm (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unless of course you are talking about the russian wikipedia article, however i do still feel that the english wikipedia article needs some much better references. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's references #24 and #25 in the Russian Wikipedia article I linked. Повелители двух материков RecycledPixels (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, if you search that title on some of the ebook piracy sites, there are PDFs available for download, and the text can be selected and pasted into Google translate without much effort. Pages 74-77 of Volume 1. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep. ah, thanks for the information. well in that case, we should keep the article Gaismagorm (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one question i do have is who Beslan (listed in the commanders and leaders section of the infobox) is Gaismagorm (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn by nominator as sources have been found. Gaismagorm (talk) Gaismagorm (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reality shifting[edit]

Reality shifting (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 reality shifting article should be considered for deletion on Wikipedia due to its lack of substantial scientific evidence and its reliance on pseudoscientific and unsubstantiated claims. While the article mentions the popularity of reality shifting on social media platforms, such as TikTok and YouTube, it fails to establish a solid foundation based on credible research or empirical evidence. Wikipedia's guidelines require that articles provide reliable sources to support their claims and assertions. In the case of reality shifting, there is a lack of scientific studies or academic research supporting its validity. The article references the involvement of the CIA in studying Robert Monroe's research on altered states of consciousness, but it fails to demonstrate any direct link between this research and the practice of reality shifting as described. IceStar12 (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Tassinari[edit]

Fabrizio Tassinari (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 completely lacks independent third-party sources, there are only links to the guy's own pages and books. Seems a lot like advertising. HPfan4 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His G-Scholar showing is actually pretty low - a total of 650 cites, and most of his articles have cites in the low 2 digits. That isn't enough for WP:NACADEMIC. I found a few places where he is quoted, but that's all. I also checked Italian newspapers and he doesn't turn up there either. This was done by an SPA, and the entire upper portion of the article is unsourced, so possibly the creator got the info from him directly. I don't think we have enough here to keep this. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lamona. I trust their understanding of WP:NACADEMIC more than my own.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Daniels[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dani Daniels (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 pornographic actress, many AVN wins, but no discussion outside of these in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The double !vote has been addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was asked to revert my closure and deletion of this article and relist this discussion for another week. My original close stated "This discussion initially seems close but those arguing Delete successfully refute the reliability and importance of sources brought up in this discussion." I will leave this AFD to be closed by another administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that relisting. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 22:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't a unanimous decision to Delete plus going to Deletion Review is like getting root canal surgery. But I don't revert closes on any AFD if requested, I thought that another week for this one would just make consensus clearer. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no problem with a delete close. Its well founded in policy. If I may say so, reverting feels like a cop out to avoid courting controversy. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see my role as assessing consensus of a discussion, I don't think it's a "cop out" but I'm not here to court controversy. I'm not here to be bold and blaze trails. Plus, I think in the hundreds of AFDs I've closed, I've probably reverted my closures on 3 or 4. I don't think that number is out of line. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like to view Liz's reversion of closure as an extension of good faith and I support it. Liz knows XfD readers like all of us who'll look over relisted discussions. The action drew my attention to this procedure. I was not impressed by the strength of argument or sourcing, so I did the reading. There's every reason to believe such a subject may find additional coverage or accolades. I'm uncomfortable with BLP pages when there's very little directly detailing RS to go on, but lots of routine coverage (like performances, statistics, and minor incidents) which may used to "tease out" what I view as synthesis on a subject. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a liberty and extend my concern, which I'll confess is a personal one. Like many of my fellow wikipedians, I have a number of acquaintances who might themselves meet the thresholds of GNG and BASIC, or who already have found themselves with articles. This is an awkward situation for a BLP subject. They restrain themselves from contributing on their own pages and often find their pages laden with inaccurate or out of date info. I largely do not edit these subjects. These are not people who are self-promoting; these are tens of thousands of living human beings who are depending on Biographies of Living Persons policy, our five pillars, the Foundation, and our many thousands of volunteers to protect their real-life integrity. If a Seigenthaler-like incident is again hung on our brand, no data is lost, but our community's integrity shrinks ever so much. Sorry for the soapboxing. I try to limit such preaching to my friends. BusterD (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samta Sagar[edit]

Samta Sagar (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)

She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR and there is a lack of in-depth coverage to verify notability. DSN18 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Article author requested deletion. Whpq (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Традиционная одежда Липецкой области.[edit]

Традиционная одежда Липецкой области. (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 is not in English, fails WP:N, no sources. 64andtim (chat) 21:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank). Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clank (Ratchet & Clank)[edit]

Clank (Ratchet & Clank) (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's sourcing doesn't show any independent notability, and hasn't for a very long time. While the argument is being made that "the article was only recently tagged", WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything either depressingly enough and more commentary on the games themselves. There just isn't anything here. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. And it looks like the nominator has changed their mind about seeking deletion so this is unanimous. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted military area[edit]

Restricted military area (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:NOTDICT per Isaidnoway's PROD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably be an article if there was expansion with discussions of the implication of a restricted military area on things like protest rights or other civil liberties. I'm certain these sources exist in scholarly sources like law reviews, but as is the article is pretty much a dictionary definition. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The concept, "restricted military area", is so broad and nebulous it's hard to visualize what a full article might consist of. We could just as easily set ourselves the task to write articles about "scary places" or "boring drives". There may be better articles about specific topics like the one in Finland that Tulsa Fan cited above. That would be more along the lines of "scary Icelandic lava pit" or "boring Long Island bus route"
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a pretty unuseful bunch of comparisons. First, as to what the article would look like, I'd imagine something along the lines of Military base or perhaps Battery (crime). As to what separates a "restricted military area" from "scary places", I'm not aware of any polity where "scary place" was defined in law and designated "scary places" were guarded by armed dudes who had the right to restrict the basic civil rights of those who enter the "scary place". The reason I used Finland for my example is that I have easy access to sources about it. I'm sure similar sources could be found about the US, which has laws like this in the books, and for the UK which has laws like this. I doubt similar laws exist for "scary places" or "boring drives". Ljleppan (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Visviva's generous offer below. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Järvenpää, Marika (2016). "Viranomaisten toimivaltuudet kohteiden suojaamisessa hybridiuhkia vastaan" [Powers of authorities in protecting targets against hybrid threats]. Tiede ja ase (in Finnish). 74.
  2. ^ "Puolustusvoimat esti Suomen Sisun juhlat sotilasalueella" [Finnish Defence Forces Blocks Suomen Sisu's Party inside Military Area]. Kaleva (in Finnish). 11 November 2013.
  3. ^ Vuorinen, Terho (23 August 2018). "Tilanne sotilaiden ja poliisin välillä kärjistyi Tikkakoskella – sanailun jälkeen komisariota uhattiin rynnäkkökiväärillä" [An Encounter Between Soldiers and Police Escalated in Tikkakoski - A Police Officer was Threatened with an Assault Rifle Following an Exchange of Words]. Ilta Sanomat (in Finnish).
  4. ^ Malin, Tuula (16 October 2014). "IL paljastaa: Sotilasalue myytiin ulkomaalaisille" [Iltalehti Reveals: Military Area was Sold to Foreigners]. Iltalehti (in Finnish).
  5. ^ Kerkkänen, Tuomas (1 November 2016). "Puolustusministeriö selvittää venäläisten maakauppoja sotilasalueiden liepeiltä – työ pidetty piilossa" [Ministry of Defence is Looking Into Russian Land Purchases near Military Areas]. Yle uutiset (in Finnish).
  6. ^ STT (20 April 1017). "Puolustusministeri Niinistö: Valtion etuosto-oikeus maakaupoissa olisi järkevää" [Minister of Defence Niinistö: State Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales Would be Sensible]. Kaleva (in Finnish).
  7. ^ Kaarakainen, henri (20 April 2017). "Valtiolle halutaan lunastusoikeus maakaupoissa" [State Wants Right of Pre-Emption in Land Sales]. Ruotuväki (in Finnish).
  8. ^ Paananen, Arja (1 March 2019). "Uusi tiukka laki hyväksyttiin: Venäläisille maata vain erikoisluvalla" [Strict New Law Approved: Land Sold to Russian on by Special Permit] (in Finnish).
  9. ^ Nieminen, Rami (14 July 2022). "Kun Venäjä hyökkäsi Ukrainaan, valtio esti Seppo Sergei Kapasen "lottovoittodiilin" maanpuolustuksellisista syistä - Nyt hän aikoo kokeilla onneaan oikeusteitse" [When Russian Invaded Ukraine, the State Blocked Seppo Sergei Kapanen's "Lottery Win of a Deal" for Reasons of Defence - Now he Intends to try his Luck in Court]. Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Przanowska[edit]

Mona Przanowska (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, very poorly sourced. This is a case study for WP:BLP violations. Kleuske (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Snapshots[edit]

Holiday Snapshots (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)

Insignificant book about nude women. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Holiday Snapshots"+"david hamilton"
The article says it's banned in New Zealand because of child pornography issues but there's no ref in the article to back that up.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Farajpour[edit]

Shadi Farajpour (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 notability. lots of incorrect information. this lady never won a "World Championship medal", I added more pages created by the same user, all of them fail notability in different levels. I can see there are lots of wrong categories for each of them, intentionally (to make them look notable) or just from a copy/paste. for example Hossein Rahmati never played a single minute for the Iran national basketball team but he is listed as someone who played at the Asian Games and FIBA World Cup here, he apparently plays for a club in Sweden which is not in the highest level. I can give examples about others too. the last two pages may be considered as notable. the futsal guy played at the World Cup and Mehran Feyz won some junior volleyball medals but I listed them to see what other people think. Sports2021 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Hossein Rahmati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Omid Fouladivanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ali Akbarpour (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bagher Mohammadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mehran Feyz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more participation on a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Najmadeen Mala[edit]

Najmadeen Mala (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)

Single source BLP. Notability tag since 2010. Fails WP:AUTHOR. UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Turner[edit]

Gillian Turner (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)

Appears to be a non-notable journalist. Only coverage is for stories she's written or appearances on the network. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5 (though there is no disagreement on lack of notability). Complex/Rational 20:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shopee Maszeh[edit]

Shopee Maszeh (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-charting single, no coverage found in RS. Sourcebot shows none of the source used are RS. appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gauthier Van Malderen[edit]

Gauthier Van Malderen (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)

Nothing found for the individual, all in relation to his company. Even in .be websites, all is about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi Mehringer[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, nothing found for sourcing in Gnews or Gsearch, appears to be PROMO here. Was also deleted as PROMO back in 2020, not much appears to have changed for notability since then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Liam. I wrote the original article and have written this one as well. I've followed Mehriner's work for some time and believe him eligable for an entry. Note: I have no vested interest or benefits through this. I just like Mehringers work and I'm a big fan of Eyecandy, and feel like people should be able to more easily access who created it since Jacob doesn't do a lot of self promotion. Also I'd love to get into more wiki edits and help. Let me know if you need help with other other wikipedia pages. I'd love to contribute. Thank you sir! LIAFF (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are 2 refs:
They're substantial enough to establish notability for Eyecandy and, by extension, Jacobi Mehrenger.
I recommend looking briefly at the Eyecandy site to see what the refs are talking about.
Here are two Clios for his Super Bowl ads. As Art Director, he's ranked just under the Creative Director (the top guy on the ad) in the credits:
It's enjoyable to watch the short clips
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those wouldn't pass WP:NCORP, and notability is not inherited. The FStoppers appears to be written by someone who knows the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Lorencz[edit]

Kelly Lorencz (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 party functionary, with nothing else for sourcing other than what's given in the article. The PPC is very much a 4th place party in Canada, being associated with it doesn't bring much to notability (as would any party functionary). Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LakeFS[edit]

LakeFS (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 software, with only venture capital funding PR pieces used for sourcing. Nothing else found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Israeli company and the sources are from Israeli well-established media press. I also saw sources in media in Hebrew but I couldn't assess them properly as I don't know the language. However, even these sources should be sufficient for the article's improvement.--Onetimememorial (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from some editors with experience with AFD discussions and source evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambry Moss[edit]

Ambry Moss (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)

Six official appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Lots of passing mentions from his college and int'l career, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jospin Gaopandia[edit]

Jospin Gaopandia (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)

Eight official appearances for the Central African Republic national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The sources (e.g., [14][]) are not in sufficient depth to meet general notability. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 04:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOH S264[edit]

WOH S264 (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)

Did this get missed in the LMC red supergiant purge? Listing here with the same rationale as WOH S281 and WOH S279. Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article relies on a single large-scale survey to establish notability as an extremely large star. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I could find no significant coverage in sources. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral fresh from the printing house, this publication goes more in depth that the large scale surveys (the star is mentioned as LMC3), although the depth of coverage is still not particularly deep. However, it characterises it as "the most remarkable object in the sample" and that "further investigation is needed". --C messier (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As C messier said, it is considered the most remarkable object in the sample, although notability is still questionable because there is not so much significant coverage. The star has also been noted to be one of most luminous and largest stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud and has even been compared to WOH G64, another extreme red supergiant. The authors of the paper have also mentioned that they will give more detail to the star in a future study, if the paper gets published, this could establish notability on the basis of a whole dedicated paper.SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not support a keep because there is currently not enough WP:SIGCOV from sources to establish notability yet. However I also oppose deletion because it is likely that notability will be established by new sources in the future. Therefore the best option would be to do some sort of WP:ATD to keep the page history in some form without keeping something that does not meet notability guidelines. I cannot think of a suitable merge or redirect target, and transwiki is not an option, so that leaves draftification. I think the article could possibly be kept as a ((Promising draft)) so that new sources can be added to establish notability when they come out, and the draft can then be moved back to mainspace. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to check whether or not there is any more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as a ((Promising draft)) per above comments. We'll likely want this article in the near future and will then have the refs to justify keeping. Why start all over?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Gandwani[edit]

Preeti Gandwani (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)

Minor roles in film and television, nothing found for additional sourcing we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the article Preeti Gandwani as it is posted from reliable sources.. I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't delete it. 116.206.202.14 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of low participation. Remember IP editor, articles on living people require reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Munir Khan (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 criminal; nothing found about the individual. What's given here for sourcing is simply confirmation of the arrest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a dispute about the notability of this individual whose notability rests on being a fraudster.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking notable fraudster to me per the sources provided in the article. Googling Munir Khan fraud reveals [16], [17], [18] [19]. Okoslavia (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. And, sorry to say this, Phil, but that ring! Wow, that was mighty impressive. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swa Diamonds[edit]

Swa Diamonds (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 business, the award won does not appear significant. Poor sourcing otherwise, nothing found we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacking significant and reliable coverage. Guinness World Records holders are not inherently notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  1. They have 150 stores all over India now. It's been reported by Fashion Network when they reported about their store opening in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
  2. I have removed the sentence about the award as per oaktree b's input.
  3. As you well know, the Guinness World Records is not insignificant(I have included the links from Guinness world records themselves, and media outlets like CNN, Fox Business, etc.). After I removed the 'Swadesh National Award', I believe the article stands.
  4. The article only has 4 sentences now, with 9 links for citation.


I request you to reconsider the nomination for deletion.

--Libinthathappilly (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider Guinness Records notable, as you can pay to have them certify your "record". Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have only added details that are factual. I believe the language is neutral. And have provided several relevant citations from- including and not limited to - CNN, Guinness Book of Records official website, fox business, International Gemological institute, and several Indian news and articles. I don't understand what the issue is, and the reason for nomination for deletion. Please tell me what it is. They are a credible start up brand from Kerala, India who created a Guinness record winning ring. A growing startup business from a small city in a small state of India, who garnered international media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libinthathappilly (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Plus, if this discussion is closed as a Soft Deletion, I imagine it will be immediately restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry informing them of this discussion.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Libinthathappilly, I understand your assertion that the company should be notable - I think with 150 stores it should be, too. But Wikipedia needs in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet our requirements to prove a business's notability. Why? It's all about reliability. Wikipedia requires that kind of in-depth reliable coverage to make sure we produce a quality, neutral article. So Wikipedia requires we prove the company is notable in order to keep the article. Here are the relevant rules:
Read over these. If we get good references we can keep this article.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benika Bisht[edit]

Benika Bisht (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 actress, only having minor roles in a few productions, no sources found to support keeping the article Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the article Benika Bisht as it is posted from reliable sources.. I have added many other sources as references that I could found. Please improve the article, don't delete it. 116.206.202.14 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There remains disagreement as to whether the framing of this article comprises WP:SYNTH. In addition to weaker arguments, editors arguing for deletion assert that the cited sources do not provide analyses of all three aspects--Zionism, race and genetics--together, particularly noting genetics as an often-missing element of studies of Zionism and race, or else allude to a WP:PAGEDECIDE situation where relevant information would be better covered as part of Zionism or another related article. Editors supporting keep argue that genetics is particularly important to the framing of many, if not necessarily all, of the studies analyzing race and Zionism, and assert that delete !voters are ignoring scholarly books/articles that do address all three topics in tandem but simply do not include the phrase verbatim in their title/abstract.

There seems to be a higher level of agreement (if not yet a consensus) that the current title is less-than-ideal, and that perhaps Zionism and racism (currently a redirect to a section of Racism in Israel), or some other expression of these topics, would be a more appropriate title. That can be taken up as a move request. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism, race and genetics[edit]

Zionism, race and genetics (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)

Oh my, this article is ostensibly on a triply compound topic Zionism, race (human categorization) and genetics. Wow. To be clear, doubly compound topics in Wikipedia have had a history of being interrogated carefully. Only when there are significant and serious treatments which identify a compound topic as significantly addressed as a topic in reliable sources (Science and technology studies, for example) do we ever have a way for Wikipedia's intentionally conservative and non-innovative reference machinery to document the subject. In this case, the article reads a lot like a original research program that is not indicative of active tripartite treatments combining these three subjects. As such, the article is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. It is not for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources discusses a tripartite project called "Zionism, race, and genetics". None of them. What possesses you to think otherwise? jps (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does there have to be a tripartite project? Whatever that is. Anyway
Abu El-Haj, Nadia (2012). The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology. Chicago Studies in Practices of Meaning. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-20142-9. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
Discusses all three elements per quote below:-
Quote from the source
"As I argue through a reading of scientific studies of “the genetics of the Jews” published in the 1950s and 1960s, while Zionism presumed the existence of the Jewish people, the founding of the Jewish state put that ideological commitment to the test. What is evident in the work in Israeli population genetics is a desire to identify biological evidence for the presumption of a common Jewish peoplehood whose truth was hard to “see,” especially in the face of the arrival of oriental Jews whose presumably visible civilizational and phenotypic differences from the Ashkenazi elite strained the nationalist ideology upon which the state was founded. Testament to the legacy of racial thought in giving form to a Zionist vision of Jewish peoplehood by the mid-twentieth century, Israeli population researchers never doubted that biological facts of a shared origin did indeed exist, even as finding those facts remained forever elusive."
Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a tripartite project because that is the subject of the article! Wow! What are you doing here? Wikipedia is WP:NOT for novel research projects like this. The quote you include indicates nothing about there being a coherent subject called "Zionism, race, and genetics". In fact, I see instead an analysis that may be relevant to any number of articles we have at Wikipedia that are about genetics, Judaism, Israel, Zionism, etc. But this particular combination of three subjects is absolutely an attempt to shoehorn a thesis that these three subjects are somehow able to combine to form a legitimate research program. The very sources y'all are trying to cite say nothing about that, and this one doesn't either. jps (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above dismissing the SIGCOV was made within 1 minute of being shown the sources. You are expected to try to read them before commenting on them. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You think I didn't go through the sources at your article already? You think this is the first I'm seeing your list? Please, don't flatter yourself in thinking that because you've looked at timestamps you are somehow clever. I've done my due diligence. You have not. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you didn't go through the sources, and you are fudging. One fundamental text on this in the bibliography, on its own, runs to 416 pages. It took me 3 days to read that closely, some years ago. So no, you have not read the sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. You can look at the books and the chapters and even do a quick search through those texts that are scanned for relevant sections. If we want to write an entire article on a subject, it should be absolutely apparent at a glance that there is something there. There isn't. You have to strain to come up with a quote that combines all three subjects at once. They just aren't in those books in a serious fashion. If they were, they'd be obvious and easy to point to. jps (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani and ජපස: Can you try to talk about the notability of the article rather than whether the other person is "thinking you are somehow clever" or "fudging" or whatever? jp×g 07:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I don't want to personalize this, yes. One thing, it's not really a question of notability to me because the topic is so pregnant that I think one can argue in good faith that lots of scholars are talking about all three in a variety of sources. The real question is whether a distillation in this fashion is something that doesn't run afoul of WP:NOR. If others had done this distillation before, it wouldn't be a question. I guess I just don't think every AfD has to boil down to a question of notability even though I know that this tends to be the way the winds blow these days. jps (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Form a research programme? Huh? What do you mean? The only aim here is to produce a page on a pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources. That the page title contains three words that you perceive as three separate subjects is incidental. There was already a discussion raised about whether the title was apt; one that you could have participated in. There are several ways on which the article could probably be phrased as just two things, if that is your peccadillo. It could just as equally have been named 'Zionism and race science' or 'Zionism and racial politics'. These would both have been dualistic titles for much the same material already presented. That the title as it stands uses three terms is by-the-by, and if that is your only complaint then it is a naming issue, not a notability one. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pre-existing subject covered in numerous sources No one has demonstrated that the subject as stated in the title of the article exists! It is bizarre that you think it does. As I stated above, compound topics themselves are fraught. The ones you are describing are somewhat less problematic than the identified synthetic subject of this article, but I have a hard time imagining any of them being legitimate research topics either. BLANK and BLANK typically are not the kind of things Wikipedia hosts because they are necessarily syntheses of two topics. Only when that synthesis is recognized as a synthesis do we host articles on the subject. I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. Zionism and "race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. jps (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sources which identify these two topics (e.g. Zionism and "race science" (shudder)) as topics that are studied as a pair. The third source posted by Onceinawhile above, a 30-year-old book published by Yale University Press, says at page 11: In Chapter 6, I investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people.... Levivich (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is there! However, I see no discussion of genetics in the chapter. As I intimated, an article on Zionism and race science is a bit more defensible. This is not this article. jps (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falk's 2017 book, published by Springer, is the 4th source on Once's list. It says, at page 3, the introduction: Correspondingly, as the conflict of the Zionist State with the Arab world intensified, so did the wish to prove "scientifically," by biological-genetic means, the immanent physical, historic connection of the Jewish people to Zion. Genetics, it was hoped, would uphold not only the historical evidence, but would also provide biological evidence that the dispersed Jewish ethnic groups (eidoth) of today are indeed one people whose roots trace back to Eretz-Israel.) This book from 5 years ago cites and discusses at length the other book I quoted above from 30 years ago.
If you think Zionism and race/genetics is not a topic covered by these books, I don't know what to tell you, other than to ask if you've actually looked at them or not. It's taken me minutes to find these quotes just by searching in Google books for "Zionism", "race science," "genetics", etc. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where is the "race" in that quote? Race/genetics is itself a fraught compound topic. It's not dealt with in a serious fashion in that text that I can see. jps (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's at the bottom of the same page, page 3: Jews were considered to be a different "race" -- a socio-cultural invention of a presumed "biological entity" ... If you are arguing that this book does not discuss Zionism, race, and genetics, then you clearly have not read or even searched it for those keywords. FFS, the title of the book is Zionism and the Biology of Jews, and you contend that this book does not discuss Zionism, race, and genetics. Rather unbelievable. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that these three large topics are not being connected as a coherent whole. I am arguing that the three topics are arbitrarily chosen as connected to create a WP:SYNTH article even as absolutely none of the scholars cited mention a topic like this. We're not just talking "synonyms" here. We're talking taking specific threads in rather large and considered academic works and then jamming them into what is supposed to be a tertiary source. I'm sure this piece could be a great college paper topic. But as an encyclopedia entry? There is no there there for a subject called "Zionism, race and genetics". C'mon. Content worth rescuing can and should be shunted off to articles that need improving. If one of them gets unwieldy, I'm sure some less triply compound articles can be spun out. jps (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These topics are connected as a coherent whole on page 3 of the book called Zionism and the Biology of Jews, which I quoted above, where the author says some Zionists hoped genetics would prove that Jews were a race, and in other sources cited on this page. It's pretty ridiculous to accuse Onceinawhile of combining these topics, as if the sources don't discuss them together, especially in the face of quotes from sources directly on the subject, using the exact same verbiage, entire monographs about this. Levivich (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not understanding my point. But no matter. I'll just say that Zionism and the Biology of Jews looks to be a source that can be used to support many articles, but to me its existence does not demonstrate that there is a broader research project out there looking at Zionism, race and genetics in a distilled fashion. jps (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are already articles on Jewish Peoplehood and Genetic Studies on Jews Drsmoo (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to deal with the racial politics surrounding Zionism, a good place to start would be to work on Anti-Zionism#Allegations_of_racism. You could use the sources here. You could help improve that space. Maybe it would expand greatly. Then you could then spin-out an article from that section. That's not what is going on here. jps (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How have you got this so turned around that you think the subject has anything to do with anti-Zionism? This is about Zionism and the politics of race. If you think 'race science' is too racey, try: Zionism, race, and eugenics and Zionist eugenics, mixed marriage, and the creation of a ‘new Jewish type’ - also related articles that are sitting out there in plain view, hosted by scholarly publishers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I am turned around here, it's because the only place I see discussion of racism in relation to top-level discussions of Zionism is on the Anti-Zionism page. That's Wikipedia's fault, not mine. If it is more properly commentary on Zionism -- there ought to be a section in that article. jps (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The science or politics of race aren't equivalent to racism; they are topic areas where the theories and the polemics often just treads a very fine line nearby. And a relevant subsection on Zionism linking to this child article had already been created before this AfD. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the main article of that section Zionist ethnic unity or something of that nature? jps (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
science or politics of race aren't equivalent to racism this is true in a literal sense, but it is also the case that the science and politics of race essentially only exist because of the observed effects of racism. If racism did not exist, there would be no "science or politics of race". jps (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This morning I created a list of egregious issues with this article Talk:Zionism, race and genetics/Archive 2#List of Egregious article issues
The article is a collection of cherry picked sources WP:SYNTHd together to push a POV narrative. It disparages the work of prominent researchers by claiming they have a “Zionist agenda”, which appears to be the insinuated thesis of the article. It completely ignores findings of mainstream research and only highlights research that pushes a non-mainstream POV of disputing Jewish genetic studies. Drsmoo (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like the proposer, Drsmoo is evidently unfamiliar with the topic and the sources, which would take a sedulous reader at least a week of concentrated study to master, and they merely are the iceberg's tip. Any familiarity with the inception of Zionism, its primary and the multitude of secondary sources, will tell anyone that, predictably, since it was embedded in universal Western cultural discourse that classified people by races, Zionism's fundamental proponents from the outset were deeply concerned with race. They were no different in this than liberal thinkers of that period.

At the outset of his Zionist activity, in July of 1895, Herzl met with the celebrated writer Max Nordau, who was to become Herzl’s most stalwart ally. Herzl noted in his diary that the two men agreed that Jewishness had “nothing to do with religion” but that “we are of the same race.” What they meant by race was vague, and could, as was common at the time, have been a way of describing what would later be called ethnicity. The conflation of ethnic and racialist discourse characterizes another diary en try, from 21 November 1895, in which Herzl describes Israel Zangwill as of a “longnosed, Negroid type, with very woolly deep black hair.” Despite this racialized description, Herzl posits that it was Zangwill, not himself, who defined peoples by racial criteria, a view that, Herzl writes, “I cannot accept if I so much look at him and at myself. … We are an historical unit, a nation with anthropological diversities. This also suffices for the Jewish State. No nation has uniformity of race.Derek Penslar,'Theodor Herzl, Race, and Empire,' 2020 p.196.

So, Zionism and race, since it has been a serious topic esp. in the last 2 decades, is a natural topic for wikipedia. Since genetics, in some hands, now constitutes a relatively new 'scientific' redemption of the theory's assumptions, it is clearly part of the topic. The tripartite rubbish is just that. One could simply elide 'and genetics' and nothing would change, except the title on a legitimate topic covering modern research, would not flag the fact that a major section of the article would paraphrase a large body of genetic papers since the 1990s which aspire to establish a genetic proof for Zionism's central thesis. So the objection is ill-informed about the topic, and disingenuously quibbling over the length of the title.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As kind of a point number one, the people who write an article have a duty to get the subject right. If you think removing genetics will make the article work, then move the article to the new title, reframe it, and show your work. jps (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that at all. It was the obvious proposal someone uneasy at the three words could have suggested to overcome your dislike of tripartite titles. This is pointless niggling.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think we're looking at WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Which is pretty close to a first for me. jps (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are you editors actually reading these sources? They all talk about Zionism and race/genetics. I'm not commenting on the title or the content of the article, but the topic is an obviously notable topic that has received significant coverage in academic works, such as those posted by Once and Self above. It's a perfectly valid spinoff of Zionism. Levivich (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally spin-offs are done by improving the parent article first. Not always, but I also do not see the relevant work done to summarize the ostensible subject of this article elsewhere in a coherent fashion. I do see some edit wars over links, but that is it. jps (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a spin-off? I've collected very substantial files, articles and books touching on this for a decade, since Bloom's monograph appeared, because is a recurrent theme in my reading in this area. It's not a topic one can jump into after a few arbitrary scraps attracting one's attention when googling with a POV mission to 'hit', say, Israel. That, a natural concern to handle a touchy topic by first of all thoroughly reading up on it sometimes over a decade without intemperate haste, and laziness/so many other interests, are the only reasons why I hadn't yet written an article on this topic wikipedia ignores. But now a sketch of one is up, I commend the main editor and, though it needs considerable thickening and development, am amazed that merely the title itself can stir up deletionist fervour. As Levivich states with great integrity, sources on the intertwining of these three elements are abundant and there is no evidence so far objections reflect a careful reading of the small sample of sources so far noted in the bibliography.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a spin-off? A spin-off of what article exactly? :3 F4U (they/it) 02:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a spin-off. Levivich says it is, however. jps (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From Zionism? nableezy - 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I gathered from what is written. There is a ((main)) template in a section of Zionism used that seems to pay at least a courtesy homage to such an idea. But, as I mentioned above, I would have guessed that a different article subject would have been the main article for that section. jps (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, thanks. But the point being made is not about whether a topic exists, but rather whether this topic is a single topic that can be dealt with encyclopaedically, or whether it is a synthesis of more than one topic - and more to the point, whether this new article, as it is construed, will inevitably continue to be a synthesis unless more carefully envisaged. So looking at the bibliography provided by Onceinawhile above, there are five sources above. Yet these five sources are not on the same thing, and therein lies the problem. Whilst Burton (2021) is talking about human heredity as science, of which Jewish genetics is a part, other sources are looking at different issues. Efron (2021) looks at the historic response to 19th century scientising of anti Jewish prejudice and includes material on the appropriation of race science by Zionists. Focussing on this aspect of that book takes us from science to pseudoscience, and then we have Falk (2017) who looks at the zionist hope, that "regrouping as a nation in their homeland would have profound eugenic consequences, primarily halting the degeneration they fell prey to because of the conditions imposed on them in the past." That work is a discussion of zionist eugenics, as is the discussion in Hirsch (2009), self evidently just from the title. Now it seems to me that yes, there is definitely a subject of Zionist eugenics, of which genetics would merely be a sub-section of the discussion. There is also a subject of Jewish genetics, a scientific subject that is properly treated elsewhere. The problem with this article is that it purports to be both, as demonstrated by the source selection, and by the title. It conflates race (socially constructed) with genetics (a subject of scientific study), along with a strand of zionist thought on eugenics. The result bakes in synthesis. It is for this reason I think this article clearly needs deletion. This view is without prejudice against the creation of properly focussed articles on either the science or the pseudoscience - but not both. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-siècle Europe" by John Efron, professor of Jewish History (1994). "Zionist race science" == "Zionism, race, and genetics", because "race science" == "race and genetics". This book was written 30 years ago, and it has entire chapters about Zionism and race science. This book was reprinted last year (2022), and has been cited almost 500 times. From page 11: In chapter 6, I investigate the link between science and the politics of Zionism. Zionist physicians used the language of race science to define the Jewish people...
  2. "Zionist Eugenics, Mixed Marriage, and the Creation of a 'New Jewish Type'" (2009) in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, first sentence of the abstract: The application of racial categories to the Jews by Zionist physicians and anthropologists in the first half of the twentieth century has been the focus of several recent studies. That was 14 years ago. "Zionist eugenics" == "Zionism, race, and genetics" because "eugenics" == "race and genetics".
  3. "Zionism and the Biology of Jews" (Raphael Falk (geneticist), 2017) == "Zionism, race, and genetics". It's written by a geneticist! The whole f'ing book is about Zionism, genetics, and race. The whole book! "Biology of Jews" == "race and genetics"
  4. "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew" (2017) (a section in Jew by Cynthia Baker, whose "research explores ideas about gender, race/ethnicity, and nationalism in the formative periods of Judaism") From page 99, the beginning of the "Zionism's New Jew" section: Zionism’s new Jew was formed at the intersection of nineteenth and early twentieth-century race science/eugenics with romanticized, racialized, ethnic nationalisms. "race science/eugenics" = "race and genetics". This entire section is about this. FFS, "The Birth of the Genomic Jew", is in the title. "Genomic Jew" = "race and genetics".
I'll say it again: anyone who claims this topic is not the subject of scholarly study is lying. There isn't a "good faith" explanation. It's not a content dispute. Just concede that this is a topic of scholarly study. If you want to argue some other reason for deletion -- POVFORK, TNT, whatever -- go ahead, but don't misrepresent the sources by suggesting they are not about Zionism, race, and genetics, as a single cohesive topic, discussed by many academic sources, for decades. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And conflates race (socially constructed) with genetics (a subject of scientific study) ... that's what eugenics is, it's a type of race science aka scientific racism. That's why these sources use those terms: Zionist eugenics, Zionist race science, Zionist scientific racism are all possible titles, as is Zionism, race, and genetics. But it's the same topic, it's about the intersection of scientific racism and Zionism, or, as the lead of the article says, various people have tried to use race pseudoscience (which includes genetic pseudoscience) to argue for or against Zionism. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This deserves a longer reply than I can give right now, but I note again that I am not saying there is no topic here, I am saying that the topic that is here is not encapsulated in the framing, which is sloppy and bakes in contentious editing. On the sources, they are not all saying the same thing. (Burton, 2021), which you don't address there, is talking about the use of genetics from the early 20th century to construct national origin myths in the middle east as a whole. It is not talking about zionism in particular, although yes, that is covered. It also goes on to talk about genetics today, both how it is used for nationalistic purposes and more progressively. But the subject there is not just genetics in zionism, and the thesis is not so easily divorced from its context.
What of the other sources? Well if we agree with the equivalence you posit: "Zionist race science" == "Zionism, race, and genetics", and also "Zionist eugenics" == "Zionism, race, and genetics" then we have a==b==z. We have a subject. Equivalence is reflexive, so it follows that "Zionism, race, and genetics"=="Zionist eugenics". That is the subject you believe is covered here. That is also, I think, the primary subject that the page creator wishes to cover, and that is thus the best page title.
My problem with this is that I don't think that the terms are equivalent. You see, Falk (2017) argues that the very concept of the Jewish race is harmful and misleading, and he covers the history of the eugenics to dismiss it, but what he dismisses is still race and still genetics, and so what another editor will find is that Zionism, race and geentics is not neutral because it doesn't cover (makeyuppyname, 2024) whose genetic studies say this, and you get a bunch of primary sources being inserted like here Early European Farmers#Studies#Studies (that one less contentiously). You get calls for balance and understanding of both Falk and what Falk argues against, and, indeed, the latest research that approves or disproves Falk. What you get is synth, because I think "Zionism, race, and genetics" > "Zionist eugenics".
Thus a more careful framing is perfectly good. It is THIS framing that is wrongheaded. If the page were on Zionist eugenics or some other wording that entirely avoids WP:AND then the deletion reason goes away. As others have noted, perhaps an RM would have been better, but we are where we are. If the narrower framing is objected to, that shows where the synth is coming in. Hmm that is a longer reply than I intended. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it wasn't a notable topic. I said it was a synthetic one. Can you think of a better title? Maybe that would solve it (who am I to say?) But when I read the article it looks like it is doing the kind of rhetorical hoops you are jumping through as the subject. I think this is a misapprehension of how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. We look for big subjects and then narrow down. We don't present unique analyses worthy of term papers. It's a question of genre. jps (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is gobbledygook. The topic can be either notable or synthetic, not both. Notable means already covered in reliable sources; synthetic is the opposite. What are you saying? That the page or its title is synthetic? The page is a work in progress. It was only just begun. The title is a naming issue. And title's are actually allowed to be created out of nowhere by editors if the shoe fits. That's what a descriptive title often is. A subject can be clear, but there can equally be no common name for it out there in the literature. Here, the titular naming is distinctly varied, even where the contents come around to the same subjects. What I personally think might be the most on the mark topic is 'Zionism and the politics of race', since this embraces both the aspect of politicization of race and encompasses the later genetic science that was dragged into the same political arena in the effort to ground the same substance. But again, you're not necessarily going to find existing sources by that title. It's just descriptive. So is that synthetic too? You can find chapters like "Race, Zionism, and the Quest for Jewish Authenticity" in books like Jews, Race, and the Politics of Difference, there is Israel, Palestine, and the Politics of Race, and an assessment of Zionism is also present in Michael Banton's The International Politics of Race , but again, there are no dead ringers to be found for such a prospective descriptive title. It just needs to be agreed upon. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Friend, we see things differently. "Notability" has become something of a catch-all at Wikipedia in ways that I do not appreciate. I see WP:SYNTH as part of WP:OR. There are original research topics that are notable, but cannot be included in Wikipedia because the sources don't (yet) exist that treat the topic as a coherent subject. What you say is "gobbledygook" I say is a fundamental way to judge article potential. Original research isn't bad. It just isn't for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the sources do. Read just the abstract of Falk's Zionism and the Biology of the Jews. You will find references to all the pertinent terms, "Zionism", "racial" (race) and "gene" (genetics), all there. In just the abstract. The term "biology" in the title is clearly used intentionally as a catch-all for all of the above. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that I see a difference between separate terms that are referenced and a coherent combination of terms. I get it. There are books that use three words or their derivatives. But do they argue these three words are connected as a subject? I don't see that. jps (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Nicosia has argued recently that secular and racial antisemitism generated a national-separatist Jewish response. And while civic emancipation and assimilation sapped Jewish religious identity, a more organic perception of nationhood began to crystallize. It incorporated ethnic and volkisch elements that were widespread in German nationalist circles These romantic elements, as demonstrated by George Mosse, strongly influenced nascent Zionist organizations throughout Germany. Since the early nineteenth century, the German concept of Volk had denoted a metaphys ical and eternal entity which was constituted of all the German people - a people with absolute values. It reflected the natural, wild, and emotional character of the people, while the family was regarded as its biological founda tion. The late nineteenth-century volkisch concepts were of neo-romantic mysticism and foregrounded the irrational forces of nature and genuine essence of the people, in contrast to the present, 'artificial' one. Among rising Jewish national groups this concept included the idea of a 'community of one's blood' as defined by Martin Buber, which helped to forge a Jewish national consciousness. Beyond the examination of the volkisch-cultural nature of early Zionism, several studies have considered the Jewish, and especially Zionist, discussion of race since the late nineteenth century. I might mention here the early research of Joachim Doron, Annegret Kiefer, and John Efron, while among recent studies the most relevant are those of Mitchell Hart, Todd Endelman, Raphael Falk, and Veronika Lipphardt. This work has exposed the 'scientific' racial aspects embedded in the emerging Jewish national ideology. Moreover, it contended that in particular Zionist scientists in Germany, and to some extent also in England, Russia, and the United States, employed the language of science and academic research in the fields of anthropology, biology, medicine and sociology in order to reaffirm the distinctiveness of the Jewish people.' Avraham 2017 p.473.

So the scandalized expostulations are totally misplaced. We don't censor here, we don't get our knickers in a twist over treatments of sensitive issues, screaming 'I don't wanna know!' Since scholars write of the historic nexus between 19-20th concepts of race and Zionist formulations (themselves often arising as a (misplaced) defense against antisemitists who denied Jews were a people), and this again inflects the rise of genetic endorsements of a Jewish identity, it is not only natural, but obligatory to carefully represent this debate on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the scandalized expostulations are totally misplaced. We don't censor here, we don't get our knickers in a twist over treatments of sensitive issues, screaming 'I don't wanna know! It would be better if you focussed on the actual arguments rather than the editors. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Suggest you read that through and strike the straw man and ad hominem lines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many policy flags are being waved here furiously? There is no argument just editors flaunting unfamiliarity with the topic as opposed to reliance on vague winks at a putative policy abuse outlined in guidelines. So we have WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, WP:HASTE, WP:AND, WP:TNT and WP:BATTLEGROUND etc. Such links are not arguments and if,Sirfurboy to advise others : 'It would be better if you focussed on the actual arguments' then try for once to do so yourself, rather than walking past things like the quote from Avraham above which contradicts all of the uninformed assertions from the deletionist camp.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BATTLEGROUND concern is that you characterise the three delete !votes above as "negationist editors... utterly unfamiliar with the sources...knee jerk reaction.... scandalised expostulations... knickers in a twist... screaming 'I don't wanna know!' when in fact none of that describes nor argues with the actual points raised. If anything it makes the point that the subject as formulated here creates "an arena for article-warfare." In engaging in battleground behaviour and transparently personal attacks, it seems to me you have reinforced the argument for this article's deletion, which you don't seem to have noticed is not ignorant of a clear body of literature that there is some subject here, but that the subject that is here is not the subject as formulated in this article.
As for your remarks about policy that has been cited: you may not participate in many deletion discussions but you have participated in enough that you ought to be aware that deletion reasons must be policy based, and that we don't just have a vote based on personal opinions. Thus citing WP:AND, for instance, which says: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. are exceptionally pertinent to the actual discussion. A title that focuses on one thing (e.g. Zionist eugenics) makes sense. A title that allows multiple issues to be conjoined, both scientific and pseudoscientific, is a recipe for... well, BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Don't you think? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. This reads a little bit to me like you leapfrogged over what I would consider to be necessary intermediary steps in this. Zionism as settler colonialism exists as an article and the sources seem straightforward. Zionism as racism does not. And yet, accusations that Zionism is racist abound in certain commentary (and, I'm sure, claims it is not racist/racialized are easily discovered as well). jps (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionism as racism" is about Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians. That has nothing to do with the topic of this article. If that needs making clear, we can add the word Jewish, so it becomes "Zionism and Jewish race and genetics". To my mind that is less elegant, but the title is much less important than the content. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you are talking about are arguments about ethnic markers (incidentally, there is an article that I think should exist[20]) within the context of Zionism that have parallels and antecedents in race science. While this is something that scholars have studied as demonstrated in your sources, I do not think we have strong indications from those sources that this is separate from the racism accusations involving Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians. In fact, it seems many of your sources argue there is a direct connection between these ideas. Why are you separating them? jps (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only connection with the Palestinians in this topic area is the historical beliefs amongst some early Zionists that Palestinians were also descended from ancient Israelites and thus the two peoples were "cousins", and modern day genetic science on Jewish origins which often compares Jewish genetic connections to those of Palestinians. But to your comments above, none of this has anything to do with "racism", which is primarily about discrimination and thus an entirely separate subject. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Racism is the primary if not the only motivation for the social construction of race. jps (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: that is not the case here, and it is not what the sources say. Zionism was founded as a positive ideology to lift Jews out of the oppression they faced in 19th century Europe, and the concepts of race (and later genetics) were used to bind them together and justify the ideology of a “return” to another land. It is this latter topic that this article is focused on.
Remember, Jews were not the original constructors of the concept of the Jewish race. The “Jewish race”, and almost all other races constructed in early modern European race science, were constructed with exactly the motivation you describe – racism against Jews and other “non-white” races.
The topic of this article, as the sources go through in detail, is about how Zionism took this theory, turned it on its head, and used it to justify that original wider ideology. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good news - some solid evidence to confirm the above: Mark H. Gelber, p.126 (full cite in article): It is fair to say that a racialist orientation was fundamental to German Cultural Zionism… In this context, it is essential to distinguish carefully between "racialism" and "racism." Invariably, German Cultural Zionism presented a view of racial difference and uniqueness within the framework of the equality of races and the common dignity of all humans to develop their own potentialities within racial groupings. Racialist formulations which tended toward racism and claims of racial superiority of one race over others were avoided as a rule within Cultural Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why the article is WP:SYNTH, first comes the opinion, and then search for keywords in Google scholar to try to support it (Good news!)(like applying a section about “German Cultural Zionism” to the entire movement) then slop it into the article; rinse, repeat.
After finding your keyword in Google Scholar, loudly accuse those criticizing the article of not having read every word in all the sources. Drsmoo (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the content not the contributor. I would be happy to share how I find sources with anyone who asks. The imaginative characterization above is inappropriate (“slop”, “rinse, repeat”, “loudly accuse” etc). Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by user now topic-banned and resulting discussion
  • Delete, the sooner the better. This piece is the latest among a series of articles trying to delegitimize Israel, Zionism and undermine the connection of Jews to the Land of Israel, from the same author that brought us Mixed cities (DYK: .. that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing?) that for some reason discusses the phenomena in Israel only; Shrine of Husayn's Head (DYK: ... that the demolition of the Shrine of Husayn's Head (pictured), probably the most important Shi'a Muslim shrine in Israel, may have been related to efforts to transfer Palestinians out of the country?); and Ancient text corpora: (DYK: ... that all known writing in Ancient Hebrew totals just 300,000 words, versus 10 million in Akkadian (pictured), 6 million in Ancient Egyptian and 3 million in Sumerian?). I'd never want to cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors, but it is quite difficult to dismiss this as a coincidence. Just check out the DYK recommended for the article we're currently discussing: "... that the genetic origin of modern Jews is considered important within Zionism, as it seeks to provide a historical basis for the belief that descendants of biblical Jews have "returned"?" And while the article states that "The application of the Biblical concepts of Jews as the chosen people and "Promised Land" in Zionism requires the belief that modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites", it overlooks the fact that DNA research have shown that Jews from the majority of ethnic groups worldwide have a Middle Eastern ancestry derived from the Ancient Near East. It's also crucial to note that the idea of race in early Zionist thought was somewhat different. For instance, Ben Gurion acknowledged that Jews were not racially "pure" (i.e. modern Jews mainly descend from Israelites and ancient Jews, but have mixed with others to some extent throughout history) but continued to refer to the Jewish people and the fellahin of Palestine (later known as Palestinian villagers) as "races" (which, in his perspective, were related biologically and historically, with the fellahin maybe deriving from the ancient Jews as well). To sum up, this piece is a POV-Fork of Genetic studies on Jews that got its start after an edit by the author of this article on Zionism was reverted for utilizing a dubious source that referred to Zionism as colonialism without offering alternative viewpoints. It relies on WP:SYNTH and cherry-picked sources and quotes to construct an essay, not an article, that makes a connection between three topics that haven't been discussed extensively together in scholarship, seemingly in order to persuade readers that either Zionism is a racist ideology, or, that contemporary Jews have nothing to do with ancient Israel. Aside from the obvious synthesis and maybe also activist point-scoring (see WP:ACTIVISM#Basic ways to spot activists and then "Addition of well-sourced but biased material"), as well as the anti-Zionist view prevalent therein, it is starting to read lot like an antisemitic trope. The more articles like this are created, the more Wikipedia's credibility declines, and even worse: the sentiments portrayed in this article and similar ones, as well as the massive truth-bending, may actually inspire antisemitic hate speech, if not violence. It's our responsibility to put a stop to this phenomenon. We can start with deleting this piece. Tombah (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have violations of WP:NPA grounding an attack on Onceinawhile (who was overwhelmingly responsible for writing the Balfour Declaration and achieving its FA status). The above screed (with its exhausting refrain of something which, on numerous wiki pages, Tombah insists is the 'truth' .all jews descend from Isreaelites living 3000 years ago) is clearly targeting Onceinawhile and his bona fides. He is apparently an 'activist' (of course Tombah isn't. He has the truth in his pocket) who is using this article to 'delegitimize Israel'. In this discursive field, we all know, 'delegitimizing Israel' is coded language for antisemitism. Well done. This is just the handiwork of an antisemite working under cover. I don't know how editors can get away with these foul insinuations.
Since there is so much confusion here, I'll undertake to review and rewrite the article, expanding it substantially, referring each and every sentence in the resultant article, to a relevant reliable source on the topic of Zionism, race and genetics. Since it means making an orderly précis of some 2,500 pages (so far) it may take me a week. Then by all means, take the usual hammers at it, but they'd better be well-argued and not merely unfocused policy redflag waving.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed that all Jews descend from the Israelites. However, the majority of Jews do have lineage that can be traced to the Ancient Near East, with varying amounts of admixture (for AJs genetic studies show mixed Near Eastern and European ancestry); this is the general consensus in current research (which you still deny). And I don't think the questions I just raised violate WP:PNA; in fact, I think Onceinawhile is a competent and talented editor, and I didn't mean to belittle him. On the other side, you my friend, are already well known for personally attacking other editors, especially those who disagree with you, labelling them as "incompetent" and sometimes influenced by "Zionist education", always claiming that "their knowledge of the subject is limited" and disparaging their work (your most recent insult, I believe, was that my work was "a pastiche"). Tombah (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you kindly stop beating that drum meme everywhere on wikipedia. Numerous editors have told you, with a mass of critical literature showing the fallacy of that traditional assumption and its use in Zionist ideology, and you talk right past them. This is not about ancient Israel. This is about the way 19th century race theories (which were hostile to Jews) were in turn reformulated among Zionists to fashion a counter-argument against antisemitic intolerance by claiming Jews were not, as Reform Judaism held, a religion but the expression of a nation/race, and this fed into core modern examinations of Jewish origins in the later 20th century turn to genetics. We are not dealing with 'truths', but with the modern genealogy of an idea about that ancient belief. Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the article has a track record of producing Wikipedia pages backed by scholarly sourcing, none of which have been deleted, and that is somehow an argument for deletion? I must be missing something. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I don't think that it is a good idea to write articles to try to win talkpage debates. I guess there aren't any rules against it, per se, but it strikes me as a kind of motivation that can lead to less-than-ideal editorial practices. jps (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of a glass half full perspective. The alternative description is that a talk page discussion highlighted a topic whose coverage on Wikipedia represented a glaring omission. That's actually how the community is supposed to work. Editors discuss things and expand the encyclopedia to fill gaps. That's productive and constructive. If you had simply joined the page to brainstorm the name and scope, instead of launching this AfD, all of this community time spent on this discussion could have been spent actually making sense of the sources in a meaningful manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I don't think we should have a rule against this motivation because, hey, people can get good inspiration from anywhere. But I still think there are major dangers and easy-to-fall-into traps when taking this kind of approach. jps (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good grief. 'cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers.' Have you examined the 'ethnicity' of most of the writers of these sources? Check it out. I have had to, now that you have raised this insidious NPA insinuation.They would appear to be overwhelming of Jewish background and therefore you are saying, Onceinawhile deviously cites Jewish researchers to attack Jewish researchers. Bejaysus. That's a new one.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The religion of the writers is not relevant to me, I’m not sure why it’s relevant to you. To repeat, since you manipulated what I wrote (similar to this article ironically)
“The scope of this article is an attempt to synth together cherrypicked sources that attack Jewish researchers (the original version of the article SYNTH’d the neologism “Jewish Scientific Racism”, which was not in any source)”
For example, taking a quote from an article discussing the Jewish priestly gene, and misrepresenting the source to claim “the leading scientists into Jewish genetic roots, including the "priestly gene", have openly Zionist agendas.” which is not in the source. There is also taking statements explicitly describing studies from 70 years ago as if they were describing the modern field. The entire article is like that: cherry picked sources summarized incorrectly and synthd together to push a POV. Drsmoo (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, yall can not like this topic as much as you want to, but since it is manifestly reliably sourced material sourced to the best quality academic sources, its either going to be covered in a child article of Zionism or all of this material is going to be in the parent article. Not liking what the sources say has never been a valid argument for exclusion of content. Sorry. nableezy - 13:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? There is barely lick of information about the interaction between genetics and political ideology at Genetic studies on Jews ... what are you reading? Zionism is not mentioned once in the body, only in the notes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More broadly, proper coverage of this topic will benefit the integrity of our encyclopedia as a whole, since poor editorial understanding of this specific area continues to undermine important areas across a number of vital articles. See for example the high traffic articles Israelites, Jews and Who is a Jew?, all of which state in Wikipedia's voice that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. That might be true, and it is widely believed in popular consciousness, but it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars and makes our project look crude and unsophisticated. In my experience, the best way to minimize edit wars on contentious topics in the long term is to go a level deeper, to a more specific article topic, and build consensus around the scholarly underpinnings to a subject. A bit of effort from everyone now to build a perfectly neutral and well-sourced assessment of the topic (the article is just four days old), will improve editorial understanding and reduce disagreements much more widely across the project. Anyone who thinks deleting an article on such a foundational subject like this will stop edit wars (per AndyTheGrump’s comment) is holding the wrong end of the stick.
Just to show the consistency of my position on this, when this article was first created, another editor immediately created Origin of the Palestinians as a stated "response”.[21] Whilst tit-for-tat doesn’t make our project look good, I think both articles are important; I was the editor who removed the deletion prod notice on that new article. For exactly the same reason: a well-developed article covering a foundational subject in more detail will bring wider benefits to the topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all of which state in Wikipedia's voice that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites. That might be true, and it is widely believed in popular consciousness, but it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars and makes our project look crude and unsophisticated. This reads a bit cryptic to me and, I hope you know, this kind of statement has in the past been something that has fed directly into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as British Israelism, for example. Can you perhaps expand or clarify what you mean by this? jps (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but I do not understand your comment – please be more specific on what you do not agree with? Perhaps bring this to the article talk page if you want to dive deeper into the content debate – I doubt this line of discussion is going to help resolve the AfD. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with article content per se. I'm confused if you don't think it will help resolve the AfD why you made the statement in the first place. Here is what I read, and forgive me if you think that's not what you intended, that modern Jews are descended from ancient Israelites... is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars. jps (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understood it was, that while it might be commonly assumed that modern Jews do indeed "descend" from the ancient Israelites (or, more precisely, from the Judaeans) due to the obvious cultural and religious similarities of these societies, still there is a lack of enough genetic, geneological (I don't know if anyone has produced an authenticated family tree for example) or documentary (land deeds or other records) evidence that can be used by scholars to prove this connection beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Jews admittedly have a stronger claim than most to be the descendants of the Children of Israel, there are nevertheless other claimants, as you have alluded to. And some of these claimants are surely depending on similar flimsy genetic legacy ties (see the Pashtun theory for example). Havradim leaf a message 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder at the statement some of these claimants are surely depending on similar flimsy genetic legacy ties. What makes a genetic legacy tie not flimsy? A critique of all genetic legacy ties would require a new definition of "descend" -- in which case, fair. But I'm a little perplexed by use of the term "proof" as though the context of this discussion is a courtroom or something. I guess the question is simple: Are we really to believe that the "mainstream view amongst scholars" that "Jews descended from ancient Israelites" is doubted? Even ideas such as the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry or Shlomo Sand's appear to me to be at most minority views if not completely WP:FRINGE. Also, the existence of other claimants of descent from ancient Israelites are only relevant inasmuch as these claimants have played a zero-sum game with respect to the question (e.g. British Israelism). The Pashtuns may or may not descend from ancient Israelites, but their claim of such is not predicated on Jewish descent being incorrect. The question is not "who are all the people descended from the ancient Israelites?". The question is "are the Jews descended from the ancient Israelites?" jps (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question who are all the people descended from the ancient Israelites becomes an important one based on the premise of this article, and illustrates well why it should be kept. Because if the Zionist claim is based partly or mostly on genetics, then what is stopping any other group with a similar genetic argument to lay claim to lands they feel a connection with? What prevents an Englishman (or most of Britain?) who professes "Norman heritage" to lay claim to the northwest part of France and claim it for Britain? ... are the Jews descended from the ancient Israelites? The vast majority probably are, as are many of the Palestinians, but the question this article seeks to analyse is, how much of this descent idea was used to justify a Jewish nationalistic movement. Havradim leaf a message 03:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the focus of your last paragraph may have relevance to bear on article text, my concerns were over specific points made in this discussion. What do the discussants contend is "mainstream view among scholars" over the contention "Jews descended from the ancient Israelites"? You seem to be answering that the "vast majority probably are". But then what am I to make of the line that "it is certainly not the mainstream view amongst scholars"? jps (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is between popular supposition and scholarly writ - the former requiring no substantiation and the latter being held to an altogether higher bar. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one (and now there are three different users responding to me in this discussion) has yet answered my straightforward question. What do you contend the "mainstream view among scholars" is over the contention "Jews descended from the ancient Israelites"? jps (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: the mainstream scholarly view is “we do not know”. Regarding the various alternate hypotheses which you rightly mention have not been accepted, they were not accepted because the evidence for them was not strong enough, not because there is another compelling theory of which science is close-to-certain on.
The sources and quotes in the article will show you that. A good example, which I now realize I have not yet added, is Fishberg, 1911, p.474, discussing two of the leading early Zionists - Max Nordau, Herzl’s cofounder, and Israel Zangwill, who left the ZO on becoming aware of the existance of the Palestinian population: "Meanwhile, it is important to inquire in detail into the fundamental problems of Zionism. The question of race has already been discussed, and we arrived at the conclusion that the alleged purity of the Jewish race is visionary and not substantiated by scientific observation. [Footnote: Max Nordau, an avowed disciple of Lombroso, knows that anthropological research has dissipated the notion of Jewish racial purity, but he places more confidence in the acute powers of observation of the street loafer who recognizes a Jew by his nose. "To be sure, the street loafer's diagnosis is not infallible, still it fails him only rarely. But then the scientific diagnosis is not always reliable. The acute eye of the street loafer," concludes Nordau, " is sufficient proof that the Jews are a race, or at least a variety, or, if you please, a sub-variety of mankind." (Le Siècle, 1899; Zionistische Schriften, p. 305). Zangwill asks, "Whoever heard of a religion that was limited to people of particular breed? Of divine truth that was only true for men of dark complexion?" (Jewish Chronicle, June 18th, 1909).]" The debate has evolved (into genetics) over the last century, but the same uncertainty remains.
As Havradim wrote elegantly above, this side conversation is a perfect illustration of the importance of this article. Science simply doesn’t know either way whether modern Jews are the primary descendants of the Israelites – Wikipedia must be neutral and factual on the question, whilst recognizing that it is a belief held by a large number of people, who are entitled to that belief.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO you mean that Israel's former leading geneticist and historian of genetics, Raphael Falk, whose work Israeli scholarship took up and developed vigorously over the last 2 decades in an abundance of academic studies, and which the page follows carefully, got it all wrong, and the judgement he expressed here, simply by being paraphrased, in a violation of WP:Synth?Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote per the statement provided by Nishidani I still think the article isn't necessari ly reflecting the body of work in its best light but we don't delete notable subjects that can be improved. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that willingness to reconsider on the evidence and arguments as they evolve here. Your last concern is shared by several editors, and is reasonable. The problem was and is, that the AfD was initiated far too quickly, before the outline/stub had scarcely got on its feet, within a few days. There was no time for the improvements, and the considerable expansion, the article requires. What one sees now is nothing like what the article will be if it survives deletion and editors are allowed - the more eyes the better - an opportunity to make adjustments and exploit to the full the dozens of strong secondary sources that discuss this topic.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I forgot to say that I added back the removed IP ivote, the striking out of it, and follow-up comments. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah! I myself noticed how, astonishingly, it's goingunder the world's radar that places like Yale University, Stanford University, Princeton University, Cambridge University, the University of Chicago, MIT, Oxford University and Rutgers not to speak of leading European publishers of academic scholarshiop such as Berghahn Books, Springer and Mohr Siebeck are getting away with sheer murder by churning out antisemitic monographs full of 'bogus and nasty pseudoscholarship' by tenured Jewish academics. Must be something connected with the Protocols of Zion, uh? Perhaps there's meat here for some article in Israel Hayom or Arutz Sheva to bring to public awareness the conspiracy afoot in the world's most prestigious ivory towers? Nishidani (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those crazy kids! As they say, career professors will be career professors. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a career professor who had tenure before I retired. And I don't much appreciate the badgering. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this, so I'll give you a serious answer. Your delete statement contrasts 'bogus scholarship' promoting antisemitism to legitimate scholarship rebutting antisemitism, and says the synth lies is mixing up the two with Zionism. A mere fragment of the very complex historical picture was sketched in an article no one has accused of synth or using bogus scholarship while examining the nexus. See here. That is just one small temporal focus on the historical theme which, with a much broader scholarship, is addressed in the article. The aut/aut judgment, (either something is philosemitic or antisemitic - and it is a logical contradiction in terms for a Zionist to engage in virulent racial attacks on 'the inner enemy' of Jews who diagree with the movement) above appears to ignore that complexity Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize and accept that the adoption of views that some would characterize as antisemitic has occurred by some proponents of Zionism, a documented fact that introduces a significant complexity into the issues discussed in this AfD. But there is also the use of race and genetics in pseudoscientific discourse for the purpose of promoting antisemitic and anti-Zionist agendas. And my reading of the page (at the time that I made my delete statement) indicated that the latter is part of what the page is about. On the other hand, the page is also about what I described as legitimate scholarship that looks into race and genetics as a way of supporting Zionism and rebutting antisemitism. I've seen an awful lot of text on this AfD page, but I have not seen (or at least have not been successful at picking it out of all the verbiage) a clear explanation of how secondary sources have treated the pseudoscientific discourse and the legitimate scholarship as being a single topic, as opposed to being two topics that editors have brought together by SYNTH. And it offends me that your (apparently unserious) reply to me sarcastically cited what I was trying to describe as legitimate scholarship as though I had said that it was the pseudoscientific antisemitism. It should be obvious that I'm not calling tenured Jewish academics at serious institutions antisemites, and to caricature my good-faith comment as some sort of laughable conspiracy theory a la the Protocols of Zion makes me uninterested in taking such a reply seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My flippant remark first remark, I now see, was taken as being personally offensive, and even if that was not my intention, I apologize for giving that impression. And I thank you for the courtesy of replying to my clarification. This is necessary also because my surprise at your initial remark owes much to the fact that I have a certain (small but sticking in memory) familiarity with your record and have respected the quality of your judgment. The AfD doesn't give, even in rebuttals, readers any close notion of what the academic literature is doing in this field. Those absorbed in these historical reconstructive studies are reduced to rebutting fairly short statements by eliciting snippets from an extensive body of serious work, and a page stopped in its tracks while making its first steps out of the cradle/stub gives editors who check it no idea of the topic's range as covered by legitimate scholarship which, precisely has taken up recently a neglected and difficult area of Zionist history - what is called variously the 'rancorous internal dialogue' (Sokolff and Glenn 2011 p.3.) or 'attacks on the internal enemy', much of its mirroring the old antisemitic stereotypes, which were long conducted among various factions in the Jewish communities. So I thought the distinction you drew odd. Antisemitism is always pseudoscientific by definition, and has had a vast literature devoted to it, which ignored however its subtle and insidious mirroring in defensive discourse by the primary victims of its xenophobia, Jews. The bibliography of 45 titles addresses, scientifically, the painful fact that such pseudoscience also inflected Zionist perceptions of who Jews were. When one of its most important figures, Ze'ev Jabotinsky states, '"A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German customs, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-facial type are Jewish." (Jabotinsky|1961|pp=37-49), he like nmumerous other Zionists used 'mutatis mutandis' the standard race tropes of antisemites, only, and understandably in context, turning the negative connotations on their head. It is this considerable and overlooked paradox that Jewish and diaspora scholarship is now putting under the microscope, and what the article aspires to introduce to those unfamiliar with the cusp of this modern scholarship, which studies the heritage of this discourse from 1895 down to its variations in genetic identity debates in recent times. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a large part of the nigh 2500 pages of material in the bibliography and the distinction proposed, while obvious - 'race' is sheer and pernicious nonsense - turns out to be rather complex. Race was thought scientific, and Zionists, like everyone else at the turn of the 19th-20th-centuries, worked out much of their thinking in terms of 'race' in all of its fluid conceptualizations. While that 'racial' concept, esp. after 1946, died on its feet, there remained, all of the sources allow, a pseudoscientific overhang in Zionism's conceptual baggage after 1948. And what the scholarship in the last decades has been concerned with are the implications and complications that arise when Zionism struggles to reformulate its contemporary thinking in terms of this racial residue in its foundational history within the ambit of the emergent science of molecular genetics. Genetics, in short, is a matter of pure science but, in this discursive context, is entangled in the ideological premises of Zionist identity debates. So there is an overlap, one that in the history of ideas concerns the social and historical forces that inflect all thought, science included. As I see it, the best way to handle this - an approach already in the literature, - is to write out the historical genealogy of the ideas with their pseudoscientific roots, from their origin, and show how this heritage from the past still exercises a notable force in contemporary identity thinking and genetics. That would come under the larger sphere of the history of ideas and the sociology of knowledge. Nishidani (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
be so kind as to sample the sources in the bibliography where these 'related' topics are obviously the 'subject of major treatment in RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already did, and you're wrong - which I why I'm for deletion. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these are vague claims. All of the bandied assertions about WP:Synth I have read above so far simply state 'this in my opinion'. Opinions are terrible things unless they are buttressed by grounded evidence and solid logic. Or perhaps no one reads Plato these days and I am an old fogey for expecting cogency of argument. Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're very up-to-date in reversing the burden of evidence. If this (and 'this' seems to be a shifting concept in the above discussion) was a major coherent topic there'd be major sources directly on it that would settle matters, rather than stuff that can be remixed, diced and stretched to fit this apparently polyvalent concept. The lack of verified text, even in the very lede, speaks volumes. Basically this attempt is not encyclopedic (tertiary summary) but a species of OR/SYNTH. Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So I am correct in my inference that you have not troubled yourself to glance at, to cite just one example, the works of Raphael Falk who wrote extensively on Zionism, race theories and the enduring impact of such ideas on work on the genetics of Jews down to recent times.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falk and his views is a good topic for an article (as we have). But lot of people write lots of stuff mentioning things which they say are connected (primary research iow). It would be possible to have a polynomial explosion of articles if every such conjunction got an article, even though there's a impressive stack of academic "RS" one could argue supports it: Aluminium and Alzheimers! Germans and torture! Pope and Shakespeare! Johnson and Shakespeare! Jonson and Shakespeare! Verdi and Shakespeare!). Wikipedia articles are summaries of accepted knowledge on encyclopedic topics. What is being proposed is just at the wrong level: too original and clever by half. Wikipedia is dumber. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For your benefit, Bob. The article is still a stub, but I assure you that the three topics are thoroughly discussed, together in an abundance of the sources listed. The outstanding historian of science and geneticist, R.Falk, wrote a whole book on the topic, which I don't expect editors to familiarize themselves with. But here is the gist of his argument.

‘All three ( Redcliffe Nathan Salaman, Shneor Zalman Bychowski and Fritz Shimon Bodenheimer) hoped to re-establish a Jewish entity within its ancient natural biological context in the name of universal human values. I suggest that this humanistic version of nationalism also allowed maintaining, especially among the practising Zionist writers, explicit racial and eugenic notions in spite of, and long after the inception of the ominous developments in Nazi Germany. These notions have persisted, though in a thinly disguised mode, in post-Second World War Israel. Above all, I suggest that the history of the relationship of Zionism and scientific biology, which has made an effort to single out Jews from non-Jews on the one hand, and to unite the distinct Jewish communities on the other hand, provides a problematic case of the utilisation of biological arguments as “evidence” for whatever social, economic, or political notion that has been put forward. During the hundred years since the establishment of political Zionism, the only logical and causative sequence that can be discerned is the one leading from the prejudices of the persons involved –Zionists and anti-Zionist alike-to whatever biological facts they choose to claim. And, in spite of the changing circumstances and contexts, the same old issues have been recycled again and again, where each side has utilised the evidence in its own way.Raphael Falk. Three Zionist Men of Science: Between Nature and Nurture, 2007 p.154.

All delete arguments are assuming either that this kind of material, in numerous books and articles, doesn't exist, or that, even if the above statement combines all three topics, it shouldn't be written up on wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that either is a fair summary of my argument. jps (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor mine. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, explain why that one (of many) quotes does not undermine the assertion that these three contiguous issues are not the object of extensive scholarship. In other words, respond directly to what the citation states, and show why it does not meet the gravamen of your objections. Opinions must reason in terms of facts. Just restating them without regard to factual evidence is meaningless. This is not Twitter or Facebook Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can pick out and interpret such text as being in line with the synthetic title of this article, but even then it's just incidental scholarly writing which might have a place elsewhere in the encyclopedia (attributed to Falk). There's no encyclopedic topic here however. Bon courage (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All delete arguments are assuming... Try changing "all" to "no" and you will have a fairer summary. I feel like you are still talking past people here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these responses are just confirmed reiterations of an unargued opinion.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three figures Falk discusses were incredibly peripheral to the Zionist movement. I doubt any of them would occupy space in any balanced history of Zionism. Nor is their Zionism sufficiently a defining feature of their lives and careers for it to even be mentioned in their Wikipedia biographies currently. Falk picks on them because they are interesting case studies of "men of science" who were influenced by Herzl, but it is not encyclopedic to hang an article on this subject on these minor figures. It also exemplifies the way the (current version of the) article completely neglects the large number of Zionists who never took a position on race and genetics or who actively opposed the idea that Jews constituted a race, giving the impression of a narrative Zionism-as-racism that distorts history. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'The three figures Falk discusses were incredibly peripheral to the Zionist movement'. That is an opinion, Bob, and one particularly odd given the adverb used to qualify its ostensible marginality ('incredibly'). When the article manages to get round to the role of Arthur Ruppin, and fleshens out the details of post-war ethnic planning, it will become evident that this concern is not marginal. Were it marginal, it would never have become the object of so much scholarly investigation in recent decades. using what wikipedia articles write as a sure index of relevance is patently silly. The article does not hang on 3 minor figures. In that specific paper, Falk illustrates his thesis by focusing on them, to thicken out points he made more broadly in his later book-length study, Zionism and the Biology of Jews, (2017), which again, no one appears to have read. Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely include those like Israel Zangwill who opposed the idea of Jews as a race. That would be a valuable development. As to the fact that many said nothing on the topic, the article doesn't suggest otherwise, but we can be more explicit. On the latter point, the nuance is that - as many of the sources explain - anyone using the political term "return" is effectively talking about the Jewish people in this way, even if not explicitly the term race. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: This got me curious, so I wondered off to the pages for those three to see the mentions, and, finding little, set about searching for what mentions might be missing. I've just finished fleshing out the first, Redcliffe N. Salaman, and it turns out he was a lot more politically prominent that his page previously gave him credit for (there was nothing there). He was president of the English Zionist federation and more generally flew quite high in a number of Jewish society circles. If the other two are anything like this, than it would appear that Falk simply knows better than Wikipedia, which is eminently plausible. Anyway, just fyi. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's my "opinion" that these three figures were peripheral to the movement. Maybe I'm wrong and Salaman was more central than I realised (thanks Iskandar for improving his article), but I've read a lot of accounts of the history of Zionism and he is certainly never a major character. My response here is to the comment concluding "gist of his argument" which I read as framing the quote about these three guys as definitive proof that there is a "thing" that this article is about, while to me it feels like an arcane topic.
I don't understand why "That is an opinion" is a counter-argument to what I said. The current article is an almost arbitrary threading together of "opinions" held by scholars, without proper acknowledgement that their positions are interpretations of history and not established facts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I too have read long and widely in the topic of Zionism including several histories. And I find as often as not, that much of what I have learned from other reliable academic sources and articles on the movement is 'invisible' in the dominant mainstream works. That's one of the reasons I finally decided to write up Herzl's Mauschel. Plenty of scholarship on it, which however isn't picked up in numerous general books on the history of Zionism. For an analogy- I was forced to read many books on Catholic history when quite young, but only really got to know it by reading works on the topic written by lapsed or non-Catholic historians. I have several sources that note, furthermore, that this kind of sensitive topic has never been given, despite its importance, the attention it deserves until relatively recently. As anyone knows from the New Historians a mass of research emerged only after 40 years when certain taboos were loosened. Those outside the fold, over that period, contested the narrative, and many of their arguments suddenly reassumed importance. A lot of people yawned when Ari Shavit's book, meant to startle with the exposure of hidden truths,(My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel,) came out about the Lydda expulsions, Obviously the chap lived within a mental closet in which this kind of well-known story held no traction or was quietly brushed under the carpet. it surprised some Zionist readers, I guess, but no one outside the fold who is familiar with the history would have thought a secret had been exposed. I could name dozens of examples. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment encapsulates the nub of the problem. One or two Wikipedia editors think the mainstream history is wrong, and use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and set the record straight -- leaning on facts, but not following the weight given by the mainstream sources. In an article like Zionism, positions which are marginal in the mainstream literature are never going to get more attention than appropriate per due weight, so here's a spin-off article where they can be unfolded -- but it's on a topic that some scholars have of course written about but that most people wouldn't see as a topic requiring a Wikipedia article. This seems to me to be a form of original research. It would be a great journal article, but can never be a good Wikipedia article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bob, I read your comment above as – rightly – hanging primarily on our judgements of weight and marginality. I believe the topic has been clearly demonstrated to be highly significant in the literature. For example, the 2015 Oxford Bibliographies review of the major literature on Jewish genetics, states that: ...contemporary geneticists and their critics often consider similar questions and controversies such as those raised in pre-1980s studies based on blood groups, and even earlier biometric studies undertaken by 19th- and early-20th-century eugenicists and their critics. Zionist and anti-Zionist politics significantly inform historical and contemporary Jewish genetics literatures, at times explicitly and more often implicitly. In other words, they are stating explicitly that Zionism is a significant sub-topic of Jewish genetics and the prior related biometric (=race) science. I doubt we could find a better third party source to opine on this question of relative significance. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having now been made curious as to the context in which Falk uses these three individuals as examples, I went and read that article. I don't see him particularly reference them for their prominence. He actually uses them as examples of individuals with disparate concepts of nationalism that were nevertheless drawn together under the same 'roof of Zionism' and the common thread of scientific biology. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: FYI just before you submitted your comment, the article was restructured and reorganized, taking into account some of the suggestions from editors throughout this discussion. I think it might address a number of your points – it is still not perfect of course, but gives an improved sense of what this article will be able to become when fully developed. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's a lot of work to do, particularly because there are so many sources of exceptionally good quality dealing with a, to judge from the above, topic relatively unfamiliar to the broad reading public. The article as it stands errs by a very approximate arrangement of important points so the way forward will be to provide the exposition with the historical contexts of each idea. Ideas without context distort understanding - themes risk becoming memes in a rhetorical set of simplifications. To do this, will take at least some weeks, if in the meantime the promising stub we have is not detonated.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We all have personal opinions, and we can turn anything into a humongous thread by expressing them and replying to everything everyone says. The point is, when a significant volume of academic literature deals with three topic together -Zionism, race and genetics - we just write up and paraphrase this topic. If contsted, we should make our points, and ensure the threads do not become unmanageable and intimidating to editors who might want to add their opinion, but find the threads too long to digest. Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we can turn anything into a humongous thread by expressing them and replying to everything everyone says, says the editor on his 25th reply in this thread, who feels the need to reply on every non-keep !vote. But does a significant body of academic literature conflate race and genetics? No! Look again. For instance, Falk (2017), much discussed above, argues that there is no scientific basis for Zionist eugenic claims, and that Jews are genetically just as diverse as any other population group. His argument is that the idea of a "Jewish race" is harmful and misleading. He avoids using the terms race and genetics together, and this is why he speaks of "The Biologization of Race" as a futile endeavour: No wonder that against such a background, when the Nazis came to power, they had to mobilize their best anthropologists to identify – in vain – Jews in order to discriminate against them. Of course, soon they had to fall back on more straightforward devices to label Jews, such as the Yellow Patch. (Falk, 2017:30}. He argues against a Zionist Lamarckian driven eugenics, and so the question he is considering is eugenics. As Levivich notes, the author is a geneticist, and he brings his expertise to bear, but in so doing, his thesis is that race is not discernible in biology, and that the idea of a Jewish race is, as I say, harmful and misleading. He has been criticised for ignoring other historical-cultural aspects, but that is not his focus. He says:

The questions “what is a race?” or “who is a Jew?” largely ignore the fact that (within the human species) any marriage circle can be viewed as a potential race. Considering that any female and male of a species may produce progeny with other members of that species, the patterns of marriages or sexual relationships for humans, in general, are resolved not so much by biological determinants, but rather by geographic or socio-cultural affinities and barriers. Today it is common among researchers in the humanities, the social sciences, and even the natural sciences to say that at least as far as humans are concerned, (biological) races do not exist. The biological races that were presumably discovered were in fact the illegitimate product of the classification system imposed on nature. Classification by races is a social construct. As a rule, the use of the term “race” for multiplicity, which is based on the typological mind-set, has been pushed aside in the scientific parlance and replaced by “population” in terms of statistics

(Falk, 2017:144) (emphasis mine). We should not allow the fact that he dismisses a concept of biological race through genetics and other means muddy the waters of an encyclopaedic article that purports to follow his thesis. He is discussing Zionist eugenics, and in so doing he brings genetics to bear. "race and genetics" do not go together in his thesis.
What then of the other sources? Similar can be said of these. People have come down hard on Alaexis, yet their point is not without merit. The sources presented do not characterise this as "race and genetics". They do talk about race, they do talk about genetics, but they do not put those words together, because that creates a confusion. We know it creates a confusion, because an editor said, a couple of copmments up, And bear in mind that race and genetics are closely-connected topics. I trust we see now that no, there is not a close connection between race and genetics, except inasmuch as it is in the mind of eugenicists and pseudoscientists. You have consistently mischaracterised this objection in this discussion, so the volume of information editors are being asked to consider is indeed large, but the discussion would go easier if there were less bludgeoning and more discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to less bludgeoning. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And less arguing about the correct title. We can have an RM after. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we don't want the encylopaedia to unintentionally propagate the misunderstanding that race is closely connected to genetics I really don't think anyone is intentionally trying to do that and I think it is kinda hard to get that impression from the reworked opening para. This is not another page about Race and genetics. It is about genetics and racial concepts in Zionist thought. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the thread above, where such points were amply answered. Numerous sources link and analyse all three topics. Genetic Studies of Jews concerns modern scientific studies etc-.Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Egorovga is highly synthetic, brief. She mentions all 3-using a word-count argument on Zionist to suggest its inadeuacy is far-fetched. All sources focus on different date spans, 1880-1914,1895-1930s, 1980s onwards etc, but no where in the world of scholarship do we consider that treatments of a theme in specific epoches invalidates the history of variation in thematic continuity. In short, this looks like hairsplitting. You simply can't thresh out themes that are intimately connected, except to maim exposition and understanding. It can't be done without denying our readership an overview. Works on this negelected triadic nexus are coming out so fast it's hard to keep up with them. I've reading this morning one just out, Marina B. Mogilner's Jews, Race, and the Politics of Difference: The Case of Vladimir Jabotinsky against the Russian Empire , Indiana University Press ISBN 978-0-253-06612-1 2023 where, like many of the scholars we cover dealing with the Germanic sphere of race and zionism, she notes a systematic turning of the eyes of scholarship from the topic until very recently. Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Judaism is a a religion, not a species with a biology. Catholics were severely warned against marrying out with people of other religions. Not for that would one speak of Biological Catholicism, except to make a Mick's eyebrows twitch with perplexity.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seemingly that genetic studies of Jews are tied to antiquated racial beliefs and run by ideologues

Blustering caricature
It's hard to cope (only in terms of time) with all the systematic distortions about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR sprawling through this thread. Numerous sources state that (a) since 'racial science' for several decades from 1880 onwards was considered a legitimate field of enquiry (b) Jewish scientists like their peers everywhere contributed to the topic. (c) There was a notable discursive overlap between racist stereotyping prejudices, particularly among antisemites, and the ostensible outcome of what we know now to be a pseudo-science of races (d) Jewish scientists and thinkers took up the challenge to rid their discipline of the antisemitic hostilities intrinsic to much of the 'science' by creatively reworking the field to present a modified, alternative or variant number of models of a Jewish type/race in terms of that 'racial science.(On this there is a mastery survey, namely Veronika Lipphardt's, Biologie der Juden: Jüdische Wissenschaftler über »Rasse« und Vererbung 1900-1935, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2008 ISBN 978-3-525-36100-9) (e) Concurrently, in Zionist circles, this tradition's ideas were drawn upon in order to provide a 'scientific' warrant for their proposal to extricate Jews from the European antisemitic world which oppressed their development (f) by asserting that, given a land of their own in Palestine, a 'new Jew' racially and culturally distinct, could be formed (called 'muscular Zionism' after Max Nordau's book, a term which borrowed on the older Christian notion of 'muscular Christianity'). (g) This would solve the 'Jewish Question' the antisemites complained of by ridding Europe of Jews /from a Zionist perspective i.e., 'giving good riddance to Europe and its Jew-hating tradition'and (h) restore the creativity, masculinity and, yes, racial purity that, in their view, was the presupposition for the ancient achievements of the biblical world of Israelites/Jews, but in a secular, technological version. (i) This tradition carried over into some important aspects of Zionist planning once Israel was established such as studies in blood typologies of different immigrant groups and eugenic concerns and (j) wagged its tail when the new science of genomics emerged, and molecular genetics began to focus on Jewish DNA to see whether (k) scientific evidence might, via shared DNA, allow one to trace back all major Jewish diaspora communities to founding fathers in the Middle East, a premise of the theory of 'return' and (l) confirm one of many viewpoints about who is a Jew, namely by demonstrating that, unlike most other nations, they were, beyond shared religion and culture, also somewhat uniquely, conjoined by an historical biological kinship.
This is what the topic promises to survey because these elements are all variously present in a mass of academic literature, thoroughly familiar to historians of Judaism and Jewish thought, though systematically ignored for several decades, until the 1980s, when the subject was picked up and soon snowballed into a major scholarly focus (see soon the section I will write on 'Understating the role of race in Zionism' which lists and summarizes authoritative statements by several major scholars of how and why this intricate, thematically crosswoven topic was ignored, neglected or suppressed)
Had editors exercised patience, and collaborated to improve the stub, rather than entangling it in a torture-chamber of ill-focused opinionizing on the abstract idea that appears to scandalize those unfamiliar with these recent studies (Zionism/race) we would already have had a much better article. As far as I can see, the only objection visible here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with its sororal handmaiden WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, both in the service of WP:CENSORSHIP. Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Points a-j here are a series of theses or propositions (most of which I would agree with). They outline an excellent essay or journal article plan. But they don't outline an excellent Wikipedia article for a number of reasons. Each one of them (apart from a and maybe b) needs arguing for and could be contested with alternative theses. For example, Endelmann could be used to argue that Jewish racial science was short-lived and fundamentally discredited by Nazism, while Egorova could be used to argue that biological/genetic understandings of Jewishness have only limited political purchase today in contrast to other understandings. Most of the topics taken in on the journey from a to j are or should better covered in more general (Jewish identity) or more specific (muscular Judaism) WP articles. And in the journey from a to j there is a very sharp turn at step (i), where we leap from a series of closely connected topics to a radically different topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss all this at the article please, here we are concerned with GNG and deletion. Bob, etc can keep repeating ad nauseum that there is no article but it is clear that there is no agreement on whether that is the case and that good sourcing exists is just a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, Jewish identity, given the historical depth, the manifold cultural variations in regional reflexes over half the globe, and esp. the fact no one can agree on what constitutes it ('introduce two Jews and you will get three points of view' proverbially reflects this marvellous self-awareness of how complex identity is) is a massive topic only a fool would think could be summed up in an average wiki-length article.
I can't see the point you make of Endelmann and Egorova etc. Scholars have common ground, and disagree on much. Articles note the common ground and the different judgements made by other experts. So when we note that Engelmann states what you cite him for, we would also note several sources that tweak the finality of race science after Nazism. Just one of many in my notes,

Chaim Sheba,Sheba is a good example of what I noted above- that many doctors in post-war Israel had been trained in the German sphere, and quite a few never quite threw off some of the earlier premises of race science standard in curricula who became director general of the Health Ministry in 1950, argued, according to a 2005 report that “a high concentration of those ill in body and soul would jeopardize the future of Jewish community in Israel. To support his argument, he used examples from genetic theories which purported to show national gene pools weakened through a lack of genetic vigilance.” Sheba was influential in temporarily preventing Cochin Jews from immigrating. The communist newspaper Davar asserted that a community “with numerous sick, decadent, unrestrained elements will not withstand the social and security test.” Haaretz writer Arieh Gledblum claimed in 1950 that North African Jews’ “primitivism is unsurpassed…. They have little talent for comprehending anything intellectual” and “lack any roots in Judaism.”(Seth Frantzman, 'Israel’s Uncomfortable History of Racist Engineering,' The Forward 21 April 2014

We really must give the article breathing space to develop, without cutting in the bud every formulation added by niggling at its inadequacy. We haven't anything like the full picture before us. See below.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between scholarly articles and what we do on wikipedia, is that the one engages in original research, the other, if one subscribes to FA principles, simply gathers the best available modern sources on the topic, and, having mastered them, set forth what the books and articles say, avoiding inferences or original interpretations. I personally feel the difference strongly. Having published on race and nationalism esp., I make in my reading of sources all sorts of notes on (a) missed connections (b) partial coverage that fails to take into account relevant scholarship, etc.etc., and simply put the latter into my own files. Most of what I learn ends up, for this reason, improving my personal knowledge considerably, but not wikipedia's. But that is the rule. No synthesis, no personal research.
A second thing content editors like myself know, if that if you start a stub on anything that might be mininally controversial, it will be aborted: from the outset it will be tweaked, reverted, questioned in every word or every other sentence, esp. by editors who approach wikipedia with political interests or the 'politics of culture', and huge talk page arguments or AfD threads will ensue which totally jam up serene completion of the initial work. That's why I learnt, when taking on a very sensitive topic like Birkat HaMinim which languished for a decade as a pathetic and misleading stub, I wrote it over a month off-line. I knew that if I touched it substantially with an edit or two, then the usual heckling process of synth"! original research! POv-pushing! would let a fascinating subject miscarry. Not out of bad faith, no. But simply because the sensse of a sentence in a provisory lead, or first section under construction cannot be grasped unless you are aware of all of the subsequent details from the scholarship that will clarify them. Most of the criticisms here are of this kind, and that is why I outlined how I think, having read nearly all of the sources, sometimes twice, the article, if allowed to develop, would look like.
I put these finished articles up for comment, peer-editor scrutiny, they almost never encounter the wrestling pettifogging we observe here. They are examined, often by 600-800 eyes for a few days, and then left subsdtantially as they were written because they are neutral, finished, thorough, and therefore encyclopedic.
Over 99& of edits on wikipedia are housecleaning, forum or talk page kibitzing or polemics, reverts, minor corrections or tweaks or additions -absolutely necessary of course. Giving one's opinion is something we all enjoy, brief fixes and then moving on to other blips in the infinite flow of edits, doesn't ruin one's day by unrewarding mechanical overhauling. Only 0.76% of our 6,600,000 articles achieve FA status as default reference articles of guaranteed excellence and reliability for the global readership. That work is done by a small number of content editors mainly, it does not come of incremental adjustments over a decade+ of negotiation. Someone at some point has to take the whole article and its subject matter in hand and make it all cohere in consonance with our best working principles. What had happened here fits a predictable pattern, so I am not surprised. But people who decide its fate one way or another should examine what they want from wikipedia, endless stubs, split articlettes, mishmashes of accumulated edits made without an eye to the whole article. or encyclopedic work.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you still prefer not to read the score of sources which refer to the continuity of early Zionist ideas of race and modern genetic studies on Jews, and persist in asserting this is synth, well at least consult Kirsh, Nurit (December 2003). "Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s: The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology". Isis. 94 (4): 631–655. JSTOR 386385. which documents how the earlier Zionist ideas of race were absorbed into Israeli population genetics in the 1950s and abide there in the discipline as unconscious influences. There i9s zero synth in the topic title and the article. Please desist. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's good for the middle bit and together with Falk, puts paid to the idea of separated subjects/synth. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where in that article it documents racial ideas being absorbed into genetics, and abiding there? Because the article describes how both are influenced by ideology, but explicitly documents their differences:
“But although both Israeli geneticists of the 1950s and 1960s and Zionist racial anthropologists of early twentieth-century Europe were anxious to prove that the Jews have a common biological origin and their uniqueness has been preserved, there are important differences between them."
"Racial anthropology was affected by ideological and political ideas and was also used to influence those ideas; in contrast, the relationship between population genetics and ideology was not reciprocal, since the influence of population genetics in Israel was insignificant. It did not arise in reaction to any previously published views and was not used as propaganda, or in any decision making process."
The closest I see to the connection you are claiming is this:
"The Israeli research publications never mention the eugenic and racial aspects of their research, nevertheless, they tried to use different terms and different criteria from those of German bioracial science and eugenics." "Footnote: Goldschmidt and her collaborators preferred to focus on pathological traits and refrained as much as possible from anthropomorphic measurements." Drsmoo (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Yes I should have written 'abided' for 'abide' in referring to Kirsh. The idea that Zionist racial thinking on Jewish 'biology' formed an ideological heritage persisting past the Holocaust into Israeli genetics from the 1950s through the 1960s is the focus of Kirsh's period-bound study. In Falk's more comprehensive overview the influence of Zionist biological theories about Jews is given as persisting, with endless variations, on Jewish and Israeli thinking for the whole of the 20th.century. Your objection changes nothing. Zionism, race and genetics is a coherent focus of many studies.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picking the bits we like out of the conclusion is a game that can be played by two:
"If Sheba stands at one end of a scale, Goldschmidt stands at the other, since the emphasis in her writing is on genetic issues rather than on historical and anthropological ones. Yet, as I have shown, there is evidence that she too had assimilated the Zionist narrative. Zionist ideas were so ubiquitous in Israeli society that they permeated the scientific work not only of Sheba, a Zionist activist in both the military and the political frameworks, but also of someone like Goldschmidt, whose identity and self-perception were determined primarily by her role as a scientist." Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not about picking bits, Nishidani said the article was about racial ideas being absorbed into genetic studies. But I’m not seeing that in the article, which is about how both are influenced by Zionism. I’m asking if someone could please cite the part(s) of the article that state racial ideas were absorbed into genetic studies. Drsmoo (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Take a deep breath and . . .The article is about Zionism, race and genetics. You and many others are not seeing this or that in the article because, as soon as the stub went up, it got hit with urgent calls for deletion, mostly by editors who haven't any acquaintance with the dozen sources originally there, let alone the 44 major books and studies on Zionism's early entanglement in racial science down to the 1930s, and the aftermath of that ideological tradition in early postwar Israel and the diaspora in the last three decades. A huge amount of investment in time and energy in sedulously replying to repetitive undocumented assertions of wp:synth for a week has hamstrung its completion. By my calculations, just handling the information in those 44 sources will create a 100kb article. It would only need a week or so to do that and quadruple the content. But with a death-sentence hanging over a legitimate topic like this by adventitious nagging and ball-and-chain pettifogging, one refrains from any major effort until someone decides either way. One doesn't fatten a skeleton being trundled over the cobblestones to Tyburn or, as one might say in Landsberg am Lech, Galgenweg. One just thinks of Mallarmé 's wonderful poem, Brise Marine, the first line and the 'adieu suprême des mouchoirs'. To share a 17 year old boy's amibitious but inept translation and give you the kind of feeling one has trying to breast the marathon-long hurdles of writing serious articles for wikipedia against the pressure of aimless chat.
The sheer fatigue of flesh! and books - I've read them all.
To bolt, flee, fly beyond and be amongs birds that call
In swooned fall and flight over unknown foam and skies!
Nothing! -not even gardens reflected in aged eyes
Can keep this brine-drenched heart from brooding without rest
Night after night! Nor the empty clarity, desert-white,
Of sheaved paper blankly protected by lamp-light,
And a youthful wife, suckling a child at her breast.
I’m off! Trim your masts as I, wayward schooner,
Unanchored from ink , sail forth towards exotic nature!
Boredom, desolate of hope, in pitiless grief,
Trusts again in a final farewell's hankerchief!
And perhaps the masts, inveigling storms to the deck,
Are those winds bend headlong into shipwreck
Lost, unmasted, unmastered - no bountyful isles in sight
Yet hark, o beating heart, to shanties this wintry night.</ br>
This AfD is a palmary example of wikipedia as a waste of time, esp. if the sceptical input has all of the omniscient thoughtlessness of chatbots.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing that in the article, which is about how both are influenced by Zionism Uh huh, this article is Zionism, race and genetics which is about how both are influenced by Zionism, right? Falk says that Zionist ideology persisted (Falk "especially among the practising Zionist writers, explicit racial and eugenic notions in spite of, and long after the inception of the ominous developments in Nazi Germany. These notions have persisted, though in a thinly disguised mode, in post-Second World War Israel.· and this latest source is saying similar, as you have just acknowledged. Trying to make the discussion about something else isn't going to help. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses the influence of Zionism on early racial studies, and the influence of Zionism on genetic studies, but I don’t see talk of an ideological heritage or one being absorbed into the other. Drsmoo (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to agree that racial science was not absorbed into eugenics and the latter not absorbed into genetics, happy to do that. Not sure what you mean by "ideological heritage", if you mean Zionism and its influence in those areas, we have just discussed two sources that affirm such an influence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing that some of the editors who have been commenting (and commenting, and commenting) in favor of keeping, are making the argument that those of us who have argued that there is SYNTH are doing so because we are too lazy to have read the sources. Thus, those who argue that there is no SYNTH are the keepers of The Truth, and can summarily (if lengthily) dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. More plausibly, there are editors who have carefully looked at the sourcing, and concluded that there is no SYNTH, and there are other editors who have carefully looked at the sourcing, and concluded that there is SYNTH. The person who closes the AfD will have to sort out how to balance those opposing arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
::On the talk page editors have repeatedly asked for a bulleted list of things those who make these claims consider unfactual or synth. Twice some were given, and duly answered, with tweaks to the text when the claim was considered to have some value. The third time, the answer to these requests was silence. The much larger number of people commenting here but not editing the article waived that option of allowing us to verify the claim. Lastly, those who have read the 2,000 pages of sources diligently don't have any truth to flourish. They do have some competence, compared to others who don't do so, in assessing what the scholarly literature is saying. Here as in the world there are only perspectives along side brute facts no one contests. All content editors ask is that brief repetitions of WP:Synth be documented by specific evidence for that conclusion (which then can be addressed at the article) not policy flagwaving in a ballot of numbers or head-counting.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:The Last Word. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


OT discussion about AE
TBH: I am actively considering drafting a WP:AE. Perhaps an omnibus cleaning of house would be in order. They could ban every participant at this AfD from WP:ARBPIA and delete the article per WP:TNT. I think we need to think outside the box. Whatever this was is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. jps (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't announce threats. One either makes them or holds one's tongue.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You fight your way, I'll fight mine. jps (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabari (2023 )[edit]

Sabari (2023 ) (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 awkward title says it all. The page was originally created as Sabari (2023 film) and moved to draftspace because it wasn't release. However, the director himself came and moved the page to articlespace. Unreleased film. DareshMohan (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Todd Ferrier[edit]

John Todd Ferrier (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)

advert of a nonnotable "spiritual leader". No reliable independent sources. - Altenmann >talk 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Dourwe[edit]

Jacques Dourwe (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)

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Two official appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Complex/Rational 20:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abanga Abakar[edit]

Abanga Abakar (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)

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. One appearance for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madawa Macrada[edit]

Madawa Macrada (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)

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Two appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Lopez (Bahamian footballer)[edit]

Nicolas Lopez (Bahamian footballer) (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)

Five official appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re'john Ene[edit]

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

One official appearance for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Joyous! Noise! 16:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Québec[edit]

Baseball Québec (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Article only lists a single, primary source, so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interdimensional being[edit]

Interdimensional being (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 mostly WP:OR with only two references: a ufology book, and a book about Buffy the Vampire Slayer which I have not otherwise attempted to verify. I have not attempted to assess notability as a literary trope or as a Spiritualist belief like that connection to the IH suggested in the Jeffrey J. Kripal source at the IH article. I brought this to AfD after a user raised a concern at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Single_top_for_interdimensional_hypothesis/being that the article is also too similar to Interdimensional hypothesis, which is the claim that UFOs are interdimensional phenomena. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rathod Sravan[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no indication of importance. I would have put this for speedy but as it seems this is contentious (look at my talk page as well as that of Sachin96700, who removed the deletion tag from this page they created), I'll put it here for the community to discuss. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different person. Shravan Rathod in your article is from Nadeem–Shravan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Voit[edit]

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

No independent notability can be established for the subject of this paid PR article. Sources in the article itself are PR, non-independent, or are not actually about the subject of the article. The further attempt to establish notability based on the fact that the subject is a Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering falls down flat - there were 170 other people inducted at the same time as Voit. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Turkvision Song Contest#Bala Turkvision Song Contest. As the merger has apparently been done, and this preserves attribution. Star Mississippi 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015[edit]

Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015 (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 event, failed attempt at a new competition format with only a single occurance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Largely based on one source for majority of references, with additional primary sources, and a lot of information presented is also unverified. Parent article (Bala Turkvision Song Contest) was PRODded successfully for similar reasons, leaving limited options for redirection of this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grk1011: please see WP:PROMERGE for instructions on doing this sort of consolidation in the future. It is rare for us to need to delete anything to accomplish a merge. ~Kvng (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: By "merge" I meant that I took the relevant sources from this article and wrote a more concise recap in the main article. Yes, I could have also just redirected this article to that section, but I think the spirit of this AfD was that a redirect is potentially unnecessary as well. Grk1011 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHEAP. Keeping also avoids time spent by editors in AfD, time that is better spent improving the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Fallout (series)#Gameplay. Selective merge of the sourced and notable material Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power Armor (Fallout)[edit]

Power Armor (Fallout) (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)

Power armor does meet a narrow reading of GNG. As in, multiple articles specifically talk about it, or an aspect of it. But, whether it needs it’s own article without the context of a wider topic is the real question. Again, while there may be GNG coverage here, we are not required to create an article like this, and it could be probably better if it is merged in the series article, or a universe of Fallout article. I think this is almost or maybe only belongs to the fandom (Not gonna argue someone here, especially with a turtle internet speed rn). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Two[edit]

FIFA Two (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 fails WP:GNG. It was, like any other small scandal, covered by some press coverage, but not nearly enough for it to be anything significant to have its own article. The article is basically all just copy-pasted from other sources, with potential copyright violations, and does not provide an in-depth analysis of what happened. It is also not written in accordance with most Wikipedia standards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of NEO, there are more than a few reliable/verifiable sources which refer to the term "FIFA Two". (Including The Times (UK), RTÉ, Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Irish Independent, Wales Online.) So I don't think we can delete on the basis of the term being a neologism.
In terms of SIGCOV, there are more than a few reliable mainstream news sources which deal with the topic in some depth. (Irish Examiner, Belfast Telegraph, Irish Times, RTÉ, ESPN, etc.) So I'm not sure I could support deletion on SIGCOV basis.
In terms of LASTING, to counter any WP:NOTNEWS concerns, there appears to have been sustained coverage (after the fact) of the "FIFA rule change" that was precipitated by the events.
In terms of COPYVIO, I don't understand this argument. Not only could any content issues (like the questionable editorialsing in the "precedent" section) be fixed rather than the article deleted, a check using Earwig's Copyvio Detector suggests that the only materially "copy/pasted" text is the two extracts from the FIFA rule book. Both of which are quoted text. That doesn't really fall within the scope of COPYVIO.
Personally I'm not seeing (or perhaps just not following) the argument for deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Resurrection Band. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Your Life (album)[edit]

All Your Life (album) (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)

NN album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. I will be merging the page histories between the mainspace and draftspace versions. ✗plicit 14:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Threads accounts[edit]

List of most-followed Threads accounts (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)

Too early for this list to exist; we don't even know how long Threads will last. (For context, the app was released less than a week ago.) Also, there is presently only one source, and that is clearly unreliable. Possibly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOG as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Jorquera[edit]

José Jorquera (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)

Badly sourced BLP not currently showing evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC #5, given that only a database source is used. Spanish Wikipedia and my own WP:BEFORE does not show that any decent sources exist. Even a Chilean source search did not seem to yield anything decent about the Chilean goalkeeper of this name. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Andra[edit]

Francisco Andra (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 BLP on a former footballer. A Chilean source search failed to provide any suitable sources for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best source that I can find is Soccerway, a database source which SPORTBASIC specifically says does not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. The overwhelming consensus is that this topic is notable enough for its own article. (non-admin closure) --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say more like WP:AVALANCHE keep. EEng 10:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbenheimer[edit]

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

Not sure why this article was created, this is just one of the dozens of viral phenomena/topics of discussion about film that emerge on the Internet every year. Typically, such memes are not notable to justify standalone articles and are simply discussed in their respective film articles; I don't see a reason this should be any different. It is unlikely that this topic will receive significant, sustained coverage, and even if it does, it is too early to tell at this stage, when neither film has even been released. With the current length of the article, it can easily be merged into Barbie (film) and Oppenheimer (film). InfiniteNexus (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument. Throast ((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 — Culture IS history. If truly no one talks about it after the day of, then sure, they can delete the 10kb article if they must. But if it’s ever referenced in the future, even if in small settings, then we are doing a disservice to history to delete it. This event and phenomenon has meant something to millions—that’s important. 204.111.113.49 (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Noyan[edit]

Michel Noyan (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)

Made one appearances for Assyriska FF in the 2005 Allsvenskan. A web search finds passing mentions but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. BLP1E applies Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senad Hadzic[edit]

Senad Hadzic (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)

A Bosnian man walked to Mecca to perform Hajj. That is the only claim to notability in this article, which fails WP:GNG and I'm invoking WP:1E right here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back to Sorrento (upcoming film)[edit]

Come Back to Sorrento (upcoming film) (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)

Future film that has had no updates in over a decade, no evidence the film ever entered production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 08:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of JAG characters#Rear Admiral Albert Jethro "A.J." Chegwidden, USN, Retired (JAGC). (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Chegwidden[edit]

A. J. Chegwidden (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 primarily uses primary sources, and a quick Google search doesn't give many sources that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 08:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. It's SNOWING Star Mississippi 02:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Itchy[edit]

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

Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Itchy" should be a redirect to Itch because its a common term for feeling of itch. Vitaium (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Solid disambig page. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Rodriguez (entrepreneur)[edit]

Lucas Rodriguez (entrepreneur) (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)

A standard PR article making no realistic claim of notability, written by an editor with a declared Conflict of Interest. There is no independent information anywhere about the subject of this article outside of press releases. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIC Allahabad[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conton family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

Conton family (Sierra Leone) (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 family itself is not notable. In this article, only one of the family members is associated with some reliable sources. Sources about notable people that mention their family do not show that the family itself is notable. The existence of the article implies some original research or synthesis. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Khanna[edit]

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

No significant coverage in sources. I had PRODed this not realizing the article had been deleted before as a PROD in 2012, and then recreated in 2013. Jay 💬 07:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Joyous! Noise! 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parental abuse by children[edit]

Parental abuse by children (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 doesn't give off an encyclopedic tone, as it seems like it is trying to convince you parental abuse by children is a major problem instead of just giving the facts. It also contains a lot of original research with no third-party sources added on the introduction. People in the talk page also seem to agree with me on this decision. DJskywrd (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This seems like a controversial article and I'd like to hear from more editors before closing this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Low weighting IP votes as all the random votes are anti while the balance of argument favours keep including the best source analysis. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Daigle-Orians[edit]

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

This article had lots of puffery in it, which I've worked to remove. However, it seems the major thing this person is known for is their book and a social media account. They've received some passing mentions for both of these, but there has not been consistent secondary sources about them. For instance, many of the citations are only passing mentions with little in-depth content. Ultimately, it does not appear that this person currently meets the standards for WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR, so this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, likely a pass at AUTHOR, reviews in Publisher's Weekly [33], a brief discussion in WaPo [34], and buzzsfeed, which is less RS [35], I think we have more than enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The source discussions support the delete arguments. Some of the keep arguments are assertive and carry little weight. Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jaelin Williams[edit]

Jaelin Williams (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)

Two appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Joyous! Noise! 16:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military reserve[edit]

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

This article is the same subject as Military reserve force. Some references were recently added to this article, but no reference distinguishes between Military reserve and Military reserve force. Crashed greek (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military reserve force seems to cover the topic of a force that can be mobilized if needed but is not part of a countries standing force, such as Army Reserve (United Kingdom) and Republic of Korea Reserve Forces. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This distinction is so basic, that very few texts beyond dictionaries etc. would bother actually typing it out. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in case you wanted sources to demonstrate that "reserve" (using the tactical/strategic/operational definition) is a notable concept, here's a bunch of stuff I had quickly accessible:
Ljleppan (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Ljleppan (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mc bess[edit]

Mc bess (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)

After fifteen years it's time to discuss this COI creation lacking any secondary sources: the subject is simply not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Blue Glacier (Antarctica). Joyous! Noise! 15:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Hill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar and google books for the location provides no results that seem relevant, although such searches do provide a number of unrelated results.

The article also includes a extended biography of the person the ridge is named after, copied from GNIS, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Ridge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar and google books for the location provides no results that seem relevant, although such searches do provide a number of unrelated results.

The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoreson Peak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEONATURAL; all we know about the location is its name and coordinates - to the extent that a search on google scholar and google books for the location provides no results.

The article also includes a brief biography of the person the ridge is named after, but as that isn't directly related to the ridge I don't believe it justifies an article on the ridge. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The New Boy. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aswan Reid[edit]

Aswan Reid (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)

Premature creation of an article for a child actor making their acting debut in a recently-released film. The actor's media coverage is the recent reviews of the film.

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER > "Such a person may be considered notable if: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Lapadite (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, weak redirect to The New Boy. Forgot that was an option. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. We normally don't make articles on currently non-notable subjects just because they could become notable in the future after getting more work in their field. Unless a person is already notable, it's not imperative or necessarily beneficial to create an article the moment they debut in a project. Existing coverage of the child actor is pretty much exclusive to reviews of his performance in the film, and, expectedly, any events the actor attends in promotion of the film. Relevant information (reviews, awards, events) can be presented in the film article, as it pertains to the film, the reason the debut actor is getting coverage. Not only does WP:BLP1E apply at the present time, but notability also isn't inheritable by virtue of the subject's association with a notable entity, and WP:NRV states: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". As with any new artist, the more proper approach is to wait until they have more roles/projects and review the media coverage to see if there is sufficient information beyond routine coverage to warrant a bio article. Lapadite (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree AlanS, that is far from a safe assumption. Thorton often uses non actors who get good reviews and award nominations who don't go on to any sort of acting career. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I know "No consensus" is an outcome that pleases no one but I really don't see a consensus here and the Deletes are Weak Deletes. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barbosa[edit]

Chris Barbosa (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:N JazzyRightdoer (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 03:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. The nominator might take a moment to provide a more compelling justification for deletion than WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not giving a thorough explanation on the reasons for deletion. I believe this article should be deleted for Notability reasons, as all sources that I could find referencing the person, Chris Barbosa, made a passing mention of him and did not expand further. The actual page has few references, and one reference mentions Chris once and has no other mention of him. JazzyRightdoer (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator, JazzyRightdoer is a new editor. I left a note at their talk page explaining the situation and asking them to rejoin our conversation.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj Rana Praja[edit]

Saroj Rana Praja (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)

Fail in WP:ACTOR nd due to reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as one of the Keeps is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion on whether to split is one that can be handled editorially. A further consensus on removing content appears unlikely Star Mississippi 16:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of autobiographies[edit]

List of autobiographies (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 had an attempted PROD in 2007 ("Listcruft - we have categories for this."), which still seems accurate. I contend that "autobiographies" is much too broad a topic to meet WP:LISTN. The current article says it will list "notable" autobiographies (presumably an attempt to narrow the WP:LISTCRITERIA) but most of the listed books do not have their own articles. Even if we restricted ourselves to notable autobiographies, many hundreds of titles would merit inclusion, creating an unwieldy collection of items which are not actually discussed as a set. (People write about, e.g., German wartime autobiographies, but not all autobiographies.) "Autobiographies" should be a category, not a list-- and indeed, it is. (Note that even the category breaks things down more granularly into autobiographies by nation, LGBTQ autobiographies, etc.) It might be justifiable to spin this out into some sub-lists, e.g., sports autobiographies, or autobiographies by heads of state, though even then I'm not sure appropriate sourcing would exist for the set. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split into about a dozen other lists based on topical notability. Individual kinds of autobiographies are notable, not all biographies ever. After splitting the original page should become a list of lists. And yes I openly hate “navigational” lists (i.e. internal non-disambiguating link farms) but most readers seem surprisingly clueless about the existence of categories based on pageview statistics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 01:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to do this proposed "split"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to observe that the one keep !vote here has not provided a notability rationale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard Liz asked if anyone was going to offer to do the proposed split. Are you making that offer? -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am recommending keeping the article as is, not splitting. List of autobiographies is not long enough where it has to be split. Once it gets too long, per Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article it can be split alphabetically by author's surname. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page, while passing general notability guidelines quite well, is so desperately in need of long-term organizational restructuring that a clear and decisive direction isn't obvious - and besides, the utilization of page categories, split lists and/or functional inserted identifiers suggest that deeming the notability of a book versus the individual(s) who wrote it is rather unrealistic to manage. Additionally, in and of itself, a split may not allow the verifiability of existing autobiographies to qualify for notability down the road; as it stands, however, the page is difficult to maintain, and it would be hard to justify the existence of certain sub-lists, overlapping genre lists and/or a list of categorical compilations of lists. In other words, even creating splitted lists can present problems for the development of satisfactory coverage concerning the inclusion of future autobiographies... and a split may not be as worthwhile as creating a Category:AutobiographyAuthors category, which I suggest as an alternative solution. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy Water Park[edit]

Vichy Water Park (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)

Likely fails WP:GNG, I'm seeing a lack of SIGCOV. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs (she/her) 00:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Although I am lt-0, I believe I may have found more secondary coverage in https://m.diena.lt/naujienos/vilnius/nusikaltimai-ir-nelaimes/gausios-ugniagesiu-pajegos-leke-prie-vilniuje-esancio-vandens-parko-apdege-pastato-siena-1094705, https://www.15min.lt/verslas/naujiena/bendroves/apsilankyma-vandens-parke-pavadino-tragedija-po-nuviliancios-patirties-ir-chloruoto-vandens-sudirgo-oda-663-2017338 and https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/energetika/vandens-parkas-balansuoja-ties-isgyvenimo-riba-ir-laukia-pagalbos-trumpina-darbo-laika-perziuri-kainas-91183571 from what Google Translate can tell me. Also we might need to keep this per WP:ITSACASTLE. I am thinking about perhaps withdrawing this nomination, but I will try to reach out to Wikiproject Lithuania and Wikiproject Amusement Parks about this to get a couple of other opinions before doing so (or not). — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 00:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely clear if the article should be kept or not…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there's no corresponding article on the Lithuanian Wikipedia (lt.wikipedia). It's a very active project with over 100,000 articles. What would be the equivalent article, lt:Vichy Vandens Parkas, has been deleted 3 times. I figure they'd have an article if this place is a big deal in Vilnius.
Lithuanian admin Homo ergaster deleted the article there. @Homo ergaster also edits here on en.wikipedia -- maybe they have some insights.
Finally, I have to give kudos to the nominator, @Prodraxis, for having an open mind and being willing to reverse himself. Also for doing good research in a very unfamiliar language. Too often, AfDs become a test of wills. It's refreshing to find someone who cares so much about article quality and doing the right thing.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words :) IMO, I’m always willing to find alternatives to deletion if possible; Wikipedia is supposed to be a vast database of knowledge, and deletion kinda detracts from that. Also, for future reference, my pronouns are she/her. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 11:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Sorry about the pronouns. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; sometimes its hard to tell what pronouns someone uses on the Internet. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 14:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Things aren't any clearer than at the first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. When discounting SPAs and conflicted editors, consensus is that there isn't enough to merit an article at this time. Star Mississippi 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Lo Surdo[edit]

Davide Lo Surdo (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 don't think this person meets any of the criteria in the guidelines about notability for musicians. This article has been subject to a staggering amount of promotional editing by single-purpose accounts and IP editors both here and on other wikis (example). Once the promotion is removed, I'm afraid there's really not much left except "This guy is a guitarist and some national offshoot of a respected magazine says he's the fastest in the world" ... and I can't find much else that doesn't feed off that, besides trivial tour coverage. Nothing in the international Rolling Stone, nothing (let alone anything significant) in Guitar Player, etc.) The article needs some TNT, at the least. Graham87 16:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found some new independent sources that shows the verifiability of the claims.
Checking out online and adding on wikipedia Johnmarrys (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but while the most promising source you added does verify the award he received from the Sanremo Music Awards], apart from that it just parrots most of the already-known claims about him (e.g. being the fastest guitarist in the world, his alleged ability to play 129 notes in a second) without question or deeper analysis ... and throws in some more speculation about how great he'll be in the future. This is a less extreme version of the Jacob Barnett saga, where the media/some lower-quality specialist sites just parrot claims that simply don't stand up to proper scrutiny. Graham87 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is why in my opinion, the best thing to do, as already done, remove the 129 notes per second on Wikipedia (done) and leave Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 described him the fastest guitarist in history because this is true. RS 🇧🇷 described him like this Johnmarrys (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t have to write on his page that he is the fastest guitarist in history but as it’s already on the page, write and keep that rolling stone 🇧🇷 described him like this. This doesn’t mean he is fastest. It’s a claim from Rolling stone 🇧🇷.
It means “For Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 he is the fastest guitarist in history” that’s all Johnmarrys (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And being awarded by the Sanremo music is a very notable thing Johnmarrys (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Rolling Stone Brazil is not the same thing as Rolling Stone at all. I have my own ideas about what to do with this article if this AFD doesn't result in a deletion, but I'll keep them to myself until (or unless) that eventuates. Also, he is perfectly capable of speaking English (see after a minute or so), which makes the lack of good English references about him even more suspicious. Charitably it's a case of WP:TOOSOON ... Graham87 16:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling Stone Brazil is featured on the page of Rolling Stone in the international editions and i am sorry to tell you but Rolling Stone is the most notable music magazine in the world along with Billboard (magazine).
You are having your own ideas and it’s ok but you can’t say that Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 didn’t described him as the fastest guitarist in history because this is a fact and not an idea because they described him like this.Johnmarrys (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling stone 🇧🇷 is an international edition of Rolling Stone which is the most important music magazine in the world and i am not agree when you say that it’s not notable enough and that their sources are dubious because every Rolling stone is notable including Italian rolling stone, France rolling stone etc. Johnmarrys (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Rolling Stone' is used unqualified with no further context, it usually refers to the American magazine, as it does on the Portuguese Wikipedia, for example. Saying that an article was published in the American magazine when it was only published in a national edition is lazy at best and blatantly dishonest at worst, trading on the good name of an internationally renowned publication. So no you can't say he was described that way in Rolling Stone magazine because he wasn't; that was only the case for one article in Rolling Stone Brasil. It's just like The Guardian is not the same as Guardian Australia (though in this case they're published by the same people). Graham87 17:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok man and i understand your point of view but Rolling Stone 🇧🇷 is notable and today i also showed an added the verification source of the Sanremo Music Awards which is a notable thing and he was awarded at this notable event as the fastest so now the page can be keeped on wikipedia without problems.
and he received a good coverage on Rolling Stone 🇧🇷. 6 articles.
your ideas on the fastest guitarist thing are yours and it’s ok but on Wikipedia it’s written that he is described like this, NOT that he is the fastest, so the page can be keeped on wikipedia. Johnmarrys (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnmarrys I recommend writing "Rolling Stone Brazil" instead of "Rolling Stone" followed by the Brazilian flag to avoid confusion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Ok thanks for saying. I will from now on Johnmarrys (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth this edit was exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when making my above comment about what I'd do with the article if it were kept. Graham87 07:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bink here. I should point out that a bunch of the cited sources don't contribute to notability. Some of the news pieces cite Rolling Stone Brasil, putting them into a lesser position behind the original magazine article, which in any case is bent on promoting its own concert rather than writing objectively. Other sources are interviews which don't count toward notability. The biggest problem is the claim to have won at San Remo in 2020, which cannot be verified in sources dedicated to listing San Remo winners. In any case, solo instrumentalists do not compete unless they sing, and Lo Surdo's tune "Destiny" on the San Remo compilation of 2020 is uninspired instrumental rock, tiresome to hear, appealing perhaps to a very limited audience of shred-heads. This biography gives off the sense of an extensive public relations effort aimed at putting Lo Surdo's name in as many publications as possible. I don't think this guy rises yet to the level of notability. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet it says he was awarded, NOT that he won the song contest because he is an instrumental player.
please take more attention reading Johnmarrys (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says he was awarded as the fastest guitarist so naturally he didn’t won the song contest. It’s an award for his guitar skills Johnmarrys (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the insult. I don't see any sources dedicated to listing awards at San Remo describing Lo Surdo as having won an award at San Remo in 2020. Only sources crowing about Lo Surdo's amazing speed say that. His song "Destiny" appears on the 2020 compilation, but that by itself is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I hadn't thought of the Sanremo angle before. It seems that, despite its confusing name, the Sanremo Music Awards are completely unrelated to the more well-known festival (see its Italian site) and again piggy-back on its good name for publicity. I became more suspicious when discovering that none of the artists featured in the 2020 Sanremo Music Awards compilation were mentioned at the extensive article on itwiki about the 2020 Sanremo Festival. (Also, the site that hosts the Sanremo Music Awards, Altervista, had a name that confused me for a bit as a screen reader user because of AltaVista ... and its Wikipedia article just happened to be deleted by Ritchie333, who accepted the articles for creation submission for the Davide Lo Surdo page). Graham87 02:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June Pursell[edit]

June Pursell (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 can't find any actual discussions of her and her work, nor any evidence for the repeated claims that her "voice captivated audiences and earned her a place among the prominent singers of her time.". The other claim, that she "made notable appearances in two films", is not supported by the (unreliable) source IMDb, which gives one uncredited(!) role as a vocalist, and one role as a "singer on the stage". Looking for better sources give ultr-short entries like here or purely passing mentions. She may be notable (though I haven't found the evidence for this), but then this should be based on reliable sources and accurately reflect these sources, not some unreliable sources and some claims not even supported by those. Fram (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. This is a procedural close as I gather from the discussion that the Draft version of this article has been merged into this version. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maaveeran (2023 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maaveeran (2023 film) (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)

Maaveeran (2023 film)

This is an unreleased film, and has already been draftified by AFD once, and is still an unreleased film. Unreleased films are only notable if production has been notable, and this article says nothing about production. Review of the references shows that none of them are secondary sources, and they are all advance publicity.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Says that the trailer has been viewed. No No Sometimes No
2 ottplay.com Announcement of the trailer No No ? No
3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Discussion of change in date of release No Yes Sometimes No
4 ottplay.com Interview about the dubbing No Yes ? No
5 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Interview with the actor who plays the villain No Yes Sometimes No

There is already a draft, which has more sources than this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't believe this article is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is scheduled to be released in 2 days. Is it worth deleting today when it will just be recreated? Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a draft, and we should move that to the mainspace once this is deleted. Had I known Yethin Nanba would hastily create this article, I would've moved the draft sooner. But I decided to wait until the film's release per WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the merge was already done. Think Kailash is asking for a history merge. Deleting the article after the film has been released makes no sense. DareshMohan (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. after substantial work has been done on the article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ecker[edit]

Lisa Ecker (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)

As usual with pages on minor athletes recreated after G5, there are no biographical references. All sources are directories or passing mentions. A career spanning two entire years! Finished 43rd in Rio! But DNQ for the final. Come on. This is absolutely classic WP:NOTDIR material. A wedding announcement years after retirement from a career that barely got started is not WP:SIGCOV. Creator is banned for serial re-creation of a related article. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A senior career spanning 5 years, from stuff that's in the article but hey ;) (I am hoping that emoji indicates a correction given in a happy spirit. Will double check GNG and equivalent sport guidelines and see if she passes. If not, still worth the effort :) ) Red Fiona (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a career that barely got started - the article says she was national champion fourteen times, and it did at the time you AfD'd. Did you miss that while you were glorying over her not qualifying for the Olympic final? Anyway, keep per WP:NSPORTS, meets gymnastics #2. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif, that is not a valid !vote rationale when SPORTCRIT has not been demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is in light of the sources which are better than you pretend. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No biographical sources, no significant coverage, no article. This is a living individual. We should not drop our standards so that we can become a directory of every person who ever wore their country's colours, regardless of how many sockpuppets of banned accounts are utterly determined to make it so. Either that or go and amend WP:BLP and WP:NOTDIR to introduce carveouts for participants in sporting events. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, your constant reference to "routine tournament results" sounds ridiculous, but we get it – you don't like sports, you don't like sports bios on Wikipedia, and you will go out of your way to WP:BLUDGEON any discussion if it doesn't go your way. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is basic disagreement over whether or not sources satisfy SIGCOV (according to Wikipedia guidelines).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crumlish, John (July–August 2013). "Lisa Ecker: From torn to reborn". International Gymnast. 55 (6): 31. ISSN 0891-6616 – via EBSCOHost. (In-depth feature article accessible via Wikipedia Library, and in English. Article focuses on Ecker's recovery from an ACL injury after the 2011 world championships in Tokyo, her strong performance in 2012 (per above), and her 19th place finish at the 2013 European Championship in Moscow, the best all-around finish by an Austrian woman in 50 years.)
  • Stelzel-Pröll, Claudia (1 May 2016). "Mit Riesensprüngen in Richtung Rio". Kurier (in German). Austria. (Feature article in a major Austrian newspaper that positions Ecker as "Austria's best artistic gymnast". Yes, it includes direct quotes from Ecker, but it also includes factual information that was gathered and checked by Stelzel-Pröll and her editors.)
  • "Linzerin Ecker mit souveräner Vorstellung zum Olympia-Ticket". Der Standard (in German). Austria. Austria Presse Agentur. 18 April 2016. (Article focusing on Ecker's performance in the qualification round for the 2016 Summer Olympics, as well as an assessment of the significance of her achievement. The source for the article, published in a major daily newspaper, is APA, the national news agency of Austria.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the info on Ecker in the latter two sources is routine results recaps for sportspeople. NOTNEWS specifies that coverage of press releases is considered routine, and the Der Standard article is little more than a refactored version of this press release from the ÖFT. The only facts added by Der Standard that are about Ecker are that she is 23 and from Linz. The rest of the novel material is not about Ecker at all. The Kurier piece does have some non-quote material, but a closer look shows it is primarily just summaries of a succeeding quote rather than actual commentary by the author. This article just isn't enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dean (singer)[edit]

Nick Dean (singer) (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:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Paul Kagame#Marriage and children. I should note that the previous AFD closed as Keep so there's a possibility that this article will be recreated. But as far as this discussion goes, I see a consensus to Merge. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Kagame[edit]

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

Not notable, other than as the daughter of a politician. Notability isn't inherited, most refs are either about accompanying her father or getting married. Nswix (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. There is no consensus for a page move in this discussion. The nominator should start a discussion about a possible rename on the article talk page and not do a page move unilaterally (or removed sourced content) given the support that exists for this article as it is. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons[edit]

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons (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 can understand talking about LGBT representation due to reliable coverage (hence why the top paragraph has instead been moved to the main The Simpsons page under "influence and legacy", but as a list of characters this is a colossal failure.

I want to reiterate so I don’t have to say this again: I am not against noting lgbt characters in The Simpsons, but a list is redundant at best and fancruft at worst, and the only notable section, the lede, has already been copied to a more fitting page.

A lot of of the non-notable characters are one-offs or gag characters, like "Comic Book Gay" as a parody of Comic Book Guy. Additionally, the contents that are independently notable already have pages at Patty and Selma, Waylon Smithers, and Kang and Kodos, making the majority of sources on this page more fitting for those pages instead, and also making this page very redundant. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's generally fine for standalone lists as long as they roughly meet WP:NLIST —siroχo 07:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact that there are lgbt characters or the actual characters themselves are notable? Because, as I mentioned earlier, I had already copied the lede of the article to the influences and legacy section of the show’s page, which sufficiently covers the fact that there are lgbt characters. The peer-reviewed academic journal can also simply be covered on the show’s page, not deserving of being split off in its own article that is otherwise filled with fancruft. I should’t have to reiterate this; the coverage of lgbt representation is fine, but the actual list of characters is not notable in any way because most of these characters are one-offs or have their own pages which can talk about their sexuality. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I say you thought representation isn't notable. I referred to the list itself. Let's just wait and see what others think about the page. Take care. APK whisper in my ear 07:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems odd to delete the lede, as every Wikipedia page should have a lede, and it's okay for content to be duplicated between two Wikipedia pages. Enervation (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Derilien[edit]

Stevens Derilien (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)

Redirect to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Arguments to keep around GNG struggle with the level of verifiable detail in the sources vs opinion. Then someone points out that NCORP applies which requires higher sourcing standards than GNG. I checked for a policy WP:RESTAURANTS which while failed was clearly intended to be a subset of CORP- confirming NCORP in play. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cityfields[edit]

Cityfields (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 restaurant only opened this year, I think April. I think it is a case of TOOSOON with 2 reviews from Melbourne newspapers. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NBASIC is a guideline for biographies, not companies/organizations/restaurants. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added. Although a borderline case but meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Williams[edit]

Robert D. Williams (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 businessman. None of the sources provided are about him, but rather about NPR. PK650 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Biz Markie. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Hall (model)[edit]

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

No claim of notability outside of who she was married to. I can find no significant modeling work and sources that mention her are just trivial coverage relating to her husband's death and her suing someone. Mbinebri (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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