Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 17

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 to delete outright. Beyond that, there's no real agreement on whether to redirect, merge, or keep as is, but that can be worked out on the talk page. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)

Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Avilich (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep/merge It is quite normal for classical topics to be based on one of the limited number of histories that have survived. As a princess of early Rome, we should find some place for her, as she appears in numerous works and so readers may wish to know more. Even if we have to disappoint them, we should record what there is. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except no histories have survived, her name is only even known because that's the royal family's name, and she doesn't play an active role in any event. Does she really appear 'in numerous works' or are you making stuff up?

Avilich (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Why would he be making stuff up exactly? There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. Why do you have to be rude to other editors that don't agree with you all the time?

talk) 08:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Because a

Avilich (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As an example, the subject appears briefly in

redlinks. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ignoring for a moment that it's a passing mention with no coverage like any other, there is no evidence that Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus) (exactly like that) is a plausible search term (many/most titles with parenthetical qualifiers aren't), which is the requirement for a redirect. Your argument may be applicable for mentioning the character in a dab page without either a redlink or a blue link. But a passing mention in a random novel has nothing to do with establishing notability or whether a redirection is adequate.

Avilich (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Any history that states that Brutus was the king's nephew would be a valid source for Tarquinia's existence, since his mother would have to have been the king's sister (otherwise he would have been a Tarquinius). And passing as the mention may be, a classicist refers to the works of Robert Graves as "random novels" at his own peril—but I digress. I'm not arguing—and neither is Andrew Davidson—that Tarquinia is necessarily notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. Merging into the other articles concerned involves nothing more than noting her existence, or anything else worth knowing about her—potentially including whatever Robert Graves says about her—with appropriate citations, in the articles about Tarquin the Proud, Brutus, the Tarquinia gens, and perhaps one or two others (not necessarily all of the content or sources in each one—a single source may be sufficient for her existence, but all of them might appear under her entry in "Tarquinia gens"). Keeping the current title as a redirect seems prudent precisely because it is a plausible search target, whether or not we conclude that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (as unlikely search phrase) or Redirect to Lucius Tarquinius Priscus or Lucius Junius Brutus. Classical histories surviving is no basis to have permastubs on any name merely mentioned in them. Without significant coverage and her name only known for familiar relationships, better to cover in the actually notable person's article. Reywas92^Talk 14:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lucius Junius Brutus, with no malice towards recreation if more sources, miraculously, are written. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the articles about the notable persons in her immediate family. There's not enough known about her specifically to justify a separate article, but she should be mentioned in relevant articles. We do have reliable sources, and even those that don't name her directly do support her existence, since that is implied by the simple fact of Brutus being the king's nephew. P Aculeius (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There doesn't seem to be any content to merge which isn't already mentioned in related articles, and it's a sufficiently implausible search term that I don't see any compelling reason to keep it as a redirect. (And on the off-chance that someone does search for it, they will find
  Tarquinius Superbus, and Tarquinia gens at the top of the search results.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I fail to see what makes it implausible. If you mean, "what are the odds that someone will type this exact phrase without any idea whether such an article or redirect exists", then it is at best improbable, but hardly implausible, which means that nobody would be expected to come up with the phrase, rather than "people looking for the topic are likely to search using a different formulation". There are indeed several possible titles that would logically point to this subject. But someone searching for "Tarquinia" would probably find this title in the search window before typing further, or by guessing there might be some parenthetical disambiguation—and by clicking on the proffered link, they would arrive at whichever article contains the most useful information (based on the discussion, probably either "Tarquinia gens" or "Lucius Junius Brutus"). So it would still be a useful redirect, since its appearance when searching under the subject's name would help readers locate whatever information we have. Otherwise, they might guess between several possible articles, and potentially choose one with less information, not knowing that a fuller discussion is in another article. That's the argument for keeping this as a redirect, wherever the content is merged to. P Aculeius (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Destubify -- This is a very short article, but it is not properly designated as a stub, for the simple reason that there is nothing (and can be nothing) to add, because we only know of her existence from what Livy says of her. What else we do with the article I am not sure. There might be merit in merging/redirecting, but to which of her relatives? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She should probably be mentioned in the three articles identified above, since she was Tarquin's sister, Brutus' mother, and a member of the Tarquinia gens. However, Livy alone is probably the only source it's necessary to cite to, if the only historical material is the assertion that she existed in the aforesaid relationships. Under her entry in "Tarquinia gens", any other details—such as whatever Robert Graves says of her in his novel—can probably be mentioned, together with citations to other sources supporting her existence. Entries there are limited to two or three lines, but it sounds as though it should be possible to summarize all of the relevant facts in two or three short sentences. P Aculeius (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Graves says nothing at all, it's just the usual filler "Brutus, son of Tarquinia" when saying how he's related to the King.

Avilich (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Unnecessary to say "again" when this is the first time you've said something. You can't remind someone of a fact that hasn't previously been mentioned, as though they should have been aware of it the whole time. P Aculeius (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no sources support
  WP:MUSTBESOURCES without pointing to any. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's a straw man argument. Nobody has said that "there must be sources" that nobody has identified; there are sources, and they are well-known and reliable. Notability is only at issue insofar as the only facts that we have about the subject are her relationships to notable persons; but the correct procedure in a case such as this is merger into articles where whatever materials there are may be adequately documented. It is beyond dispute that the subject can and should be mentioned in those articles; there is no argument whatever for erasing all mention of the subject from the encyclopedia.

As a practical matter, since the subject is already mentioned in some of those articles, the only differences between merger and deletion are 1) double-checking to make sure that all of the relevant details are moved to the appropriate places, and 2) changing the current title as a redirect to the most appropriate of those articles, so that people who search for information on this subject can still find it, and so that the page history is preserved. These are not insignificant or unimportant steps, but they take very little time and effort in a case such as this. Let's not muddy the field by ignoring them, just because skipping the proper procedures might save five minutes and 100 Kb. P Aculeius (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from above: There are probably hundreds of plays, paintings and novels based on the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, not hard to believe that she would have a role in some of them. This article is three sentences. A quick search of Tarquin the Elder, the Proud and Brutus' articles show that the scant information in this article is already given there. The idea of someone searching specifically "Tarquinia (mother of Lucius Brutus)" rather than "Tarquinia" is pretty unlikely and I'm not sure worth spilling any pixels over so I'll stop here.Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not unlikely at all if you've read any early Roman history. "Tarquinia" without disambiguation is the modern name of the ancient Etruscan city of Tarquinii; all daughters of any male member of the Tarquinia gens would have been named "Tarquinia", and according to most sources the wife of Servius Tullius (the sixth king of Rome) was a daughter of Tarquin the Elder, who would also have been named "Tarquinia". Readers searching for more information might reasonably guess that any of these would be found under an article beginning with "Tarquinia"; when using the search window the first ten options beginning with that title appear, and only the parenthetical disambiguation makes it possible for a reader to tell which of the possible topics to visit (as it happens there are currently two formulations for the subject of this article, but both are plausible). P Aculeius (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why not she was Queen mother? VocalIndia (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• do you even know what that means? Because the subject of the nomination is not one.
  Avilich (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge/Redirect to
  Avilich's concerns. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Avilich (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Please calm down. Your tone is becoming

WP:BEFORE); hence why a merge and redirect are fine. Just because the stub is unsourced doesn't mean its content isn't easily verified. Lastly, a dab page suggestion strengthens the argument for deletion/merge because there is a viable alternative to some of the problems highlighted in the keep arguments. As such, the suggestion was of use to this conversation in building consensus. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• There was nothing wrong with the suggestions that 4meter4 made. He made no indication of her being queen mother, that was another commenter above, and left a helpful suggestion of how we could better clarify a topic with many same/similar names. While there is no mergeable content left, as both her motherhood and her relation to the Tarquins are both included in Lucius Junius Brutus, there is no need for you to always take things so personally and aggressively, Avilich. This is a recurring pattern of behavior with you and I am quite frankly sick of your hostility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While there may be little biographical details on her, she has appeared as a character in a number of fictionalised works. These include notable plays by John Howard Payne and Richard Cumberland (dramatist) which gives a direction for possible expansion. Livy's History of Rome is essentially a political handbook for the Roman ruling class so basically it's all fiction anyway. SpinningSpark 18:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOTINHERITED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Dunhan Claus

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

None of the sources given in the article have Walter Dunhan Claus as the primary subject. None of the claims to notability, such as academic posts or assessment of his work as stated in the article are supported by any of the sources cited. A

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight. Multi7001 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It should be Walter Dunham Claus, as in the text, not "Dunhan", as in the title. At least one of the sources cited is reliable and independent, though I wouldn't call it "in depth". Some other sources are available, and I've begun incorporating them into the article. Wiki-notability might depend on whether fellowship in and presidency of the
  talk) 18:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you for finding and adding sources as well as catching the spelling error in the title. I went ahead and moved the page to fix the spelling error. I'll take s look more closely at your additions later today to evaluate whether or not to withdraw this nomination. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the remark that "Peer-reviewed journals with the subject in the byline are not reliable, independent sources, as they are merely self-published work with editorial oversight." alarms me considerably. I think it's contrary to
  WP:PROF which indicates that writing highly-cited papers is a route to notability, and I worry that it doesn't reflect the nature of peer-review, which is highly selective and independent of the author. The whole point is that editorial oversight is what converts self-publishing into publishing. And the editorial oversight of a good peer-reviewed journal is ferociously strong. Just try publishing something in Nature! I haven't looked at the citation rates and impact on Walter Dunham Claus' publications, but his publications, with proper evaluation, should be taken as a potential measure of his notability, in that they reflect the impact he made on his field. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Elemimele, I agree with you. However, I think what Multi7001 was trying to get at is that sources which are authored by the subject lack independence per the written guidelines at GNG; no matter how much editorial oversight there is. That's important in this case as a large percentage of the cited sources in this article were written by the subject. What we are really lacking is any source material which covers this person in depth in an independent source. To quote GNG. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." We are currently lacking a source which provides significant independent coverage on Walter Dunham Claus.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROF. The point is this: notability can be achieved by authoring highly-cited works. It's in the specific criteria notes, section 1(a). A citation is an independent recognition of the author. There are basically two ways it can work. We can either find an independent review article that says "Smith's method is used by absolutely everyone", or we can find that a million everyones have cited the paper in which Smith originally described his method. The second situation still makes Smith notable, but obviously we can't list all million times Smith got cited; instead, by convention, we give a reference to Smith's highly-cited paper as evidence of Smith's notability, and it is independent because Smith didn't, and couldn't force anyone cite him. The only thing we could reasonably add to this would be an indication of how many people actually did cite Smith's paper, by reference to some citation index. Conventionally we don't do this because most academics would regard it as superfluous. Incidentally, we also regard academics as notable if they've held a named chair or been chief editor of a high-ranking journal, and neither of these necessarily generates independent coverage. Again, the point is that you can't get to either of these situations unless someone independent of you thinks you're worth it. Elemimele (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Elemimele, I can see some merit to the rationale that the subject would meet criteria 3 or 8 of NPROF per User:XOR'easter. I'll admit I was a bit biased against the article to begin with because it was created and largely written by InfoDataMonger (an undisclosed paid editor who is now permanently blocked), and the article title misspelling threw off my BEFORE search. I am happy to change my vote to Keep based on that rationale. Unfortunately there can be no withdrawal because another editor has voted delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4, oh, no, sorry, I'm just confusing the issue here. I don't have any particular opinion on Walter Dunham Claus, and I'm not trying to change your opinion; I only took objection to the idea that widely-cited peer-reviewed papers didn't indicate notability, and particularly I didn't like the term self-published (you may well be right that I misread that editor's intent; I think I took it too personally; I work an an academic field). If you don't think the subject of this article is notable, by all means stick to your guns! Elemimele (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Elemimele No harm done. I was already contemplating changing to keep, and this little side trail helped me make a decision. Ultimately I do find XOR'easter's comments convincing. I'm currently getting ready to submit work to a journal for publication myself; so I can understand why you took offense to the label of self published for academic journals. Anybody who has ever gone through the scrutiny of a peer review process, an IRB board review, followed by an editorial board review would object to that label.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keerthana Sabarish

Keerthana Sabarish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable sources found on a

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Draftify: Seems notable. Let it go through AFC process. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searched in English and Malayalam and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage found. Fails
  WP:SINGER.defcon5 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al Futtaim

Ali Al Futtaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Borderline A7. Futtaim has a plausibly notable father and brother, however notability is NOTINHERITED. Lacks significant coverage. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete searched in English and Arabic and found no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; "media influencer" as a description is basically admitting he's not notable. Apart from his own social media I don't find anything. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I

Am I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable. Spam. See plot.(