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.
Used to be a prospect in the Baltimore Orioles' organization so the page was a redirect to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. However, he was recently released by the Orioles (see [1] and [2]) so that trick does not work anymore. We are left with a biography that does not meet WP:NBASEBALL since he's never played a single game in the major leagues. If he ever is signed by another organization's minor league affiliate, an appropriate redirect can easily be recreated. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2019 (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.
Overturn - All sourcing used is independent and 3rd party publications. Many sources so as to prove notibility to make sure Wikipedia standards are met. Added information on losing election (had not kept up with election which resulted in lack of update). JKantorJourno Jkantorjourno (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much of the referencing here is primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as government meeting minutes and the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with — but the stuff that's actual media coverage is not adding up to passage of WP:GNG, as it's exclusively local to his own hometown, and is still split between sources that briefly namecheck his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles that aren't about him, and coverage that is about him but exists in a context, like losing a city council election, that is not notable in its own right either. GNG is not a matter of "anybody who can show that their name has made it into any newspaper two or more times is automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article" — GNG also tests for the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about him, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, and none of this clears those bars. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93 In what scenario do either of those articles provide information/sourcing that is relevant to the objective writing standards of wikipedia? I have no affiliation with either page that i've created, and began working with wikipedia through Wikiwomen organization. I chose these two subjects because they're notable enough to create my first pages but not so notable that they've 1) already been created or 2) might create a scenario in which I don't have the ability to create such a large page. I have two jobs so my ability to go in and edit continuously with updated information and/or edit multiple other pages is not something that is a priority - it is hard to try and find information not already there and/or find information that needs fixed. I see now devoting much more of my time should have been a priority or else editors don't want your participation in the encyclopedia.
Bearcat Exactly, he is a local notable figure. Nowhere in Wikiguidelines does it say that anyone with a wikipage must have global representation in order to be considered notable. If this was the case, you need to delete far more pages. Local notability still warrants a page. JkantorjournoJkantorjourno (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the executive of addiction recovery centers stepping down from his position shortly after client deaths is incredibly pertinent to the subject and it would be beneath Wikipedia's standards to leave it out. Controversies, public criticism, and legal/criminal issues are often included in articles. Wikipedia's standards are to present the facts about subjects as they appear, we include the good and the bad. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not entirely impossible for people of local notability to get into Wikipedia, the bar that a person of purely local notability has to clear to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article is considerably higher than it is for people of obviously nationalized or internationalized notability. Just think of the kinds of people we would have to keep articles about if just showing a couple of pieces of purely local coverage was all it took to get a person into Wikipedia: every city councillor on earth; every mayor of a no-horse village with a population of 10; everybody who ever opened a small retail boutique or a cheese shop or a craft brewery; everybody who was ever president of an elementary school parent-teacher association or a library board or a low-income housing cooperative; every school board trustee; every teenager who ever had two pieces of human interest coverage about them trying out for a high school football team despite having less or more than the usual number of toes; winners of high school battle of the bands or poetry contests; my mother's neighbour who once got into the local papers for finding a stray pig in her front yard; and me. So the bar that a person has to clear to get into Wikipedia is not just that a couple of pieces of local media coverage happen to exist — the bar a person has to clear to get into Wikipedia, as a rule, is that there's a substantive reason why he might be notable to the country and/or the world, and not just within one city. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93 Great, i'm continuing to learn. As an active member of wikipedia that is charged with helping the community (and its members) grow, I think it would be more in line to edit the page and add this information and sources, instead of deleting the page entirely. As an executive of a national company that is receiving coverage, I would think the notability at a national level is also there? JkantorjournoJkantorjourno (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given your disclosure I'm going to assume good faith on your behalf and apologize if I have been too accusatory. Generally speaking, Wikipedia is flooded with articles on non-notable entrepreneurs, business executives, and politicians that are created by pr firms, their employees, and the subjects themselves. Please know that I did search for sources that would help establish notability per WP:BEFORE, but honestly I don't believe the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Being an executive for a national company isn't much help in that regard as there are thousands of nationwide companies, most of which employ a bunch of executives. Same goes for running for office, there are thousands of Americans who stand for election each year and even had he been elected it's not a guarantee he'd pass either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. In all sincerity, I know it's disappointing when an article you have created is nominated for deletion. You aren't supposed to take it personally when it happens but we're human and we do, but at the end of the day if the subject is deemed by consensus not to meet notability standards then it doesn't. It happens to all of us, I've even had to nominate an article that I myself created for deletion because I realized the subject wasn't notable. I hope this gives you some guidance. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93 Thank you for these notes and this explanation. I did take it personally because of the jump from the previous page to this one, but I understand your line of thinking. We do disagree on whether he passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, but I do leave it up to the Wikipedia admins to resolve in the best interest of Wikipedia. Always trying to get better, it's hard to see someone target/dislike your work. Thanks for the wisdom. Jkantorjourno —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 12 July 2019 (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. As some editors pointed out, there is a need for a broad discussion regarding the structure of the lists of minor planets, and AfD is probably not the best place for that. Tone18:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [3], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them.
I have stricken the full list added without consensus. Since merge is technically outside the scope of AFD this addresses the empty articles that include those listed above and as many of the votes below interpreted. If people are still confused we may have to start a new discussion but I do not care for accusations of bad faith; I apologize for any confusion though, I thought it would be pretty obvious that we don't need EMPTY articles. Reywas92Talk22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: I don't think "striking" it because it was "added without consensus" is a good idea. "Consensus" doesn't matter since you can't fundamentally change an AFD nomination after several editors have already !voted on the original nomination; that would require a new AFD. As for striking, I think simply removing the addition would be more constructive -- you didn't write it, and striking it makes it look like you did, but changed your mind later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Given the wording in the bottom half of the nomination, which implicates/applies to all 542 'Meanings of' lists, all list pages were tagged and added to the nomination. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly illicit modification of the nomination has been undone. I do not read the wording as implying that, and it is inappropriate for anyone but Reywas92 (talk·contribs) to modify it based on such an interpretation -- or even Reywas92 after other people have already !voted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, posting on the relevant delsort page is enough; those "notifications", which consisted of the title Nomination of all 542 lists of Meanings of minor planet names for deletion and the text From Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000 to Meanings of minor planet names: 541001–542000 @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000., were clearly biased and inaccurate, and have now been removed.[4][5] Generally speaking, notifications must be neutrally worded and accurate: otherwise they constitute canvassing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge all of them from 001 to 599,999 - Considering the very large number of pages, it probably made sense for someone to create them as a batch instead of having to individually update templates, directories, etc as new names are added. Minor planets can be named up to 10 years after discovery so it's theoretically possible that some of these could be filled. However, it makes much more sense to simply add the meaning to the main "list of minor planets 500,001-501,000" article. –dlthewave☎20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would support merging the "Named for..." column with the respective "List of minor planets" article since this is the only piece of information that is not duplicated between the two. We would need to weed out the copyvios as part of the process. –dlthewave☎16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already discussed in the AFD for this four days ago. I have contacted everyone who participated in that AFD but not shown up here yet, to inform them about the repeat discussion. DreamFocus12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me Dlthewave. I'm on the fence on all this I have to say, on the one had it's an impresive and helpful collection of pages, on the other hand I don't know if it's the type of thing Wikipedia should be housing.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice them or I would've contacted them too. I just looked for where keep, delete, or merge was written and copied the name of the person from there. I also forgot about the pinging system, that would've been easier than copy and pasting a notice on everyone's talk page. DreamFocus16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are part of a large set and it would be disruptive to delete particular links in the chain. Any restructuring should be done by considering the overall set, not just its weakest links. See WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, the pages in this nomination are empty so there's no content to preserve. There's no reason to maintain blank pages even if you have unlimited paper.
I can't speak for the nominator, but I had initially chosen a set of ten pages to avoid the extra effort of tagging hundreds of other pages. We do need to look at the set as a whole, and hopefully whatever consensus is reached here will serve as a starting point for further discussion. –dlthewave☎15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we would be preserving is the structure as a framework for future updates. These are all sublists – part of a single logical structure. Given that these components exist now, there needs to be a justification or reason for deletion and we don't seem to have one; just a lack of understanding. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Change to speedy delete all the ones individually linked at the top of this page, as well as the other empty lists. I'm neutral on what to do with the other ones. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, I am leaning WP:TNT delete on the messes that are the non-empty lists. Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000, for instance, is full of what SF Debris calls "ancient Chinese secret, huh?" -- all of the Ancient name of [X] Prefecture are only "ancient" if one considers 1871 to be "ancient", and I can't shake the suspicion that such messes are everywhere on these apparently copy-pasted lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000's entries on 10412 Tsukuyomi and 10804 Amenouzume contain some pretty funny howlers for anyone familiar with Japanese mythology, or anyone who bothers to read the relatively accurate 10385 Amaterasu entry, which contradicts both of them. And, again, Wikipedia shouldn't be copy-pasting the exact wording of external sources, even when those sources are accurate and reliable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'm not sure if you were aware, but at the time I cast my above !vote originally, the nomination said something different from what it did when you pinged me. I've unstricken my original !vote and removed the offending bowdlerization of the nomination by Tom.Reding (talk·contribs). I would also encourage you to amend any comments you may have made in light of this misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. Disagree about the etymology lists being redundant to the minor planet lists (focus is different). Repeating what I said in the previous AfD, maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, there are only 21922 named minor planets), but the occasional one does show up (right now there appear to be four). Supposedly the number of named minor planets has been growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year. I looked at the four meanings-of blurbs above 500000 (510045, 514107, 516560, 518523), and they all seem to have been copy-pasted from JPL directly. But I also took a look at a few lower-numbered meanings of blurbs, and here it looks like there was at least an effort to shorten and reword the content from the source (e.g. 4201-4210). Not sure what happened between then and now. Ahiijny (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note on page sizes, for perspective: The 2001-3000 meanings of page, where all 1000 bodies in that number range are named, has a page size of ~150 kB. Since there are currently ~22 thousand named minor planets, then that means at the moment, we most likely have ~150×22 kB = 3300 kB of article content to distribute across some number of subpages. Ahiijny (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, perhaps it could be better this way. Centralizing more information usually a good thing. It would also reduce the number of levels of indirection needed to access information. My main qualm is adding the etymology context explanations to the list of minor planets pages might unnecessarily crowd/bloat these lists. Maybe we could hide all these etymology explanations behind footnotes? This would increase the number of user click-through operations needed to comfortably read through meanings of definitions though, which is not good. Hmmm. Compare List of chemical element name etymologies vs. List of chemical elements (etymologies included in main list, but more terse), List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States vs. List of states and territories of the United States (etymologies not included in main list). Ahiijny (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the ping, I am also concerned about deleting articles in a chain. However I am only an amateur at this subject. The articles seem to have been created in 2017, in all that time they haven't been populated with any information so there does seem to be a problem with the articles at present. I really can't put any weight to deleting or keeping here. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge, if needed) - As part of a larger set, it's important to keep the list complete. Since there's a lot of subpages, the larger numbered ones can probably be merged together so we don't have empty ones. We could split/merge them like the named list does (...like List of named minor planets: 400000–999999). The way those pages do it is:
Delete these are empty lists that don't serve the reader at all. I don't mind having a list of planet meanings, but we have to be absolutely sure they're not copied from the JPL and have other sources available, but it makes no sense to have a directory structure without any files inside per WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is essentially the same as an empty category. I would be in favour of deleting all of them if they're just copied from the JPL on copyvio grounds, without any evidence for or against. SportingFlyerT·C18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The full list of pages was updated after I had voted. I believed to be voting only on the empty directory structures originally presented here, but I guess I didn't read the nomination carefully enough. This is heading for an unfortunate WP:TRAINWRECK. I still think these should be completely deleted, but I think the best solution would be to reduce the number of pages in this list through consolidation. The current structure is completely ineffective. SportingFlyerT·C22:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: (CC Primefac) The list wasn't "updated" after you voted -- the nomination was butchered by someone who had already !voted keep, apparently with the intent of convincing people to !vote keep based on his altered nomination rather than based on what the nomination had actually said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to main index: The nomination is unclear and, at best, woefully inadequate.
"[T]he etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources." - This is the rationale that was potentially-insufficiently discussed in the June 2019 AfD. However, only 11 articles were nominated, out of all possible ~600 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists which would be affected.
I invite the nom to find whole descriptions that were copy & pasted from the NASA hosted/funded sites — which are public domain anyway. In fact, even briefer synopses of the etymologies listed there are listed in the associated Wikipedia articles.* Furthermore, their use in the articles is beneficial, because they take the only relevant portion of the NASA site (which could have dozens upon dozens of pages of unrelated text), condense it, and provide useful wikilinks. This is a net positive for the Wiki, with no negative. Then, if the reader wishes to delve further, the external link is available.
* Caveat: some batches appear to be more copy-prone than others, but it is not clear what the overall copied/not-copied ratio is, and whether or not that is even a problem (CCI links elsewhere in this discussion). ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)16:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Tom.Reding butchered the AFD nomination half-way through this discussion; either he thought the original nomination was actually meant to say something it clearly did not say (in which case his opinion can be disregarded -- he's in favour of keeping a bunch of articles that were not nominated for deletion) or he understood what was being proposed, opposed deleting those articles, and decided to attempt to game the system by modifying the nomination to say something it had not been intended to (in which case his opinion should be disregarded so as not to encourage this kind of disruptive behaviour). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Umm ... were you aware when you wrote that that the full list of pages being nominated had not been nominated as part of the original AFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pages listed above, as I have confirmed none of them have any names. These pages are useless. If they later have names for these objects they can be recreated or undeleted and edited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original nomination is for the ten empty pages in the 500k-510k range. Another editor recently added all 542 lists to the nomination. –dlthewave☎15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of the original nomination, the nominator intended to nominate all 542 pages. Tom just created/added the subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was clearly never meant to say that. The empty lists were being nominated (and A3 does apply to them): the nominator was more ambivalent on the hundreds of other lists that consist almost exclusively of unambiguous copyvio and poorly sourced, inaccurate information, and so didn't nominate those pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Reywas92User:Dlthewave I think there's some confusion right now about what exactly is being proposed to be deleted in this discussion, so could you clarify? Is it (1) only those 10 pages 500001-510000, (2) every meanings of page, (3) every blank meanings of page, or (4) something else? One possible source of confusion here is that in the previous AfD, the nomination commented that there were over 400 pages that fit the description, so only the first 10 in the 500,000 series were picked as a starting point. This could be ambiguously interpreted to mean "only the first 10 are listed here but we're really discussing deletion of every (blank?) page matching this description" or alternatively "we're only discussing deletion for the first 10 pages here and we can put the others up for AfD some other time". Ahiijny (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're discussing several things here, which isn't conducive to clear consensus. For clarity I think it's best to define the scope as every blank meanings page. I would be thrilled if we also reached consensus for how to deal with the remaining content, but it might be best to take that question elsewhere if it turns into a longer discussion. –dlthewave☎16:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't redefine the scope after the AFD has been opened and multiple people have !voted. If you want to nominate the other empty lists separately, please ping me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD, closed just 5 days ago. In both AfDs nominators make wild assertions which are not beneficial to the overall minor-planet project. Empty pages in "meanings of minor planets" will be populated with citations. Last year, more than 600 minor planets were named. Rfassbind– talk14:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I think one has to admit, empty pages are not a good look. I wonder if there's any kind of sparse list-style organizational scheme that might eliminate the problem of blank pages... Ahiijny (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, empty pages do not look good and there are certainly solutions to address that "problem" (which is actually an optimization for maintainability), for example, empty meaning-pages could be redirected to the index preserving the browsing continuity and allow for the table structure to be restored as soon as a minor planet is named in the corresponding number range. In addition, those cells in the index could be grayed out to indicate that they do not contain any namings. This could be done for all empty meanings pages (which account of about 14% of all partial lists). Rfassbind– talk10:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rfassbind: What do you think of my "Izumi Shikibu" comment above? Even the non-empty lists, which are not a part of the present AFD, contain fringe-y information cited to unreliable sources (NASA is clearly not a reliable source for Japanese literary history -- presumably they just posted, word-for-word, the description given to them by the Japanese astronomer in poor English, which also is not a reliable source for Japanese literary history). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: I've always felt that these lists of minor planets was an exercise in diminishing returns. The first 1,000 or so will usually have enough sources to have individual articles. Thereafter the useful articles (and names) steadily decrease in number and references. If we continue adding these lists until we're down to motes in space, is anybody going to continue to maintain them? Does any reader have the slightest interest in the higher number ranges? Eventually we're going to need to track them statistically or just as lists of named minor planets, rather than as increasingly meaningless lists. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well because minor planets are pretty small and dim in the grand scheme of things, I think the count will be manageable for a time yet. The discovery rate (see right) looks pretty linear to me. I get what you mean about diminishing returns though; that's already happened with stars. For example, GSC-II has a catalog size of 945,592,683 stars! Ahiijny (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of stars is well short of the list tally for minor planets. Let's assume (absurdly) that the constellation lists all have a maximum of 1,000 stars: there are 88 constellations, so the total is under 100,000. In practice I'd be surprised if the total was over 10,000; the total number of astronomy articles is under 15,000. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I know I've commented on this discussion previously (though I find myself somewhat on the fence as to what to do with them), but from an administrative standpoint I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one). I have notified those editors who !voted based on them being empty in case they did not see this omission, and I see that there is a request for clarification by Ahiijny above. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took the nomination to only include the minor planet lists covering the range 500001 through 510000. If that is not the case, then I'll oppose for procedural reasons. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'm trying to figure out whether this is a difference of interpretation of what the nominator originally wrote, or you legitimately misread the nomination as including the 500+ articles that Tom.Reding added later. The above I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one) would appear in isolation to imply you understood the nomination itself to cover the 500+ pages and that the nominator himself had added them after the fact. This is not the case[6][7] and the original nominator has since clarified that it was not his intent to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards Merge/Delete I think pages should be Merge with List of minor planets, The "naming citation" should be rewritten to make them short and concise as possible without the risk of a possible copyvio. It should be noted JPL copis naming citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS published by The Minor Planet Center(MPC). If one reads a MINOR PLANET CIRCULAR one will sea a copyright notice. Publishing names with the citations makes the name official. It should be noted there is a "Dictionary of minor planet names" By Lutz Schmadel that copy many of the citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS so may be we can do more research find news stories about the naming and other source. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom.Reding and Rfassbind – even the ones that are empty, as they fit the pattern and some will very likely not be empty when the next batch of minor planets are named (usually a new batch comes out every month, but some months are skipped). Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC) Changed to Move to draftspace per the discussion below; the empty lists are useful for editors, but not so much for readers. Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather silly request for you to make, given how what DS wrote was so obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL. DS said we should not remove the blank lists based on the assumption that at some point in the future that these unnamed planets will have names that would be worth giving etymologies for.
Honestly, the fact that so few of these astronomical names have anything to do with astronomy and the few sources covering them are written by people who have no knowledge of the actual people and things for which they are named -- our List of minor planets named after people, for instance, lists, for example, the noblewoman Taira no Takako under "Monarchs and royalty" -- makes me skeptical that the current naming system will continue to be used until they get down this far and these unnamed planets will ever have names aside from their current numbers. This kind of speculation I am engaged in is against the rules for Wikipedia articles, but the difference is because I'm not putting it in articles.
@Hijiri88: again, please quote which parts of WP:CRYSTAL you think apply here.
You say "obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL", yet speak as if referencing only paragraph #2 (I assume), which applies to individual articles, not lists. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future., maybe? I dunno, your request is really weird -- no one's ever asked me such a question unless they were trolling me.
Now, could you please explain why you altered the AFD nomination?
@Hijiri88: I'm sorry that it feels weird to have someone question your own words, and have your interpretation of guidelines/policies scrutinized. If you wish to avoid/minimize scrutiny in the future, please read the entire policy first (policies actually: you've named several over the past few days, and most of them are inappropriate/irrelevant to the situation) - certainly more than the first 2 sentences. In this case, the 3rd sentence is critical. We are not talking about individual minor planet articles, but lists of them.
A legitimate violation of WP:CRYSTAL would involve guessing a numbered MP's name before the circular is published and writing an article about it. If the article is created afterwards (as they all are), then it must pass WP:NASTRO. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)13:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly trolling. I see no reason to continue humouring you if you are going to keep up this LAWYER/IDHT act. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Considering that the namings of numbered minor planets occur at regular intervals (they come out in circulars published by the Minor Planet Center at the full moon, although a few months are skipped), it is hardly CRYSTAL to assert that some unnamed minor planets will be named in future, and to keep empty lists ready. (It would also be acceptable to me to redirect the empty lists to the main page, but redlinks to me give the impression that numbers have been skipped.) It would be CRYSTAL to speculate on what those names would be, or to speculate that some specific numbers will be named in some specific month, but I am not doing that or proposing to do that. Similarly it's not CRYSTAL to say that the Summer Olympics will be held in 2036 (we even do say it, because reliable sources note that it is supposed to happen in every year divisible by 4); it is only CRYSTAL if someone writes an article about the 2036 Summer Olympics with predictions he or she made up. It would be CRYSTAL to say that it will not be held because something happens to break the pattern, because that is a prediction someone made up that is not verifiable. As things stand, the fact that reliable sources note that new minor planet names follow certain rules and come out on a rather regular basis means that we can legitimately say that at some point in the future, some numbered minor planets without names now will be given names, and that the current rules for naming them will continue to hold. (Again, it would be CRYSTAL to say that something will happen and the rules will be changed, because no reliable source predicts this.) Those minor planets might have any number that has already been assigned (and considering that that sentence just means that we're not making a prediction about which ones they might be, it's kind of the opposite of CRYSTAL). Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp:it is hardly CRYSTAL to assert that some unnamed minor planets will be named in futureWhich minor planets are going to be named next time, though? Do we need hundreds of empty or partially empty lists? and to keep empty lists ready That's what the draftspace is for. On top of that, given the problems demonstrated above, I think it would be better to have topic experts review new additions rather than immediately parroting the "official" etymology: having pre-prepared empty lists that need to have new entries added immediately in order not to be speedy-deleted encourages this disruption. Additionally, maintaining all of these lists assumes that all of the planets will eventually be named, which is not kind of the opposite of CRYSTAL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: (edit conflict × 1) Indeed, we do not know which ones they are going to be (other than the obvious fact that they must be numbered ones that haven't already received names). They might fill up blank spaces in already non-empty lists, or they might appear in an empty thousand and make its list non-empty. (The lowest number without a name yet is (3708) 1974 FV1, which is quite low.) And it is indeed conceivable that some of them might never actually get named, although all of them could potentially be. It would be acceptable to me to redirect the empty lists to the main page: I just think it's not ideal for redlinks to appear, when they normally mean that we haven't numbered enough minor planets to get there yet. (Keeping the history also makes it easier to recreate the lists when the time comes, without having to change all the numbers.) I agree that automatically parroting the "official" etymology creates copyright concerns (and sometimes worse; I just did some accent-fixing on the entry for 229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà in the etymology list, because apparently the JPL's site couldn't handle the special characters for click consonants and we copied the corrupted characters verbatim), but the idea of having lists giving minor planet name etymologies seems perfectly sound to me. Double sharp (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Well, what would you say to moving all the empty lists into the draftspace and not moving them into the mainspace until they include named entries? Generally speaking, redlinks are not a good reason to keep empty articles in the mainspace: we just don't link titles that don't have articles and can't have articles in the foreseeable future. (Read: I redlink things all the time, but they are to titles that theoretically could have articles right now; we can't make assumptions about which planets will be named next time or the time after that.) I am not disagreeing with you regarding "the idea of having lists giving minor planet name etymologies", but I just know that the ones relating to old Japan that I have seen are, almost without exception, inaccurate (FWIW, Japanese Wikipedia says Kosai hailed from Okayama and Hurukawa from Osaka, and they were both working in Tokyo when they discovered the planet, so there doesn't appear to be any malicious POV-pushing involved in the "Izumi Shikibu was from Saga" affair), and so I'm highly reluctant to assume that all or even most of the ones relating to topics I don't know about are accurate. The click consonants thing is an obvious typographical error that we can fix without much trouble, but getting information on these topics from the JPL site without cross-checking it is problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Sure, draftspace is fine, as the help these empty lists give is mostly for editors rather than readers. It does mean though that we should come up with some way other than blue/redlinks to clarify. I would suggest that the current colour scheme of Meanings of minor planet names be retained for graying out thousands with no names yet (although the links would be removed), but the thousands which have not been assigned yet (redlinks at the end) should be commented out (or anything else that makes it clear without redlinks that the minor planet numbers have not reached that high yet). I've changed my !vote above. Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD. The empty parts of the lists are being filled gradually. Many are filled. All the lists are very useful in reference and research. Nazar (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What "Many" parts of the above included lists in this AFD are filled? I didn't see any but would like to if you will provide them. Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: --- HOLD ON: I gave a !vote on ten articles listed above. It was clear to me but it looks to be there is some monkey business going on. @Primefac: came up with an interpretation (that I do not see) and commented that another editor just added to the Noms list. This makes it appear (the addition wasn't signed) there is confusion and that the addition was added by the Nom, but that does not seem to be the case. THEN some confusion is proclaimed, that also seems to be from the editor that added to the list because it now seems unclear what is intended. REALLY! If that is the case: Remove the added content---problem solved on confusion.
One thing I know is that there are issues and this will be something often brought up again. A valid statement is "...empty lists that don't serve the reader at all...".
There already seems to be a system like with Meanings of minor planet names. This seems like a great way to list all the planets in cells of a table that should link to other lists or singular list articles. The prose indicates that "Grayed out cells do not yet contain any citations for the corresponding number range.". A problem is that it appears that there have been links made to all the grouped names and is linked to from lists of numbered minor planets that include blank lists.
"List of lists" or List of lists of lists can be important when they serve an actual purpose. I am 100% all for indexes and links that aid in navigation and research. What I am not for is circular lists that do not serve a purpose, especially empty lists, and that do not conform to the MOS guidelines, as well as failing several policies and guidelines. The few I clicked on (that are listed above and from "Meanings of minor planet names") used the same five references indicating the same possible pattern for them all.
"Claims that some chain might be broken are not valid". It is not the goal of Wikipedia to list all things found somewhere else, just for the fun of it, or as a false reason to show Wikipedia expansion or improve editor or project article creation counts. Compiling a numerical list of planets could be at List of named minor planets (numerical) and could use the same tables found in Meanings of minor planet names. Grey areas should not be links to blank lists or reflect that those in grey are those without provided references yet linking to another list. This means that all the blank lists could be deleted without breaking some chain (numerical or alphabetical) without any dread of breaking or destroying things.
In this AFD we should focus on what is brought up in the Nom's claims (not added to) but not ignore (or claim the whole thing as bogus or wild assertions) if issues are found to be wide-spread and mentioned. This just indicates the issue might be far more serious overall.
Here, with this AFD, we should determine if there is valid reasoning for the lists included to exist or be deleted. Claims of hindrance with a project are not actual justification, indicates the project should look at this more closely, and might require a widely advertised RFC on the project page. The fact that blank pages serve no purpose and that the issue does not already have a solution would have to countered with valid reasoning or I still feel the list could be deleted without any hindrances or ramifications to any sequence or project "plan". Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: Please do not do this again. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to alter another editor's comment in that fashion without noting that you have done so, particularly when said comment is a proposal for some change that several users have already !voted upon. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tom.Reding's addition of every single other article is entirely improper and clearly WP:POINTY to derail this. My common-sense position is the the EMPTY articles should be deleted. At this point the nom only includes the ten above but the existence of other empty articles should be considered. Confusion remains around the previous AFD and the main lists as well but EMPTY articles are completely inappropriate and could be recreated if/when necessary – with less than 5% named so far there is no expectation these would be filled any time soon. Meanings lists that do include actual content can be discussed for merge separately, such as in larger batches as mentioned above. Reywas92Talk18:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: when you supply criteria that applies to 542 pages (paragraph 2), but only list the top 11, you are being, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, very disingenuous. If it were not for your participation in the the June 2019 AfD, I would say this was an accident/oversight. However, given your Speedy delete vote there, a "Massive WP:TROUT to the irresponsible person who mass-created scores of literally empty articles that couldn't even be theoretically filled since these have only numeric names.", and "Delete other lower-numbered Meanings of Names articles that do have some namesakes[...]", and the subsequent failure of the AfD, I'm afraid I can't take your actions at face value, and in fact deem them as dishonest until shown otherwise.
If you were honestly attempting to AfD the original list of 11, then there would be no need for the 2nd paragraph. Indeed, the 2nd paragraph doesn't apply at all the original list, and only serves to befuddle future references to this nom, or subtly bolster any future noms of the lower-numbered meanings lists.
To show good faith, I ask that you have this nomination closed, and start a new one as originally written, but with your 2nd paragraph removed.~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)19:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it takes to get rid of EMPTY articles then sure we may have to start a new nomination, but I don't care for accusations of bad faith from someone who added all the other articles in an attempt to derail this when you voted oppose. I stand by creating empty articles being a troutable offense and that they should be speedily deleted; it should be obvious that they serve no purpose. The previous AFD's failure is irrelevant when it was clearly due to the listing of the main planet data lists as well. Reywas92Talk22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. You can't shut down an AFD you don't agree with by looking for some piece of wording in the nomination that you can interpret as contradicting the stated goal of the AFD, then alter the wording of the nomination so several editors !vote "keep" based on something that wasn't actually in the nomination, then when you are found out request that the AFD be withdrawn and reopened with wording that no one could possibly choose to misconstrue as you did -- presumably with no prose rationale, thus allowing for "Speedy keep -- no rationale was given by the nominator for why the pages should be deleted". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the responses mention the scope of content that they are in favor of keeping or deleting. Despite the misreading of the nomination and the subsequent addition and removal of pages, a closer who takes the time to read the comments should have no trouble reading the consensus. There is no need to second-guess the intent of the nominator or open a new AfD. –dlthewave☎01:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: It's not repetitive spam when you have repeatedly engaged in the same disruptive behaviour and have refused to even acknowledge it. I would appreciate your striking your above personal attack (not to mention your hypocritical, repetitive/spammy requests that I clarify more than I already have how WP:CRYSTAL applies to the argument that "these planets will have names some day -- we should prepare a space to include descriptions of those names"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92:you struck my '+Full list of 542 pages' line, which would've been an excellent opportunity to also strike your own offending 2nd paragraph, but, alas, you did not. Perhaps I'm being naïve, but you may still strike your own 2nd paragraph as an equivalent sign of good faith; doing so has no discernible effect to your proposed original argument. Not doing so, however, would unfortunately confirm my bad faith suspicions. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)03:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, but I'm not sure why the AFD should be closed three days early just because of some funny business by one of the "keep" !votes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would think to close early would require agreement by @Reywas92: to withdraw Nom as a compromise or clear consensus of those involved. I would support proposal but there still needs to be attention given to possible copy/vio, copy/paste issues that might involve attrition problems or plagiarism. See: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2019 July 1. To prevent even a hint of impropriety an admin (@Primefac:) should be involved. Otr500 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll post this here since it was brought up in a few places. The first paragraph of the nomination says Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these, indicating that while there are ten pages listed, the entire list of pages (which until recently was listed and linked) were included in the nomination. However this was not in the original nomination.
I have looked into this further and found multiple versions of the nomination statement:
Change #1 (by the nominator) to include the above-quoted "selection of 541" text.
Change #2 (by Tom Reding) to include a link to the list of 542 articles
Change #3 (by Dlthewave, after being struck by Reywas92) to remove the text added by Tom
At the time of Change #1 there were an even number of keep and delete votes (3 apiece), with a spattering of merges on both sides. Since making my initial observation regarding the "not empty lists", votes have been struck, changed, and changed a second (or fourth) time in trying to clarify exactly what is proposed to be nominated. A procedural re-nomination is not ideal, and in re-reading many of the changed votes the preference for "delete all" or "delete the empties" has become fairly clear, but we still have three days to discuss the issue further.
From my reading of the discussions above, Reywas92 (and please correct me if I'm wrong) intended to nominate all of the empty lists, but only gave ten as an example. The wording of the nomination (and in particular Change #1) has simply muddled that meaning. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in that "Change #1" diff to imply Reywas92 is in favour of immediately deleting those other articles. A3 applies to these empty lists and to any other empty lists in the same category, and there's really no reason not to merge the others so that each article is of a reasonable length and no pointless entries on unnamed planets are included, but we're not !voting on that. Reywas's change, which was in two parts, was clearly to propose merging the non-empty lists. At no point have any articles other than the ten listed above been nominated for deletion as part of this AFD. Also, of the three "keep" !votes, two were habitual deletionist "ARS" types, and the other was essentially a !vote for "merge empty lists, don't keep". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a random aside, a "selection" is by definition a subset of the whole. I don't know how you can assume the entirety has been "selected" by the statement above. SportingFlyerT·C00:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're talking to me... a selection is a subset of the whole, and the "whole" is being referred to in the Further numbers are also considered here part of the sentence. The fact that we have to sit here and argue the semantics of the statements in the nomination mean that it is poorly worded and should be clarified by a specific statement from the OP as to what they wanted - which is exactly what I asked for above; currently my interpretation of the nomination (with clarifying statements from the nomninator) is that every empty list is being considered; the list of ten are just examples. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was asked by multiple people for my thoughts, which I gave, and I read through everything and produced pretty much the same thing as what you just posted. I asked them to correct me only if I was wrong. At this point we are arguing semantics and a dozen other things that are irrelevant to the nomination. Primefac (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, before Tom.Reding added the additional pages, there didn't seem to be any confusion about the scope of the nomination. Sure, some editors (including me) supported deleting the empty pages and merging any salvageable content, but nobody expressed concern that all of the lists were up for deletion as a set. The confusion arose after editors started noticing that a "let's delete these empty pages" nomination actually included non-empty pages. –dlthewave☎01:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: FWIW, I was this close to inserting the words "without leaving any indication that he did so" after your "added the additional pages", without leaving any indication that I had done so, as a meta-commentary on the whole affair, but decided against it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I have seen an AFD this screwed up before. I don't know if it is salvageable. I !voted on the 10. I didn't look to see if the addition was already there or added later. At any rate I didn't include the rest, didn't think they were included, and became confused when the discussion somehow started to expand causing me to wonder and look back. The instructions do allow for bundling, and adding more if the discussion swings that direction. The improper addition to the nomination did add confusion that at the least tainted some !votes.
There was no keep result at the previous AFD. The closing statement in relation to these articles was "no consensus -- consider renominating". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result was [...]No consensus with respect to "Meanings of" articles. If the nominator still wishes for those to be deleted, I'd recommend they create a new AfD, as there is some support here to delete them or merge them.[8]Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Normally the expression "color me red"[9] means "I'm embarrassed (because I realized I was wrong about something, etc.)", but here it just looks like the error in question was highlighted -- did you mean to strike it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ST47 clearly wrote separate closing statements for the Lists and Meanings articles. Lists was "Keep" and Meanings was "No consensus" with the recommendation to create a new AfD, hence this new AfD. –dlthewave☎02:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The standard meaning of the expression "color me red" is not an "inference" and nor would it be "unwarranted" to assume you recognized your mistake and acknowledged that you were embarrassed by it -- in fact that is an assumption of good faith on your part. Now that you have clarified that a statement of good faith was not your intent, I will ask you again why you think there was a consensus to "keep" these pages at the last AFD, when the closer very clearly stated that there was no such consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not under any illusion this will close with clear consensus, but IMO this should be an easy delete. List of minor planets clearly meets LISTN, and I can understand the argument that unpopulated sublists thereof should remain in place (though there may be better solutions). Here though, I don't see where "Meanings of minor planet names" (which is effectively a list of named minor planets) makes a cogent claim to notability. Where are the reliable sources that discuss named minor planets, as a group? Even if they exist, you only have to take a trip to List of minor planets named after rivers, for example, to see that this area has at some level run into the problem of (and I hate to say it,) listcruft. —Rutebega (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't close yet I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this AFD should be closed immediately, but I am a little concerned that a simple !vote-count (which is what many AFD closers seem to do to avoid getting people angry at them) would result in a "no consensus" close, which would de facto favour the "keep" position, and since the confusion has been cleared up it seems likely that any further !votes would be on the "delete/redirect/draftify" side of the debate. I'm also a little concerned that one of the above "close" comments appears to be hounding of me rather than a good-faith, sober assessment of the discussion. (Heck, the most recent "keep" !vote was unambiguous trolling, as was made clear by their responses to follow-up questions. Whether it was specific trolling of me due to my deep involvement in this debate is actually irrelevant.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My vote was keep on the AfD that closed on July 1 In both this AfD and the prior, the individual nominators made assertions without regard for the minor-planet project. As Andrew D. has stated: These are part of a large set and it would be disruptive to delete particular links in the chain. Any restructuring should be done by considering the overall set, not just its weakest links. It is a fact that every year more minor planets are discovered. Additionally, the empty parts of these lists are slowly populating. As has been stated above, the lists are useful in reference and research. WP:ATDWP:NOTPAPERLightburst (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Your comment appears to indicate you have not read or understood the discussion. The nominated pages are technically covered by CSD, with the onlx thing forcing this AFD being the recent "no consensus" result, but your comment does not appear to address this. Furthermore, the timing of your !vote, and your "hornets nest" comment above, appear to indicate that you are motivated more by "revenge" against one or more of the participants here. I would ask you to kindly leave me alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor makes 38 separate comments/insults/notes/invitations/provocations on this one single AfD. I would suggest that the editor refer to: WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:BLUDGEONING guidelines/policies. Suggest the editor also carefully read the WP:AOHA policy. This AfD is about the merits of the article, and as such, it is not the place for the editor to bring personal attacks, personal insecurities and personal accusations. One wonders, how much easier this AfD would be to close without the editor's 38 entries - because many of them elicited other non-AfD related comments to muck up the AfD...like my comment here. Lightburst (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is about the merits of the article, and as such, it is not the place for the editor to bring personal attacks, personal insecurities and personal accusations Yeah -- so why are you ignoring that and just focusing on my conduct as though that was remotely relevant? You claim that ATD and NOTPAPER are valid arguments for not draftifying/redirecting/deleting these empty lists, but you don't even seem to be aware that we are talking about empty lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Your conduct at this AFD is not "remotely relevant." 14:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Close I believe this AFD should be Close, the citations should be edited so that they are not copyed from the Minor Planet Circulars(note JPL copies from Minor Planet Circulars), I think Wikipedia should only have the who or what(i.e, actor, actress,place,poet, discoverer, science fair winner,etc..) examples on what should be done"Baton Rouge, Louisiana". JPL·11739, Ernst Pepping (1901–1981), German composer. JPL·11043, I think correcting the "official" citations should not be done! In reality for most name citations there only there reliable sources, the Minor Planet Circulars, JPL, Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (note they are all copies of each other). for more on how minor planet names are name see https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/Astrometry.html#name -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bayoustarwatch: With regard to I think correcting the "official" citations should not be done!, what do you think about my point, stated above, that NASA and other space organizations don't know anything about Japanese mythology? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: Many observer/discoverers may not know about "many" things(this is true for most people -- myself included). What I am suggesting, because the naming citations may NOT be in the public domain and there are "few" reliable sources. We shuould olny use much "as need" to let the reader know who or what the minor planet was name for. I see no need to use ALL of the "fact" from the "official" citations(i.e. do not put the "Imperial Prince" part in). MAYBE we can do somothing like this "| 52261 Izumishikibu || 1982 VL4 ||The Japanese poet Izumi Shikibu (born c. 976). || JPL·52261|| " Take some or most of the "unneeded fact" out! But do not correct or add more "facts". The pages are about minor planet names and not about the people, places, or things for which the minor planet are named. --- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These pages are part of a much larger set. Whether they should have been created in this form is moot; we are now here. They in effect form place markers for future expansion. I am seeing no benefit in knocking these bricks out of the wall. What is probably needed is a full discussion on the whole structure. Just Chilling (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is nothing he's done that is especially notable; he seems to be pretty run of the mill. Notability is not inherited from your child who writes for Sports Illustrated; compare: your kid married royalty or got elected POTUS. FWIW, I worked in the Sports Illustrated mailroom during college, 30 years ago. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2019 (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.
Not sufficiently notable. Short five-minute film with a claimed budget of 100$. The only claim of importance is that it won an audience award at the Yatragenie Short film contest but the latter does not appear to be notable. Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus is that the article should be kept in some form. I do not see sufficient support to close this as 'merge' but a WP:MERGEPROP, as post-AFD action, looks the way to go. Just Chilling (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of many unsourced articles on "battle honours", using titles that sound more like military history campaigns. There do not appear to be any sources about such a "battle honour", and also few to none on the corresponding battles or campaigns, which might possibly be actual notable topics in some cases. I say either delete them all, or convert some to articles on the events described rather than on the battle honours, when sources can be found. This one can be a first test case, in case someone has alternative good ideas what to do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that they exist, but I'm pretty concerned about Notability given the sparsity of sources. I was initialially just looking for sources for the name; I don't find any with "Campaign" in them, do you? Dicklyon (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you appeared to be doubting existence when you said "...using titles that sound more like military history campaigns". You are right that the honour does not appear to contain the word campaign, but that is just a renaming issue. this page on the Canadian participation, has some discussion of the honour itself. It's brief, but much more than a passing mention; enough to substantially expand the article. As I said, a list of awardees is what the article really needs. Given the millions of men who took part in the campaign, there are bound to be a lot of sources recording this. The information to do that is out there, it just needs a bit of research. The links I gave above were just a sample, here are a few more; Honourable Artillery Company, Manchester RegimentParachute Regiment, Scots Guards. There will be many more. SpinningSpark11:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously battle honors exist. But not by the title given here and most others that I tried to look up; even the ones that cited a source didn't have good enough sourcing to find if these things have actual names. I think the name of this article would be better used for an article on the campaign (which most of the text is about already), rather than about the obscure battle honor. That is the article could say "The North-West Europe campaign of 1944–45 was the land campaign starting with the landings in Normandy and ended with Field Marshal Montgomery taking the German military surrender of all German forces in the Netherlands, Northwest Germany and Denmark on Lüneburg Heath in Northwest Germany. The campaign was conducted by Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force, of which the British 21st Army Group was a component, along with the American 12th and 6th Army Groups. Together, the three army groups comprised the Allied effort on the Western Front which at its longest stretched from the North Sea to Switzerland. There is also a battle honor ..." But that's a different topic, so I thought it would be best to delete the current marginally notable topic and start over. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you want to keep all these battle honor stubs, then maybe find better names for them. For this one, for instance, at least take out the word "campaign" which doesn't appear in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Since it is awarded as a battle honour to British regiments, it is useful to have a short article saying what it consists of, but having explained that briefly it should reader the reader on to more detailed articles about the campaign. It should certainly not be expanded; indeed it should be tagged to be left alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do mean by "what it consists of"? Is there anything like that in the article? Also it's unclear why one would tag an article to not be expanded, or left alone; never heard of such a concept. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with merging. I put the dates in for precisely that reason. There are units listed in the Canadian source that only fought in 1942 and the ones that were left out are now easily identified. On the other hand, 1942 was a completely different phase of the war consisting of a series of coastal raids, so perhaps it should have a separate section. SpinningSpark10:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a battle honour, but under common name, and how it appears in articles ought to be at North-West Europe 1944-45 (or however it should be dashed/hyphenated) which is currently a redirect. The alternate would be the unnecessarily long-winded "List of units awarded the North West Europe battle honour for service in 1944 or 1945 or both 1944 and 1945" or somesuch. Regarding possible mergers - "North West Europe 1940" and "North West Europe 1942" are very different kettles of fish. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm unclear what you mean by that. The articles and their sources are not sufficient for me to see the point. The present article says "The battle honour North-West Europe is suffixed with the year, or years, in which the the awarded unit took part in the action." Are the '40 and '42 ones not part of that series? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close as merge – two of us agreed to merge, and nobody wants to delete. Any opposition to merging the three North-West Europe battle honour articles into one? Dicklyon (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There isn't clear consensus for a merger yet (and where to).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to fail WP:GNG with only local WP:ROUTINE transaction coverage. Fails WP:NHOCKEY as a minor league player who only played 4 games in the AHL and no awards that qualify for the lower levels. WP:TOOSOON for any notability as head coach of the Idaho Steelheads, which has no presumed notability either. (Page created when it met the older version of NHOCKEY of 100 professional games, since changed to the current standards with specified leagues at 200 games when it was found the 100 pro games was too loose to ensure most subjects met GNG.) Yosemiter (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Cosmopolitan Soccer League - I'd like to think that a 107-year old club would have enough references to establish notability, but I can't find any. I'm not sure if this is because of the lack of notability, or if we simply can't reference German-language articles from the pre-war era in America relating to the German-American Soccer League. Still, after playing in this league (since renamed to the Cosmopolitan Soccer League) for 97 years, it's surely a suitable redirect! Nfitz (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - This article appears to have been speedily deleted on or around 29 June 2019 before being recreated on 7 July 2019. It seems to be an amateur club that does not meet WP:FOOTYN. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2019 (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. I find the 'keep' arguments significantly stronger than the 'delete' reasoning particularly since the 'delete' !voters have not addressed nor analysed the sources that have been identified. Just Chilling (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This had been a straight copy and paste from the artists website. That speedy got removed when the article's creator attempted to rework while still extensively quoted. I removed all the COPYVIO and we're left with a short stub. My BEFORE led me to believe that she was also not notable but I was worried that I was potentially missing something so I didn't nominate but I see no evidence of notability per ANYBIO, any other SNG, or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article with further links. There are now several articles including her collaborators that link to this article. The links include university websites and famous performance venues. Comment added by Newmusiceditor (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ample evidence of notability as cited in article: Univeristy Professor, shows at major international venues, works in various internationally renowed publications. NewMusicEditor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmusiceditor (talk • contribs) 14:05, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
Subject was the editor and a chapter author of an academic book by a reliable academic press and the book was worthy of note by an author in Art Journal [[13]] in 2015.
In addition, in terms of SNG, music (subject is a musician in a non-mass media genre):
Her work is recorded on Edition Wandelweiser, an important indie label that has been around more than a few years and many of the composers on the label are independently notable. For those less familiar with this genre of music, here are some starting points: New Yorker columnist Alex Ross' digital addendum to his book The Rest is Noise [[14]], author Jennie Gottschalk's digital addendum to her book Experimental Music since 1970 [[15]], academic journal Contemporary Music Review's issue devoted entirely to the activity of people on Edition Wandelweiser [[16]], author Tim Rutherford-Johnson's article in the edited [[17]] online publication New Music Box [[18]].
As noted above she is the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works.
As a mentor in the Wandelweiser program Composers Meet Composers she is an influential teacher alongside other teachers who are independently notable.
Is covered in publications devoted to her music sub-culture such as The Free Jazz Collective and Wire.
Taken together we see the subject of this article as being notable enough to be addressed directly and in detail in a variety of reliable, independent, secondary sources. We also see that the subject is remarkable enough to be discussed and mentioned across media -- television, academic journal, radio, magazines. Independent coverage of the subject begins more than 20 years ago and continues up through the present. I will continue to update this keep section as I obtain more archival sources, though I think there is plenty of reason to keep this article as the subject is notable. TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) 16:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Initial reason for nomination for deletion (large amounts of quotation) has been ammended and the article is original content. Move to keep article. Comment added by Newmusiceditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmusiceditor (talk • contribs) 12:35, July 7, 2019 (UTC)
The GNG makes the following recommendation: “before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.” Given the article subject’s decades of work in experimental music I think this article should be kept and that we all might consider following the GNG in locating additional sources. For example, I know that the subject was mentioned in a 2018 issue of Wire Magazine (a reliable, independent source for this genre) but the archives are only available to subscribers and therefore must be sought out in print. This genre exists primarily in print sources of this nature outside of publications like The Free Jazz Collective (which does in fact have an article about the subject). — TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problom is that is the problem. A few (maybe even lots off) trivial, mentions, but those do not establish notability. If we look but cannot find we have obeyed GNG, it does not matter why we could not find.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in The Free Jazz Collective is not trivial. This type of music will require seeking out sources beyond simple web searches. In this regard, it is valuable to, as the GNG suggests, “consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.” TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it may in fact be a reliable source. Especially in the experimental music genres. Certainly it’s been viewed that way in a few hundred other Wikipedia articles [[20]]. TheMusicExperimental (talk
As a note to the closing sysop, my results were of the quality that Slatersteven gave as an example above and thus not what I considered sufficient for passing GNG. GNG certainly does have some holes in terms of establishing N but it's hard to decisively say that this is one of them and thus Wackerle is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that as you both gain more knowledge re the documentation of experimental music you will have a greater understanding of how subjects like this one intersect with GNG sourcing. In the US, for example, there are approximately three national-scope papers which might on a rare occasion mention this genre of music. There is only one large magazine extant devoted to experimental music (The Wire, which does have a mention from 2018 of the subject in question but it is behind a paywall). Situations like this are why the GNG encourages a more rigorous approach to pursuing and considering the possibility of existing sources beyond what is available in hasty web searches. TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven wrote: "A few (maybe even lots off) trivial, mentions, but those do not establish notability. If we look but cannot find we have obeyed GNG, it does not matter why we could not find."
However, the relevant notability guideline for people is WP:BASIC (not WP:GNG), which is quite similar but in one point different: It states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
So, trivial coverage does not cut it, but multiple non-substantial coverage in indepedent sources does in fact establish notability of a person, even if WP:GNG would not.
I have identified the existence of additional sources which are not available in a web archive and am now working to get review copies. Included are: BBC reviews of subject’s work from 1998, FR3 interview from 2003, FR3 profile from 1993, review of work from the August 10th 1998 edition of The Independent written by Terence Blacker, review of work from the Aug 21 1998 edition of The Evening Standard written by Tim Cooper, profile in Contemporary Visual Art from 1997 written by Joanna Lawry. I suspect there will be more once I start probing the liminal time before all media was digitized. I’ll update the article as I review these sources. TheMusicExperimental (User talk:TheMusicExperimental) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I’ve added two additional citations resulting from my efforts to consider the existence of sources that may be more challenging to find: one is a mention where the source author considered the subject’s work notable among a list of books, the other a more substantial focus within the source. The sources are Art Journal and Artforum, both are reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk05:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation for a Cafe OTO performance devoted to her text works and others from Resonance FM [[21]]. Subject has been a featured guest on this radio station three times and I'll add more as I get time to listen to the other interviews. TheMusicExperimental (talk)
This is where the gap between notable and verifiable comes into play. There's no doubt that she's real and is of some renown. The doubt for at least me is whether that renown translates to notability. Despite your valiant efforts I'm not seeing it which might be an example of the shortcomings of notability more than you or Waeckerle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FR3 has confirmed existence of two broadcasts about the subject and handed me off to INA to get the transcripts. BBC has similarly confirmed existence and passed me on to the Sound Library Archives. (talk)
Comment I'm not sure why editors above keep referring only to WP:GNG. It's quite likely that the subject might meet a WP:SNG. Finding reviews of her work might show that she meets WP:CREATIVE #3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Reviews don't have to be in print (paper or digital) - WP:PUBLISHED says that "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." I hope this AfD will be kept open long enough for TheMusicExperimental to check these audio archives. (Interviews will be less relevant, as they are generally considered not to be independent - though interviews vary greatly in depth, the interviewer's preparedness, the status of the publication carrying the interview, etc, so personally I don't think a blanket ban is useful, but there we are.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was about to write something similar as RebeccaGreen above, I too was wondering why nobody was referring to the actually relevant notability guideline for people WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE #3 in addition to WP:GNG. If either of them is fulfilled the subject is notable. Given that the sources so far seem to be reliable but on a middle-ground regarding establishing notability, I think this is an important quote from WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability".
I am not familiar with the subject, but the evidence brought forward above (even if the research is still a work in progress) lets me assume that a mixture of either WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE #3 is likely fulfilled already, although apparently only slightly (unless more substantial RS can be brought forward in the future). Since I think we are doing our readers a better service having an article just meeting the threshold rather than having no article at all, and since the contents of the article does not contain promotional material or unsourced information which could be harmful to the person, I tend to a "weak keep" and hope that the article will develop into something more substantial over time, and with more and better sources.
Comment I added an additional citation, a non-digitized article from Evening Standard which I requested from their archivist. The article is about an evening performance with multiple performers of which the subject is one. While I don't think this citation qualifies as "substantial" as it mentions several performers, I do believe it adds to the collection of WP:CREATIVE #3 as one of "multiple independent sources." I continue to pursue the BBC, FR3, and other citations (it's slow because it involves large orgs and I'm an ocean away, thank you for your patience). TheMusicExperimental (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can we do that? I didn't know that an article namespace could be redirected to a category namespace. In that case, full steam ahead! A loose necktie (talk)
Keep. We have automobile magazine. Same type of content. Not debated for over 10 yrs.. Cycling is a valid type of mobility among the various mainstream means of transport. And you mean to say that this is on the level of "dog magazine"? Jocularity. -- Kku (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mitskie has just told me that the reason their are more woofle (her word) magazines are that they are fawning creatures to their vain human owners who have in turn rewarded them with these kitty tray liners (again her words), unlike kitties who, on the whole, remain aloof to such trifles. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cycling magazines are a thing. Maybe it should be moved to "Cycling magazines" (plural) or "Bicycling magazines". It is appropriate for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive article about them and their history. I just started a list-section in the article, because as Barkeep49 noted, what displayed as "List of cycling magazines" in the article just linked to the category and was not a proper list. More can be developed. Note that Category:Cycling magazines exists as a valid category, and by guideline wp:CLNT it is also appropriate to have a complementary list-article about the elements of the category. The list-article can include more facts in a comparative table, and photos of magazine covers, and statements supported by sources, which cannot be done in a category. --Doncram (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to List of cycling magazines, with the original name as a redirect. I could also live with the redirect to a category, but it's not my preferred approach. I don't buy the nominators argument of 'we don't have other similar pages so we shouldn't have this', but I'm also not convinced that there is enough coverage of cycling magazines as an independently notable concept to justify an article rather than a list. We should, however, have no difficulty finding sources that list cycling magazines in order to meet WP:NLIST. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and whether the article is mainly considered to be a list-article or not doesn't change anything about Keeping or not. List-article titles do not have to start with "List of", but moving could be considered as a wp:RM or other editor discussion at its Talk page. The AFD decision should be "Keep", possibly with a recommendation to consider moving (and "Move" is not an AFD outcome recognized in wp:AFDSTATS and should be avoided; it would essentially be a Keep decision with admonishment that "needs editing" in some way, as is often done.) --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable listing of noteworthy bicycle magazines with a prose introduction. It's how lists are supposed to look. Neutral on moving to the "list of" title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:45, 17 July 2019 (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.
DeleteThe citation the article is copied from does not appear to be reliable at all, it's unclear that this is a real place since that does not refer to it as a village. Would need better sourcing but does not appear notable. Reywas92Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A novel that does not appear to have any claim to notability. The book definitely existed, and can be found for sale on various online retailers, but those sales listings are about all I can find regarding it. I have not found any substantial coverage on it, nor did there seem to be much in the way of reviews. I tried searching for information on the book, cross referencing it with both the author's real and pen names, and the only thing I found was that it was given a review in an issue of Cemetery Dance Publications' magazine. Based on my lack of results in trying to find sources, it appears to fail both the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (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.
Keep. As nice as it would be if people always took the time to write a substantial article, instead of just putting in the bare minimum needed to state and verify that the person exists and then walking away, the length of any given article is not in and of itself a deletion criterion: if the article properly demonstrates and verifies that the topic has an "inherent" notability claim, such as serving in an WP:NPOL-passing office, then even an inadequate article gets kept and merely flagged for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2019 (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.
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 23 year old and currently playing and last played on 3rd July 2019 in a WP:FPL league.SNGs including WP:FOOTY ,WP:NCRIC ,WP:NBASKETBALL exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG . An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs.Particurly for young players who are currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards, NSPORTS mentions "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." SNGs exist to give a general idea if a subject is likely to meet the GNG, but meeting an SNG does not mean that an article doesn't need to meet the GNG. --MrClog (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It remains unclear where consensus exist to keep articles when they are young and meet NFOOTY but not GNG. NSPORTS (of which NFOOTY is a part) says that all stand-alone articles need to meet the GNG (see my quote above). NSPORTS is a community guideline and represents general community consensus. You put against that, however, 3 AfDs in which people decided to go the other way. All of these cases are local consensus, they represent the views of a small number of AfD participants. When comparing consensus reached regarding a community guideline like NSPORTS with consensus on 3 individual AfDs, it seems clear to me that we should go with the more widespread consensus reached at NSPORTS instead of the local consensus you present. --MrClog (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those were just three recent examples, from February, March and June of this year - numerous others exist if you check the archives. Even if that is the case, completely and randomly disregarding a long held "local" consensus is pretty disruptive. An individual AfD isn't the correct place to discuss change. R96Skinner (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is the case, completely and randomly disregarding a long held "local" consensus is pretty disruptive. Exactly, and that is why it is disruptive to disregard the text of NSPORTS, which was created based on consensus, and which says that stand alone articles should meet the GNG. --MrClog (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption to fix disruption? Strange solution, I must say. As I mentioned, an individual AfD isn't a suitable place to discuss these things. R96Skinner (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – cannot find WP:SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. I'm coming up with brief mentions, game reports, transfer reports. The best I could find are Sleman (translate) and Kampiun (translate), and I don't think either one counts as in-depth or non-routine. "Passes NFOOTY" is not a policy-based reason to keep, in my opinion, per the NSPORTS language quoted above. "Young player" is also not a policy-based reason to keep, in my opinion, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. – Levivich02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame you pick and choose which consensus you follow, Levivich. You wonder why fellow editors get frustrated with you, despite your (possibly positive, yet most likely negative) motives. R96Skinner (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you disagree with me on the issue, but I don't get why you're frustrated that there is someone on the internet with a different opinion. My motive is to reduce the number of non-notable footballer BLPs. I think it's a positive motive, but if you want to look at it as a negative motive, like I'm sitting here going, "Muahahahaha! I will reduce the number of non-notable footballer BLPs!", that's fine with me, too; that actually makes me look cooler. – Levivich18:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia. Disagreement is as common as anything and I'm cool with that, when those involved are helpful. You get hate for your AfD nominations, other editors who nominate don't. Think about it. R96Skinner (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did say "for your", rather than "on your". Anyway, this isn't a suitable place to discuss these things (it's an AfD after all). I've opened a discussion with you via your talk page. R96Skinner (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Voting delete against consensus, because things might change? Isn't that a WP:POINT violation - disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Changes to policy should be discussed in appropriate forums. I've seen others propose topic bans for repeated violation of this behavioural guideline in the past. Nfitz (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepEasily meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Lots of media coverage too, though without a lot of digging difficult to tell how much of it, if any, passes WP:GNG - there's a lot of coverage though, and the examples posted above seem good. The whole point of notability guidelines is so we don't end up wasting time chasing our tails - particularly with foreign language publications. If one wants to avoid WP:BIAS one should support these guidelines. Everyone's time would be better spent improving the article - I'm adding some sources to the article. Nfitz (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment
I have created the following table to assess the sources brought by SportingFlyer (using Google Translate). This source I didn't check, because I got a "This site is not safe" warning when opening the link. At this moment, the 1st and 3rd source are also used in the article itself. --MrClog (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC); edited 18:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC) - Update based on new sources by SportingFlyer. --MrClog (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The website is owned by the football club Mr. Kambuaya plays for. See disclaimer here.
Managed by the official media team of the football club.
Routine transfer report that only says that Mr. Kambuaya played "impressively" at another club.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I see no reason to believe kampiun.id is an unreliable source. Furthermore, there's tons of mentions of him which is what you would expect for someone with 99 career top division games, including other articles on him specifically [35][36]SportingFlyerT·C19:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming all these sources are reliable, I don't see any of them as being in-depth enough to count towards GNG; they're all very brief:
Kampiun Apr 2019 is 8 sentences and 1 quote about the player not voting in an election
Kampiun May 2018 is 11 sentences with 2 quotes: "Kita banyak kans. Tapi memang belum bisa maksimal. Ini jadi salah satu evaluasi saat nanti pulang ke Mojokerto. Saya yakin kedepan bisa lebih baik lagi" ("We have a lot of chances. But it can't be maximized. This is one of the evaluations when you return to Mojokerto. I am sure that in the future it will be better") and "Kami masih yakin bisa naik. Tinggal sekarang berusaha, kerja keras untuk memenangkan setiap pertandingan" ("We are still confident we can go up. It is only now trying, working hard to win every match").
Kampiun Jan 2019 is 13 sentences, the longest I've found, but still not in depth.
Bolatimes 2019 is a game report with 2 sentences about the player ("Dua gol PSS Sleman dicetak oleh Sidik Saimima dan Ricky Kambuaya" / "Two PSS Sleman goals were scored by Sidik Saimima and Ricky Kambuaya." and "Umpan dari Derry Rachman disambut tendangan langsung oleh Ricky Kambuaya" / "A pass from Derry Rachman was greeted by a direct kick by Ricky Kambuaya")
JournalMojo 2018 has 2 sentences about the player ("Laskar Mojopahit sempat unggul lewat Ricky Kambuaya di menit 24 sebelum Kerbau Sirah mampu membalikkan keadaan lewat ..." / "Laskar Mojopahit was ahead through Ricky Kambuaya in the 24th minute before Buffalo Sirah was able to turn things around ..." and "Jamal juga menyatakan, ia tidak mengetahui pasti pelanggaran yang dilakukan Ricky Kambuaya" / "Jamal also stated, he did not know for sure the violations committed by Ricky Kambuaya")
SuperElja 2019 is a 6-sentence transfer report with one quote from the player ("Semoga saya bisa memberikan permainan yang terbaik dan membantu PSS Sleman memenuhi target yang diinginkan manajer tim" / "Hopefully I can give the best game and help Sleman PSS meet the target desired by the team manager")
Sleman 2019 is an interview with the player about a particular game, with 11 sentences plus three quotes from the player, like "Pertandingan kemarin itu berjalan sangat seru sekali" ("The match yesterday was very exciting") and "Iya tentunya sangat motivasi sekali untuk pembuktian kepada keluarga saya yang ada di seluruh Papua dan khususnya orang tua saya yang ada di Kota Sorong" ("Yes, of course, it is very motivating to prove to my family throughout Papua and especially my parents who are in Sorong City"). It is not in-depth and gives us almost no information about the player. – Levivich19:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why many sources that have significant coverage are being tossed out in this exercise, because they are "short" - typically I've seen that point made before with one or two paragraph pieces of a hundred words or so - which is not the case here.
If you look at WP:GNG there's no length requirements other than part of a sentence in an article is plainly trivial. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
This test is clearly met in many of these articles (and there's more out there). In terms of number of sources, there's no fixed guideline, but GNG says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. The implication here is one very comprehensive source might be sufficient, but lots of significant sources, with less depth of coverage is also sufficient. Reading WP:GNG instead of trying to establish new policy make it clear that WP:N has been met. If only there was more effort to improve the article, rather than building large tables that ignore existing guidelines! Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz:: WP:SIGCOV does require the coverage to discuss the subject in detail, which these short articles do not. Also, even if the Kampiun.id sources were to be considered SIGCOV, they are still not reliable per the information in the table (the same goes for Superelja.id). Now, about your last sentence ("If only there was more effort to improve the article, rather than building large tables that ignore existing guidelines!") - the reason I'm not improving the article right now is because I believe it is not notable and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --MrClog (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage easily meets SIGCOV - and there's no indication that none of these sources are reliable. I'm completely perplexed why with such overwhelming evidence here that WP:GNG is met, why you persist in wasting everyone's time with a nomination that should never have happened given the player met WP:ATH all the time. This is why one doesn't nominate articles for players who meet WP:ATH, because invariably they easily meet GNG, unless they only played a single game or something. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, this "significant coverage" has lead to a one-sentence stub. Ig being able to write such a stub is enough for something to be SIGCOV, then WP:SIGCOV would contradict itself. It's an example of what is not significant coverage, involving a high school jazz band, would also allow for a one-sentence (even two sentences) stub: Three Blind Mice is a high school jazz band. President Bill Clinton has been a member of the band. The point is that SIGCOV requires us to have enough information to write an actual article, and in this case, I wasn't able to find any information that allows this to be more than just a one-sentence stub. Also, please note that even if the Kampiun.id were SIGCOV, they were not RS per the concerns in the table. --MrClog (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It took me about three minutes to add prose to the article, even with Google translate. You're trying to disqualify a large swath of Indonesian press coverage for being unreliable. SportingFlyerT·C06:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "large swath of Indonesian press", it's one news site (kampiun.id) and 2 fan blogs that I see as unreliable. --MrClog (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is all besides the point. Whether you agree with it or not, it's consensus, at this current time, at NFOOTY to keep a player playing in an WP:FPL-listed league. An individual AfD isn't the correct place to discuss overall change. R96Skinner (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The 13-sentence article listed above is Kampiun Jan 2019 (translate), 200 words about a rumored transfer. Less than 150 of those words are about the article subject, Kambuaya. In my view, this is not in-depth enough to count as sigcov. Compare that with the sources for Callum McCowatt like [37] (700 words) and [38] (600 words). Those aren't really the most in-depth articles I've ever seen, but there are like half a dozen articles about McCowatt, each 500 words or more with independent journalistic reporting (e.g., statements of fact in the publication's own voice, quotes from other people about the player), which made me !vote keep. Whereas with Kambuaya, one could almost say there haven't been 500 words written about him yet in total. – Levivich17:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly said that [39] and [40] met GNG, despite being 200 to 300 word 10-14 sentence articles. They are as detailed than the Indonesian sources you reject here. Don't point to other sources ... I'm asking about these. Why are those two English sources good, when the Indonesian ones aren't? Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the right place for this discussion? Even if Levivich contradicted themselves, that does not mean that their argument here is wrong. This seems like a tu quoque fallacy. As such, I suggest such discussions can be held at the talk page of Levivich. --MrClog (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand you are correct. On the other hand the argument being made that none of the sources for this article can be counted as GNG because they are too short, is completely erroneous and has no basis in policy. I was just astounded to see the contrast from the same editor at the same time! Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Kampiun.id sources are SIGCOV, they are not RS per the reasons given in the table. The bolatimes and jurnalmojo sources are RS but clearly not SIGCOV (and I don't think you are arguing that they are). This is all explained in the table. Could you clarify which sources you believe are independent, reliable with SIGCOV by listing at least 2 sources that meet these 3 requirements? Thanks, MrClog (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that Kampiun is not a reliable source. There's no indication any of the information in the article is false - or any of their articles! The facts in their article appear elsewhere, and I haven't seen past objections to using Kampiun in other articles. You have to get into some very precise and rigid definitions of the rules here to eliminate so many references - and precise and rigid rules aren't how things work here. We are close enough - WP:GNG has been met in my opinion. I disagree with you, and I don't believe that we should be nominating articles that easilymeet WP:ATH in the first place - which is unnecessarily disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. Nfitz (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find an editorial policy. Also, there is no "about us" page (only a couple sentences at the bottom of every page), so it is unclear who owns and creates articles. Because of this, it is impossible to ensure that there is at all editorial oversight. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With which part of my comment on Kampiun.id's status as an RS did you disagree? Were you able to find any information on the editorial policy/oversight on the site? --MrClog (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The entire thing. Worst of all, that you continue to waste everyone's time by not retracting a nomination for someone who easily meets WP:ATH. There's precedence for examining borderline caess more deeply - this is not one of them.Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATH: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.– Levivich21:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:ATH not WP:NATH. No, but a player on a top team in a major city where football is huge? If there was any doubt, the simplest of Google News searches yielding over 500 recent results (with Ricky showing up everywhere) with 18,000 for a more targeted Google web search would have avoided this WP:BEFORE failure and waste of time. I get the impression that the concern here surrounds other issues - and this is not the right place. Nfitz (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just dug a bit deeper ... I hadn't realised that only his Jogja team was Liga 1 - and they only recently started their season. Okay, I'll retract the Before comments - it's a much narrower pass of WP:ATH than I thought. Nfitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice sarcasm. He's starting for a team that's only eight games into their season, which averages 20,000 a game, and is well covered in match reports, even if they're not on him specifically. SportingFlyerT·C22:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly still meeets GNG - and ATH. I'm perplexed why this is an issue. I dare say one wouldn't try and AFD a regular player in the top league in the UK or North America! Nfitz (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:NFOOTY pass. This is a player who has played (and is still playing) in the top division of a country where football is one of the major sports, a league which is in the top 50 highest attended in the world (possibly in the top 40 now), and playing for a club ranked third the league's attendance list. No-one would consider nominating a footballer playing in an equivalent league in Europe, so deletion of this article would seems to be a case of systematic bias. Number5718:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The discussion will eventually end in Snow Keep as the subject is at least 3 times MLA from Gujarat. Article has been updated likewise. Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Much like the previous AfD noted, there is no actual evidence that this individual won "many national and international karate championships," at least those championships that would confer notability. I can't find much information about the International Karate Championship 2018 in Nepal, but what I can find indicates that it's an open competition, i.e. anyone can compete. Or it could be one of the other "International Karate Championships" that are held in Nepal every year (the 2nd, the 4th, the 8th...).
Strong delete. There are enough changes that I'll grant that G4 doesn't apply, but there isn't enough to make me see that Falak is notable enough for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. at first I'm use WP:G4 but ' So Why' Decline speedy for because article contains sources not in the previously deleted article or discussed at AFD. i didn't think this article notable person because i search on google her name find some information but it don't mean Pass on WP:GNG. --Nahal(T)14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence that any notability has been gained since the article's previous deletion in May. Lacks any supporting evidence of meeting WP:NSPORT or WP:MANOTE. Coverage is still insufficient to meet WP:GNG. When this article was recreated, I was asked for comments about how to make it notable and I responded. All my suggestions were ignored, probably because there's nothing to support a claim of WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2019 (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.
Lacking significant coverage, therefore failing WP:GNG. The movie mentioned is yet to be made - most coverage seems based on their own PR. No clear indication in public sources of substantial or deep coverage of either the person or the company. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk13:16, 11 July 2019 (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.
Nothing even approaching reliability as far as sources go. It's pretty much social media and routine business listings all the way down. GMGtalk12:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article that would support a claim of notability and nothing more found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2019 (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 doubt the topic is well documented and sourced, the question of contention is if this topic is a subset of another, and should therefore be merged into the broader topic. Consensus is that it is separate, in that the "target" of the "milkshaking" is a specific group within a specific context, and therefore the topic should be treated independently. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Yes, this is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon but it has already received plentiful coverage in independent, reliable sources. See the following: 1234. This is a cultural phenomenon that has now received ~3 months of coverage in reliable sources and as such is an easy pass for WP:GNG. Moreover, a redirect to antifascism is not at all appropriate because not all of the people who have been milkshaked are indisputably fascist. WP:DYNAMITE does not apply because this article is eminently savable. Page quality issues should be addressed on the article's talk page as AFD is not cleanup The nominator appears to be an American who has only heard of milkshaking because of the recent events in the United States, and is ignoring the existence of the phenomenon in the United Kingdom for a number of months before it made it across the pond. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Query - is this a distinct phenomena from Pieing? (is there a political/semantic significance for this being a milkshake? Or to particular flavors?). Perhaps this could be merged/redirected over there? Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is a distinct phenomenon, both due to the separation of the popularity of these phenomenon in time (pieing had it's heyday in the 1990's-2000's, the latest incident mentioned on the page about Pieing is from 2011) and due to obvious difference that a milkshake is not a pie. "Milkshaking" does not belong under "pieing" because it does not involve a pie and is not "the act of throwing a pie at a person" (i.e., the definition of "pieing" given on that page). FOARP (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are either "pieing" or "milkshaking" distinct phenomena from just generally throwing food at someone? Whether it's pies, milkshakes, eggs, rotten tomatoes, or fettuccine carbonara. Changing the food item doesn't change the nature of the act.--Khajidha (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict)WP:LASTING exists for a reason. The second somebody throws some other novel foodstuff at a fascist the entire media landscape is going to forget about milkshaking; it's a meme, virtually the antithesis of a lasting and encyclopedically relevant phenomenon. And it's not particularly distinct from pieing as an overall phenomenon, in response to Icewhiz's question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING says: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect", this phenomenon has already been around for ~3 months and is still receiving coverage, hence it is an easy pass for WP:LASTING. FOARP (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ETA The nominator is not an american and I would ask that FOARP avoid making assumptions about me without even bothering to check my userpage where I lay out most of these sorts of questions about myself in painstaking detail. I am perfectly aware of the Nigel Farage milkshake incident and laughed on Twitter about it like everybody else; but what's appropriate for an afternoon of schadenfreude on Twitter is generally not appropriate for an exhaustive article on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my error. In my defence, your original nom only mentioned the American side of the story, and the proposal to redirect to Antifascism was odd because it is only in the US that antifa have used this. Only referring to the (much more recent) American side of the story when discussing a British phenomenon that is now some months old is likely to lead people to think that that is where you come from. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been around for a few months, it's not exactly the fad that the nominator is trying to make it seem. Has garnered plenty of coverage in the media, ever since the (probably) first incident of its kind, in early May.[1]. It's distinct from Pieing through its narrow focus. While pieing generally targeted authority focus, it didn't have a the political focus that milkshaking has through its targeting of far-right political actors. And more importantly, the page is useful. Because it is such a talked about phenomenon, many people will want to read about it, its history and purpose, and Wikipedia should provide the means to do so, rather than sending users away with nothing. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very much a WP:RECENTISM issue. The concept of throwing food at people as a form of protest is much, much older than this. And there is nothing to indicate this is a specific topic, rather than just another form of throwing a pie, eggs or other messy food at someone to indicate displeasure. At best, any relevant content could be merged into Protest or another relevant topic, but there's nothing to indicate this has enough legs to stand on as an independent article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when Paul Crowther threw a milkshake over Nigel Farage, he was obviously following a trend; Wikipedia provides a useful resource for people wanting to know "why a milkshake, specifically?". [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.210.135 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the reason provided for the AfD. WP:RECENTISM allows for a flurry of coverage on a topic without WP:LASTING notability. Today it's milkshakes. But in ten weeks, when somebody tosses a plate of fettuccine carbonara all over Nigel Farage, the media isn't going to give two shits about milkshakes anymore. That's what makes it inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's ephemera.Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:TNT does not apply, references are solid. Something may be deleted, but not the whole article. This practice is certainly more violent than average; has anyone ever put cement in a pie or in an egg? wumbolo^^^13:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The strength of the RS on this topic convinces me – this article is "drowning" in Tier 1 WP:RSP from around the world (e.g. Washington Post, NYT, The Guardian, The Independent) that has the topic in the title, and are clear WP:SIGCOV pieces. I don't see a case of WP:TNT – it needs to be unambiguous for TNT to prevail at AfD given WP:NOTCLEANUP. Arguments around WP:RECENTISM are not compelling enough given the strength of interest from quality RS around the world in the topic, and that the use of "Milkshaking" shows no sign of stopping. I think a reader would expect to find a Wikpedia article on this highly notable topic (would love to see a "list" of notable Milkshaking events in this article). Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although articles like this can easily become coatracks (and some material might be pruned from this one), there are plenty of sources cited in the article discussing the phenomenon itself, it is notable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱21:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the reason provided for the AfD. WP:RECENTISM, this article is a WP:COATRACK for Conservative fantasies of concrete milksakes and other silliness. So I dont think this is a distinct phenomena or a political/semantic significance. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to egging. The fact that this is a different foodstuff is trivial, the act of throwing food at a person to show contempt or displeasure is the same no matter what food is used. --Khajidha (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Egging is the act of throwing eggs at people or property" - clearly Milkshaking does not fit this definition. Morevoer, as pointed out above, these phenomena are related to different times (Milkshaking is a 2019 phenonmenon) and different targets (egging targets all politicians, whilst Milkshaking so far only targets the far right). FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, being different foods is ttivial. A section titled "similar attacks" could cover mklkshaking, pieung, etc. And there is no reason to expect all milkshake attacks to remain gocused on the far right. Throwing food at someone to show displeasure is way older than this. Even some of the sources in this article state that the use of milkshakes is probably due to the ease of carrying them into the area without drawing the attention that a carton of eggs would, demonstrating yhat this is the same phenomenon. --Khajidha (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is an especially poor argument when you haven't established that your opponent agrees that the other stuff should exist. At least as far as the food-throwing goes, it makes much more sense to have a central Throwing food as a protest page than to subdivide it down by food type. I mean, what if one of these "milk-shaking" incidents was revealed to have actually used a frapuccino. Or a Wendy's frosty. Would you separate them out from here? --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to Food-throwing. This is a silly article, but it does meet GNG. I can't see policy grounds for deletion, and it seems there is little appetite for a merge (and egging and pieing are too specific, and protest seems way too wide). Seeing that we don't have a "food throwing article" (though it seems we have at least 3 article - so we could have a category perhaps) - seems this is a keep. Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Added support for merge.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already voted "keep" but I'd be okay with a merge of this and other articles too, however, AfD isn't the right venue for that discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱12:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I though about a merge but not convinced; some of the motives for the actions are very diverse – Milkshaking is political, Egging is general protest, Pieing and Flour bombing are mostly humourous. In addition, why would we seperate Milkshaking from other forms of non-harmful political throwing attacks such as Inking (attack), Glitter bombing and even Zelyonka attack. And we haven't even touched Tomato throwing? Bottom line is I don't think that a merger will help the reader, as the act of it being "food" that is thrown is not sufficiently unifying enough to be a compelling merge? However, I do think a well constructed NavBox could help the reader to navigate through these actions? Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, This is not a common way of protesting but can be considered as one way of protesting that has happened , so can be merged into articles about protesting, Alex-h (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the advantages of merging all of these into a single page. A page documenting the rise and fall of fads for throwing everything from rotten tomatoes to shoes, glitter, and sticky milkshakes at people as a form of physically aggressive protest might be worth writing. But a merging all of these pages into one would be so large a topic that it woudl inevitibly violate WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, we really need some basis in reliable sources for believing that these are all the same phenomenon. But this is not what the sources say - instead they treat this as a new, specifically targeted cultural phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the article itself: "Philosopher Benjamin Franks suggested that the use of particular foodstuffs in political protest had historically been a practical matter, noting that whilst "nowadays, carrying raw eggs to a nationalist meeting would require some backstory to justify it if challenged by the police", until recently carrying a milkshake would not have aroused the same suspicion." and "He also highlighted the history of using "small and harmless projectiles" like eggs to being a sense of theatricality to political campaigning in Britain, holding that acts of milkshaking did not exceed this level of controversy." --Khajidha (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. Media coverage has persisted into early July, and there are plenty of sources to establish notability and flesh out a complete article. The article does need work in a number of areas, and careful eyes on NPOV. If everybody's forgotten this in a month or two, there are no obstacles to renominating, but I think it's too early to delete simply on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. —Rutebega (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I am not quite certain why this is listed at discussions about food, I am certain that the fuss over milkshake throwing has been a very big political deal in recent years.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have distinct articles on other forms of throwing ostensibly harmless foodstuffs at politicians as a form of political protest and activism. This one is novel both in the fact that the projectile is unique, and that the targets are specifically white nationalists (which, as far as I've understood, is the reason that milkshakes are the projectile of choice). I wouldn't object to the various articles being merged into a common topic, but that needs to be an all-or-nothing approach with a broad consensus, not a merger of one or two out of the lot. If the notable topic is being used as a coatrack, then fix it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete being a dean at a university does not pass any notability guidelines for academics. You need either a named chair, significant contributions to your field, or to be the leading academic offier, either president/chancellor or in some places vice chancellor where the chancellor is just a figure head. The provost might also be notable, but not every dean, even though at some places all the people who reach the rank of dean may end up being notable because of named chairs or academic contribution. Being an inventor also does not make one notable. My father has over 20 aptents, some such as the brake fluid sensor were used in multiple General Motors factories and thus in probably millions or at least thousands of cars. That does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. At worst, this would merit a merge, but it's substantial enough to stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was created over six years ago, in March 2013, but has attracted a number of editors in July 2019 and the numbers will only increase. It is obviously of interest to editors, with ever-increasing coverage in the media, thus Wikipedia users would not be well served if it were to be deleted. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)21:41, 17 July 2019 (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 sourcing for this article is absolutely abysmal. Non-notable music charts, Facebook, blogs, even coverage in a magazine owned by the subject. There's enough self-promotional seeming sites to make me suspect that this is a paid article, simply because of how desperate the subject appears to be to generate coverage of themselves. signed, Rosguilltalk06:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some basic formatting cleanup on the article, but the nominator is right, this looks like self- or paid- promotion. There is nothing about Cudd on Google News, and the main search results are all promotional. I could not find any independent, published sources at all for Cudd. Unless someone has better luck finding them, he's clearly not notable. Railfan23 (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will be charitable and cite the WP:TOOSOON standard. Actually, it looks like his artwork has gotten some fairly reliable notice, but usually in articles that are really about whoever commissioned it. In music he has gotten some similar preliminary notice but in mostly unreliable sources or routine listings/directories. His minor coverage does not justify this lengthy article that is otherwise padded with promotional language. The dude does seem to have a future though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)15:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find much about this individual aside from promotional material that appears to originate from himself or from his agent. The author of this article is a single-purpose account that almost certainly has a conflict of interest. I should note that the author denies such a conflict but the tone of the article screams "paid promo piece", at least in my opinion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete “his music could be popular with people” could be said of any musical artist ever and does nothing to establish any kind of meaningful notability, especially the kind needed for inclusion on Wikipedia. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reza Freddy is famous and I know him well.I saw the resources of my wiki page complete And there are no problems. Hopefully its wiki page will be published.Frank30050 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock. Bakazaka (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non notable singer. I couldn't find any reliable source in Persian. (The page has been deleted recently in Persian Wikipedia).Farhikht (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I seriously fail to see how this 13-word stub contributes anything useful tio the encyclopedia or that its content meets any criteria for inclusion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just being a "senior member" of a political party. So if we can't verify that Adnan Javaid actually held an NPOL-passing role, then he's not entitled to keep an unsourced article just because of what it claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current article is an unreference article on a living person, which we delete because they inherently violate BLP rules of not having unreferenced statements on the living. However, even if we found a reference to substantiate what is said, what is said does not add up to notability. We would need multiple references showing that he is a true mover behind the parties actions and people take notice of his moving of the party, short of that we have no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Unfortunately, the user who created the article has a long history of creating articles that do not meet GNG or project guidelines, then recreates them a few days after they're deleted. StickyWicket (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Administrator note I know I've commented on this discussion previously (though I find myself somewhat on the fence as to what to do with them), but from an administrative standpoint I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one). I have notified those editors who !voted based on them being empty in case they did not see this omission, and I see that there is a request for clarification by Ahiijny above. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Unclear editorial policies, etc. No "about us" page exists (for as far as I know), only a small text at the bottom of every page
– Levivich 21:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
